Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Of course it does you moron.Does that remind you of someone specific?
Of course it does you moron.
Sometimes the ad hominums are factual, though.
Yes it does...but I can't name them Staff will pick me up by my ears if I do I need my ears....Does that remind you of someone specific?
Oh, now, you are just repeating what others saySometimes the ad hominums are factual, though.
Oh, now, you are just repeating what others say
about you.
If someone has so many arguments and right points, they don't need ad hominems.
Because the truth is stronger.
If someone has so many arguments and right points, they don't need ad hominems.
Because the truth is stronger.
Actually, I find feelings to be stronger than truth.
Truth only works if you can get past them darn feelings.
Which, imo, kind of makes the OP appropriate.
The easiest way to "win" an argument is by making the other guy mad.
The joke is that on good days it won't work on me, because I am mad.
Often true, never relevant.Sometimes the ad hominums are factual, though.
Does that remind you of someone specific?
Actually, I find feelings to be stronger than truth.
Truth only works if you can get past them darn feelings.
Which, imo, kind of makes the OP appropriate.
The easiest way to "win" an argument is by making the other guy mad.
I'd have to understand your posts to argue with youThe joke is that on good days it won't work on me, because I am mad.
I suppose it may work to some extent. I think when someone takes a political stance on something, it's 90% emotional and 10% "facts and reason." Yet nobody wants to admit to that, as they want everyone to think their stance is purely objective and based solely on study, scholarship, scientific facts, etc. But if one makes them mad, they might lose their composure and accidentally blurt out the real reason they take the stance they do.
I suppose it may work to some extent. I think when someone takes a political stance on something, it's 90% emotional and 10% "facts and reason." Yet nobody wants to admit to that, as they want everyone to think their stance is purely objective and based solely on study, scholarship, scientific facts, etc. But if one makes them mad, they might lose their composure and accidentally blurt out the real reason they take the stance they do.
(Want an argument? )
I'll happily admit to this. Politics is as much about subjective values, attitudes, philosophies etc as it is about study, scholarship, science etc. But I'd have thought people generally realise that this is the case? No?