Re: More Ad Hom

On Dec 19, 1:46 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 19, 3:10 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





On Dec 18, 11:03 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 18, 5:54 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 18, 10:35 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:> On Dec 18, 5:32 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 18, 10:20 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:> On Dec 18, 5:16 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<snipped> Would you deny that a person's mental state can

affect his outlook, their work and conclusions?

I suggest that you consider this in the light of your own behaviour.

I try to. It's easier to imagine other's problems though, eh Richard.

No Glenn. I'd hate to imagine what is going on in the incoherent sewer
of your mind.

So the desire to insult me calls you to irrationality. It is easier to
see other peoples problems than it is to see your own. Your own
behavior contradicts your claim.

I don't "desire to insult" you, Glenn. I insult you because your
behaviour on this forum is dishonest, arrogant, infantile and
ignorant.

So you don't want to insult me, but you do. And you'd "hate to
imagine" what goes on in my mind, but you do.
You're beginning to sound like a loon and not just stupid, Richard.
Seems you have a following of same as well.
Don't think that you are insulting me, consider that you are insulting
yourself when you make all these claims
yet don't make one whit of effort in supporting them even when
challenged to do so.

You see, there is a difference between us. When I attack and accuse
you of something, it is almost alway in direct context to an ongoing
event.
For example, the last time was when I challenged your claim about the
DI "acknowledging" that ID isn't scientific. Your behavior
in that thread called for "insult".
When you attack, it is like in this thread. No support, just like an
delinquent lashing out using whatever words he can think of. And it
should show
that you have some problem with me other than belief in your insults.

I don't think it irrational to detest someone who is blatantly
dishonest and crows about their moral superiority.

Really, Richard. Don't you think that "blatant" behavior and "crowing"
would be easy to document? Or can't you be bothered to back up what
you say.

Let's see:

Yes, let's see what you regard as "back up".

In this thread you mischaracterise the nature of the "ad hominem"
fallacy and insist on your incorrect version. That's arrogance and
ignorance all in one.

You haven't participated at all in either of the recent ad hom
threads, so there is no way of knowing what you think the "nature" of
ad hom is, or if you are right.
But it appears that *you* insist on mine being incorrect, without
backing it up. A bald ass claim is not a reasoned argument or
evidence, Richard.
And even were I wrong would not mean that I am either excessivly
arrogant or ignorant.

This is what I've noticed about you for some time, you go on and on
and on without providing anything but unsupported claims, as if you
should be believed as an authority. Between us, Richard, you are by
far the more arrogant one, as well as being the one who crows about
moral superiority. Claims that you "despise" dishonesty, an apparent
desire to expose dishonesty and willingness to go to quite extreme and
bizarre lengths to do so shows you to be quite arrogant. "You imagine"
and "snipping awkward parts" below are examples of this bizarre
behavior, especially when they are in response to an apparent
acceptance to a challenge to provide evidence of your claims.

There's your silly habit of posting snippets from scientific papers
and press releases imagining that they represent some sort of problem
for evolutionary theory. That's ignorance.

Sweet! You imagine I imagine, so that is evidence of *my* ignorance?

Then there's your habit of misrepresenting what your critics are
saying. That's dishonesty.

You aren't doing too well in your "backing up" what you say attempt. I
believe my understanding of the "nature" of ad hom is mainstream, an
argument that tries to discredit the arguer instead of the argument
itself. My intent in this thread was partly to determine who would
agree that ad homs can be implicit. Perhaps this is what you meant by
my being wrong and therefore arrogant and ignorant, yet some posters
agree with me in this respect. So if you are wrong in your first
"let's see" claim, then you would be forced by your own measure to
have misrepresented what I said about ad hom, and dishonest. But
without knowing that you might think ad hom means a hot dog with sauce
or something else, it is impossible to determine whether you honestly
think you are right or not. You would, however.

There's also your habit of snipping the awkward parts of the posts to
which you are responding. That's more dishonesty.

Loon. I'm responding to this, so you would conclude this isn't
"awkward"? How nice for you to be able to use as evidence your
assumption that anything I snip is "awkward" to to come to a
conclusion that I am dishonest. There are many reasons for snipping,
and it is a common practice. Pretending this is evidence of dishonesty
is quite childish and dishonest. Awk! Awk! Goes the loonie bird.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More Ad Hom
    ... You simply insist that your incorrect definition of "ad hom" is ... characterization of "simply insisting" is quite dishonest, ... Ignorant because you don't know what the logical fallacy of "ad ... contradictory evidence was provided against you. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More Ad Hom
    ... You simply insist that your incorrect definition of "ad hom" is ... contradictory evidence was provided against you. ... There is evidence here that you are dishonest, or ignorant, or stupid, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More Ad Hom
    ... You haven't participated at all in either of the recent ad hom ... have posted the evidence on which I base this claim many times. ... That's ignorance. ... have misrepresented what I said about ad hom, and dishonest. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More scientists firing blanks.
    ... I am neither ignorant nor incompetent nor dishonest ... This is not bogus at all. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Monkeys, Religion and Liberals
    ... > Creationism/ID in a science class is dishonest or ignorant. ... > because it isn't a scientific theory, and the clever minds in ID know ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)