Safe Speed Forums

Fallacies

Ad Hominem

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive, Personal Attack
Description:

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:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

The reason why an ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).



All times are GMT

Jump to: Select a forum Discussion Forums----------------Speed, Safety, Driving and The LawImproving Road SafetyGeneral ChatCampaigningBrainstormingWhat's New, Announcements, Technical and AdministrationHelp! I'm being prosecuted!The Soapbox News----------------Road Safety, Speed Camera and Policy NewsSafe Speed in the News and Media Specific road user groups----------------CyclingMotorcyclingTrucking Local Forums----------------M4 ProtestHighlands IssuesCSCP RefugeesRoadpeace North West Special Forums----------------Anonymous SubmissionsThe Clubhouse - members onlyPollsTechnicalNear Misses All About Safe Speed----------------PagesOpinionsClaimsHonesty and Accuracy QueriesChallenges




| Contents © 2001-2005 SafeSpeed | Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group |


This is part of a message from the illustrious scholar "Wayneo", who really should be running this show. In answer to your question "Wayneo", the first time I replied to ypu, being new I didn't realise it was a "private" message, however I would have had no problem whatsoever with you taking it public. Now you've descended into a slanging match you can get on with swotting up on some other facts, but what a sad life that must be!

Fallacies

Ad Hominem

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive, Personal Attack
Description:

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:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

The reason why an ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).



All times are GMT

Jump to: Select a forum Discussion Forums----------------Speed, Safety, Driving and The LawImproving Road SafetyGeneral ChatCampaigningBrainstormingWhat's New, Announcements, Technical and AdministrationHelp! I'm being prosecuted!The Soapbox News----------------Road Safety, Speed Camera and Policy NewsSafe Speed in the News and Media Specific road user groups----------------CyclingMotorcyclingTrucking Local Forums----------------M4 ProtestHighlands IssuesCSCP RefugeesRoadpeace North West Special Forums----------------Anonymous SubmissionsThe Clubhouse - members onlyPollsTechnicalNear Misses All About Safe Speed----------------PagesOpinionsClaimsHonesty and Accuracy QueriesChallenges




| Contents © 2001-2005 SafeSpeed | Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group |


This is part of a message from the illustrious scholar "Wayneo", who really should be running this show. In answer to your question "Wayneo", the first time I replied to ypu, being new I didn't realise it was a "private" message, however I would have had no problem whatsoever with you taking it public. Now you've descended into a slanging match you can get on with swotting up on some other facts, but what a sad life that must be!

Was it something I said? Other than that:-

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Fallacies

Ad Hominem

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive, Personal Attack
Description:

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:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

The reason why an ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

|
The above is part of a message from the illustrious scholar "Wayneo", who really should be running this show. In answer to your question "Wayneo", the first time I replied to ypu, being new I didn't realise it was a "private" message, however I would have had no problem whatsoever with you taking it public. Now you've descended into a slanging match you can get on with swotting up on some other facts, but what a sad life that must be. [color=red]And you really shouldn't have gone to all that trouble on my account! [color=red]Still it IS amusing[/color]

to Botty Burp

Silly man, don't you know that "Wayneo" knows everything and he's always right?! He should do, all he does is research "facts"

To Botty Burp

I just want to re-arrange my last post to you, because by putting "Wayneo's" long winded bit first, you'll probably be asleep before you get to my message (to you), which was - Sillly man, you should know that "Wayneo" knows everything and is always right. He should do because he spends all his time researching facts.
Below is "Wayneo's" message to me, putting me (or attempting to) in my place!!!

Fallacies

Ad Hominem

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive, Personal Attack
Description:

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:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

The reason why an ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

someone needs to lay off the scooby snacks.

Just a small request. If you're going to get the handbags out in public could you please let us see the whole spectacle so we know what the hell you're on about?

Still waiting old boy, all i've seen so far are quotes.

I'm lost

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Hello Botty Burp

I understand why people feel the need to turn the BNP, But to have to turn to a party that is clearly racist to get treated equally in what is supposed to be an equal society is a shame don't you think?

I guess that is my point.

We are supposed to be in an fair and equal society, which we are not in.
The only way some members of the society feel they can get treated fairly is to turn to a group which has no intrest in treating all members of society equal. If that makes sense?

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

It makes a lot of sense and it is why I find it disturbing, I looked at BNP, the independance party just to see what was available as a 'choice' from the main parties and what I saw worried me. It went beyond stop all immigration, I found policies regarding gays and lesbians, these are public domain but not shouted too loudly I know several gay couples, I used to work with one partner in each case, never had a problem and some of the most law abiding people I know.

Yet the more unsavoury policies are overlooked as the BNP offer a solution to immigration and some barking positive discrimination policies.

As Paul said, there can be no such thing as positive discrimination as at the end someone IS being discriminated against.

As for the scheme being discussed I feel potentially a good one from the road safety aspects BUT we should only be funding the road safety element/lessons NOT the driving and it should be open to all in the area.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

johnsher

"wayneo" can't remember what he's written. All the quotes are what HE sent to ME in "private messages" (before I realised there were private and non private messages), in an attempt to defend his ignorance and arrogance. He dared me to go public with it, now I have and he's so embarrassed by the fact that he spends all his time researching facts to prove other people wrong, that he's pretending to know nothing about them. So johnser, there you have it!

right. Well that's as clear as mud. All you've quoted (4 times) is a definition of "ad hominem".

I think we need to hold back a little bit here chaps and give this lady a bit of a chance, by the looks of it she’s not had much experience of using this type of forum and especially the quote buttons. For all we know (as it was for myself) she may well never have used a forum before.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Absolutely right. I've just PM'd her offering assistance.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I agree, but can a new thread be started so that it doesn't interfere with the main topic here? Anyway, i'm off to play a quick round of Golf before it gets dark.

I agree that the excesses and aberrations of PC provide fuel for the likes of the BNP. I do, however recognise that sometimes society needs to target support at particular groups. (I don't feel in this case it was done effectively or helpfully).

I do however stand by my view that the BNP are a classic rascist ultra-right party, hiding behind a veneer of respect for democracy. Any sensible reading of the articles on their website shows an underlying racism, homophobia and a desire to exploit the fears of the working classes to further their own ends in a way which, frankly, has many parallels with the facist/nazi right of the 1930s.

(I've had plenty of contact with the british extreme right over the years and recognise the same old faces when I see them. Wrapping a bow on a turd doesn't disguise the smell)

As far as I'm concerned if you support the BNP you are condoning racism and I'm against you.