Re: More Ad Hom

On Dec 20, 1:12 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 20, 4:07 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Anyone can check the facts simply by reading your posts on this
thread, Glenn.
You have evaded, ignored and snipped without marking contrary
arguments.



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.

Which doesn't change the facts, and which anyone can check simply by
looking back up the thread.



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.

So why did Philip Johnson say that there is no scientific theory of
ID.
Why did the DI *drop* the use of the word "scientific" from their
definition of ID "theory".

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 have provided no contradictory evidence. As ever, all you produce
is unfounded assertions and illogical arguments which miss the point.

You kept "insisting"
you were right, and although I may have missed it, you never
retracted.

You've provided no reason to retract anything I have writen.

If you didn't, that's dishonesty. That wasn't something
like proving someone "imagines" something, or that something is
"awkward".

This isn't a public meeting, Glenn, where you can shout your opponents
down, misrepresent them and accuse them of things they haven't said.
Anyone can check back what you and I have actually written, and can
see that you are making more empty assertions which are not supported
by any evidence.



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.

So you won't address the evidence I have posted on numerous occasions
for dishonesty in creationist sources.
All you are doing is making unsupported assertions against me. This is
of course typical behaviour on your part, as is amply demonstrated
simply by reading your posts on this thread.



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.

I have never made any claim of moral superiority.

Nice addition of another claim, and a generalization at that, by the
way.

Saying that I have never made a claim of moral superiority is not a
generalisation.



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.

I've posted the evidence on numerous occasions. No creationist has
ever made any attempt to address the evidence.
As evidence against you, it's here on this thread as well as on
numerous others.



"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.

I'm not offering it as evidence, though your evasion of the question
is more evidence of you evasion of awkward questions.

If you don't post these snippets because you think that they are
evidence against evolutionary theory, why do you post them?



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.

It's rather glaringly obvious now that you are evading an awkward
question, Glenn.



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.

You've stated that I claim moral superiority.
I have never done so.

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.

..and several posters pointed out that you were misapplying the term
in the context of that definition.



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.

Another pathetically transparent attempt to obfusticate and evade,
Glenn.



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***.

Here is a post by Mark VandeWetteringhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/271d245...

It appear to me that in the recent thread "OT: Public service
announcement- Ad Hominem" that two basic issues concerning ad homs
were not resolved; whether ad homs have to be explicit and whether an
ad hom included in an argument that does address an opponents argument
be considered ad hom. Of course, I was the only one who disagreed on
either and both.

Probably because you are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So I will provide a subject for the first here, and
look forward to seeing responses.
Under the heading "CA130 Ad Hominem" in "Index to Creationist Claims"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
is "CA131. Darwin suffered from psychoneurosis."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA131.html
The second response to the "Creationists claim" appears to be reacting
as if the "Claim" is an ad hominem:
"The theory of evolution is based on evidence, not on the authority of
Darwin. Aspects of Darwin's life are of historical interest, but they
have no relevance to science."
The "Claim": "Charles Darwin became chronically ill shortly after
returning from his voyage on the Beagle, making him an invalid for
much of his life. His symptoms -- depression, vomiting, palpitations,
etc. -- match no organic illness and appear to be psychogenic
(originating in his mind). The cause of this illness could be anxiety
that his theory was wrong or guilt from rejecting God."
Is the FAQ author claiming that the alleged claim an ad hom?

Did you see him claim that? I went to the page and read it. Did you?

But regardless, is the alleged claim ad hom, and did the FAQ author
address the "argument"?
I read through one reference to the "Claim"
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=112
and not the second, for if the first is not ad hom or is not what is
actually addressed by the "Response[s]", would complicate the issues,
to perhaps include the fallacy of guilt by association.
I submit that the "Claim" is an accurate enough representation of the
referenced article.

Perhaps overly speculative in its conclusions, but fair enough.

However, neither the "Claim" or the article is ad hominem. The "Claim"
makes no conclusions about theory being wrong or being "relevant to
science".

True enough. But I don't think the page says it was ad hominem.

It proposes possible reasons for Darwins
illnesses. In any event, the 2nd "Response" seems to be a red herring
at best, not responding to the actual "Claim", nor any claim made in
the first referenced article.

Nevertheless, it is true.

Darwin's illness, whatever it was,
seemed clearly to affect at least some of his "work and conclusions";

Hold on right there. I don't think that's clear at all. Certainly
nothing in the creationist claim supports this conclusion. Would you
like to tell us what evidence you have to support this conclusion?

whether he was "right" or not in his conclusions concerning some
things.
Response 1 seems to be little more than a war of references to
literature that is described in the Response itself as much
controversy in the past over different proposed diagnoses (and same
references are included in the Creationist article as well), except
that it implies some reason to respond to the *"Claim"* as if some
part of the claim included at least an intimation that Darwin was
"psychotic": "Even if Darwin's illness was an anxiety disorder, such a
disorder has nothing to do with being psychotic." It doesn't, and the
title doesn't.
The referenced article is titled "Was Charles Darwin psychotic? A
study of his mental health",

Uh... you can write those two sentences, one after another, and not
feel
the least little twinge of dishonesty?

but the author does not in the article claim that he was psychotic.

Sorry, I forgot to whom I was addressing myself.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would hope that psychoneurosis is not confused as being the same as
psychotic: "The diagnosis of the cause of his mental and physical
problems includes a variety of debilitating conditions, but
agoraphobia with the addition of psychoneurosis is most probably
correct." Did the FAQ author address the "Claim", or is this another
red herring.
The third "Response" seems off topic completely,"Some people can
achieve great things while suffering seemingly debilitating
conditions", since the "Claim" or article makes no mention or claim
that Darwin didn't achieve "great things". That Darwin is claimed to
have researched and wrote several major books seems to be a "self
directed" red herring, since researching and writing books does not
make them "great things", nor is the fact that he was chronically ill
while he did so in any way, a response to the "Claim" or "supporting"
article.
The FAQ author seems not capable of recognizing an ad hominem,
consistently uses red herrings and faulty reasoning rather than
address the claim. Or he assumes that Creationists use this argument
to conclude that "Darwin was wrong", which of course he did.
Was there an ad hom *anywhere* in this FAQ or the "Claim"?

Mark

Here is your response:
"Tha tha tha thats it folks."

I call this "snipping awkward questions", Glenn.
What do you call it?

Your dishonest misrepresentation of what I responded to.

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.

Anyone can read the posts on this very thread to see you snipping
awkward questions. The one I've posted above is by no means the only
instance.

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...

So how about addressing the questions Mark VandeWettering posted?

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

As I may have remarked on several occasions previously, why do you
think that anyone gives a flying *** what you think?

RF

.

Quantcast