To: Petronski
The charge of "liar" is directly relevant because it directly addresses the credibility of the speaker. Liar is a word. You must provide contrary evidence or proof against the argument. Calling someone a liar without the proof is pure ad hominem. And calling a person a liar with the proof is superfluous and therefore ad hominem(it is irrelevant)
1,169 posted on
02/14/2006 10:23:52 PM PST by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: AndrewC; nopardons; Toddsterpatriot
If you want proof he is a liar, research his terminal illness saga.
It's established fact, and I think you should start with some basic research.
1,171 posted on
02/14/2006 10:27:46 PM PST by
Petronski
(I love Cyborg!)
To: AndrewC
And calling a person a liar with the proof is superfluous and therefore ad hominem(it is irrelevant)It is directly relevant to credibility.
1,172 posted on
02/14/2006 10:29:33 PM PST by
Petronski
(I love Cyborg!)
To: AndrewC
How is calling a known and easily proved liar a LIAR, an ad hominem?
Why is it irrelevant?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson