From: john on

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>
> Scopie's Law is not a logical fallacy, and nowhere did I use ad
> hominem.


care to explain that one


This is ad hominem:

"I mentioned to Marcia that these people are mad. I saw Dr Kalokerinos on
stage once and he is the most insane person I have ever seen outside a
mental hospital."

"Ah, yes, the lying sleazebag McCandless."


The ad hominem argument is a fallacy, though often an ad hominem attack is
not even an argument but merely an insult.

whether he is insane or not bears no relevance to his argument, obviously.



From: Peter Bowditch on
"john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Scopie's Law is not a logical fallacy, and nowhere did I use ad
>> hominem.
>
>
>care to explain that one
>
>
>This is ad hominem:
>
>"I mentioned to Marcia that these people are mad. I saw Dr Kalokerinos on
>stage once and he is the most insane person I have ever seen outside a
>mental hospital."

A comment on the evidence before me. Kalokerinos was behaving as an
insane person would behave, and mentioning this is not ad hominem.

>
>"Ah, yes, the lying sleazebag McCandless."

Again a comment on the evidence before me. McCandless says that she
can actually see metallic mercury in the urine of children. Thus she
is a liar. She charges money to provide a useless medical treatment.
Thus she is a sleazebag.

QED. No ad hominem present.

>
>
>The ad hominem argument is a fallacy, though often an ad hominem attack is
>not even an argument but merely an insult.
>
>whether he is insane or not bears no relevance to his argument, obviously.

What? Of course it does.

>
>

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 1, 4:56 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
> "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> >"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>
> >> Scopie's Law is not a logical fallacy, and nowhere did I use ad
> >> hominem.
>
> >care to explain that one
>
> >This is ad hominem:
>
> >"I mentioned to Marcia that these people are mad. I saw Dr Kalokerinos on
> >stage once and he is the most insane person I have ever seen outside a
> >mental hospital."
>
> A comment on the evidence before me. Kalokerinos was behaving
> as an insane person would behave, and mentioning this is not ad
> hominem.

Another dictionary-challenged moment by Peter Bowditch.

Ad hominem: "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to fact
or reason."

Let's see. You never use fact or reason and you always resort to
derogatory characterizations as a way to win your so-called
arguments. One day, "Bowditch" will be a proper noun meaning "Logic
Train Wreck."
From: Mark Probert on
On Dec 1, 2:19 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 4:56 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> > >"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Scopie's Law is not a logical fallacy, and nowhere did I use ad
> > >> hominem.
>
> > >care to explain that one
>
> > >This is ad hominem:
>
> > >"I mentioned to Marcia that these people are mad. I saw Dr Kalokerinos on
> > >stage once and he is the most insane person I have ever seen outside a
> > >mental hospital."
>
> > A comment on the evidence before me. Kalokerinos was behaving
> > as an insane person would behave, and mentioning this is not ad
> > hominem.
>
> Another dictionary-challenged moment by Peter Bowditch.
>
> Ad hominem:  "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to fact
> or reason."
>
> Let's see.  You never use fact or reason and you always resort to
> derogatory characterizations as a way to win your so-called
> arguments.  One day, "Bowditch" will be a proper noun meaning "Logic
> Train Wreck."-

Nice ad hominem there. Goes along well with your poisoning of the
well.

-

From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 1, 6:35 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
> PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 1, 4:56 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
> >> "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)ratbags.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> Scopie's Law is not a logical fallacy, and nowhere did I use ad
> >> >> hominem.
>
> >> >care to explain that one
>
> >> >This is ad hominem:
>
> >> >"I mentioned to Marcia that these people are mad. I saw Dr Kalokerinos on
> >> >stage once and he is the most insane person I have ever seen outside a
> >> >mental hospital."
>
> >> A comment on the evidence before me. Kalokerinos was behaving
> >> as an insane person would behave, and mentioning this is not ad
> >> hominem.
>
> >Another dictionary-challenged moment by Peter Bowditch.
>
> >Ad hominem:  "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to fact
> >or reason."
>
> A person stands on a stage and announces that the World Health
> Organization and the Save The Children Fund are engaging in a
> deliberate policy of genocide by spreading AIDS in Africa through
> the medium of measles vaccination.

Your disagreement with his views, whatever they may be, is not the
point. The point is that you refuse to advance an argument of your
own, and it is for that reason you are a fraud.

> There was no fact. There was no reason. The speaker is insane. QED.

Since there is no fact or reason in your own diatribes, you must also
be insane.

> >Let's see.  You never use fact or reason and you always resort to
> >derogatory characterizations as a way to win your so-called
> >arguments.  One day, "Bowditch" will be a proper noun meaning
> >"Logic Train Wreck."
>
> At least it will refer to some who is not too cowardly to tell people
> his name.

There is no bravery in revealing your name if there is no truth when
speaking your words.