A member of a message board posted some of our material for discussion--it seems somebody was using Angie Drobnic Holan's chart to draw firm conclusions about candidate truthfulness.
How were our views criticized this time?
Behold:
For the record, the site (...) is run by two bloggers. One of whom lists beer as one of his interests and the other documents the bands that he likes as a credential.So this time we get not just ad hominem fallacies but incredibly lame ad hominem fallacies. And the earlier post of our material included some of our responses to similar criticism. I guess it truly doesn't help to point out to people when they're reasoning fallaciously.
Dude: It's the movies I like that serve as a credential. Not the bands. Sheesh. What a maroon. j/k
On the positive side, he didn't accuse us of posting anonymously as some have done. So, credit where it's due.
Clearly we need to rush forward with our new page answering the most common criticisms (count ad hominem fallacies as one such) we receive.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks to commenters who refuse to honor various requests from the blog administrators, all comments are now moderated. Pseudonymous commenters who do not choose distinctive pseudonyms will not be published, period. No "Anonymous." No "Unknown." Etc.