Latin & Logic: Derek the Fat Clown knows neither
Jonathan Ball
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Argumentum ad numerum
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad
populum. It consists of asserting that the more
people who support or believe a proposition, the more
likely it is that that proposition is correct. For
example:
"The vast majority of people in this country believe
that capital punishment has a noticeable deterrent
effect. To suggest that it doesn't in the face of so
much evidence is ridiculous."
"All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe
in pyramid power, so there must be something to it."
Ward Clark has not appealed to *numbers* of people,
such that the larger the number, the more likely he is
to be right. Instead, he has appealed to a body of
scientific knowledge, as developed by scientists.
There may be 100 such scientists, or there may be
10,000. It is irrelevant to Ward's point. There is
some number of scientists who have developed a body of
scientific knowledge in a field, and there is an
overwhelming consensus among them, which goes against
the nonsense that Derek and ~~Illweed~~ want to believe.
Argumentum ad verecundiam
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous
person to try and win support for an assertion. For
example:
"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."
This line of argument isn't always completely bogus;
for example, it may be relevant to refer to a
widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if
you're discussing that subject. For example, we can
distinguish quite clearly between:
"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off
radiation"
and
"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to
build an intelligent computer"
Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably
expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be
informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is
questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on
the subject of machine intelligence. [Actually,
rather a poor example, as mathematicians do a lot of
work in the development of artificial intelligence.
A better one would have been, "Derek Nash has
concluded that it is impossible to build an
intelligent computer". Derek Nash is not an expert
in anything.]
Ward has not committed an argumentum ad verecundiam.
The consensus he discusses is the consensus of experts
in the field. It has relevance.
Argumentum ad hominem
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument
directed at the man"; there are two varieties.
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to
accept a statement, and justify your refusal by
criticizing the person who made the statement, then
you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For
example:
"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I
happen to know that you abandoned your wife and
children."
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion
doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting
it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject
a proposition based on the fact that it was also
asserted by some other easily criticized person. For
example:
"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler
and Stalin would have agreed with you."
A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and
persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by
referring to that person's particular circumstances.
For example:
"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill
animals for food. I hope you won't argue
otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear
leather shoes."
This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad
hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to
reject a particular conclusion. For example:
"Of course you'd argue that positive
discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when
you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion
for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the
well".
It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances
of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is
a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their
credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove
that their testimony is false in this case. It also
won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments
they may make.
The Fat Clown Derek keeps saying that I am making an
argumentum ad hominem against him (so has the fat
bigotted bitch Sue Bishop). But the charge is false:
I am not attacking their *arguments* using an ad
hominem. I attack their arguments using sound logic
and verifiable facts. After having done so, I then
proceed, non argumentatively, to call them unflattering
names. That is not an argumentum ad hominem. Further,
I don't attack subsequent arguments of theirs by
referring to my earlier labeling of them.
You are simply out of your depth, Derek, you fat clown.
It is doubtful you'll ever correctly identify a
logical fallacy.
firstoftwins
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
news:3C41D6CA...@earthlink.NS.net...
> Definitions from
> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>
> Argumentum ad numerum
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad
> populum. It consists of asserting that the more
> people who support or believe a proposition, the more
> likely it is that that proposition is correct.
[snipped example of this fallcy, when Wards was sufficient anyway]
>
> Ward Clark has not appealed to *numbers* of people,
Yes he has:
example 1)
[It's been supported about ten thousand times, by almost
*everyone* here except you and the laughably delusional
~~Illweed~~.] my emphasis added
example 2)
[*nobody* in mainstream science considers humans frugivores.]
my emphasis added
These are numbers of people.
He arguments consists of asserting that the more
people who support or believe his proposition, the more
likely it is that his proposition is correct
[..]
You blithering idiot! I've not charged him with this fallacy you
old old fool. Sue! Suoooooooooooo!
I just can't believe you're refuting a charge of ad hominem.
Incredible.
> I am not attacking their *arguments* using an ad
> hominem. I attack their arguments using sound logic
> and verifiable facts. After having done so, I then
> proceed, non argumentatively, to call them unflattering
> names.
Incredible! I am completely lost for words Jon.
I can't think of anything to say. You've done it; I'm
dumbfounded.
