LogFAQs > #932203695

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	it should be illegal to discuss jesus or bible in the class roo
LinkPizza 12/29/19 3:52:12 PM #143:	OniRonin posted... ad hominem Someone still hasnt learned what ad hominem means. Its a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. in this case, I wasnt going against anything you said. But was explaining to Lok why you have no idea how to even use the arguments youre saying. It wasnt an ad hominem. It was just a regular old insult. But you probably dont understand anyway, so... OniRonin posted... please im begging you, just look at how you've used valid in this topic and what the link has to say about the validity of argument from authority. I have read it? Have you? Because it seems unlikely. The first sentence says, It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. That means that Appeal to Authority isnt used to dismiss claims of experts. The second sentence says, Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. That means that appeals to authority arent a valid argument if this were an appeal (hint: its not). But it also says that its not reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge. Again, saying that if they are an expert, you dont just disregard it by saying, Appeal to authority. So, before you start insult me, how about you the read the link you sent me. If you dont understand how to use a fallacy, then you probably shouldnt use it in most of you post... OniRonin posted... are you sure you're really 30 years old, you act like a 13 year old given your limited grasp on basic logic This is probably the closest thing to an ad hominem. You havent said anything to back up your claim, and attacked me instead of be argument... And by the way, youre the one acting like 13 year old. And the only one here who cant grasp basic knowledge. Look at how everyone around here is treating you or talking to you. Obviously, youre the only one acting like a child here... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:932203695] in it should ... [t:78281170]...</cite> <quote>OniRonin posted...</cite> <quote>ad hominem</quote> Someone still hasnt learned what ad hominem means. Its a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. in this case, I wasnt going against anything you said. But was explaining to Lok why you have no idea how to even use the arguments youre saying. It wasnt an ad hominem. It was just a regular old insult. But you probably dont understand anyway, so... OniRonin posted...</cite> <quote>please im begging you, just look at how you've used valid in this topic and what the link has to say about the validity of argument from authority.</quote> I have read it? Have you? Because it seems unlikely. The first sentence says, It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. That means that Appeal to Authority isnt used to dismiss claims of experts. The second sentence says, Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. That means that appeals to authority arent a valid argument if this were an appeal (hint: its not). But it also says that its not reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge. Again, saying that if they are an expert, you dont just disregard it by saying, Appeal to authority. So, before you start insult me, how about you the read the link you sent me. If you dont understand how to use a fallacy, then you probably shouldnt use it in most of you post... OniRonin posted...</cite> <quote>are you sure you're really 30 years old, you act like a 13 year old given your limited grasp on basic logic</quote> This is probably the closest thing to an ad hominem. You havent said anything to back up your claim, and attacked me instead of be argument... And by the way, youre the one acting like 13 year old. And the only one here who cant grasp basic knowledge. Look at how everyone around here is treating you or talking to you. Obviously, youre the only one acting like a child here... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1