Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:You need to quit eating those mushrooms before you post.

For someone who claims to be such a great thinking perhaps it is time that someone informs you that ad hominems are not a valid debating technique.

Now some people may not understand ad hominems, so I'll give a quick lesson.

Ad Hominem Wrote:You're such an idiot so your argument is wrong.

Not Ad Hominem Wrote:You're such an idiot. Here are the reasons that I think your argument is wrong. 1. Reason A. 2. Reason B.

If your post is nothing more than Greg's above, that is an ad hominem. An argument consisting of only that is absolutely worthless.

Now lets look at the Ninerfan1's post.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:got news for you greg, me bringing my best to you would be like Roger Clemens bringing his best to a 12 year old little leaguer.

Not an ad hominem. It does not claim to refute the argument. It is just an insult. While it does not elevate the level of discussion, it does not claim to be any more than what it is.

Quote:You've made it quite clear you can't handle anyone's D game, much less an A game. You ignore facts, you make crap up and you're so blinded by your politics that you lack any ability to form an objective opinion.

Ok, here's the beginning of an argument. He lists his reasons, albeit without citing evidence. It is not always practical to link to specific posts. I think the two first points make the most sense, ignoring facts and making stuff up. The blinded by politics part happens to us all at times.

Quote:Sorry bub, but someone who thinks judges bring charges against criminals and that an article by Robert Novak supports a looney left conspiracy theory about Valerie Plame isn't worth my best.

Ah, now here's a specific piece of evidence. This is the difference between a reasoned argument and just and out and out ad hominem. NinerFan1 explains why he believes the content of his insult, and points to specific evidence; That goes a long way in my book. Greg can attempt to refute this evidence, if he so desires.

Let this be a warning to all that ad hominems are garbage. Please refrain from using them. If you do not like what is in this post, I recommend that you read the AUP, cite it, and then try to come back and claim that we are too strict here.

Thank you for your time.

You are my hero....:clap2::clap2::clap2::uberbow::uberbow:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:You need to quit eating those mushrooms before you post.

For someone who claims to be such a great thinking perhaps it is time that someone informs you that ad hominems are not a valid debating technique.

Now some people may not understand ad hominems, so I'll give a quick lesson.

Ad Hominem Wrote:You're such an idiot so your argument is wrong.

Not Ad Hominem Wrote:You're such an idiot. Here are the reasons that I think your argument is wrong. 1. Reason A. 2. Reason B.

If your post is nothing more than Greg's above, that is an ad hominem. An argument consisting of only that is absolutely worthless.

Now lets look at the Ninerfan1's post.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:got news for you greg, me bringing my best to you would be like Roger Clemens bringing his best to a 12 year old little leaguer.

Not an ad hominem. It does not claim to refute the argument. It is just an insult. While it does not elevate the level of discussion, it does not claim to be any more than what it is.

Quote:You've made it quite clear you can't handle anyone's D game, much less an A game. You ignore facts, you make crap up and you're so blinded by your politics that you lack any ability to form an objective opinion.

Ok, here's the beginning of an argument. He lists his reasons, albeit without citing evidence. It is not always practical to link to specific posts. I think the two first points make the most sense, ignoring facts and making stuff up. The blinded by politics part happens to us all at times.

Quote:Sorry bub, but someone who thinks judges bring charges against criminals and that an article by Robert Novak supports a looney left conspiracy theory about Valerie Plame isn't worth my best.

Ah, now here's a specific piece of evidence. This is the difference between a reasoned argument and just and out and out ad hominem. NinerFan1 explains why he believes the content of his insult, and points to specific evidence; That goes a long way in my book. Greg can attempt to refute this evidence, if he so desires.

Let this be a warning to all that ad hominems are garbage. Please refrain from using them. If you do not like what is in this post, I recommend that you read the AUP, cite it, and then try to come back and claim that we are too strict here.

Thank you for your time.

So, if I understand you correctly, ad hominems are not allowed but insults and arguments without justification are ok?

I'm sure that will raise the level of debate around here.

Clearly you do not understand me correctly. My argument is simple. Ad hominems are not valid debating techniques. Feel free to use them, but they will get you nowhere in a debate.

Insults are frowned upon, but since we are lax with the rules we can't really stop anybody from using them. If I started to stop every instance of insults, you'd be one of the first to go, so I wouldn't complain about that if I were you.

Arguments without justification? I'm not even sure what you mean by that. If you mean arguments without evidence, then the word you are looking for is assertion. Those get you nowhere also.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Clearly you do not understand me correctly. My argument is simple. Ad hominems are not valid debating techniques. Feel free to use them, but they will get you nowhere in a debate.

Insults are frowned upon, but since we are lax with the rules we can't really stop anybody from using them. If I started to stop every instance of insults, you'd be one of the first to go, so I wouldn't complain about that if I were you.

Arguments without justification? I'm not even sure what you mean by that. If you mean arguments without evidence, then the word you are looking for is assertion. Those get you nowhere also.

My point is that you seem to single me out for this type of conduct, while ignoring the others who are guilty of other fallacious activities.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:My point is that you seem to single me out for this type of conduct, while ignoring the others who are guilty of other fallacious activities.

Certainly others are also guilty of said activities. Myself included. That's the reason I issued the warning to everyone and not only you. You don't hide it as well as some of the others, so the example above makes it more obvious. Also you seem to be quick jump to insults and fallacious arguments, and thus attracting them in turn.

Also, I try to point out fallacious arguments whenever I can. In addition, I try to avoid them, but very few of us are capable of using perfect logic.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:but very few of us are capable of using perfect logic.

Exactly. Which is why we humor the people who can't.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:My point is that you seem to single me out for this type of conduct, while ignoring the others who are guilty of other fallacious activities.

Certainly others are also guilty of said activities. Myself included. That's the reason I issued the warning to everyone and not only you. You don't hide it as well as some of the others, so the example above makes it more obvious. Also you seem to be quick jump to insults and fallacious arguments, and thus attracting them in turn.

Also, I try to point out fallacious arguments whenever I can. In addition, I try to avoid them, but very few of us are capable of using perfect logic.

As for going for the insult first, RebelKev is probably the worst.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:My point is that you seem to single me out for this type of conduct, while ignoring the others who are guilty of other fallacious activities.

Certainly others are also guilty of said activities. Myself included. That's the reason I issued the warning to everyone and not only you. You don't hide it as well as some of the others, so the example above makes it more obvious. Also you seem to be quick jump to insults and fallacious arguments, and thus attracting them in turn.

Also, I try to point out fallacious arguments whenever I can. In addition, I try to avoid them, but very few of us are capable of using perfect logic.

As for going for the insult first, RebelKev is probably the worst.

Holy tempered irony, batman!