Lions can't ride the bus, nor win the Superbowl
- --- In animalrightsdebateclub@y..., "theweebler2002"
> Some time ago, when I started arguing on the net, and I was upagainst
> three, (or was it four?)antis..I found that they liked to throwaround
> expressions and terms like non sequiter, Straw man, and ad hominem.make
> It didnt take me long to realize that these guys were doing it to
> themselves look smart, as they didnt really have any argument tooffer.
> So, as Ward asked, here is the definition of ad hominem:
> Changing the Subject
> The fallacies in this section change the subject by discussing the
> person making the argument instead of discussing reasons to
> disbelieve the conclusion. While on some occasions it is useful toperson
> cite authorities, it is almost never appropriate to discuss the
> instead of the argument.You've done that. Repeatedly.
> There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
> (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
> the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
> (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking anYou've done that too. Repeatedly.
> assertion the author points to the relationship between the
> person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
> (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on theYou do that on your Web site, in several places. You're a
> person notes that a person does not practise what he
> Right from the start Ward, you went into Attacking the Person 1)
> attempted a switch to 3). You did not even attempt to answer myI answered all your questions, Weebs. You haven't answered mine
> question I asked. You promised you would too--which has me very
Where do you get your food, Weebs?
> I, however, did not use ad hominem. While I certainly was
> abusive(unless you love Leave it to beaver and were flattered by
> references) I did present an argument.You used an ad hominem, Weebs. You used a stupid, juvenile personal
comment to distract.
>> A damn fine one in fact. Soit. :)
> fine you totally ignored it--despite your promise that you would
> dispense with it quite readily. Well you did--by not answering
I did answer it. Read the post again.
>And there you go again. You're too easy.
> So when is Uncle Billy going to show?
> Hell--I will even consider Larry Wortman or Clarence Rutherford!