|
 |
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:02:02 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks
>> against those you disagree with, then we're done here.
>
> You don't even know what "ad hominem" means.
Again with the "defining my native language to me".
> "Argumentum ad hominem" is a claim that tries to say that someone's
> argument is invalid or suspicious because of something objectionable
> about that person. In other words "you shouldn't listen to him because
> he is (something objectionable)".
>
> A couple of examples:
>
> "He doesn't accept the theory of evolution, therefore he's an idiot" is
> *not* an ad hominem.
>
> "He is in jail for tax fraud, and thus you shouldn't be listening to
> what he has to say about the theory of evolution" *is* an ad hominem.
> (He might be wrong about evolution, but he being in jail for tax fraud
> is completely irrelevant to the issue.)
>
> Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind of
> person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.
You have, and if you don't knock it off, then I'm done talking with you.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
