Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ad hominem"
(→Strong Character = Strong Argument) |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
*Nice try, CCalloway. What it says is, atheists and liberals are incapable of presenting argument because they are basically deceitful, and intellectual discussion cannot be had with dishonest or immoral people. That is called a ''truism''. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 22:58, 16 March 2009 (EDT) | *Nice try, CCalloway. What it says is, atheists and liberals are incapable of presenting argument because they are basically deceitful, and intellectual discussion cannot be had with dishonest or immoral people. That is called a ''truism''. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 22:58, 16 March 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::I see. So, by virtue of being an atheist or liberal, one's arguments are automatically incorrect? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 23:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 03:01, March 17, 2009
|
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)
Strong Character = Strong Argument
Apologies for the intrusion, but am I reading the second paragraph of the non-fallacious uses section correctly? It seems to indicate that correctness stems not from the strength of the argument, but from the person arguing it.
This seems to indicate, for example, that if a Christian tells you the sky is blue, he must be right, but if an Atheist says it, he must be wrong. Is that the correct interpretation of this verse? CCalloway 22:46, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
- Nice try, CCalloway. What it says is, atheists and liberals are incapable of presenting argument because they are basically deceitful, and intellectual discussion cannot be had with dishonest or immoral people. That is called a truism. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:58, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
- I see. So, by virtue of being an atheist or liberal, one's arguments are automatically incorrect? CCalloway 23:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
