You, my friend, are totally drunk, trashed, smashed. You stumble through the door, slamming it behind you. “Shit!” you exclaim, angrily and long, somehow managing to slur even the simplest of words
( Read more... )
a false misrepresentation of my use of logorrhea A false misrepresentation would be something that purported to be a misrepresentation but was not.you cited a false misrepresentation of my use of logorrhea Nor did I cite anything but your own words. I not sure what to guess that you are trying to say, but it seems to be that I misrepresented your use of logorrhoea. In fact, your first use in these comments was thus:Logorrhoea refers to a type of mania or obsession with pedantic or overwrought prose - usually pertaining to verbose abstract terms contained within an academic paper. In other words, exactly the use supported by the Wikipedia BBS but not by the OED or Merriam-Webster.Secondly calling me a high school social reject in NO WAY helps your cause. I didn't call you a high school social reject, I said that you sounded like one. A term such as snide vomits has exactly such feel to it. The point not even being that once you were (for how would I know?), but that your behavior has been speaking to your upset and consequent impaired competence.Even the most pedestrian blog debate readers can easily and quickly identify an ad hominem. Generally, yes. And now the questions are of when argumentum ad hominem is fallacious.
Now, when I remarked on your acting like a high-school social failure, it was in the context of your threatI will hound you like a dog. That is a claim by you about yourself. An ad hominem argument that you simply aren't particularly formidable is perfectly valid.
Note also that argumentum ad hominem certainly isn't invalid when the opponent has been making a plausibility claim, based upon an argument from authority, with himself as the authority.
Meanwhile, note when you first directed an argumentum ad hominem against me (HINT: your first comment to the entry), and try to show how it formed any sort of valid argument.
A false misrepresentation would be something that purported to be a misrepresentation but was not.you cited a false misrepresentation of my use of logorrhea
Nor did I cite anything but your own words. I not sure what to guess that you are trying to say, but it seems to be that I misrepresented your use of logorrhoea. In fact, your first use in these comments was thus:Logorrhoea refers to a type of mania or obsession with pedantic or overwrought prose - usually pertaining to verbose abstract terms contained within an academic paper.
In other words, exactly the use supported by the Wikipedia BBS but not by the OED or Merriam-Webster.Secondly calling me a high school social reject in NO WAY helps your cause.
I didn't call you a high school social reject, I said that you sounded like one. A term such as snide vomits has exactly such feel to it. The point not even being that once you were (for how would I know?), but that your behavior has been speaking to your upset and consequent impaired competence.Even the most pedestrian blog debate readers can easily and quickly identify an ad hominem.
Generally, yes. And now the questions are of when argumentum ad hominem is fallacious.
Now, when I remarked on your acting like a high-school social failure, it was in the context of your threatI will hound you like a dog.
That is a claim by you about yourself. An ad hominem argument that you simply aren't particularly formidable is perfectly valid.
Note also that argumentum ad hominem certainly isn't invalid when the opponent has been making a plausibility claim, based upon an argument from authority, with himself as the authority.
Meanwhile, note when you first directed an argumentum ad hominem against me (HINT: your first comment to the entry), and try to show how it formed any sort of valid argument.
Reply
Leave a comment