Zakhar
>Further,
> I don't attack subsequent arguments of theirs by
> referring to my earlier labeling of them.
>
You lying bastard. It's one of your trademarks to attack in this way. I know
you're an arrogant nasty shit head, but now you're a lying arrogant nasty
shit head.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C41D6CA...@earthlink.NS.net...
>
>>Definitions from
>>http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>>
>> Argumentum ad numerum
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>> This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad
>> populum. It consists of asserting that the more
>> people who support or believe a proposition, the more
>> likely it is that that proposition is correct.
>>
>
> [snipped example of this fallcy, when Wards was sufficient anyway]
>
>>Ward Clark has not appealed to *numbers* of people,
>>
>
> Yes he has:
> example 1)
> [It's been supported about ten thousand times, by almost
> *everyone* here except you and the laughably delusional
> ~~Illweed~~.] my emphasis added
Not arumentum ad numerum. Ward was saying that a
particular scientific position had been supported, many
times, when you implied that it had none. He wasn't
suggesting that the number, per se, is what refutes
you. Hence, no argumentum ad numerum. You are wrong.
> example 2)
> [*nobody* in mainstream science considers humans frugivores.]
> my emphasis added
Not argumentum ad numerum. You have fundamentally
misunderstood what it is. He is giving a consenus of
scientific - expert - opinion, which is that it does
not consider humans to be "frugivores".
>
> These are numbers of people.
No, it's a statement of a consensus. The consensus of
*real* experts, not lying assholes like ~~Slutweed~~,
is against you: no one in the community of experts
agrees with her.
> He arguments consists of asserting that the more
> people who support or believe his proposition, the more
> likely it is that his proposition is correct
No, they absolutely do not say that. You are either
lying, or can't read.
But he was correctly backing up his opinion by
appealing to *relevant* authority, and I was closing
off a fallacious attack that I expected you to make,
and that I suspect you would have made had I not closed
it off to you.
Not incredible. I have not attacked your *arguments*
by attacking you. I have attacked your arguments, AND
I have attacked you. The two are logically unrelated.
>
>
>>I am not attacking their *arguments* using an ad
>>hominem. I attack their arguments using sound logic
>>and verifiable facts. After having done so, I then
>>proceed, non argumentatively, to call them unflattering
>>names.
>>
>
> Incredible!
No, it isn't "incredible" at all that you are unable to
see the distinction. You are just astonishingly
stupid, but now that we know that about you, it isn't
incredible.
> I am completely lost for words Jon.
We can only wish you were, you fat ignorant unfunny clown.
> I can't think of anything to say. You've done it; I'm
> dumbfounded.
Why don't you shut the fuck up, then, and remain shut up?
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C41D6CA...@earthlink.NS.net...
> snip
>
>>Further,
>>I don't attack subsequent arguments of theirs by
>>referring to my earlier labeling of them.
>>
>>
>
> You lying bastard. It's one of your trademarks to attack in this way.
Show even a single example, you lying impotent
psychotic little pussy.
I think you need more electroshock therapy. It should
be delivered through your genitals, but no one makes
alligator clips that small.
> I know
> you're an arrogant nasty shit head, but now you're a lying arrogant nasty
> shit head.
You're an impotent, crybaby punk, GregGeorge.
Zakhar
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C41D6CA...@earthlink.NS.net...
> > snip
> >
> >>Further,
> >>I don't attack subsequent arguments of theirs by
> >>referring to my earlier labeling of them.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You lying bastard. It's one of your trademarks to attack in this way.
>
> Show even a single example, you lying impotent
> psychotic little pussy.
Your first entry to the "Abuser of the week" thread started:
Derek the fat clown wrote:
Note the use of the label "fat clown"
>
> I think you need more electroshock therapy. It should
> be delivered through your genitals, but no one makes
> alligator clips that small.
With jokes like that you should be on the stage....sweeping it.
>
> > I know
> > you're an arrogant nasty shit head, but now you're a lying arrogant
nasty
> > shit head.
>
> You're an impotent, crybaby punk, GregGeorge.
I love you just as much, shit head.
>
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C41F5E3...@earthlink.NS.net...
>
>>Zakhar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3C41D6CA...@earthlink.NS.net...
>>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>Further,
>>>>I don't attack subsequent arguments of theirs by
>>>>referring to my earlier labeling of them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You lying bastard. It's one of your trademarks to attack in this way.
