andrea cornell

I used to have a wonderful cartoon of Arnie as Terminator, running from the crosses with Jesus slung over his shoulder and the caption, “We’re not putting up with your shit for the next 2,000 years”.

So the consensus is that pushing the big red atheist button would be a bad idea. I’ve decided not to build my time machine…go to the future…steal brain control technology…go back into the past…get Einstein and Turing to work out the details and create a mock up…and then come back into our relative time frame…and push the big red…[Read more]

@Davis

I am much more sympathetic to outing a politician than a preacher, because only the politician can be an agent of force (as you touched on). But it had better be a politician that really goes against the group he’s fighting (gays, atheists, whatever). Occasional pandering speeches is one thing, I’ve never known a politician who didn’t…[Read more]

@Strega

Strega wrote:@Davis. I think if we first agree that outing someone is an act of aggression, then justifying circumstances appropriate for an act of aggression becomes more straightforward on a case by case basis.

Couldn’t agree more.

@Davis. I think if we first agree that outing someone is an act of aggression, then justifying circumstances appropriate for an act of aggression becomes more straightforward on a case by case basis.

SteveInCO wrote:

Davis wrote:
And so…outing someone who works against your interests within a group is okay…but outing someone outside of your group who works against your interests is not okay. I can see how this might be fair…but perhaps you can explain why?

To be clear, I was thinking of the case where someone is pretending to be in Group…

[Read more]

Indeed. I was thinking about this a fair bit this weekend. The only reasonable argument (though not necessarily a good one) for outing someone like this is if the person is in the role of a leader or representative (or internally within an advocacy group) … who is working to undermine the rights of others, not as an ad hominem but as an attempt…[Read more]

Haven’t we slipped a little off topic here? I liked the original poser, got another, anyone?

Unseen wrote:

Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s creative, original and personal idiosyncraticc definitions. Try again.

Saying it doesn’t make it so. I have already rep…

[Read more]

Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s creative, original and personal idiosyncraticc definitions. Try again.

Saying it doesn’t make it so. I have already replied to this charge.

Also, you call my defintion “idiosyncratic” whereas it is really merely a minority usage, but it is sanctioned by the dictionary.

Your dictionary definition in both cases are examples of very closely (if not indistinguishable) related fallacies (ad hominem and avoiding the question via personal attack) and have nothing to do with Unseen’s cre…[Read more]

Gallup’s Mirror wrote:It also doesn’t have to be an attack; it could be a compliment.

Of course.

You got the first one wrong. Just take off the conclusion part (“so…”) and you have it. It’s an attack on the person not what he says.

Without the explicit or implicit claim that the “attack” is relevant to the target’s position or the topic at hand there is no logical fallacy. It also doesn’t have to be an attack; it could be a complim…[Read more]

Strega wrote:The attack – Mike is an idiot so his opinion on global warming is idiotic and dismissable.

The fallacy – global warming isn’t real because Mike told me it was, and he’s an idiot. Is that right?

I failed to address these. You got the first one wrong. Just take off the conclusion part (“so…”) and you have it. It’s an attack on the…[Read more]

Strega wrote:I’m still a bit perplexed over ‘ad hominem fallacy”. Is that a rebuttal of such an attack? A fallacy is an untruth. Something that is believed in erroneously.

A fallacy isn’t an untruth, as you say, rather it’s a badly constructed or irrelevant argument.

As opposed to a formal fallacy (a badly constructed syllogism, for examp…[Read more]

@Unseen, so I can have an ad hominem dog bite? I know it’s an extreme, I’m using it to test your basis of definition.

I actually understand the term “ad hominem attack”. It’s when you attack the person rather than the subject matter. I think we’re all good with that, and it makes sense.

I’m still a bit perplexed over ‘ad hominem fallacy”. Is…[Read more]

Davis wrote:You have not directed us to any source that demonstrates that these two contrasting definitions of ad hominem fallacy andad hominem attack…are anything more than Unseen’s way of defining it.

Yeah, if you ignore the dictionary reference, which you’re obvio9usly willing to do in order to save your position. Otherwise, explain how the…[Read more]