Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[Omnibus]

Understand, every time anyone attacks your character instead of the argument is ad hominem. It's that simple. The attack at you character may be blatant or very subtle, say, by providing links aimed at denigrating your character, it's ad hominem. Ad hominem is also when the attack is passively aggressive, condescending or seemingly polite.

On the other hand, characterizing someone as incompetent when he is trying to shoot down argument with incompetence is not ad hominem. That's a proper reaction in a discussion. It would be ad hominem if he was called incompetent but he actually isn't. That isn't the case in the discussion at hand.

So, see, things are really simple but some need to complicate and obfuscate them so that they can hide their intellectual weakness behind a barrage of empty words.

[WilbyInebriated]

Understand, every time anyone attacks your character instead of the argument is ad hominem. It's that simple. The attack at you character may be blatant or very subtle, say, by providing links aimed at denigrating your character, it's ad hominem. Ad hominem is also when the attack is passively aggressive, condescending or seemingly polite.

ok that definition i can agree with except for the last sentence (which is completely incorrect)... even though all you did was parrot the definition of ad hominem from the 4 links i posted earlier. the error in your last sentence is due to the fact that i can be "passively aggressive, condescending or seemingly polite" while still providing a cogent rebuttal to your argument... thank you for finally tacitly admitting that you were wrong when you stated:

Ad hominem attack is to start posting irrelevant links in response to criticism for incompetence.

now on to your second error... weren't you previously arguing that ALL ad hominems are fallacious?

On the other hand, characterizing someone as incompetent when he is trying to shoot down argument with incompetence is not ad hominem. That's a proper reaction in a discussion. It would be ad hominem if he was called incompetent but he actually isn't. That isn't the case in the discussion at hand.

this is in direct contradiction to your previous paragraph. furthermore, it is not a 'proper' reaction in a discussion. if you call someone incompetent and repeatedly refuse to address their argument or point, that is a logical fallacy. ANYTIME you refuse to accept to opponents position and refute it with a cogent argument you are engaging in logical fallacy.

So, see, things are really simple but some need to complicate and obfuscate them so that they can hide their intellectual weakness behind a barrage of empty words.

indeed. and this is why you continually refuse to provide cogent responses to peoples objections and instead engage in logical fallacies...

[Omnibus]

All ad hominem attacks are fallacies. The exception I mentioned I explicitly stated isn't ad hominem.

You may see similar ridiculousness regarding, say, petitio principii claiming that the statement itself is true. This is splitting hairs and is just obfuscating the matter. That's why you have to think with your own head and not take it as dogma on what somebody (even authority) has written.

[WilbyInebriated]

All ad hominem attacks are fallacies. The exception I mentioned I explicitly stated isn't ad hominem.

incorrect. i have shown you numerous times why this IS NOT the case. you have provided nothing to support your view... your "exception" was pointed out to be incorrect and a cogent rebuttal was offered.

the rest of your post was irrelevant and does not deserve a response.


@all,
to see how delusional omni is, simply google 'ad hominem' and see how many definitions you find that say ad hominem is not always fallacious (my stance) and how many say ad hominem is ALWAYS fallacious (omni's erroneous stance). look!! here's another one:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
"Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter's claim that he's an expert."

and another!!!!
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
"The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there."

[Omnibus]

Read carefully what you've posted and try to understand it. It is what I claim and not you: The personal attack must be aimed at undermining the claim and someone's expertise is not legitimately questioned. Otherwise it isn't ad hominem. All ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Mere personal attacks that don't aim at undermining the claim or are legitimately questioning the expertise of the oponent are not ad hominem. Is that so difficult to comprehend?