-Removed-Thanks. Final Footnote: To learn any basic or advanced subject at any age requires objectivity [setting aside preconceptions and deeply held emotionally charged opinions]; humility [seeing yourself for who and what you are rather than as some grandiose or imaginary persona]; and acceptance of authority [of the source of information and/or instruction]. There's no learning in any realm when subjectivity, arrogance and rejection of authority prevail, especially with respect to God's Word.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI may be wrong, but I thought it would be something like this as hominem attack I found on the internet:
Confronting someone for lying or cheating is not an ad hominem attack.
Another example of ad hominem fallacy is taken from Velonews: The Journal of Competitive Cycling. After an article about the retirement of Lance Armstrong, its webpage shared a post with its readers. A commenter posted a comment saying how great an athlete Armstrong was and that the people should be proud of his achievements.
Another commenter wrote in response to the first commenter:
He’s not a great athlete; he’s a fraud, a cheat and a liar. That’s why not everybody is “happy for Lance.”
http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
Originally posted by RJHindsIf it is established that you are a liar and a cheat on this web site then it will be established that you are a liar and a cheat on this web site. It's got nothing to do with Lance Armstrong's reputation after he was found to be a cheat and a liar.
I may be wrong, but I thought it would be something like this as hominem attack I found on the internet:Another example of ad hominem fallacy is taken from Velonews: The Journal of Competitive Cycling. After an article about the retirement of Lance Armstrong, its webpage shared a post with its readers. A commenter posted a comment saying how great ...[text shortened]... That’s why not everybody is “happy for Lance.”
http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsBut Lance Armstrong was a fraud, a cheat and a liar so that statemment can hardly be an ad hominem fallacy?! Ironically the same way you are a fraud, a cheat and a liar. 😏
I may be wrong, but I thought it would be something like this as hominem attack I found on the internet:Another example of ad hominem fallacy is taken from Velonews: The Journal of Competitive Cycling. After an article about the retirement of Lance Armstrong, its webpage shared a post with its readers. A commenter posted a comment saying how great ...[text shortened]... That’s why not everybody is “happy for Lance.”
http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
A wonder if this was a Freudian slip?
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell, that website considered it an ad hominem fallacy even though it may be true. So I don't care what you say, because I don't think you know what you are talking about.
But Lance Armstrong was a fraud, a cheat and a liar so that statemment can hardly be an ad hominem fallacy?! Ironically the same way you are a fraud, a cheat and a liar. 😏
A wonder if this was a Freudian slip?
Originally posted by FMFThe point is that even if a person has been a fraud, cheat, and a liar at some point in their life that should not be used to judge everything they say or do as being a lie or a fraud or an attempt to cheat.
If it is established that you are a liar and a cheat on this web site then it will be established that you are a liar and a cheat on this web site. It's got nothing to do with Lance Armstrong's reputation after he was found to be a cheat and a liar.
An attack on the character of a witness in a trial is sometimes used to discredit their testimony, but even that must be relevant to the accusations in the trial and they must give other reasons to support the attempt to discredit their testimony.