|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
Ad hominem attacks are fallacious. DBT made one against RBKA, which I exposed and then you responded to my use of logic (pointing out that DBT's response was a fallacy) by making two fallacious (ad hominem) attacks of your own. If you had a logical argument to make (and name-calling isn't one), we'd hear it. But since you've proved (with your own mouth---or fingers rather!) that all you can do is call names, you've proven (again, with your own mouth [fingers!]) that you and logic are complete strangers!  In fact, you two are such thorough strangers, you don't even know you're strangers, as this thread conclusively proves! You and your girlfriends iniiate ad homs and hostilities then whine about the backlash. Your dishonestly and lies have been noted many times. If you call yourself a Christian as a despicable liar, you don't do Christianity any service. Where did I make an ad hominem attack in this thread? Read the content of your own post. Do you even know what 'ad hom' means? Are you really that dumb? What did I say that was ad hominem? And when are you going to tell us (my question in the other thread) the non-relative, objective ground that justifies you in calling others intolerant and bigoted? So far its been crickets. Apparently you have no idea of what 'ad hominem means....which is literally 'aimed or directed at the person' Your post and practically everything you said in it was directed at the person. It was not an objective discussion or addressed at some point of impersonal discussion, but personal, ie an ad hom. When a discussant advances positions that show he doesn't understand simple logic, it isn't ad hominem to point that out. To illustrate the point: your claim that I don't know the definition of ad hominem is not ad homimen. It's factually incorrect, it's ignorant, but it's not a personal attack on me, any more than pointing out Mauser's fallacious reasoning showed that he and logic were strangers, was a personal attack on him. When a person makes an argument that is fallacious, it's not ad hominem to point that out to them (and everyone else! ) and to likewise to point out that the discussant's fallacious reasoning is evidence he lacks the tools for rational thought. Another illustration to help you with the distinction: if a discussant makes arguments that supply evidence he is a lying, it isn't ad homimen to point out what his own arguments prove. Your understanding of ad hominem shows you are ignorant of the definition and its not ad hominem to point that out! Hope this clears it up for you.;) And that's not ad hominem either!
Last edited by Tarquin; 03/22/23.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633 |
Ad hominem attacks are fallacious. DBT made one against RBKA, which I exposed and then you responded to my use of logic (pointing out that DBT's response was a fallacy) by making two fallacious (ad hominem) attacks of your own. If you had a logical argument to make (and name-calling isn't one), we'd hear it. But since you've proved (with your own mouth---or fingers rather!) that all you can do is call names, you've proven (again, with your own mouth [fingers!]) that you and logic are complete strangers! In fact, you two are such thorough strangers, you don't even know you're strangers, as this thread conclusively proves! You and your girlfriends iniiate ad homs and hostilities then whine about the backlash. Your dishonestly and lies have been noted many times. If you call yourself a Christian as a despicable liar, you don't do Christianity any service. Where did I make an ad hominem attack in this thread? Read the content of your own post. Do you even know what 'ad hom' means? Are you really that dumb? What did I say that was ad hominem? And when are you going to tell us (my question in the other thread) the non-relative, objective ground that justifies you in calling others intolerant and bigoted? So far its been crickets. Apparently you have no idea of what 'ad hominem means....which is literally 'aimed or directed at the person' Your post and practically everything you said in it was directed at the person. It was not an objective discussion or addressed at some point of impersonal discussion, but personal, ie an ad hom. When a discussant advances positions that show he doesn't understand simple logic, it isn't ad hominem to point that out. To illustrate the point: your claim that I don't know the definition of ad hominem is not ad homimen. It's factually incorrect, it's ignorant, but it's not a personal attack on me, any more than pointing out Mauser's fallacious reasoning showed that he and logic were strangers, was a personal attack on him. When a person makes an argument that is fallacious, it's not ad hominem to point that out to them (and everyone else! ) and to likewise to point out that the discussant's fallacious reasoning is evidence he lacks the tools for rational thought. Another illustration to help you with the distinction: if a discussant makes arguments that supply evidence he is a lying, it isn't ad homimen to point out what his own arguments prove. Your understanding of ad hominem shows you are ignorant of the definition and its not ad hominem to point that out! Hope this clears it up for you.;) And that's not ad hominem either! That's you and your mob. The discussion barely gets started before you and your lot demonstrate a poor understanding of logic, reason, the nature of evidence, science and falsifiability....at which point the theists resort to ad homs and insults. It's there to be seen in every thread where the beliefs of theism and the nature of faith is questioned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
