Can we impeach Bush for stupidity?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Agathon


Franken just deals with it in his book - that's where I remembered reading about it. He's right too - that stuff is rubbish, you could see it for yourself if you bothered to look, or even think for a change. If you want to resort with ad hominem attacks, go read Ann Coulter - hers are better than yours.

But why resort to a second-rate piker like Ann Coulter when the two best practitioners of ad hominems are right here in this thread, Agathon? Sava?

I was wondering when you two would discover each other. It's a love destined to last the ages.

[Agathon]

Do you even know what an ad hominem is?

Pointing out facts, such as Bush's manifest ignorance, is not making an ad hominem argument.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, he very well knows what an ad hominem is, and he's right on the money about who employs them.

[Sava]

absolutely

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Agathon
Do you even know what an ad hominem is?

... or even think for a change.

Yeah, I might have an idea what they are, Aggie.

[Agathon]

Neither of you even know what an ad hominem fallacy is.

Priceless...

[Agathon]

I'll give you a clue.

Saying "Bush is an idiot, therefore we shouldn't listen to him" is not committing any fallacy, since it's good practice not to listen to idiots. It certainly isn't committing an ad hominem fallacy. You guys need to read a logic book.

This is almost as good as Skywalker's attempt at defining the fallacy of appeal to authority.

[Verto]

Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made


Priceless material.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes Verto... the dictionary usually is a good counter to Aggie's uninformed rants.

those people say blackops and special forces killed Nick Berg to get support for the war.

[DinoDoc]

I mourn for his students.

[Sava]

Agathon was referring to "ad hominens" with regards to argument fallacies... not the dictionary definition.

[DinoDoc]

It's the same exact thing.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's the same exact thing.

almost

from http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

It's possible to insult someone while not commiting an ad hominem fallacy.

[DinoDoc]

Let's look at your quote and apply it to Aggie's statement.

First, an attack against the character of person making the claim

Bush is an idiot, ...

Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making

... therefore we shouldn't listen to him

[Dauphin]

Is saying Bush is an idiot an irrelevant fact when discussing whether we should listen to him though?

Even if yes, there are more pertinent fallacies being commited.