Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
* Real logic does not abide by ad hominem attacks. Your argument isn't aided by making personal attacks against the person you are arguing with, or by repeating those attacks with slight variation, or by the speaker responding in kind when an ad hominem attack is leveled against him.
|
This is actually incorrect. An ad hominem attack is defined as an attack on the person rather than an argument. My insults to this tool aren't ad hominem because I'm providing an argument
AND calling him retarded.
Quote:
|
* Real logic recognizes that ad populum appeals are invalid. If you are delusional, or wrong, it doesn't matter how many people share your delusion, or how many other people are wrong in the same way you are -- you are still wrong and/or delusional.
|
Right, it's called an appeal to the majority.
Quote:
|
* In order for logic to work, and for opposing sides to come to a consensus regarding the proper logical conclusion, there must be some measure of facts stipulated to begin with. When two opposing sides cannot come to an accord on something as simple as the date when a measure was proposed, and/or a date it went into action, it's probably best just to part company right then and there and give up on hashing out the argument. You aren't going to progress towards a conclusion if you can't even agree on the underlying facts that serve as the starting point for the discussion.
|
This is tricky when you're arguing someone who constantly switches positions and uses irrelevant misdirection.