Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
15 bytes added ,  00:08, March 17, 2009
Line 29: Line 29:  
* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.
 
* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.
   −
* [[Conservatives]] understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. [[Liberals]] and [[Atheists]] are outraged by examination of an individual's character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are moral relativists. Conservatives understand how important it is that those debating an issue be [[trustworthy]], otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate argument because they come from [[deceit]], like [[Richard Dawkins]].
+
* [[Conservatives]] understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. [[Liberals]] and [[Atheists]] are outraged by examination of an individual's character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are moral relativists. Conservatives understand how important it is that those debating an issue be [[trustworthy]], otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate, intellectual, argument because they come from [[deceit]], like [[Richard Dawkins]].
    
* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand.
 
* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand.
nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487

edits

Navigation menu