Discussion in 'About the Members' started by spuriousmonkey, Feb 17, 2004.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
its just....dunno...wadaya think
need more home defence and guns, send more guns.
Ad, ad, ad
And about 9/10 of the kind of words one finds in a Tessie post.
I hate....using the word HATE here....that phrase
Why? Its a lovely word- one is incredibly real when they hate with real passion. "Slightly upset" is counterproductive and flakey.
Edit: Flakey, not flaky. Damn keyboards.
No...I'm saying I hate the phrase "Paradigm shift." Emphasising the HATE. I'm saying that I am so passionately disenthralled with it that I will say HATE. That's all.
You can guarantee when it gets used, (i know, tis more of a phrase.) someone is going to start getting all stereotypical or stupid or something. LIke if someone else starts using the words gun nuts.
lol, which I do not understand. Other abreviations too! And some every day words that are not used correctly to show that the one who has used it is a native american. lol !!!
I don't see way some people are turned off by mentioning logic fallacies like ad homs? I think some of you might not know what an ad hominem is and why it is important and a reasonable response to some posts. If some one makes an argument that is based on an ad hominem it is correct to point that out and thus dam s/hes argument as illogical carp.
I don't like the word "neep" it just pisses me off for some reason. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Right. More clearly, ad hom attacks are not like, as some mistake them to be:
A. "This is what's correct"
B. "Well, you're a big fat idiot."
More along the lines of:
"I have no reason to respect your opinion on the war in Iraq because you are merely an auto mechanic."
And I don't see how you can sit there, suffer a schoolbus load of kiddies that just learned that term off the internet to whore it all over forums such as this one in trying to sound intelligent, and then fucking come here and post someting about you not understanding why 'some people are turned off by mentioning logic(al) fallcies like ad homs"
Unless of course you're too busy whoring the poor thing yourself in trying to sound intellegent that you haven't picked up on how stupid you look.
I understand all the 'ads' in the dictionary and will put up with them if my...opponent.......shows he understands both my platform and his. But to hear a complete schmuck resort to dribble about ad hominem in lieu of dissecting what the fuck I just said deserves a punch in the nose and a kick in the groin.
Carp, crap. Same difference.
And if gendanken was the smartest seamstress on the globe, tells you why Saddam is an asshole and Bush a bigger one........you scrambling like a rat and attacking my being only a semstress instead of proving your own point by dissecting mine is not churlish namecalling, how exactly?
How is this NOT "B. "Well, you're a big fat idiot.", exactly?
Its the cheapest way out of a challenge people.
I'm going to ignore your ad Hominem abusive.
It does not matter what or why I mention ad hominems. What matters is if it is valid to point it out or not, so all that crap you said about me is as illogical carp or as you say just carp. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
also chunkylover58 note the "abusive" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html)
Tell me how my stating a general definition of "ad hom" in any way, shape or form indicates my defending the practice.....
All I did was make clarification of the real meaning for those who toss it around without knowing what it really means.
Also people can make "implied" logic fallacies were they don't really state a complete argument (or even a complete sentance in some cases) but are implying a argument. For example If I were to state something and someone else was to say "Well, you're a big fat idiot." it can be implied that that other person means I'm wrong because I'm "a big fat idiot" thus its a implied ad hom... but perhaps gendanken is right and we should just call that blatent insulting.
This is the basis for my statement....
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the man"), is a fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the person offering the argument or assertion. .....
Properly understood, it consists of saying that someone's argument is wrong because of something about the person rather than about the argument. Thus, for example, merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute ad hominem, as this term has usually been taught
This is not nuclear science people.
Fetus says " I don't see (why) some people are turned off by mentioning logic fallacies like ad homs"
And Gendanken relates to him why some people, like herself, does. She never once 'abused' the man.
I dissected why it was the trend was a gimmick and then implied that the Fetus may be guilty of the same thing. So?
My point was rooted in a general history of observation- not the Fetus.
(God we're dorks)(Anyway)
Point out the sly ~implications~ in "You're a big fat fucking idiot" and I'll concede.
Now do you see why your little Iraqi war example looks stupid?
No....Saying "Your input doesn't matter because your vocation/race/religion/etc. obviously precludes you from having any sort of informed basis for it" is ad hom. This is the example provided by the auto mechanic statement. Saying, "You're a big fat idiot," irrespective of the details of the argument, is simply a personal attack.
Separate names with a comma.