FCC urged to Revoke Fox News licenses.

Quote from darkfrog : And you started out with so much respect with your straw men and well poisoning and guilt-by-association comments, right? My opinion that you are spouting lies to support your beliefs is not an ad hominem, it is my personal belief and you have done nothing to change my mind. You really don't understand what a fallacy is do you?

I think I'll just ignore that, rather than have to fill in the hole YOU are digging on logical fallacies.

The use of a logical fallacy does not constitute a valid reason to make ad hominem attacks on that poster, regardless of your view of the reality of those "possible fallacies" .
I believe the Podium rules make that quite clear.

Quote from Anonymouse : I think I'll just ignore that, rather than have to fill in the hole YOU are digging on logical fallacies. The use of a logical fallacy does not constitute a valid reason to make ad hominem attacks on that poster, regardless of your view of the reality of those "possible fallacies" . I believe the Podium rules make that quite clear.

An ad hominem is a fallacy. A personal attack is not always an ad hominem fallacy. You seemed to have trouble understanding fallacies in another thread when you misstated what a straw man is. Pretending that "I'm digging holes" regarding logical fallacies is quite ironic. I'm quite confident in my ability to distinguish between an ad hominem and a non-fallacious personal attack, and a mere description of another poster's behavior.


If you think my belief that you lied, i.e. were telling untruths, such as the Kochs getting "kicked out" of the Libertarian party, was against TP rules, then quit playing games and MA me.

Anyone who watches Fox should be sterilized.

Quote from no_ron_paul : Anyone who watches Fox should be sterilized.

It would make Group Think easier to achieve, wouldn't it..............

Quote from Elmer : It would make Group Think easier to achieve, wouldn't it..............

Just thinning out the weak and feeble...

Quote from Anonymouse : Assuming things can get you in trouble. The very first paragraph on the AllGov page CLEARLY states [allgov.com];Now, who am I going to believe? YOU, & your vast infinite knowledge of the CPB's funding, or the very people handing out the loot they get from PRIVATE DONORS?

I don't know, who are we going to believe?

Quote : The CPB’s annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds.[3] For fiscal year 2010, its appropriation was US$422 million (including $2 million in interest earned). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corp...by_the_CPB

Quote : FY 2012 Budget Revenues Federal Appropriation $ 444,158,950 (99.8%) Interest Income $ 1,000,000 (0.2%) Total Revenues $ 445,158,950 (100%) Total Expenses $ 445,158,950 http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/budget/

Guess the CPB auditors that put their financials together, didn't read your link......

Quote from no_ron_paul : Just thinning out the weak and feeble...

Yup, I understand.

Worked well for Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, etc.........

Quote from darkfrog : An ad hominem is a fallacy. A personal attack is not always an ad hominem fallacy. You seemed to have trouble understanding fallacies in another thread when you misstated what a straw man is. Pretending that "I'm digging holes" regarding logical fallacies is quite ironic. I'm quite confident in my ability to distinguish between an ad hominem and a non-fallacious personal attack, and a mere description of another poster's behavior. If you think my belief that you lied, i.e. were telling untruths, such as the Kochs getting "kicked out" of the Libertarian party, was against TP rules, then quit playing games and MA me.

Personal attacks are always, by definition, ad hominem. In rational debate, you attack ideas--not people. To attempt to discredit an idea or claim by attacking the character (or physical condition) of the person who is the source of that idea or claim is fallacious. I'm fairly sure you know this. Can you elaborate on what you were trying to say?

Quote from Mixels : Personal attacks are always, by definition, ad hominem. In rational debate, you attack ideas--not people. To attempt to discredit an idea or claim by attacking the character (or physical condition) of the person who is the source of that idea or claim is fallacious. I'm fairly sure you know this. Can you elaborate on what you were trying to say?

When the term ad hominem is used in my experience, it is considered shorthand for argumentum ad hominem which is considered a fallacy, an attempt to discredit the point or an attempt to invalidate the argument. Personal attacks in absence of an argument is not ad hominem or any kind of fallacy. IMO, calling any personal attack ad hominem even if it doesn't apply as the fallacy is confused on the proper use of the term.

Quote from Elmer : I don't know, who are we going to believe? Guess the CPB auditors that put their financials together, didn't read your link......

Please, don't bring facts into this discussion.

Quote from darkfrog : When the term ad hominem is used in my experience, it is considered shorthand for argumentum ad hominem which is considered a fallacy, an attempt to discredit the point or an attempt to invalidate the argument. Personal attacks in absence of an argument is not ad hominem or any kind of fallacy. IMO, calling any personal attack ad hominem even if it doesn't apply as the fallacy is confused on the proper use of the term.

I know Anonymouse can be a bit touchy, but I can see how he got the impression he did. You were clearly miffed, too. That you disagree with one or many things a person says does not make that person a liar. Calling a person a liar, except (rarely) in clear reference to a very specific claim, is, plainly, an obvious attempt to discredit that person and, thereby, his or her points and, claims, and arguments.

Anyway, you're right, you're just missing the tie your calling Anonymouse a liar has to ad hominem. It's not exactly argumentum ad hominem if I run up to you randomly in the street, call you a stupidface, and run away. Not in any useful sense, anyway. Still, in the course of real conversation, it's very rare for personal attacks of any kind to be used in ways that are not argumentum ad hominem, mainly because we don't tend to insult people (intentionally or unintentionally) unless we're upset at that person anyway. I suppose if you really believe that Anonymouse is trying to mislead people (with explicit intent), it's not fallacious to call him a liar. However, there's more than a bit of anger in that post, and it's obvious.