Ad hominem attacks are fallacious. DBT made one against RBKA, which I exposed and then you responded to my use of logic (pointing out that DBT's response was a fallacy) by making two fallacious (ad hominem) attacks of your own. If you had a logical argument to make (and name-calling isn't one), we'd hear it. But since you've proved (with your own mouth---or fingers rather!) that all you can do is call names, you've proven (again, with your own mouth [fingers!]) that you and logic are complete strangers! In fact, you two are such thorough strangers, you don't even know you're strangers, as this thread conclusively proves! You and your girlfriends iniiate ad homs and hostilities then whine about the backlash. Your dishonestly and lies have been noted many times. If you call yourself a Christian as a despicable liar, you don't do Christianity any service. Where did I make an ad hominem attack in this thread? Read the content of your own post. Do you even know what 'ad hom' means? Are you really that dumb? What did I say that was ad hominem? And when are you going to tell us (my question in the other thread) the non-relative, objective ground that justifies you in calling others intolerant and bigoted? So far its been crickets. Apparently you have no idea of what 'ad hominem means....which is literally 'aimed or directed at the person' Your post and practically everything you said in it was directed at the person. It was not an objective discussion or addressed at some point of impersonal discussion, but personal, ie an ad hom. When a discussant advances positions that show he doesn't understand simple logic, it isn't ad hominem to point that out. To illustrate the point: your claim that I don't know the definition of ad hominem is not ad homimen. It's factually incorrect, it's ignorant, but it's not a personal attack on me, any more than pointing out Mauser's fallacious reasoning showed that he and logic were strangers, was a personal attack on him. When a person makes an argument that is fallacious, it's not ad hominem to point that out to them (and everyone else! ) and to likewise to point out that the discussant's fallacious reasoning is evidence he lacks the tools for rational thought. Another illustration to help you with the distinction: if a discussant makes arguments that supply evidence he is a lying, it isn't ad homimen to point out what his own arguments prove. Your understanding of ad hominem shows you are ignorant of the definition and its not ad hominem to point that out! Hope this clears it up for you.;) And that's not ad hominem either! That's you and your mob. The discussion barely gets started before you and your lot demonstrate a poor understanding of logic, reason, the nature of evidence, science and falsifiability....at which point the theists resort to ad homs and insults. It's there to be seen in every thread where the beliefs of theism and the nature of faith is questioned. Were you ever going to answer my question about the non-relative, objective basis for your claims of moral supremacy? Its been more than two days and....crickets.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 5,472
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 5,472 |
Were you ever going to answer my question about the non-relative, objective basis for your claims of moral supremacy? Its been more than two days and....crickets. ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/MtZwDsV.jpg) KB
Last edited by KillerBee; 03/22/23.
KB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
Apparently you have no idea of what 'ad hominem means....which is literally 'aimed or directed at the person'
Your post and practically everything you said in it was directed at the person. It was not an objective discussion or addressed at some point of impersonal discussion, but personal, ie an ad hom. When a discussant advances positions that show he doesn't understand simple logic, it isn't ad hominem to point that out. To illustrate the point: your claim that I don't know the definition of ad hominem is not ad homimen. It's factually incorrect, it's ignorant, but it's not a personal attack on me, any more than pointing out Mauser's fallacious reasoning showed that he and logic were strangers, was a personal attack on him. When a person makes an argument that is fallacious, it's not ad hominem to point that out to them (and everyone else! ) and to likewise to point out that the discussant's fallacious reasoning is evidence he lacks the tools for rational thought. Another illustration to help you with the distinction: if a discussant makes arguments that supply evidence he is a lying, it isn't ad homimen to point out what his own arguments prove. Your understanding of ad hominem shows you are ignorant of the definition and its not ad hominem to point that out! Hope this clears it up for you.;) And that's not ad hominem either! Tarquin, nice and I agree.
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
Were you ever going to answer my question about the non-relative, objective basis for your claims of moral supremacy? Its been more than two days and....crickets. A homosexual cricket?  While he is trying to figure out the non-relative, objective ground of his moral superiority, perhaps DBT can be persuaded to explain to us how not leaving any off-spring (or comparatively fewer offspring that heterosexuals) confers a selection advantage on homosexuals that perpetuates their "gay genes"  in the population!
