Comments on: Argument ad hominem

By: a

Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:18:00 +0000

second that

By: max

max — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:21:00 +0000

' the character of the person making the argument is an enormously important guide to its merits. '

You are one of the biggest morons on the blogosphere. Your posts reflect that quite clearly.

By: Larry

Larry — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:36:00 +0000

Of course if your adversary is being demonstrably hypocrital then it’s another matter. Similarly if you believe they have vested interests, or are concealing their motives it’s reasonable to point this out – I have in mind an impassioned and apparently objective argument for nudist schools being made by a known paedophile.

By: Larry

Larry — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:30:00 +0000

Isn't there a difference between:
(i) guaging the truth of someone's statements (a personal matter, during which you should certainly take into account the fact that they're an idiotic habitually lying nazi cunt);
and subsequently
(ii) arguing against their statements (during which you should demonstrate that their premises are idiotic, untrue, or cuntish, or that their arguments are invalid, but without referring to their character)?

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:32:00 +0000

Hear, hear. (To John, not Chris.)

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:13:00 +0000

Just the sort of "argument" I’d expect from John Band!… Typical!

By: Stephen Newton

Stephen Newton — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 06:39:00 +0000

For a laugh check out
http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies
If you’ve the time quote them back at ASI blog writers.