Couldn’t dig up any dirt on me I take it, though probably not for lack of trying. Eh, last I checked my name was Melissa and not Fred. But of course, even if it was, it would have no bearing on the merits of the points I’m making and you cannot seemingly answer. Translation: Bob Belcher is an okay guy and Amy Hollar good for nothing, guilty as sin scum.
You’re not going to bother me. But if your only resort is to find flaw in my husband, not knowing anything about it, him or our relationship and more importantly having nothing to do with nothing at discussion… that shows the weakness in
your current position on Bob Belcher and Amy Hollar respectively, as well as desperation to defend what you believe for no valid or good reasons.. It’s not a particularly sound strategy at that, either. I’ve always addressed anything I was even remotely, if that much, answerable for. Can the same be said for anyone else here?
“When I first started in Philosophy my Professor of Logic said to our class --
"Learn the fallacies and learn them well. So well that immediately when you hear one,
a red flag goes up, sirens sound, and lights flash. Then stop. Examine what is being
said, and you will know how to reply. And if it is you saying it, ask yourself if you must
say it that way. And still further yet, if your answer is in the affirmative, stop your
argument there. For the argument is yet to be conceived that is more important than
honesty and integrity."”
Words to live by.
Kevin W. Walker, B.A.(Phil.)
"Personal attack" redirects here. For the policy on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists ad hominem as the second lowest type of argument in a disagreement.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]
However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
