Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 8/10/2013 12:02 PM, Warp wrote:
> > "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.)
> >
> Hmm... Does that mean, "He is an engineer, so listening to him about 
> evolution is pointless.", ad hominem then? Because, from my experience, 
> sometimes these things are more like maxims. lol

I suppose that, technically speaking, it is. While there's nothing wrong
in being an engineer, that status is still being used as some kind of
reason to discredit their argument, in a completely non-sequitur manner.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message