--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jan Coffey wrote: > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I never said that, did I? > > > (What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials > > > was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back. > > > You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an > > > intellectual, and don't worry about proving your credentials...) > > > > Strange, this last paragraph seems to it'self contain an ad hominem > > attack. Kettle? Black? > > Huh? Looked to me more like a criticism of his method of argument, and > advice on how to look better in the future. Information on how David > perceives John. Very useful if John wants to be perceived by David > differently. > > I'm not seeing how David's paragraph above constitutes or contains an ad > hominem attack.
ad hominem is when you use something about a person to defend against an arguement they have made. The logic of the statments in question appeared to me to be: "You used an ad hominem attack and strawmen" (notice that no evidence for this was presented) "Use of ad hominem etc. is grounds for questioning a persons intelectual credentials" "I can clearly dismiss what you had said becouse I was questioning your intelectual credentials" This is not as extream as examples you will find in definitions for ad hominem, but it is the same none the less. If you need a simmilar example on a differnt subject line consider this one: "You can not bench press your own body weight" "Not being able to bench press ones own body weight is grounds for questioning thier athletic ability" "You will not be allowed to play on our side becouse we question your athletic ability" _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
