790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
{{user GunControLovedByTotalitarians}}
{{user GunControLovedByTotalitarians}}
A user box I created is a form of ad hominem. Even so, I think it shows that ad hominems are not always bad. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
A user box I created is a form of ad hominem. Even so, I think it shows that ad hominems are not always bad. [[User:HeartOfGold|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. --<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>