>>>
>>Show even a single example, you lying impotent
>>psychotic little pussy.
>>
>
> Your first entry to the "Abuser of the week" thread started:
>
> Derek the fat clown wrote:
>
> Note the use of the label "fat clown"
That isn't an attack on his argument, you ignorant
psychotic pussy. I'm not saying that his argument is
false *because* he is a fat clown.
You're just a bit more verbally adroit than Derek the
Fat Clown, GregGeorge, but I suspect that only comes
because you can leaf through the thesaurus faster than
he can.
Zakhar
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C41F5E3...@earthlink.NS.net...
> >
> > Your first entry to the "Abuser of the week" thread started:
> >
> > Derek the fat clown wrote:
> >
> > Note the use of the label "fat clown"
>
> That isn't an attack on his argument, you ignorant
> psychotic pussy. I'm not saying that his argument is
> false *because* he is a fat clown.
You do use it to attack the argument, as much as a warship uses chaff to act
as a decoy when going in to battle. A regularly used tool in your Pandora's
box.
In what sense are you using the word pussy? I bet it's not in the feline
sense.
>
snip
firstoftwins
> firstoftwins wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C41D6CA...@earthlink.NS.net...
> >
> >>Definitions from
> >>http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
> >>
> >> Argumentum ad numerum
> >>
> >> This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad
> >> populum. It consists of asserting that the more
> >> people who support or believe a proposition, the more
> >> likely it is that that proposition is correct.
> >>
> >
> > [snipped example of this fallcy, when Wards was sufficient anyway]
> >
> >>Ward Clark has not appealed to *numbers* of people,
> >>
> >
> > Yes he has:
> > example 1)
> > [It's been supported about ten thousand times, by almost
> > *everyone* here except you and the laughably delusional
> > ~~Illweed~~.] my emphasis added
>
> Not arumentum ad numerum. Ward was saying that a
> particular scientific position had been supported, many
> times, when you implied that it had none. He wasn't
> suggesting that the number, per se, is what refutes
> you. Hence, no argumentum ad numerum. You are wrong.
>
[It's been supported about ten thousand times, by almost
*everyone* here except you and the laughably delusional
~~Illweed~~.] my emphasis added
[eve·ry·one (vr-wn)
pron.
Every person; everybody. ]
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=everyone
Ward has implied I should accept his position because everybody
alse accepts it. That's a fallacious argument. It's an argumentum ad
numerum. He's dead in the water, and so are you.
>
> Not argumentum ad numerum. You have fundamentally
> misunderstood what it is. He is giving a consenus of
> scientific - expert - opinion, which is that it does
> not consider humans to be "frugivores".
>
No he's not. He's insisting I accept his argument because
[It's been supported about ten thousand times, by almost
*everyone* here except you and the laughably delusional
~~Illweed~~.] my emphasis added
There's nothing in his statement about a consensus of scientific
expert opinion. You made it up like you do everything else.
> >
> > These are numbers of people.
>
> No, it's a statement of a consensus.
No, it's a number of people; "everyone"
>
> > He arguments consists of asserting that the more
> > people who support or believe his proposition, the more
> > likely it is that his proposition is correct
>
> No, they absolutely do not say that. You are either
> lying, or can't read.
>
He's insisting I accept his argument because
[It's been supported about ten thousand times, by almost
*everyone* here except you and the laughably delusional
~~Illweed~~.] my emphasis added
That's an argumentum ad numerum.
> >
> >> Argumentum ad verecundiam
> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
[..]
> >>Ward has not committed an argumentum ad verecundiam.
> >>The consensus he discusses is the consensus of experts
> >>in the field. It has relevance.
> >>
> >>
> > You blithering idiot! I've not charged him with this fallacy you
> > old old fool. Sue! Suoooooooooooo!
>
> But he was correctly backing up his opinion by
> appealing to *relevant* authority, and I was closing
> off a fallacious attack that I expected you to make,
> and that I suspect you would have made had I not closed
> it off to you.
>
What an excellent time I'm having witnessing your squirming.
Just concentrate on the charges I'm bringing forward in the
present without confusing yourself by heading off imaginary
future charges. I didn't charge him with argumentum ad
verecundiam because he's not guilty of such a charge. Or
maybe you think he is? What was this university course in
logic like, Jonathan? Did you ever go?
> >
> >> Argumentum ad hominem
> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
[..]
> > I just can't believe you're refuting a charge of ad hominem.
> > Incredible.
>
> Not incredible. I have not attacked your *arguments*
> by attacking you. I have attacked your arguments, AND
> I have attacked you. The two are logically unrelated.
>
You repeatedly use abusive ad hominem arguments and that's
that. Whether you actually believe it or not is irrelevent. Any
and every discussion oozes with them. You're thick.
> >
> >>I am not attacking their *arguments* using an ad
> >>hominem. I attack their arguments using sound logic
> >>and verifiable facts. After having done so, I then
> >>proceed, non argumentatively, to call them unflattering
> >>names.
> >>
> >
> > Incredible!
>
> No, it isn't "incredible" at all that you are unable to
> see the distinction. You are just astonishingly
> stupid, but now that we know that about you, it isn't
> incredible.
>
> > I am completely lost for words Jon.
>
> We can only wish you were, you fat ignorant unfunny clown.
>
>
> > I can't think of anything to say. You've done it; I'm
> > dumbfounded.
>
> Why don't you shut the fuck up, then, and remain shut up?
>
Make me.
firstoftwins
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C41D6CA...@earthlink.NS.net...
> > snip
> >
> >>Further,
> >>I don't attack subsequent arguments of theirs by
> >>referring to my earlier labeling of them.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You lying bastard. It's one of your trademarks to attack in this way.
>
> Show even a single example, you lying impotent
> psychotic little pussy.
>
corpulent) clown/sophist can't resist the urge to mislead.]
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement,
and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the
statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem.
There's just one small example. There's literally hundreds.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C41FB15...@earthlink.NS.net...
>
>>Zakhar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3C41F5E3...@earthlink.NS.net...
>>>
> snip
>
>>>Your first entry to the "Abuser of the week" thread started:
>>>
>>>Derek the fat clown wrote:
>>>
>>>Note the use of the label "fat clown"
>>>
>>That isn't an attack on his argument, you ignorant
>>psychotic pussy. I'm not saying that his argument is
>>false *because* he is a fat clown.
>>
>
> You do use it to attack the argument,
You are wrong. I don't use it to attack the argument.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C41F1C7...@earthlink.NS.net...
>
>>firstoftwins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3C41D6CA...@earthlink.NS.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Definitions from
>>>>http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
>>>>
>>>> Argumentum ad numerum
>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>
>>>> This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad
>>>> populum. It consists of asserting that the more
>>>> people who support or believe a proposition, the more
>>>> likely it is that that proposition is correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[snipped example of this fallcy, when Wards was sufficient anyway]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ward Clark has not appealed to *numbers* of people,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yes he has:
>>>example 1)
>>>[It's been supported about ten thousand times, by almost
>>>*everyone* here except you and the laughably delusional
>>>~~Illweed~~.] my emphasis added
>>>
>>Not arumentum ad numerum. Ward was saying that a
>>particular scientific position had been supported, many
>>times, when you implied that it had none. He wasn't
>>suggesting that the number, per se, is what refutes
>>you. Hence, no argumentum ad numerum. You are wrong.
>>
>>
> Ward explicitly said "almost *everyone*" in his statement:
> [It's been supported about ten thousand times, by almost
> *everyone* here except you and the laughably delusional
> ~~Illweed~~.] my emphasis added
> which implies everybody.
Irrelevant. He's talking about almost everyone
offering the same refutation of ~~Slutweed's~~ bullshit
position, by offering the scientific consensus.
Drop it, Derek. You're wrong. Ward was not trying to
use the weight of numbers to support his argument.
> Ward has implied I should accept his position because everybody
> alse accepts it.
No. That's absolutely false. He's said you should
accept it because everyone with an acquaintance of the
scientific literature has refuted the slut ~~Illweed~~
- and, apparently, you.
> That's a fallacious argument.
It would be...if it were his. It isn't. You're wrong.
> It's an argumentum ad
> numerum. He's dead in the water, and so are you.
You're wrong. You have not correctly read what he wrote.
>
>>Not argumentum ad numerum. You have fundamentally
>>misunderstood what it is. He is giving a consenus of
>>scientific - expert - opinion, which is that it does
>>not consider humans to be "frugivores".
