• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Kent Hovind vs. Aron Ra

 
 
 
Learner said:
Worldtraveller said:
Yeah, yeah.
I get it already OK!!!

This is really amusing, because it's clear you don't get it, but think you do. So typical of you, and creationists in general.


The fact that you really can't even grasp such a simple concept is quite amusing. Carry on.

An ad hominen is an actual logical fallacy. An insult is not necessarily a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

I think (generally as a theist) I agree with, "an insult is not neccessarily a logical fallacy" per se, but how one describes anothers character (not so unlike the underlined I suppose) could be seen as an ad hominen.
Click to expand...
It's opinion, but it's opinion based on observation of facts. ;)
 
Keith&Co. said:
Worldtraveller said:
It's opinion, but it's opinion based on observation of facts. ;)
Click to expand...
Well, if it's about Hovind, his status as a liar was actually proven in court.
Click to expand...

.. and he served time.... Funny thing in the "debate", Hovind kept referring to Aron by his former name (that was legally changed)... So Aron started referring to Hovind by HIS former name... "Prisoner 4320176" (or whatever his number was when he was incarcerated). I thought that pretty funny.
 
To state that not every personal attack on ones debating opponent is necessarily an ad hominem is uncontroversial. What's controversial is to claim that your attack on the person rather than the argument is NOT an ad hom.

Over the last few pages (team atheism) folks have been meticulously denying that their ad homs are ad homs claiming that you can casually belittle your debate opponent with derogatory remarks for some OTHER reason and therefore it's not technically an ad hom.

This is intellectual dishonesty intended to avoid and camouflage the well-deserved "angry atheist" meme.

Better to just admit that you actually do to smuggle persuasive, emotive ad homs into your argument because they do win the hearts and minds of people who don't care that there's no logical connection between the insult and the conclusion.
 
Lion IRC said:
. What's controversial is to claim that your attack on the person rather than the argument is NOT an ad hom.
Click to expand...
No, that's not even controversial. Attacking the person as if that's part of their argument is ad hom. Surplus attacks on the person, in addition to, and not an intrinsic part of showing their argument to be in error are not ad hom, no matter how much you try to insist that they are.
Over the last few pages (team atheism) folks have been meticulously denying that their ad homs are ad homs claiming that you can casually belittle your debate opponent with derogatory remarks for some OTHER reason
Click to expand...
Error. The REASON for a personal attack is not what qualifies an ad hominem. It's entirely dependent on the structure as part of the rebuttal, making it a fallacy.
and therefore it's not technically an ad hom.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah.
If it is not an actual ad hominem, then it is not an ad hominem.
So, back up there, where you say the atheists are denying that their ad homs are ad homs, a more accurate statement would be that posters here are accurately identifying the difference between real and misidentified ad homs.
Not that anyone expects you to make a move in a more accurate direction.
This is intellectual dishonesty intended to avoid and camouflage the well-deserved "angry atheist" meme.
Click to expand...
I do enjoy how often we see a creationist who is on the wrong side of facts accuse the people in the right of dishonesty. Purely an attempt to grab moral high ground as their facts are wanting.
So, i guess the best translation of ''angry atheist" is "one who has their ducks in a row and won't back down in the face of wild, jnsupportable accusations and incoherent vocabularies."
Better to just admit that you actually do to smuggle persuasive, emotive ad homs into your argument because they do win the hearts and minds of people who don't care that there's no logical connection between the insult and the conclusion.
Click to expand...
Nope. Better to actually use words for their actual meanings than to put up with ignorance, no matter how angry it gets.
 
Lion IRC said:
To state that not every personal attack on ones debating opponent is necessarily an ad hominem is uncontroversial. What's controversial is to claim that your attack on the person rather than the argument is NOT an ad hom.

Over the last few pages (team atheism) folks have been meticulously denying that their ad homs are ad homs claiming that you can casually belittle your debate opponent with derogatory remarks for some OTHER reason and therefore it's not technically an ad hom.
Click to expand...

I am not an atheist.

I do know the definition of ad hominem, and how it is different from a generic insult.

I fall outside your false dichotomy. By the way, "false dichotomy" is also a fallacy.
 
OK already. Can we ignore any ad homs, insults, slurs or character assessments and discuss some actual debate points?
 
seyorni said:
OK already. Can we ignore any ad homs, insults, slurs or character assessments and discuss some actual debate points?
Click to expand...

seyorni for the win!
The conspicuous ad hom is so easily recognized because it stands out in the midst of (what should be) an exchange of intelligence - not an exchange of ignorance.
 
seyorni said:
OK already. Can we ignore any ad homs, insults, slurs or character assessments and discuss some actual debate points?
Click to expand...

Did you find any? do tell. I think I may have contributed to this line of discussion when I originally pointed out that there was nothing but a shit-slinging, insult-ridden, feud going on... and pretty much nothing else.
 
in the last minute of the last video, Aron says, "Only liars demand faith". I immediately thought of how many times I heard Trump saying, "believe me".
 
Since the debate "ended", Hovind has made several videos responding to Aron but has not labeled them as such. Perhaps he is hoping that Aron won't see them and respond. I think Aron doesn't care enough to respond having already beaten Hovind rather mercilessly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom