thilipsis Posted December 14, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 253 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 149 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/11/1963 Author Share Posted December 14, 2016 On 12/5/2016 at 6:04 PM, Enoch2021 said: You didn't and your continued 'dodging' here, is testimony of it. At least I didn't dodge the opening post or the substance of the thread. On 12/5/2016 at 6:04 PM, Enoch2021 said: Yes, that's correct in general, more specifically it's... Ad Hominem (Fallacy) -- argumentum ad hominem ... (also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character) Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad_Hominem_Abusive You've been incessantly charging me with it without any warrant whatsoever for roughly 10 posts on this and other threads in lieu of coherent rebuttal to your trainwreck posts. Slow your roll, the truth is you resort to these pointless personal remarks which is the essence of an ad hominem fallacy. I've seen too much of this kind of rhetoric to mistake it for something substantive. Much of this is philosophical and one of the rules of a philosophical discourse is you define your terms. It's my term and I define it as irrelevant personal attack. On 12/5/2016 at 6:04 PM, Enoch2021 said: So, can you show me where the ad hominem Fallacy is, here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/202620-evolution-where-is-the-evidence/?do=findComment&comment=2468152 (where Ironically, I explained this same phenomena to you...and then you Appealed to Format ) or here... https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/202620-evolution-where-is-the-evidence/?do=findComment&comment=2468175 ?? Both of these, I pummeled your arguments in excruciating detail; Whereby, falsifying your feeble ad hominem appeal/rescue device. Ya see, when you make a "CLAIM" or a "CHARGE" you kinda have to "SUPPORT" it SPECIFICALLY relatively quickly or you run into The "Village Idiot on the Corner" Phenomena of spouting meaningless Baseless Assertion (Fallacies). Just one question, are you a Christian? You have went from an ad hominem fallacy to scathing personal insults so I'm just wondering does this verse resonate with you at all?: Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? (James 3:11) Word of advice, another insult is a wrong answer. Grace and peace, Mark On 12/5/2016 at 6:04 PM, Enoch2021 said: For Example: when you charge someone with robbing a bank, you kinda then have to @ least (Relatively Quickly): 1. Identify the bank. 2. Place them @ the Scene of the Crime. 3. Show the missing money. 4. Show the defendant with the money. ect, ect. Follow?? So provide the EVIDENCE supporting your CHARGE...? Actually the key in modern legal philosophy is a, 'substantial step', as usual you missed a key point. There are people convicted of robbing a bank who never entered because they had the guns, the note and nylon hoods after they decided not to go into the bank. The legal issue is substantial step which goes back to, 'Mens rea', criminal intent. Why don't you get caught up on your criminal law and we can talk some more on this matter. On 12/5/2016 at 6:04 PM, Enoch2021 said: Until then, you're Whistl'n Past The Graveyard of a simple Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy. regards ps. This is getting quite boring and puerile, so unless you can finally provide your Evidence in SUPPORT of your charge this is the end of the discussion. I certainly hope this is the end of the discussion because you are focused exclusively with fallacious arguments. I don't mind really because it tells me you have nothing else but if you want to give up I would appreciate you not spamming the thread with these ramblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisFirst Posted December 27, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 21 Topic Count: 315 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 3,491 Content Per Day: 1.26 Reputation: 2,582 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/25/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 27, 2016 Please boys, I like reading both your thoughts, it's a shame you two are arguing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thilipsis Posted December 27, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 253 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 149 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/11/1963 Author Share Posted December 27, 2016 2 hours ago, HisFirst said: Please boys, I like reading both your thoughts, it's a shame you two are arguing? Oh he just pops in to talk about fallacies from time to time, generally doesn't stay long. Grace and peace, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts