Hazard Joining Chelsea

[bluejue]

Re: Hazard (continued)

I take it that SSN have gone quiet on this having reported that Hazard was going to announce his destination at 4 o'clock this afternoon via twitter. Where on earth did they get that from...?

 

[Ray78]

Re: Hazard (continued)

im worried, very woried. It isnt even june and this place is in meltdown!!!

-- Mon May 28, 2012 8:32 pm --

I can confirm that Mrs Rushts is with me and not with you, although she did nip to to the shops for a pint of milk....





3hrs ago :-(

3 hours, i finished with her after 20 minutes. Maybe she is in a certain poster "cellar"???

oh, and when she gets home, that isnt milk on her upper lip !!!

Ffs can today get any worse. Mrs Rushts in The Artist Formally Known As Fritzl (GSC's) Cellar, and ive got no milk for my rice krispies.

Do you live near a Farm. If so go into the field and milk one of the cows.

 

[Rammyblues]

Re: Hazard (continued)

Damocles wrote:
80s Shorts wrote:
Damocles wrote:

Sorry mate, your copy paste was incorrect. Ad Hominem does not need to be used in reference to the point. If you belittle the character of the person then it is classed as Ad Hominem but a more implicit type.


Ad Hominem is Ad Hominem. There is no type. People may believe such as it has become a common "put down" on internet forums and some may say that its meaning has evolved. However, just ending an argument by calling somebody a prat, a balloon or even a **** is in no way Ad Hominem. Probably not the place for this discussion but it is self evident that many many people cannot grasp the meaning of Ad Hominem.


No, its meaning has been the same since Aristotle in De sophisticis elenchis and you are dead wrong in saying that there "is no type". Thete are two types at a minimum; tu quoque and abusive/circumstancial; I believe more have been added into the Ad Hominem family in the modern era. The whole point of Ad Hominem is that person A tries to negate the point of person B by making Person B the obje ct of the rebuttal. That is it in its most simplest form.
In the form displayed in this thread, one poster tried to mitigate the credibility of another by referring to them as a prat - an insult implying bufoonery.

Whilst this is not an explicit ad hominem, that is Person A stating that Person B has no point as they are a prat, the implication (defining the opponent as a halfwit) automatically casts a negative light on the argument of Person B thus qualifies.

The argument that we have, is whether a fallacy has to be explicitly stated rather than implied to qualify and gi ven the anonymous nature of forums, with each text standing on the merit of the user, I would say no.

Whooooooooshhhhhh moves hand over top of head.

 

[rushts]

Re: Hazard (continued)

"You're wrong because you're a ****." is ad hominem.

"You're a ****." is not ad hominem.

That's it.

You're splitting hairs Ad Infinitum

 

[unlikelyfan19]

Re: Hazard (continued)

I'm happier that Aguero wants to stay for at least another 4 years!!

LETS CELEBRATE

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScjuhwwU0wk[/youtube]

Thank you. We have Sergio F***in KUN AGUERO! This guy is going to be one of the biggest stars in the world soon, and he plays for US (AND WANTS TO). Screw Hazard, I am so happy to have the players we have. If we get him great, but he'll have to earn it just like the 25 guys on our roster did this year. I know Tevez was a bit of an a$$hole this year, but he did keep us on track for two whole years before this one. Scoring pretty much all of our goals.

If we had to have him, then we would get him, so if we don't sign him, I am not bothered.

 

[MCC]

Re: Hazard (continued)

This is a shit wum, if not the kids a cock.

Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem is a quality player. Much prefer him over Hazard.

 

[SWP's back]

Re: Hazard (continued)

No, its meaning has been the same since Aristotle in De sophisticis elenchis and you are dead wrong in saying that there "is no type". Thete are two types at a minimum; tu quoque and abusive/circumstancial; I believe more have been added into the Ad Hominem family in the modern era. The whole point of Ad Hominem is that person A tries to negate the point of person B by making Person B the obje ct of the rebuttal. That is it in its most simplest form.
In the form displayed in this thread, one poster tried to mitigate the credibility of another by referring to them as a prat - an insult implying bufoonery.

Whilst this is not an explicit ad hominem, that is Person A stating that Person B has no point as they are a prat, the implication (defining the opponent as a halfwit) automatically casts a negative light on the argument of Person B thus qualifies.

The argument that we have, is whether a fallacy has to be explicitly stated rather than implied to qualify and gi ven the anonymous nature of forums, with each text standing on the merit of the user, I would say no.

There you go then.

lol my eyes fucking bled when i read the above

googles great innit !!

I don't think damocles uses it tbf

 

[Ray78]

Re: Hazard (continued)

Damocles wrote:
80s Shorts wrote:
Damocles wrote:

Sorry mate, your copy paste was incorrect. Ad Hominem does not need to be used in reference to the point. If you belittle the character of the person then it is classed as Ad Hominem but a more implicit type.


Ad Hominem is Ad Hominem. There is no type. People may believe such as it has become a common "put down" on internet forums and some may say that its meaning has evolved. However, just ending an argument by calling somebody a prat, a balloon or even a **** is in no way Ad Hominem. Probably not the place for this discussion but it is self evident that many many people cannot grasp the meaning of Ad Hominem.


No, its meaning has been the same since Aristotle in De sophisticis elenchis and you are dead wrong in saying that there "is no type". Thete are two types at a minimum; tu quoque and abusive/circumstancial; I believe more have been added into the Ad Hominem family in the modern era. The whole point of Ad Hominem is that person A tries to negate the point of person B by making Person B the obje ct of the rebuttal. That is it in its most simplest form.
In the form displayed in this thread, one poster tried to mitigate the credibility of another by referring to them as a prat - an insult implying bufoonery.

Whilst this is not an explicit ad hominem, that is Person A stating that Person B has no point as they are a prat, the implication (defining the opponent as a halfwit) automatically casts a negative light on the argument of Person B thus qualifies.

The argument that we have, is whether a fallacy has to be explicitly stated rather than implied to qualify and gi ven the anonymous nature of forums, with each text standing on the merit of the user, I would say no.

Whooooooooshhhhhh moves hand over top of head.

I am not being sarcy here but that was quite informative and educational.

 

[rickmcfc]

Re: Hazard (continued)

Dear Eden,

Thanks, Bluemoon.

 

[ellguitar]

Re: Hazard (continued)

I love this little philosophy course your doing ... Let's construct a reductio ad absurdum of some of these comments next :|

I'm on here to avoid work - not study philosophy.

 

[johnmc]

Re: Hazard (continued)

I don't think damocles uses it tbf

Google uses Damocles

 

[Davs 19]

Re: Hazard (continued)

This is a shit wum, if not the kids a cock.

Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem is a quality player. Much prefer him over Hazard.

And he tracks back......or is it back tracks ? :)

 

[Akai]

Re: Hazard (continued)

Chelsea he tweeted

 

[Project]

Re: Hazard (continued)

done.

 

[SamTheGuru]

Re: Hazard (continued)

I take it that SSN have gone quiet on this having reported that Hazard was going to announce his destination at 4 o'clock this afternoon via twitter. Where on earth did they get that from...?

I will never have any respect for SSN ever again, ever since that Jan deadline day when they said after City released a statement saying that there will be no more business conducted within the transfer:

"News just in, there is still time for Manchester City to sign someone in the January transfer window."

 

[Damocles]

Re: Hazard (continued)

Just tweeted, hes off to Chelsea

 

[rushts]

Re: Hazard (continued)

im worried, very woried. It isnt even june and this place is in meltdown!!!

-- Mon May 28, 2012 8:32 pm --




3 hours, i finished with her after 20 minutes. Maybe she is in a certain poster "cellar"???

oh, and when she gets home, that isnt milk on her upper lip !!!

Ffs can today get any worse. Mrs Rushts in The Artist Formally Known As Fritzl (GSC's) Cellar, and ive got no milk for my rice krispies.

Do you live near a Farm. If so go into the field and milk one of the cows.

Cant be arsed trudging through a field, i'll milk the dog..

 

[SamCity123]

Re: Hazard (continued)

chose promise chose due... je vais rejoindre le champion d europe.

 

[JamesMCFC]

Re: Hazard (continued)

Chelsea it is

bastard

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

Re: Hazard (continued)

CHELSEA, Done Deal!