>>
>>
> No he's not.
Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. You're too stupid
to see it.
[...]
>
>>>> Argumentum ad verecundiam
>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>
> [..]
>
>>>>Ward has not committed an argumentum ad verecundiam.
>>>>The consensus he discusses is the consensus of experts
>>>>in the field. It has relevance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You blithering idiot! I've not charged him with this fallacy you
>>>old old fool. Sue! Suoooooooooooo!
>>>
>>But he was correctly backing up his opinion by
>>appealing to *relevant* authority, and I was closing
>>off a fallacious attack that I expected you to make,
>>and that I suspect you would have made had I not closed
>>it off to you.
>>
>>
> What an excellent time I'm having witnessing your squirming.
You're having an excellent time with your hand down
your trousers.
>
>>>> Argumentum ad hominem
>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>
> [..]
>
>>>I just can't believe you're refuting a charge of ad hominem.
>>>Incredible.
>>>
>>Not incredible. I have not attacked your *arguments*
>>by attacking you. I have attacked your arguments, AND
>>I have attacked you. The two are logically unrelated.
>>
>>
> You repeatedly use abusive ad hominem arguments
False. I do not. My *arguments* do not contain ad
hominem.
My throwaway comments contain attacks on your
character. They are a sidelight. They are also accurate.
> and that's
> that. Whether you actually believe it or not is irrelevent. Any
> and every discussion oozes with them. You're thick.
I have not argued with ad hominem. It isn't in any of
my arguments, whether you realize it or not.
>
>>>>I am not attacking their *arguments* using an ad
>>>>hominem. I attack their arguments using sound logic
>>>>and verifiable facts. After having done so, I then
>>>>proceed, non argumentatively, to call them unflattering
>>>>names.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Incredible!
>>>
>>No, it isn't "incredible" at all that you are unable to
>>see the distinction. You are just astonishingly
>>stupid, but now that we know that about you, it isn't
>>incredible.
>>
>>
>>>I am completely lost for words Jon.
>>>
>>We can only wish you were, you fat ignorant unfunny clown.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I can't think of anything to say. You've done it; I'm
>>>dumbfounded.
>>>
>>Why don't you shut the fuck up, then, and remain shut up?
>>
>>
> Make me.
You already said you were struck dumb. It doesn't seem
too much to ask that you might remain so.
firstoftwins
except...."
> Drop it, Derek. You're wrong. Ward was not trying to
> use the weight of numbers to support his argument.
>
No way, Jonathan. I'm right. Ward was trying to use the weight of
numbers from *everyone here* to support his argument. That's an
argumentum ad numerum. For a published writer on these issues,
I doubt his little book is up to much if his fallacious arguments here
are anything to go by. And for a uni grad in logical thinking and
debate, as you comically claim, you're not that accomplished if
a relative newbie like myself can trip you up like this.
>
> > Ward has implied I should accept his position because everybody
> > alse accepts it.
>
> No. That's absolutely false. He's said you should
> accept it because everyone with an acquaintance of the
> scientific literature has refuted the slut ~~Illweed~~
> - and, apparently, you.
>
That's a lie. To prove it, and I quote:
[It's been supported about ten thousand times, by almost
*everyone* here except you and the laughably delusional
~~Illweed~~.] my emphasis added
You're lying, and very clearly too.
> >>>> Argumentum ad verecundiam
> >>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[..]
> >
> >>>>Ward has not committed an argumentum ad verecundiam.
> >>>>The consensus he discusses is the consensus of experts
> >>>>in the field. It has relevance.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>You blithering idiot! I've not charged him with this fallacy you
> >>>old old fool. Sue! Suoooooooooooo!
> >>>
> >>But he was correctly backing up his opinion by
> >>appealing to *relevant* authority, and I was closing
> >>off a fallacious attack that I expected you to make,
> >>and that I suspect you would have made had I not closed
> >>it off to you.
> >>
> >>
> > What an excellent time I'm having witnessing your squirming.
>
> You're having an excellent time with your hand down
> your trousers.
>
You boobed, half pint. You either got confused with which latin I was
poking up Wards arse, or you tried to switcheroo the ad numerum to
ad verecundiam in an attempted strawman.
> >
> >>>> Argumentum ad hominem
> >>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[..]
