Originally posted by KewpieI think it's simpler than that.. But of it were like football I suppose it would be pass interference, where you climb all over the receiver rather than block the ball.
As someone who didn't do Latin, I'd like a free translation of this. Does it mean something like "playing the man" in football?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThank you for that link, I really should have thought to do that myself. Duh!
Daily occurrence in the macho sandbox...
[b]bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem[/b]
Interesting that the page header says: "Personal attacks" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
That sounds as if the Wikipedia team think that ad hominem statements equate to attacks on the character of the person who made the original statement, doesn't it?
Originally posted by KewpieWhat would you know you idiot?
Thank you for that link, I really should have thought to do that myself. Duh!
Interesting that the page header says: "Personal attacks" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
That sounds as if the Wikipedia team think that ad hominem statements equate to attacks on the character of the person who made the original statement, doesn't it?
Originally posted by KewpieHere is an example of an ad hominem post:
As someone who didn't do Latin, I'd like a free translation of this. Does it mean something like "playing the man" in football?
Your opinions have no meaning for me for they are relevant to no one but you. Its a pity you feel embittered and prefer to post statements taken out of context from disgruntled ex witnesses which you have not read. This is incontrovertible proof of your prejudice and unless you rid yourself of it, it is not I who is being controlled but you, for you seem willing to believe just about anything that fuels your prejudice, even articles quoted out of context that you have not read. Look how it has made you hateful when i feel no animosity at all, look at your negativity when i am naught but positive, look how it makes you unhappy when I am gleeful and happy to share my understanding. Its poisonous and will do you no good whatsoever, I tell you this truly, you dont need to believe me but i say it nor for my benefit, but for yours.
And if you're interested in its author's desperate attempt to argue that it WASN'T an ad hominem, it can be found here Thread 146191, page 21 onwards.
I read the thread you linked to, it's heavy going. One poster makes a series of statements personally belittling another poster, then when called out as an "ad hominem" uses the process of repeated denial of the obvious truth of the statement. If I were the poster being belittled I'd certainly regard it as a personal attack.
Please note that Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always
fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character,
motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves
hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem