Chris P. Bacon schools the dullard Observerofu on the nuances of "ad hominem"

16 replies [Last post]
Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010

This thread is a continuation of a lengthy discussion regarding the proper (and improper) application of "ad hominem" complaints regarding posts.
I asked Observerofu why calling Hitler evil was not considered an "ad hominem" attack, yet referring to the so-called "pregnancy resource center volunteers" as Christian predators was, in his mind anyway, an "ad hominem" attack.

Observerofu wrote:

You can say Hitler was evil without it being an ad hominem attack.

You have failed to explain exactly WHY it is permissible for me to claim that "Hitler was evil". Is it because "everyone knows" Hitler was evil? No, that's the "if everyone believes it, it must be true" fallacy. Here's why it is okay to claim "Hitler was evil": there is a large amount of evidence documenting his transgressions.

Observerofu wrote:

However if I were to say Hitler was evil and you attacked me about how I used a NYT
headline without arguing the issue then this is considered an ad hominem. See how it works.

Pointing out an error you make is NOT "ad hominem", it is not a personal attack. If I were to claim 2+2=5, and you were to correct me and point out 2+2=4, could I then claim you were making an "ad hominem" attack on me? You made a claim that was demonstrably false regarding the New York Times and I corrected you. For you to say that was an "ad hominem" attack is absolutely ludicrous.

Observerofu wrote:

An ad hominem is an argument based on the real or perceived faults of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack.

When you levy a personal attack against "Christians" (you called them predators amongst other things) based on no real evidence and then refuse to argue the merits of the center. You fulfilled the logical fallacy requirement of the description. Your OPINION was an attack note the perceived portion of the description.

First of all, you are engaging in a logical fallacy called "moving the goalposts" by claiming I am attacking all Christians (the "all" is implied above). I am doing nothing of the sort. I am attacking those purported Christians who attempt to coerce desparate people into becoming Christians.

Secondly, you claim I offered no "real evidence" to support my position. This is not true. If you look here: LINK, I backed up my opinion with a link to Congressional testimony detailing the tawdry nature of these sleazy deceptive pseudoclinics. This, my friend, is real evidence

Summing it up, I voiced my disgust with slimy "pregnancy resource centers", correctly (in my OPINION) referring to them as Christian Predator Centers.

An opinion, backed by facts, can not be considered in any way, shape or form to be an "ad hominem" attack.

Disagreeing with something you happen to favor is NOT an "ad hominem" attack.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Bacon I have already done this Ad nauseam

You conveniently leave out the entirety of my responses. I gave you perfectly executed and reasoned responses to the questions/attacks you offer yet again.
I don't feel like wasting anymore of my time with you.

No matter the evidence no matter the response you will simply take it out of context or leave out the pertinent portions chopping bits and pieces of my responses to fit your ego.

Here is all that is needed to answer you AGAIN.

Observerofu wrote:

You can say Hitler was evil without it being an ad hominem attack. However if I were to say Hitler was evil and you attacked me about how I used a NYT
headline without arguing the issue then this is considered an ad hominem. See how it works.

An ad hominem is an argument based on the real or perceived faults of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack.

When you levy a personal attack against "Christians" (you called them predators amongst other things) based on no real evidence and then refuse to argue the merits of the center. You fulfilled the logical fallacy requirement of the description. Your OPINION was an attack note the perceived portion of the description.

Now bacon the real question is why do you want to move the subject off Margaret Sanger a Eugenic loving, White Supremest and the FOUNDER of PLANNED PARENTHOOD?

http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/02-01-2011/alveda-king-inspires-audie...

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Poor poor Observerofu
Observerofu wrote:

You conveniently leave out the entirety of my responses.

That is a lie, and you are a liar.
I quote your entire post in multiple segments. I did not leave a single word of yours out.

Observerofu wrote:

I gave you perfectly executed and reasoned responses to the questions/attacks you offer yet again.

You did nothing of the sort. Additionally, you failed to address any points I made in my post above.

Observerofu wrote:

I don't feel like wasting anymore of my time with you.

I'd like to believe you, but your long posting history here shows us you have a sad near-pathological need to get the last word in.

Observerofu wrote:

No matter the evidence no matter the response you will simply take it out of context or leave out the pertinent portions chopping bits and pieces of my responses to fit your ego.

I broke your post into multiple segments since you seem to have trouble digesting information except in very small spoon-fed doses. Also, breaking things down like I did (1 question, 1 answer) lessens the likelihood that you'll distort my own words.

Observerofu wrote:

Here is all that is needed to answer you AGAIN.

You'll note that your cut and paste of your verbiage matches mine word-for-word, negating your first complaint above.

Observerofu wrote:

Now bacon the real question is why do you want to move the subject off Margaret Sanger a Eugenic loving, White Supremest and the FOUNDER of PLANNED PARENTHOOD? http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/02-01-2011/alveda-king-inspires-audience-pregnancy-center-event

As I explained in the thread you referenced above, our conversation was getting crushed up against the right margin and very difficult to read.

Since we went off on a tangent in that thread, I thought it best that we continue your remedial education regarding use and misuse of the words "ad hominem" in a separate thread.

My bottom line remains: Disagreeing and/or attacking your pet causes is not an "ad hominem" attack.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
:-D @ U

Keep trying there bacon one of these days you will grow up and be a real blogger.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Why not just ignore the dip?

That's what almost everyone else is doing.

Can't believe I got back from a good long vacation and this moron is still on here. Get him tossed or ignore him.

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Robert W Morgan,

I am against tossing morons off of this site, for obvious reasons.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Morons off?

Heck, there wouldn't be anyone left except I!

TinCan
TinCan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/29/2005
Bonkie

I'll give you this, you have an outstanding sense of humor.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Morgan & Ignore

Ignore who?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well daggumit we are back to the original question

if everyone says it's a tree and bacon says it's a rock is he still wrong?

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Observerofu, there is a lot in play here

Everyone could be standing in the Petrified Forest National Park, looking at one of the petrified tree trunks that are lying around everywhere. More information would be needed under this scenario.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
GYM

I would guess there are maybe 25-30 on here who are morons, or something else as bad, according to Morgan and a couple of others.

Due to the fact that a disagreement means the other fellow is stupid moronic, illiterate, too detailed, and unchristian, and don't care for BBQ sauce or what kind of beer they drink. Also democrats are to be banned. TEAS OK.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
RWM - You

You are correct of course but he reminds me of my brother.....believe it or not. He is interesting in a odd sort of way. My brother's motive is that he is a government employee, my guess is Bacon is one as well, or a unionist, or a political appointee, or a Democratic Party hack. A person in short that lives off the government. A government retiree that lives off a government pension maybe?

But you are correct, ignoring him may be the best option.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
PTC-O & Govt Retirement

Well you've touched a nerve here--I worked for the US Dept of Defense for 42 yrs in a variety of situations & positions. I regret that you would use some sort of broad brush to paint all we Govt retirees. And to even attempt to place pigfoot into our category is an insult! You have disappointed me, however your history here earns you a pass. One.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
GYM

Like everything else, some government retirees deserve a pension, some do not. Working, or attending, the time doesn't do it alone.

The only problem I see is retirees who are paid by taxpayer's money should be very careful about criticizing the limiting of what others are paid!

They don't do a lot of fighting for low-wage people most of the time.

The triple-dippers are the questionable ones as to their reason for "service."
I know people whose one purpose in life is to obtain and work toward all that can be obtained from the government, or elsewhere, as a pension. They look for free vacation spots, free or discounted food, free medical care, temporary useless jobs for SS credits, etc.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Like I said...

You have a near-pathological need to get the last word in.

I hope everyone in this thread notices how you wouldn't address the issues I raised here.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
TO THOSE WHO CARE

DEFINITIONS OF AD HOMINEM:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define+ad-hominem&ie...

READ - AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.

Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments.