Talk:Argumentum ad hominem
From RationalWiki
The person who posted this article probably is a malodorous pervert, second class :: it's wrong. CЯacke® 13:00, 26 June 2007 (CDT) (malodorous pervert first class)
- Fuck you and the stud you rode in on.--PalMD-yada yada 14:28, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
THis article needs de-CPifying.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 09:58, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
- I used to think I understood this, until I read this article. Could someone de-Terista this article? Also are there any circumstances which it is expectable? I thought a logical fallacy should never be used. - π 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering whether anyone else thought it might be funny to reference that one meme in the header:"I asked 100 women about the shampoo they were using; the number one answer was "What the hell are you doing in my shower?" Or is not not funny or applicable?--Asklepius (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Argumentum ad emotinum
The introduction says:
- It also sometimes applies to any argument that centres on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal."
I disagree. That's an example of a bad argument but it's not an ad hominem.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)