What is an ad hominem?

[_Sam Harris]

Your scholarship?

Please provide me with a link to your scholarship.

Are you really so illiterate? Go to page 2-4 of the thread you derailed and you will find the link.

Moderator comment: This is an example of an ad hominem. This is a PERSONAL attack. I'm glad you were able to finally see what an ad hominem really is. Please refrain from dishing them out in this forum.

[_GoodK]

It is not an ad hominem to attack someone's sources. If your sources are BS, then your sources are BS, and it would behoove you to find sources that are not. I'm not splitting hairs with you two.

Who has abused your person on here? As a mod...I want to know.

Are you really so arrogant? Calling for quotations, and then once seeing the errors you've made, coming unglued and doing the internet equivilant of screaming and throwing a temper tantrum...

Pathetic...

I've demonstrated where Jersey Girl used an ad hominem, and it must have pained you to have your feet held to the fire.

The only request I made of a moderator was to move her derailment to its own thread, did you get a complaint from me about Jersey Girl. Did any other moderator?

No.

This is ridiculous. You are ridiculous. [color=#]There is your ad hominem. [/color]

[_GoodK]

What on earth are you talking about, GoodK?

Where does your "scholarship" appear in relation to my criticism?

Here is the link GoodK is referring to which addresses scholar Ehrman's comments on contradictions with examples. It's not from a skeptic site.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm

Like I said, from the early pages of the thread Jersey Girl derailed.

Thanks Marg.

[_GoodK]

Your scholarship?

Please provide me with a link to your scholarship.

Are you really so illiterate? Go to page 2-4 of the thread you derailed and you will find the link.

Moderator comment: This is an example of an ad hominem. This is a PERSONAL attack. I'm glad you were able to finally see what an ad hominem really is. Please refrain from dishing them out in this forum.

Actually, it was a question.

This is a joke. You started this whole thread, stirring the pot. I'll forward this to a sensible moderator to take a look at your emotional unhinging up here.

[_marg]

Your scholarship?

Please provide me with a link to your scholarship.

Are you really so illiterate? Go to page 2-4 of the thread you derailed and you will find the link.

Moderator comment: This is an example of an ad hominem. This is a PERSONAL attack. I'm glad you were able to finally see what an ad hominem really is. Please refrain from dishing them out in this forum.

This is a joke. You started this whole thread, stirring the pot. I'll forward this to a sensible moderator to take a look at your emotional unhinging up here.

Yes I have to say having this mod step in at this point, and dish out their own fallacious ad hom in the process of the reprimand shows this mod's bias.

Ok mod whoever you are there is a difference between fallacious ad homs and ad homs. Fallacious ad homs are what would be nice to be curtailed either by the individual or by moderation in the Celestial area. Ad homs justified are acceptable to an argument. That is there are times they support the logic of an argument.

Here is the reason your mod note above is fallacious ad hom "I'm glad you are finally able to see what as ad hom is"

1) the problem has never been ad homs, it's been fallacious ad homs, in the thread "evidence for Jesus". The issue is not that criticisms are fallacious. The issue is whether or not those criticisms/ad homs pertain to the logic of the argument and if not, they shouldn't be there, in an intellectually honest discussion between parties who are sincerely arguing to discover best fit truths. By you assuming that criticism= ad homs and that is the problem, is an indication to me you don't know what the problem is.


2) in my opinion GoodK has not indicated that they do not understand fallacious ad homs. Where is the support/warrant to your personal attack/ad hom that GoodK has been unable to understand what ad homs are?

3) the discussion in this thread has been a question about what ad homs are, and why they were pointed out in the evidence for Jesus thread, by participants. This thread, should not have been an excuse to attack GoodK, which apparently you appear to be furthering, because if your interest is to stop fall. ad homs, there are many many more in the topic thread evidence for Jesus for which you obviously have said nothing .

3) your bias is blatantly obvious

You also say: " Please refrain from dishing them out in this forum


And so should you mod. Your comment only needed to say "please refrain from fall. ad homs", you didn't need to attack in the process.

You had no need to add your fall. ad hom. Referring to GoodK's use of ad homs as "Dishing out" is ad hominal. It implies GoodK has excessively used ad homs disingenously.
Now in my opinion it is also fallacious, because having followed the discussion "Evidence for Jesus" he/she is one of the least perpetraters of fallacious ad homs, so your attack is unwarranted. You have not established any "dishing out"

All in all mod, your mod reprimand is one big fallacious ad hom on its own.