> > You repeatedly use abusive ad hominem arguments
>
> False. I do not. My *arguments* do not contain ad
> hominem.
>
From: Jonathan Ball (jon...@earthlink.NS.net)
Subject: Re: Are these people loonies ?
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, free.uk.politics.animal-rights,
talk.politics.animals, uk.politics.animals
Date: 2001-05-11 13:34:46 PST
[You're wrong, ~~Illweed~~, because you are fundamentally
a hate-filled, dishonest, superstition-believing asshole.]
You say Illweed is wrong, and the reason you give is because
she is a hate-filled, dishonest, superstition-believing asshole.
You didn't say she was wrong because her evidence or claim
was incorrect, instead you refused to accept her statement, and
justified your refusal by criticizing her, so you are guilty of
abusive argumentum ad hominem.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C4247A4...@earthlink.NS.net...
[...]
>>Drop it, Derek. You're wrong. Ward was not trying to
>>use the weight of numbers to support his argument.
>>
>>
> No way, Jonathan. I'm right.
You're wrong. He was talking about the number of times
*you* have seen the correct scientific consensus,
presented to you by many people here. It was always
the same consensus being presented to you. He
exaggerated, but only out of frustration with your
sheer voluntary bloodymindedness.
Drop it, Derek. You are wrong. You are going to
injure your back even worse than it is with these
strenuous and pointless calisthentics.
>>>Ward has implied I should accept his position because everybody
>>>alse accepts it.
>>>
>>No. That's absolutely false. He's said you should
>>accept it because everyone with an acquaintance of the
>>scientific literature has refuted the slut ~~Illweed~~
>>- and, apparently, you.
>>
>>
> That's a lie. To prove it, and I quote:
> [It's been supported about ten thousand times, by almost
> *everyone* here except you and the laughably delusional
> ~~Illweed~~.] my emphasis added
> You're lying, and very clearly too.
I'm not lying. You are just too stupid to understand.
This will eventually close the way these things
always do with you when you're just taking a piss: you
will finally concede that you misread. It's happened a
good half dozen times already.
You are wrong. Drop it.
>
>
>>>>>> Argumentum ad verecundiam
>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>>
> [..]
>
>>>>>>Ward has not committed an argumentum ad verecundiam.
>>>>>>The consensus he discusses is the consensus of experts
>>>>>>in the field. It has relevance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>You blithering idiot! I've not charged him with this fallacy you
>>>>>old old fool. Sue! Suoooooooooooo!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>But he was correctly backing up his opinion by
>>>>appealing to *relevant* authority, and I was closing
>>>>off a fallacious attack that I expected you to make,
>>>>and that I suspect you would have made had I not closed
>>>>it off to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What an excellent time I'm having witnessing your squirming.
>>>
>>You're having an excellent time with your hand down
>>your trousers.
>>
>>
> You boobed, half pint. You either got confused with which latin I was
> poking up Wards arse, or you tried to switcheroo the ad numerum to
> ad verecundiam in an attempted strawman.
I took the wind out of your sails, you fat punk. I
intended to emphasize, and now have emphasized, that
Ward was *correctly* appealing to the relevant
authority on the issue. But had I pointed that out
without first having pre-empted you, you would have
attempted to come back and call that a fallacy, too:
ad verecundiam. This is how it always is with you, you
fat stubborn pillock. It goes round and round a dozen
or 18 times, and you know you're wrong, and you're
simply trying to outlast your betters.
We're on to you. And you're wrong.
>
>>>>>> Argumentum ad hominem
>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>>
> [..]
>
>>>You repeatedly use abusive ad hominem arguments
>>>
>>False. I do not. My *arguments* do not contain ad
>>hominem.
>>
>>
> From: Jonathan Ball (jon...@earthlink.NS.net)
> Subject: Re: Are these people loonies ?
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, free.uk.politics.animal-rights,
> talk.politics.animals, uk.politics.animals
> Date: 2001-05-11 13:34:46 PST
>
> [You're wrong, ~~Illweed~~, because you are fundamentally
> a hate-filled, dishonest, superstition-believing asshole.]
>
> You say Illweed is wrong, and the reason you give is because
> she is a hate-filled, dishonest, superstition-believing asshole.
> You didn't say she was wrong because her evidence or claim
> was incorrect,
I had already demonstrated that. Next, I was
explaining *why* she adheres to wrong thinking. My
analysis is correct.
firstoftwins
> firstoftwins wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C4247A4...@earthlink.NS.net...
