Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:14:31 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:52:11 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:38:28 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

< snip >

It is not a logical fallicy to "attack" someone for plagerizing a comic strip if the argument is they plagerized a comic strip.

Yes, it is still an ad homenim.  Your attack has nothing to do with the
thread, it's an attack on the author.  That's an ad homenim.

Clearly, you flunked logic. But then, you wouldn't be a liberal if you had passed it.

Add yet another ad homenim.

I think my error was assuming you flunked logic. To flunk logic, you'd have to have taken logic. Even someone who failed it would have learned SOME of the concepts.

You clearly have never TAKEN logic, and are quite alien to the concept.

Again, "argumentum ad hominem" is a term used in logic to describe the logical falicy of an irrelevant attack against the man. I explained this up above, when I said that IF the argument is that the man has plagerized a comic strip,

Now you're rewriting history:

--------quote----------
So, you steal your material from the funny pages?

Typical liberal. If there's no cartoon, they don't get the message.
-------unquote---------

This is the great thing about the computer age, your words are eternal. There was no conditional as you are now trying to fabricate, it's a
clearly ad homenim by implication.

Do you have a point?

In the first sentance, I noted that you plagerized a Wiley cartoon.

In the second sentance, I noted that liberals like cartoons. They generally use ridicule and cartoons to get their messages across.
Anyone who's seen the political cartoons in the left wing rags knows that. This is an observation, not an irrelevant personal attack.

it is not irrelevant and is essential to the argument, thus is not an argumentum ad hominem even if the Latin phrase doesn't mention the need for irrelevancy.

Oh, silly me.  Your distractions and ad homenims are somehow on-topic.

No, stupid you, (stupid because I keep explaining to you that "ad hominem" is a type of logical fallicy and not a personal insult) because you are too dense to know what an ad homenim is, even after I've explained it to you.

Please tell us how your posting above relates to "INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs.
EVOLUTION."

It doesn't. We left that subject long ago.

"Ad homenim" is just a couple of words that you thought sounded "neat" and you latched on to them and like to repeat them. Sort of like a parrot, I suppose.

There you go again...

No. You're stupid. I've made the case that you're stupid by pointing out that you cannot learn what an argumentum ad hominem means. The subject of that argument is your intelligence so it is not an irrelevant attack against you. It is not the logical fallicy "argumentum ad hominem". You STILL won't understand it, because you're stupid.

Q.E.D.