Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Brian Barker wrote:

At 09:58 04/02/2014 +1000, Peter West wrote:
It mystifies me that some ossers become tossers on this particular topic, ...

Whatever value your argument might have had, you destroy it by being abusive and using an ad hominem argument, of course. It is thus surprising that you should choose to do this.

jeez, these days no one knows what an 'ad hominem' argument is!

an 'ad hominem' attempts to prove a point against (or for) X by basing the point on some logically irrelevant aspect of the person claiming X.

e.g. "you only say we should bottom-post because you are a tosser."

(whatever a 'tosser' is, is that a kind of shot putter?)

that wasn't the case here as Peter based his point on a different argument (albeit one I find thoroughly unconvincing but not because I'm a shot putter).

name-calling does not invalidate an argument else, "p implies q, therefore not (p and not-q), you tosser!" would be invalid.

just saying....


Felmon Davis

Blutarsky's Axiom:
        Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason.

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.