Your lack of understanding of what the issue is is apparent. Criticisms of a person, is not the issue. It is arguing employing poor logic, fallacious reasoning which is.

And my interpretation of what has happened here is that Jersey Girl for all intents and purposes has indicated to me by the way she has argued against GoodK, that she has been intent on harrasing. I get no impression from her discussion with him that she is sincere for example and doesn't think there are contradictions in the Gospels. And whoever your are you are supporting her in this endeavor. You mods, who don't know what you are doing, are better to stay out of the Celestial than to interfere and make things worse.

[_Jersey Girl]

I see what has gone on here and will ask Shades to review the thread.

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay, I did post a request to Shades in the moderator forum to review this thread and comment in the thread.

I haven't commented much here but will do so now.

Ad hominem is an attack on the person.

My comment to GoodK in the evidence thread did contain matter that can be described as ad hominem.

This isn't even debatable.

[_marg]

I see what has gone on here and will ask Shades to review the thread.

Is Sam Harris a mod?

[_marg]

Okay, I did post a request to Shades in the moderator forum to review this thread and comment in the thread.

I haven't commented much here but will do so now.

Ad hominem is an attack on the person.

My comment to GoodK in the evidence thread did contain matter that can be described as ad hominem.

This isn't even debatable.

The problem is not ad hom Jersey Girl it is fallacious ad homs. And by the way, your comment to GoodK in the Celestial was ad hominal and I believe fallacious, and I explained that in this thread.

I'll bring that post here:

Jersey Girl wrote:
"I can already tell from your posts that you rely on skeptic sites and have not engaged the material yourself. I've been engaging and engaged by skeptics for years and I know exactly what you're going to present to me before you present it.

The question here is not whether or not I "know this stuff" the question is whether or not you are willing to support your regurgitations of the skeptic material that is the basis for your unsupported assertions."

Okay this is ad hominal, the implication is that GoodK is not able to think, is accepting source material uncritically and therefore whatever GoodK argues should be dismissed. This is an attack on the person and has nothing to do with refuting or attacking the logic of GoodK's argument. Has it been established that all skeptic sites are a poor source for information? Has Jersey Girl even established that all GoodK ever does is argue from skeptic sites?

in my opinion the attack is fallacious. Even if GoodK got material from skeptic sites, that doesn't mean anything he/she has argued is unwarranted. Jersey Girl's argument is basically that what GoodK says should be ignored, we shouldn't listen to the argument because no matter what it isn't her/his own thinking. She is also letting it be known she is presupposing the argument GoodK is going to make, without it first being made.

In addition Jersey Girl, as has been pointed out, GoodK did not use a skeptic site, not that that is a bad thing, but it is inaccurate to say he/she did, which is the reason he/she directed you to a link which I provided for you in a post.

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay, I did post a request to Shades in the moderator forum to review this thread and comment in the thread.

I haven't commented much here but will do so now.

Ad hominem is an attack on the person.

My comment to GoodK in the evidence thread did contain matter that can be described as ad hominem.

This isn't even debatable.

The problem is not ad hom Jersey Girl it is fallacious ad homs. And by the way, your comment to GoodK in the Celestial was ad hominal and I believe fallacious, and I explained that in this thread.

I'll bring that post here:

Jersey Girl wrote:
"I can already tell from your posts that you rely on skeptic sites and have not engaged the material yourself. I've been engaging and engaged by skeptics for years and I know exactly what you're going to present to me before you present it.

The question here is not whether or not I "know this stuff" the question is whether or not you are willing to support your regurgitations of the skeptic material that is the basis for your unsupported assertions."

Okay this is ad hominal, the implication is that GoodK is not able to think, is accepting source material uncritically and therefore whatever GoodK argues should be dismissed. This is an attack on the person and has nothing to do with refuting or attacking the logic of GoodK's argument. Has it been established that all skeptic sites are a poor source for information? Has Jersey Girl even established that all GoodK ever does is argue from skeptic sites?

in my opinion the attack is fallacious. Even if GoodK got material from skeptic sites, that doesn't mean anything he/she has argued is unwarranted. Jersey Girl's argument is basically that what GoodK says should be ignored, we shouldn't listen to the argument because no matter what it isn't her/his own thinking. She is also letting it be known she is presupposing the argument GoodK is going to make, without it first being made.

In addition Jersey Girl, as has been pointed out, GoodK did not use a skeptic site, not that that is a bad thing, but it is inaccurate to say he/she did, which is the reason he/she directed you to a link which I provided for you in a post.

The post that you are replying to, marg, was directed at the OP.