Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ad hominem"
From Conservapedia
Underscoreb (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Two problems - assertion no.1, is a debate which should be had somewhere else entirely. | Two problems - assertion no.1, is a debate which should be had somewhere else entirely. | ||
- It doesn't make the use of ad homs any better. In fact, the whole argument's flawed: X, who possesses characteristic A, is a member of Y. Z is also a member of Y. By your reasoning, and by the reasoning of ad hominem users, Z also possesses characteristic A. Aristotle turns in his grave. This is an area already well covered in the article. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup> | - It doesn't make the use of ad homs any better. In fact, the whole argument's flawed: X, who possesses characteristic A, is a member of Y. Z is also a member of Y. By your reasoning, and by the reasoning of ad hominem users, Z also possesses characteristic A. Aristotle turns in his grave. This is an area already well covered in the article. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Just wanted to say what an excellent, concise article this is. Well done, chaps :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:12, 23 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 04:12, November 24, 2008
|
totalitarians love gun control. |
A user box I created is a form of ad hominem. Even so, I think it shows that ad hominems are not always bad. HeartOfGold 15:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
- So where'd d'ya get that logic? Let's examine the argument.
- Gun control favoured by totalitarians is true you say. We'll return to this statement.
- This is an ad hominem statement.
- Synthesis = this is an example of a good ad hominem statement.
Two problems - assertion no.1, is a debate which should be had somewhere else entirely. - It doesn't make the use of ad homs any better. In fact, the whole argument's flawed: X, who possesses characteristic A, is a member of Y. Z is also a member of Y. By your reasoning, and by the reasoning of ad hominem users, Z also possesses characteristic A. Aristotle turns in his grave. This is an area already well covered in the article. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
Just wanted to say what an excellent, concise article this is. Well done, chaps :D Underscoreb 23:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)
