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...

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."

Reading this thread turned out to be a bad idea, especially the last half dozen pages - that's 20 minutes I'll never get back !

That's ridiculous. We're not discussing court proceedings. Court proceedings have different rules than the rules during scientific discourse. In a scientific discourse the goal is the objective truth (as in the continental law which is not the law of the precedent in the states). In the states the objective truth has no meaning in court. All that matters there is the precedent and the opinions of the peers. Thus, all the law in the states is taylored to satisfy those requirements, not to seek the objective truth. You are totally confused. Never mix court proceedings in the states with scientific discourse. Never.

That mixup explains why your thinking is so muddled as far as logic goes.

That's ridiculous. We're not discussing court proceedings. Court proceedings have different rules than the rules during scientific discourse. In a scientific discourse the goal is the objective truth (as in the continental law which is not the law of the precedent in the states). In the states the objective truth has no meaning in court. All that matters there is the precedent and the opinions of the peers. Thus, all the law in the states is taylored to satisfy those requirements, not to seek the objective truth. You are totally confused. Never mix court proceedings in the states with scientific discourse. Never.

That mixup explains why your thinking is so muddled as far as logic goes.

you're ridiculous... there are no "different rules" in logic. you are totally confused, you don't understand what a cogent argument is... a cogent argument is a cogent argument whether it be presented in scientific circles or judicial circles.

again, tu stultus es...  q.e.d

you're ridiculous... there are no "different rules" in logic. you are totally confused, you don't understand what a cogent argument is... a cogent argument is a cogent argument whether it be presented in scientific circles or judicial circles.

again, tu stultus es...  q.e.d

That is completely wrong as it concerns the judicial system in the states. You are the confused one. I repeat, the goal of a court proceeding in the states is not the search for the objective truth and that shapes the way argumentation is presented. It is totally different from scientific argumentation aimed at establishing nothing else but the objective truth.

That is completely wrong as it concerns the judicial system in the states. You are the confused one. I repeat, the goal of a court proceeding in the states is not the search for the objective truth and that shapes the way argumentation is presented. It is totally different from scientific argumentation aimed at establishing nithing else but the objective truth.

you are totally confused and your response is irrelevant. the logic used in debating in either is one and the same... if you can demonstrate that a different system of logic is being used, then have at it, otherwise just shut up. repeating your assertion over an over does not make it true.

again tu stultus es... q.e.d.