Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I love the way PC goes from trying to pretend to be an academic to Turning into full on rabid name calling when called on her bullshit.
Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.
Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem
The only fallacy here is that you actually believe you have a point in addition on the top of your head.
Do you believe that a scientific study by 'liberal' scientists can in fact be of genuine scientific value, and can be objective despite the personal leanings of the scientists,
and therefore any attempt to summarily impugn or reject any study using those leanings is a fallacious argument?
I love the way PC goes from trying to pretend to be an academic to Turning into full on rabid name calling when called on her bullshit.
Be serious.
How could anyone as dumb as you call me on anything.....
....we both know you're a moron trying to sound as though you're capable of a critique.
C'mon....admit it.
Hey....I'm thinking of another OP about race.....you down wit' dat?
I love the way PC goes from trying to pretend to be an academic to Turning into full on rabid name calling when called on her bullshit.
Be serious.
How could anyone as dumb as you call me on anything.....
....we both know you're a moron trying to sound as though you're capable of a critique.
C'mon....admit it.
Hey....I'm thinking of another OP about race.....you down wit' dat?
Next time try not to make me look like Nostadamus. Check and mate
OP etc-So dumb and so arrogant- Perfect chumps of the greedy idiot rich. Luckily, also so scary stupid the GOP is disintegrating...
OP etc-So dumb and so arrogant- Perfect chumps of the greedy idiot rich. Luckily, also so scary stupid the GOP is disintegrating...
Let's go over that....
1. "... dumb and so arrogant-..."
Certainly not the former...but the latter....well....
2. "...greedy idiot rich."
Again....as is true of all of your attempts at posting, a farrago...
I'm not greedy....and always busy!
Just ask the upstairs maid, or the chauffeur!
3. "... the GOP is disintegrating."
"CNN Poll: Majority Doesn't Trust Obama, Approval Rating Suffers Severe Drop"
CNN Poll: Majority Doesn't Trust Obama, Approval Rating Plunges
4. It must take a great deal of courage on your part to use the phrase "so scary stupid," I mean, in light of your 'condition.'
OP etc-So dumb and so arrogant- Perfect chumps of the greedy idiot rich. Luckily, also so scary stupid the GOP is disintegrating...
Let's go over that....
1. "... dumb and so arrogant-..."
Certainly not the former...but the latter....well....
2. "...greedy idiot rich."
Again....as is true of all of your attempts at posting, a farrago...
I'm not greedy....and always busy!
Just ask the upstairs maid, or the chauffeur!
3. "... the GOP is disintegrating."
"CNN Poll: Majority Doesn't Trust Obama, Approval Rating Suffers Severe Drop"
CNN Poll: Majority Doesn't Trust Obama, Approval Rating Plunges
4. It must take a great deal of courage on your part to use the phrase "so scary stupid," I mean, in light of your 'condition.'
You think that poll has anything to do with the GOP's popularity. That is how you work. In la-la land
Let's go over that....
1. "... dumb and so arrogant-..."
Certainly not the former...but the latter....well....
2. "...greedy idiot rich."
Again....as is true of all of your attempts at posting, a farrago...
I'm not greedy....and always busy!
Just ask the upstairs maid, or the chauffeur!
3. "... the GOP is disintegrating."
"CNN Poll: Majority Doesn't Trust Obama, Approval Rating Suffers Severe Drop"
CNN Poll: Majority Doesn't Trust Obama, Approval Rating Plunges
4. It must take a great deal of courage on your part to use the phrase "so scary stupid," I mean, in light of your 'condition.'
You think that poll has anything to do with the GOP's popularity. That is how you work. In la-la land
You probably haven't noticed that there are really only two political parties....
Do you know what a 'zero-sum game' means?
I guess not.....
Let's go over that....
1. "... dumb and so arrogant-..."
Certainly not the former...but the latter....well....
2. "...greedy idiot rich."
Again....as is true of all of your attempts at posting, a farrago...
I'm not greedy....and always busy!
Just ask the upstairs maid, or the chauffeur!
3. "... the GOP is disintegrating."
"CNN Poll: Majority Doesn't Trust Obama, Approval Rating Suffers Severe Drop"
CNN Poll: Majority Doesn't Trust Obama, Approval Rating Plunges
4. It must take a great deal of courage on your part to use the phrase "so scary stupid," I mean, in light of your 'condition.'
You think that poll has anything to do with the GOP's popularity. That is how you work. In la-la land
You probably haven't noticed that there are really only two political parties....
Do you know what a 'zero-sum game' means?
I guess not.....
The only fallacy here is that you actually believe you have a point in addition on the top of your head.
Do you believe that a scientific study by 'liberal' scientists can in fact be of genuine scientific value, and can be objective despite the personal leanings of the scientists,
and therefore any attempt to summarily impugn or reject any study using those leanings is a fallacious argument?
Academic hero-worshiping usually derives from an intellectually destitute background wherein the individual is taught not to question those of superior status.
I love the way PC goes from trying to pretend to be an academic to Turning into full on rabid name calling when called on her bullshit.
Be serious.
How could anyone as dumb as you call me on anything.....
....we both know you're a moron trying to sound as though you're capable of a critique.
C'mon....admit it.
Hey....I'm thinking of another OP about race.....you down wit' dat?
Next time try not to make me look like Nostadamus. Check and mate
You think that poll has anything to do with the GOP's popularity. That is how you work. In la-la land
You probably haven't noticed that there are really only two political parties....
Do you know what a 'zero-sum game' means?
I guess not.....
No I don't, why don't you explain how Obamas' popularity has anything to do with the GOP disintegrating.
You probably haven't noticed that there are really only two political parties....
Do you know what a 'zero-sum game' means?
I guess not.....
No I don't, why don't you explain how Obamas' popularity has anything to do with the GOP disintegrating.
Miss Utah said she can't believe you're this dumb.
No I don't, why don't you explain how Obamas' popularity has anything to do with the GOP disintegrating.
Miss Utah said she can't believe you're this dumb.
Just as I thought, cant make sense of your own post so you go back to the only thing you've ever done. Name call and deflect.
You're welcome to join the masses of people who have no idea what the hell you're talking about because you cant even explain it
Topic conversation started here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/299118-what-you-really-believe-that.html
Well, then there's that hockey stick model that Al Gore pushed, and the Climategate via the University of East Anglia, then I can jump to the laughable peer-review process instituted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which summarily rejected studies that conflicted with global warming. Then there was the Himalayan Glaciers incident.
Yes, and Liberals call US uneducated?
If the overalll overwhelming consensus among scientists, including an overwhelming consensus among those not shown to be unethical or incompetent,
if that consensus is that the planet is warming,
how would it be that anecdotal incidents of unethical or incompetent actions in the scientific community serve to refute that consensus?
Does rampant pedophilia in the Catholic Church refute all principles of Christianity?
So what are we to conclude from this thread?
That we ought to dismiss any and all academic studies because some academic studies are found to be biased?
Social Science: elaborate demonstration of the obvious by methods that are obscure.
Nice try
Social Science: a branch of science that deals with the institutions and functioning of human society and with the interpersonal relationships of individuals as members of society.
A basic rule: when the results of some study doesn't make sense.....don't believe 'em.
Fair enough. But simple DENIAL doesn't make it so...no matter how much the voices in your head tell you that they do.
Warning: this rule is dangerous to utilize if one either has no brain, or is a Democrat.
Or faith based thinkers of any stipe.
Well, then there's that hockey stick model that Al Gore pushed, and the Climategate via the University of East Anglia, then I can jump to the laughable peer-review process instituted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which summarily rejected studies that conflicted with global warming. Then there was the Himalayan Glaciers incident.
Yes, and Liberals call US uneducated?
If the overalll overwhelming consensus among scientists, including an overwhelming consensus among those not shown to be unethical or incompetent,
if that consensus is that the planet is warming,
how would it be that anecdotal incidents of unethical or incompetent actions in the scientific community serve to refute that consensus?
Does rampant pedophilia in the Catholic Church refute all principles of Christianity?
So how did religion come into the discussion? The planet is warming, but humans aren't causing the warming. It is part of an ancient cycle, there have been multiple warming periods over the past 800,000 years. And if you have to change the data, and manipulate models, lie about it to the masses, and intimidate or preclude scientists who come to different conclusions about a theory, then it is a fraud. I hate to break it to you.
