Roethlisberger injured in motorcycle accident

[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

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by mheisig

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

Last word.