Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55

Thread: Kent Hovind vs. Aron Ra

  1. Top | #21
    Contributor blastula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The greatesst state
    Posts
    5,088
    Archived
    6,070
    Total Posts
    11,158
    Rep Power
    57
    Forget it, Jason. It's Liontown.

  2. Top | #22
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,848
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,348
    Rep Power
    0
    Yes, Lion, it is a fact that an ad hominem in a debate is a fallacy.

    However, your identification of ad hom is not correct, so your claim that people are using ad hom's, then denying the fact, is in error. Not all abuse is an ad hominem. Even abuse spat during a debate is not necessarily ad hom.

    So, if you cannot find an ad hominem with both hands and a flashlight, that is not a reason for anyone to tolerate your dumbshit attempts to heap abuse upon innocent atheists, who simply know the difference.

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,685
    Rep Power
    17
    Angry Atheist Defends Debating Technique


  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,685
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    According to the atheist rules of debate it's not an ad hominem;
    - if everyone knows it's true
    - if it makes no difference to the inevitable outcome of the debate
    - if the other person "started it"
    - because only sticks and stones can break your bones
    - because filthy scumbag Christofascist liar is meant as a compliment
    To pacify Keith&Co I will add another one to the list.

    It's not an ad hominem because everybody else does it

    The other day I hit my thumb with a hammer and I swore at it.
    #&@%!! hammer!

    So glad to have 'splainers here to remind me that not every derogatory statement is an attempt to persuade.

  5. Top | #25
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,848
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,348
    Rep Power
    0
    'Pacify' is the wrong word, you twat-waffle.

    'Tickle,' maybe. It tickles me that you double down on your ignorance and pretend you are telling us off, when all you are doing is showing your ass.

    Ad hominem has a specific meaning, one that seems WIDELY misunderstood by online religiots, and you should probably spend more time understanding the term than trying to lecture people on their absolute failure to actually indulge in the practice.

  6. Top | #26
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    5,597
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    10,712
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    It's not an ad hominem because everybody else does it
    No. Ad hominem is a very specific form of name calling, and not all name calling qualifies. Only some name calling is ad hominem. Most name calling isn't.

    Are you familiar with Venn diagrams?

  7. Top | #27
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,848
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,348
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    It's not an ad hominem because everybody else does it
    No. Ad hominem is a very specific form of name calling, and not all name calling qualifies. Only some name calling is ad hominem. Most name calling isn't.

    Are you familiar with Venn diagrams?
    You know, it's not even name-calling.

    If I say 'You're a KJV-Onlyist, therefore you're wrong about evolution,' that's ad hom.
    Or saying someone's wrong because they do or do not have a particular religious belief, or they're left-handed, or they've never smoked weed, or they're a virgin... It's attacking the person INSTEAD OF their argument.

    Attacking the person for the sake of attacking the person is just rude. Not an ad hominem.

  8. Top | #28
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,685
    Rep Power
    17
    Well obviously it's a very specific form of name-calling.
    Atheist calls their debate interlocutor a moron and it's OK because they don't intend to influence the audience's estimation of Kent Hovind.
    It takes a very special skill to personally abuse your debating opponent and ensure that everyone knows why you're doing that. You gotta scrupulously avoid using the word "therefore" immediately after the two dozen insults you threw into the debate.

    "...belongs to a church that's full of pedophiles"
    "...a misogynist who supports rape"
    "...homeschool valedictorian"
    "...Dunning Kruger blah blah blah"

    "...OK, now back to the grown ups table so we can get on with our intellectual and civil exchange of ideas, according to the enlightenment values of reason and logic"

  9. Top | #29
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,848
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,348
    Rep Power
    0
    Or, you just scrupulously avoid making an actual ad hominem fallacy, then you get to point and laugh at the creationists who accuse you of making an ad hominem attack, because all they're doing is flaunting their ignorance in futile outrage.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,616
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Well obviously it's a very specific form of name-calling.
    Atheist calls their debate interlocutor a moron and it's OK because they don't intend to influence the audience's estimation of Kent Hovind.
    It takes a very special skill to personally abuse your debating opponent and ensure that everyone knows why you're doing that. You gotta scrupulously avoid using the word "therefore" immediately after the two dozen insults you threw into the debate.

    "...belongs to a church that's full of pedophiles"
    "...a misogynist who supports rape"
    "...homeschool valedictorian"
    "...Dunning Kruger blah blah blah"

    "...OK, now back to the grown ups table so we can get on with our intellectual and civil exchange of ideas, according to the enlightenment values of reason and logic"
    It seems yo may be confusing ad hom with "poisoning the well". You can poison the well WITH an ad hom, but they are not the same thing... and you can poison the well with other than ad homs (like in your examples - "he's a liar, now let's start" - that's poisoning, not ad hom)

Similar Threads

  1. Kent Hovind: Broccoli man
    By Underseer in forum Religions vs. Science
    Replies: 214
    Last Post: 06-09-2019, 07:07 PM
  2. Aron Ra video: What is Darwinism?
    By Underseer in forum Religions vs. Science
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-15-2018, 04:48 AM
  3. Kent Hovind Acquitted of Contempt
    By Daisy in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-22-2015, 09:37 PM
  4. Aron Ra podcast: Muslims in the Media
    By Underseer in forum General Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-09-2015, 03:48 AM
  5. Aron Ra video on the ten commandments
    By Underseer in forum General Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2015, 03:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •