Lars

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]