Re: Healthcare in Canada



Joe <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:ErOdnemkAqS5LuDanZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx:


It is ad hominem if you are referring to the person on the stand. To
argue with paul and say that his argument is worthless because he is a
drunk is ad-hominem.

This isn't what happened or what I said. His argument wasn't
attacked, but rather the "chain of custody" of his statistic.

To say that his argument is valid because the
surgeon general agrees with him is an appeal to authority.

Not if I'm appealing to the SG's character. Other physicians
say that second hand smoke is not bad for you. The appeal
here is not to authority but the, undoubtable pure character
that a guy must certainly have if he gets appointed as SG.
His character surely outweighs the character of some run-of-
the-mill GP.


Insults are ad hominem,

Only in the sense that "ain't" is word because it's in
the dictionary.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
.



Relevant Pages

  • Just Saw Terminator, "ok" up till end, but oh that end.
    ... it wasn't bad for most of the picture. ... The ending was just stupid both on an emotional and plot level. ... why should this appealing new character be sacrificed for the ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: Healthcare in Canada
    ... No. I'm appealing to the _character_ of the SG, ... not his authority. ... Cheerfully resisting change since 1959. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)