> [...]
>
>
> >>Drop it, Derek. You're wrong. Ward was not trying to
> >>use the weight of numbers to support his argument.
> >>
> >>
> > No way, Jonathan. I'm right.
>
> You're wrong. He was talking about the number of times
> *you* have seen the correct scientific consensus,
> presented to you by many people here. It was always
> the same consensus being presented to you. He
> exaggerated, but only out of frustration with your
> sheer voluntary bloodymindedness.
>
> Drop it, Derek. You are wrong. You are going to
> injure your back even worse than it is with these
> strenuous and pointless calisthentics.
>
Zakhar
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C41FB15...@earthlink.NS.net...
> >
> >>Zakhar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:3C41F5E3...@earthlink.NS.net...
> >>>
> > snip
> >
> >>>Your first entry to the "Abuser of the week" thread started:
> >>>
> >>>Derek the fat clown wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Note the use of the label "fat clown"
> >>>
> >>That isn't an attack on his argument, you ignorant
> >>psychotic pussy. I'm not saying that his argument is
> >>false *because* he is a fat clown.
> >>
> >
> > You do use it to attack the argument,
>
> You are wrong. I don't use it to attack the argument.
What a weak reply, no resoning, nothing. Just You're wrong, I'm right. What
a dick.
>
> > as much as a warship uses chaff to act
> > as a decoy when going in to battle. A regularly used tool in your
Pandora's
> > box.
You use it, at least a decoy, sometimes as your only weapon, you know it,
and you're running.
> >
> > In what sense are you using the word pussy? I bet it's not in the feline
> > sense.
> >
Answer please.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C424533...@earthlink.NS.net...
[...]
>>>>>Note the use of the label "fat clown"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>That isn't an attack on his argument, you ignorant
>>>>psychotic pussy. I'm not saying that his argument is
>>>>false *because* he is a fat clown.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You do use it to attack the argument,
>>>
>>You are wrong. I don't use it to attack the argument.
>>
>
> What a weak reply, no resoning, nothing. Just You're wrong, I'm right. What
> a dick.
Run along now, GregGeorge. I think you've finished here.
>
>
>>>as much as a warship uses chaff to act
>>>as a decoy when going in to battle. A regularly used tool in your
>>>
> Pandora's
>
>>>box.
>>>
>
> You use it, at least a decoy, sometimes as your only weapon, you know it,
> and you're running.
I don't use it, GregGeorge. I attack the fatuous
arguments of "AR" loons with logic, facts and relish.
Then, I call you names. It's killing you, GregGeorge.
You really do seem to be cracking.
>
>
>>>In what sense are you using the word pussy? I bet it's not in the feline
>>>sense.
>>>
>>>
>
> Answer please.
Go pound sand up your ass, GregGeorge. I don't take
direction from you.
Zakhar
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C424533...@earthlink.NS.net...
> [...]
> >>>>>Note the use of the label "fat clown"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>That isn't an attack on his argument, you ignorant
> >>>>psychotic pussy. I'm not saying that his argument is
> >>>>false *because* he is a fat clown.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>You do use it to attack the argument,
> >>>
> >>You are wrong. I don't use it to attack the argument.
> >>
> >
> > What a weak reply, no resoning, nothing. Just You're wrong, I'm right.
What
> > a dick.
>
> Run along now, GregGeorge. I think you've finished here.
You really are slack. I've not finished here by a long way, I'm having too
much fun.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>>as much as a warship uses chaff to act
> >>>as a decoy when going in to battle. A regularly used tool in your
> >>>
> > Pandora's
> >
> >>>box.
> >>>
> >
> > You use it, at least a decoy, sometimes as your only weapon, you know
it,
> > and you're running.
>
> I don't use it, GregGeorge. I attack the fatuous
> arguments of "AR" loons with logic, facts and relish.
> Then, I call you names. It's killing you, GregGeorge.
What sort of relish do you use in your attacks?
> You really do seem to be cracking.
Not me pal.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>>In what sense are you using the word pussy? I bet it's not in the
feline
> >>>sense.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > Answer please.
>
> Go pound sand up your ass, GregGeorge. I don't take
> direction from you.
I thought so. You're a small time looser.
>
>
>