Roethlisberger injured in motorcycle accident

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

That is my opinion and I base it on my own experiences and principles...basically the same thing anyone bases any opinion on.

I'm sorry, I thought maybe it had a basis in constitution law, government models, hisotry or some other form of rational thought.

I'm on a spree of side-rants today: why won't people just argue their belief as opposed to chalking up to "oh it's my opinion and I guess we just have differing views." FIGHT and argue your damn viewpoint if you think you're right, I'd have alot more respect for that than this spineless capitulation of agreeing to disagree.

If the founders of this country just decided that their opinion differed from that of merry ol' England and left it at that, we'd all be drinking tea and driving on the wrong side of the road.

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by mheisig

I'm sorry, I thought maybe it had a basis in constitution law, government models, hisotry or some other form of rational thought.

I'm on a spree of side-rants today: why won't people just argue their belief as opposed to chalking up to "oh it's my opinion and I guess we just have differing views." FIGHT and argue your damn viewpoint if you think you're right, I'd have alot more respect for that than this spineless capitulation of agreeing to disagree.

If the founders of this country just decided that their opinion differed from that of merry ol' England and left it at that, we'd all be drinking tea and driving on the wrong side of the road.

This is not the place to "fight" for what I believe in. Besides, I can do a much better job when I can reply instantly (and not have to wait and then type my response).

Oh, and my "experiences and principles" are based on rational thought. Look up the ad hominem fallacy and you'll see that your argument is flawed. (and you also employ the slippery slope fallacy )

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

This is not the place to "fight" for what I believe in. Besides, I can do a much better job when I can reply instantly (and not have to wait and then type my response).

Oh, and my "experiences and principles" are based on rational thought. Look up the ad hominem fallacy and you'll see that your argument is flawed.

It's pretty unusual to be able to argue a point better in person than through the written word. Very few debaters are capable of addressing each logical premise in sequence, draw conclusions and identify fallacious reasoning on the fly and in person. The written word provides a much higher degree of precision and referential ability than an oral debate.

You must have a remarkably unusual ability to argue orally or perhaps, like many, you use the ambiguity of speech to your advantage.

Thanks for the Philosophy 101 lesson - unfortunately my previous post exhibits no sign of an Ad Hominem attack, primarily because no argument was made. I made an inocuous, largely sarcastic comment that was in no way an attack on your person, thus no Ad Hominem.

I asked a question, you replied, I responded in sarcastic apology - no argument was formed or proposed. In the future it might be helpful to look up the fallacy yourself prior to using the term.

I'm done with this thread unless someone starts a "Healthcare Reform" thread in the Warpath Parking lot. This sucker has gone waaaaaaaaay

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by mheisig

It's pretty unusual to be able to argue a point better in person than through the written word. Very few debaters are capable of addressing each logical premise in sequence, draw conclusions and identify fallacious reasoning on the fly and in person. The written word provides a much higher degree of precision and referential ability than an oral debate.

You must have a remarkably unusual ability to argue orally or perhaps, like many, you use the ambiguity of speech to your advantage.

Thanks for the Philosophy 101 lesson - unfortunately my previous post exhibits no sign of an Ad Hominem attack, primarily because no argument was made. I made an inocuous, largely sarcastic comment that was in no way an attack on your person, thus no Ad Hominem.

I asked a question, you replied, I responded in sarcastic apology - no argument was formed or proposed. In the future it might be helpful to look up the fallacy yourself prior to using the term.

I'm done with this thread unless someone starts a "Healthcare Reform" thread in the Warpath Parking lot. This sucker has gone waaaaaaaaay

I missed the sarcasm. My mistake. You win. I lose. (no sarcasm here)

P.S.: it's not a philosophy lesson--it's ethics (maybe you should look it up first *sarcasm*).

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

I missed the sarcasm. My mistake. You win. I lose. (no sarcasm here)

P.S.: it's not a philosophy lesson--it's ethics (maybe you should look it up first *sarcasm*).

An "Ad Hominem" is a logical fallacy and logical fallacies and logical reasoning typically fall under the scope of Philosophy, not Ethics.

DAMMIT I said I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore!

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by mheisig

An "Ad Hominem" is a logical fallacy and logical fallacies and logical reasoning typically fall under the scope of Philosophy, not Ethics.

DAMMIT I said I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore!

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy."

Sorry, but I think you're wrong. It is splitting hairs anyways since you could consider ethics a branch of philosophy. That is the argument you should have made (and what I was expecting ).

...and didn't I already tell you that you win?

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy..."

Sorry, but I think you're wrong. It is splitting hairs anyways since you could consider ethics a branch of philosophy. That is the argument you should have made (and what I was expecting ).

...and didn't I already tell you that you win?

I should have made that argument For some reason I was thinking business/corporate ethics given the nature of the discussion on business/healthcare, not ethics in the larger, philosophical sense.

Though, if we're going maintain that it's not ALWAYS a fallacy, perhaps I'll say my initial comment was an Ad Hominem but not fallacious! NOW we're splitting hairs

I did win I just can't turn down a good discussion on philosophy, ethics and fallacies