• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamacare is Dead

So any post that "diverts attention from the post" is an 'ad hominem'? Well that can't be right.

Straying off topic a bit, perhaps, but still well within the rules as I've experienced them on this forum.

There are plenty of logical fallacies, and you are right that not all could be Ad Hominem.

Any post that diverts attention from the position is not Ad Hominem. Should one divert from position to authority, to the unknown, to bogus samples, then they are appealing to authority, unknown, and "No Scotsman" logical fallacies for instance. But if the nature of diversion shifts from the position to the person themselves then it is Ad Hominem logical fallacy.

What you may have experienced does not changes the nature of logical fallacies.

So back to the point.

You are welcome though?

I wasn't calling Hillary corrupt because she's a woman,
(that's a weak argument / position to make / take, as how can you possibly hope to prove or disprove that?)
I was calling Hillary corrupt for her continued inability to perform her 'public' service (more like self-service if you ask me), without glaring and ever present conflict of interest situations, which she invariably shrugs off as if those laws and rules don't apply to her.

If you look at her history, it's little more than a hit parade of one scandal after another, all punctuated with this consistent and continuous conflict of interest situations.

People are actively trying to demonize her history, while this poor lady is trying to work for the best of the American interest. They tried to do that with Benghazi, she pushed back, now they are trying with every other instance they can think of, just not to let a woman be POTUS.
 
There are plenty of logical fallacies, and you are right that not all could be Ad Hominem.

Any post that diverts attention from the position is not Ad Hominem. Should one divert from position to authority, to the unknown, to bogus samples, then they are appealing to authority, unknown, and "No Scotsman" logical fallacies for instance. But if the nature of diversion shifts from the position to the person themselves then it is Ad Hominem logical fallacy.

What you may have experienced does not changes the nature of logical fallacies.



You are welcome though?



People are actively trying to demonize her history, while this poor lady is trying to work for the best of the American interest. They tried to do that with Benghazi, she pushed back, now they are trying with every other instance they can think of, just not to let a woman be POTUS.

I think that you would classify any post that challenged the validity of any of your posts as Ad Hom.
 
I think that you would classify any post that challenged the validity of any of your posts as Ad Hom.

Try me,

Just tackle the position and do not address me at all and it will be seen.
 
Try me,

Just tackle the position and do not address me at all and it will be seen.

I have, done deal. You aren't a challenge.
 
There are plenty of logical fallacies, and you are right that not all could be Ad Hominem.

Any post that diverts attention from the position is not Ad Hominem. Should one divert from position to authority, to the unknown, to bogus samples, then they are appealing to authority, unknown, and "No Scotsman" logical fallacies for instance. But if the nature of diversion shifts from the position to the person themselves then it is Ad Hominem logical fallacy.

What you may have experienced does not changes the nature of logical fallacies.



You are welcome though?



People are actively trying to demonize her history, while this poor lady is trying to work for the best of the American interest. They tried to do that with Benghazi, she pushed back, now they are trying with every other instance they can think of, just not to let a woman be POTUS.

I don't believe that posting or discussing Hillary's scandalous history is in any way demonizing her history. I stand by the observations I made about her scandalous history, and think that her ongoing history of disregard for conflict of interest pretty much disqualifies her for POTUS, as it questions her judgement, as well as those parties and nations that would have an undue influence over her while in office.
 
I don't believe that posting or discussing Hillary's scandalous history is in any way demonizing her history. I stand by the observations I made about her scandalous history, and think that her ongoing history of disregard for conflict of interest pretty much disqualifies her for POTUS, as it questions her judgement, as well as those parties and nations that would have an undue influence over her while in office.

Like Benghazi?
 
Like Benghazi?

Yes, like Benghazi, where Hillary met with the families of those who were lost, and told them it was an Internet video, and she already knew that wasn't true. Same for Obama and his administration. What appears to be a coordinated and directed lying to the electorate and the world.

Wouldn't you rather support a presidential candidate that's more truthful than that?
 
You know how you were told there are sick people dying in the street daily due to being tossed out of hospitals? Yeah, didn't happen. Just FYI.

Oh but it DID HAPPEN.

26,000 deaths a years.

and no healthcare for myself for over 30 years....................................

Funny how as a foreigner, in every other western nation I visited, I got affordable HC.
 
Oh but it DID HAPPEN.

26,000 deaths a years.

and no healthcare for myself for over 30 years....................................

Funny how as a foreigner, in every other western nation I visited, I got affordable HC.

Do they pay out the same in lawsuits?

Out litigation system is screwed up.
 
Rather than show how she is corrupt I am made the issue and it is asserted that I am being shallow in my assertions/Ad hominem.

Well, you've demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding what an ad hominem attack or argument is.

You've been given the official WikiPedia definition of what an ad hominem, how it applies and doesn't apply in the given discussion, and yet it appears that you still maintain those who disagree with you and raise reasonable perspectives for further discussion are still are conducting ad hominem attacks on you (not really the case).

What more do you want from me? Seems that you've pretty much made up your mind already. What's to discuss?

Frankly, calling you out on a shallow / lazy attack of 'because she's a woman' BS is exactly that. It's an unintelligent, intellectually lazy attack / opinion / position that has no basis in reality or fact, as I've posted in detail.

What more do you want?
 
Well, you've demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding what an ad hominem attack or argument is.

Yet this is an ad hominem approach.

You've been given the official WikiPedia definition of what an ad hominem, how it applies and doesn't apply in the given discussion, and yet it appears that you still maintain those who disagree with you and raise reasonable perspectives for further discussion are still are conducting ad hominem attacks on you (not really the case).

Weak-O-Pedia, strikes again.

What more do you want from me? Seems that you've pretty much made up your mind already. What's to discuss?

Frankly, calling you out on a shallow / lazy attack of 'because she's a woman' BS is exactly that. It's an unintelligent, intellectually lazy attack / opinion / position that has no basis in reality or fact, as I've posted in detail.

What more do you want?

Yes, like Benghazi, where Hillary met with the families of those who were lost, and told them it was an Internet video, and she already knew that wasn't true. Same for Obama and his administration. What appears to be a coordinated and directed lying to the electorate and the world.

Wouldn't you rather support a presidential candidate that's more truthful than that?

She nicely put everyone of her opponents to their rightful place with the Benghazi issue when she made her hearing.
 
Yet this is an ad hominem approach.

It's not. Pointing out that you don't recognize what an ad hominem is, is not ad hominem in and of itself.

Weak-O-Pedia, strikes again.





She nicely put everyone of her opponents to their rightful place with the Benghazi issue when she made her hearing.

And this mitigates her actions, some of which are legally questionable, how, exactly? From my view, it doesn't mitigate any of her actions or decisions for which she need to be held accountable for.
 
It's not. Pointing out that you don't recognize what an ad hominem is, is not ad hominem in and of itself.

And this mitigates her actions, some of which are legally questionable, how, exactly? From my view, it doesn't mitigate any of her actions or decisions for which she need to be held accountable for.

Nonsense on both accounts.
 
Back
Top Bottom