Last edited by Tarquin; 03/22/23.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
Apparently you have no idea of what 'ad hominem means....which is literally 'aimed or directed at the person'
Your post and practically everything you said in it was directed at the person. It was not an objective discussion or addressed at some point of impersonal discussion, but personal, ie an ad hom. When a discussant advances positions that show he doesn't understand simple logic, it isn't ad hominem to point that out. To illustrate the point: your claim that I don't know the definition of ad hominem is not ad homimen. It's factually incorrect, it's ignorant, but it's not a personal attack on me, any more than pointing out Mauser's fallacious reasoning showed that he and logic were strangers, was a personal attack on him. When a person makes an argument that is fallacious, it's not ad hominem to point that out to them (and everyone else! ) and to likewise to point out that the discussant's fallacious reasoning is evidence he lacks the tools for rational thought. Another illustration to help you with the distinction: if a discussant makes arguments that supply evidence he is a lying, it isn't ad homimen to point out what his own arguments prove. Your understanding of ad hominem shows you are ignorant of the definition and its not ad hominem to point that out! Hope this clears it up for you.;) And that's not ad hominem either! Tarquin, nice and I agree. Thanks Raspy. Us knuckle-dragging troglodytes need to stick together.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,530
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,530 |
What did I say that was ad hominem? And when are you going to tell us (my question in the other thread) the non-relative, objective ground that justifies you in calling others intolerant and bigoted? So far its been crickets. Apparently you have no idea of what 'ad hominem means....which is literally 'aimed or directed at the person' Your post and practically everything you said in it was directed at the person. It was not an objective discussion or addressed at some point of impersonal discussion, but personal, ie an ad hom. When a discussant advances positions that show he doesn't understand simple logic, it isn't ad hominem to point that out. To illustrate the point: your claim that I don't know the definition of ad hominem is not ad homimen. It's factually incorrect, it's ignorant, but it's not a personal attack on me, any more than pointing out Mauser's fallacious reasoning showed that he and logic were strangers, was a personal attack on him. When a person makes an argument that is fallacious, it's not ad hominem to point that out to them (and everyone else! ) and to likewise to point out that the discussant's fallacious reasoning is evidence he lacks the tools for rational thought. Another illustration to help you with the distinction: if a discussant makes arguments that supply evidence he is a lying, it isn't ad homimen to point out what his own arguments prove. Your understanding of ad hominem shows you are ignorant of the definition and its not ad hominem to point that out! Hope this clears it up for you.;) And that's not ad hominem either! Thanks for this excellent post Tarquin - you have carefully explained the act of assessment/critique of statements and positions by others - which have nothing to do with attacks on a person. There is such a significant difference. The two Aussies call people names, label folks in various ways, and post nasty personal attacks in general and seem to think those are part of analytical discussion/discourse. You may have given them insight to their ad hominem attacks. P.S. In keeping with the above, this post is not an ad hominem attack.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 211
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 211 |
Ad hominem attacks are fallacious. DBT made one against RBKA, which I exposed and then you responded to my use of logic (pointing out that DBT's response was a fallacy) by making two fallacious (ad hominem) attacks of your own. If you had a logical argument to make (and name-calling isn't one), we'd hear it. But since you've proved (with your own mouth---or fingers rather!) that all you can do is call names, you've proven (again, with your own mouth [fingers!]) that you and logic are complete strangers! In fact, you two are such thorough strangers, you don't even know you're strangers, as this thread conclusively proves! You and your girlfriends iniiate ad homs and hostilities then whine about the backlash. Your dishonestly and lies have been noted many times. If you call yourself a Christian as a despicable liar, you don't do Christianity any service. Where did I make an ad hominem attack in this thread? Read the content of your own post. Do you even know what 'ad hom' means? Are you really that dumb? What did I say that was ad hominem? And when are you going to tell us (my question in the other thread) the non-relative, objective ground that justifies you in calling others intolerant and bigoted? So far its been crickets. Apparently you have no idea of what 'ad hominem means....which is literally 'aimed or directed at the person' Your post and practically everything you said in it was directed at the person. It was not an objective discussion or addressed at some point of impersonal discussion, but personal, ie an ad hom. When a discussant advances positions that show he doesn't understand simple logic, it isn't ad hominem to point that out. To illustrate the point: your claim that I don't know the definition of ad hominem is not ad homimen. It's factually incorrect, it's ignorant, but it's not a personal attack on me, any more than pointing out Mauser's fallacious reasoning showed that he and logic were strangers, was a personal attack on him. When a person makes an argument that is fallacious, it's not ad hominem to point that out to them (and everyone else! ) and to likewise to point out that the discussant's fallacious reasoning is evidence he lacks the tools for rational thought. Another illustration to help you with the distinction: if a discussant makes arguments that supply evidence he is a lying, it isn't ad homimen to point out what his own arguments prove. Your understanding of ad hominem shows you are ignorant of the definition and its not ad hominem to point that out! Hope this clears it up for you.;) And that's not ad hominem either! Noted..........never get into an argument with Tarquin.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
