A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.
You introduced irrelevant premisses about your opponent(s). Thus you committed a logical fallacy. Deal with it.
That is how it was originally explained to me, tho I am not sure if that is technically true.
An example of the rationale you are expressing goes like this:
"you are a traitor (therefore implying that what you say can not be trusted)"
The literal meaning is "against the person", and it appears as if most boards use the definition as attacks against a person.
I was dealing with it, just fine. I never said i wasn't introducing a logical falacy. I said I wasn't engaging in adhominem attacks.You introduced irrelevant premisses about your opponent(s). Thus you committed a logical fallacy. Deal with it.
They are not the same.
JimmyC chose the topic.
And believe me I do not condemn the war because I do not like the sitting president.
George Bush owns this war and he made that clear himself. He called himself the war president and ran on that in 04.
Bush is about all that keeps this war going.
get real. Calm your emotions and chill the accusations.An unlike you, I use my brain to decide what's right and wrong, you (as with all libs) use emotion.
If you were making good use of your brain you would realize that you diverted attention away from your original point that the last admin also lied about Iraq's WMD.
Your response that I wasn't railing against Clinton somehow supported your assertions? How?
So I repeat, how do you know I wasn't railing against Clinton for his role in Iraq?
How do you know that in 4 years I won't be railing against another Clinton for her role in Iraq?
This is the most absurd use of logic I have ever come across. In fact, it is not logic, it is stupidity masquerading as logic.
It makes no difference? Of course it does. I never said all logical fallacies are adhominem, I said:
adhominem is a logical fallacy
Big difference. Your analogy has absolute no place in what I said. But I will try to reason with you. Using your analogy, what I said is:
A bicycle has two wheels.
Period.
OK back onto the offtopic tangent.
I may have presented a logical falacy by speaking about rightwingtards on the board.
But it still was not ad adhom, which is what I said originally to Manu and it appeared you were refuting.
All adhoms are not necesarily logical falacies and all logical falacies are not adhoms.
The most common use of the word is in reference to attacks against persons not groups.
Unless you have more to add to that lets get back on the topic of Iraq.
What the thread was started to discuss.