Re: More Ad Hom

On Dec 19, 3:19 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:02 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 19, 1:46 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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.

I can read.
You simply insist that your incorrect definition of "ad hom" is
correct.

Nah, I've argued several issues related to ad homs. Your
characterization of "simply insisting" is quite dishonest, and can be
applied to anyone who holds his position.

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.

Ignorant because you don't know what the logical fallacy of "ad
hominem" is, and arrogant because you refuse to accept that you are
wrong.

Nothing but the same claim rephrased, loon.

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.

So what unsupported claims have I made?

I have already referred you to your last, which I challenged. The DI
never "acknowledged" in any way shape or form that ID is not
scientific, AFAIK. And you sure as hell didn't support your claim that
they had. Your argument was shown to be totally unreasonable and
contradictory evidence was provided against you. You kept "insisting"
you were right, and although I may have missed it, you never
retracted. If you didn't, that's dishonesty. That wasn't something
like proving someone "imagines" something, or that something is
"awkward".

I claim that creationist sources are systematically dishonest, and
have posted the evidence on which I base this claim many times. No
creationists has bothered to address the evidence.

There is evidence here that you are dishonest, or ignorant, or stupid,
or a combo of all three, at least. I asked you for evidence, you said
"Let's see..." and you have only provided more of the same outlandish
and unsupported claims.

Between us, Richard, you are by
far the more arrogant one, as well as being the one who crows about
moral superiority.

I'm not claiming any moral superiority. Creationists do so on a
regular basis.

I just made a case, based on your own behavior, and documented, that
you do.
Nice addition of another claim, and a generalization at that, by the
way.


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.

So why not address the evidence?

What evidence, you loony toon? You have no evidence, not even any
reasoning to make an inference, about your claims against me.

"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?

Well why do you post them in that case?

Asking me isn't evidence, idiot.

In most cases they are unremarkable snippets of papers which pose no
problems at all for any aspect of evolutionary theory. I presume that
you don't post them because you think they support evolutionary
theory.

What you presume isn't evidence, idiot.

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.

You are doing exactly that in this post.

Are you sure you aren't a juvenile, 15 or 16 or so?
A one line claim isn't evidence, idiot.

I
believe my understanding of the "nature" of ad hom is mainstream,

Well, you haven't bothered to find out what the "mainstream"
definition of the term is in that case.

I think I have. I cited Wiki in the previous thread.

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.

The meaning of an "ad hominem" argument is perfectly clear. Your posts
are simply an attempt to obfusticate and confuse.

All through this waste of bandwidth, you have elected not to provide
your own understanding of ad hom, or make any specific claim as to
what is "correct".
Empty claims, over and over, and over, and over and over and over
again. Your only victory here is to waste my time.

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"?

There are numerous other posts in which you *have* snipped the awkward
parts!
I doubt that even you would be so blatant as to snip the part in which
I give your habit of snipping as evidence for dishonesty!

You really are serious. You really do think that simply repeating a
claim over and over, using exclamation points, shouting and such, will
strengthen your claim.
Idiot, you need to show that I snip things that are "awkward". If you
really were a scientist who was disciplined in the scientific method,
you wouldn't be arguing this way. Over and over again, the same old
bull***.

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.

So what?

You really don't know, do you. It makes your claim just a little more
difficult to support.

Pretending this is evidence of dishonesty
is quite childish and dishonest. Awk! Awk! Goes the loonie bird.

It is dishonest when it is used to evade awkward questions and then
pretend that they have never been asked.

You don't get to say whether they are awkward to me, Richard. You
simply make and repeat your claims over and over and over...

I'm not terribly interested in spending useless time on a childish
loon, Richard.



.

Quantcast