Ad hominem attacks are fallacious. DBT made one against RBKA, which I exposed and then you responded to my use of logic (pointing out that DBT's response was a fallacy) by making two fallacious (ad hominem) attacks of your own. If you had a logical argument to make (and name-calling isn't one), we'd hear it. But since you've proved (with your own mouth---or fingers rather!) that all you can do is call names, you've proven (again, with your own mouth [fingers!]) that you and logic are complete strangers! In fact, you two are such thorough strangers, you don't even know you're strangers, as this thread conclusively proves! You and your girlfriends iniiate ad homs and hostilities then whine about the backlash. Your dishonestly and lies have been noted many times. If you call yourself a Christian as a despicable liar, you don't do Christianity any service. Where did I make an ad hominem attack in this thread? Read the content of your own post. Do you even know what 'ad hom' means? Are you really that dumb? What did I say that was ad hominem? And when are you going to tell us (my question in the other thread) the non-relative, objective ground that justifies you in calling others intolerant and bigoted? So far its been crickets. Apparently you have no idea of what 'ad hominem means....which is literally 'aimed or directed at the person' Your post and practically everything you said in it was directed at the person. It was not an objective discussion or addressed at some point of impersonal discussion, but personal, ie an ad hom. When a discussant advances positions that show he doesn't understand simple logic, it isn't ad hominem to point that out. To illustrate the point: your claim that I don't know the definition of ad hominem is not ad homimen. It's factually incorrect, it's ignorant, but it's not a personal attack on me, any more than pointing out Mauser's fallacious reasoning showed that he and logic were strangers, was a personal attack on him. When a person makes an argument that is fallacious, it's not ad hominem to point that out to them (and everyone else! ) and to likewise to point out that the discussant's fallacious reasoning is evidence he lacks the tools for rational thought. Another illustration to help you with the distinction: if a discussant makes arguments that supply evidence he is a lying, it isn't ad homimen to point out what his own arguments prove. Your understanding of ad hominem shows you are ignorant of the definition and its not ad hominem to point that out! Hope this clears it up for you.;) And that's not ad hominem either! Noted..........never get into an argument with Tarquin. Trust me. I've had my ass kicked many times on 24hour!  
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 5,472
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2022
Posts: 5,472 |
The difference between you Tarquin, is that you handle it like a MAN not a Puzzy like our athiest Aussie (friends) and I do use that term loosely! Never seen a bigger bunch of Whining Cry-Babies on 24HR! PS: Me too, I have been hammered on more than 1 occasion lol Yes, that cricket is a homo cricket, notice on of its antenna are swinging to the left? They always have to tweak something in order to stand out hahaha KB![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/2SomGgX.jpg)
Last edited by KillerBee; 03/22/23.
KB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633 |
Little Girl BuzzingFly gets her knickers in a twist and posts her own picture on the forum in a fit of petulant anger and angst, a little girl who wants everything her own way....the bad men in Australia dare question her faith.....boohooo, boohoo, nasty men, she wails.
There, there, Princess, I'm sure mommy will give you cuddle and you'll feel better......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633 |
It's getting kicked now. It's just that you have grown so much callus tissue on your fat rump that it doesn't register. You are used to getting your arse kicked. Poor Queenie.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800 |
Noted..........never get into an argument with Tarquin. Yeah, because he has no clue what he's talking about - it's a futile waste of time.
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633 |
The Tarquin cheer squad put on their skirts and kick their legs with squeels of joy over every word, no matter how silly it is....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
It's getting kicked now. It's just that you have grown so much callus tissue on your fat rump that it doesn't register. You are used to getting your arse kicked. Poor Queenie. When this is the riposte ^^^^^ you know you've won!
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800 |
It's getting kicked now. It's just that you have grown so much callus tissue on your fat rump that it doesn't register. You are used to getting your arse kicked. Poor Queenie. When this is the riposte ^^^^^ you know you've won! Of course that's what you would think, but be honest, you never even had a hope - you failed from the start.
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633 |
...
Last edited by DBT; 03/22/23.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633 |
It's getting kicked now. It's just that you have grown so much callus tissue on your fat rump that it doesn't register. You are used to getting your arse kicked. Poor Queenie. When this is the riposte ^^^^^ you know you've won! What have you won, Queenie, the Big Boob prize in this years Gay pride parade? Put it proudly on your desk and bask in the glory, Sweetie.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
It's getting kicked now. It's just that you have grown so much callus tissue on your fat rump that it doesn't register. You are used to getting your arse kicked. Poor Queenie. When this is the riposte ^^^^^ you know you've won! What have you won, Queenie, the Big Boob prize in this years Gay pride parade? Put it proudly on your desk and bask in the glory, Sweetie. You're really hurting me! Please. Stop!
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
175 members (2500HD, 160user, 69sportfury, 01Foreman400, 300s, 2UP, 13 invisible),
1,708
guests, and
990
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,625
Posts18,474,094
Members73,941
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
