You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hazard Joining Chelsea
- Thread starter Ray78
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
itisrising
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 4,329
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]
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]
City Raider
Well-Known Member
Hazard (continued)
i'm sure we'd have walked by now if the club didnt still think we had a genuine chance
i'm sure we'd have walked by now if the club didnt still think we had a genuine chance
Paulmcfc2703
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,933
Re: Hazard (continued)
If thats true not only is he an attention seeking **** but a lying, money grabbing twat tooalexnash13 said:Has anyone thought he was genuinly going to announce it but - one of the clubs has now come in with a higher offer ?
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.
80s Shorts said:Damocles said:80s Shorts said:You misunderstand the meaning mate. His insult was separate to the point. His simply called you a prat as he was pissed off with you. That is not Ad Hominem, and as you like to use it so much then I thought you would like to know its true meaning.
He did not use the word prat to undermine your argument. Hence no Ad Hominem.
EG.
"How can you be against immigration when your grandparents came from Pakistan". Is Ad Hominem
"Who are you to tell me to stop using heroin after what you did in the sixties". Is Ad Hominem.
Hope that helps
Just noticed your last sentence lol.
That is a perfect example of Ad Hominem.
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.
Feed-The-Goat
Well-Known Member
Re: Hazard (continued)
This is a shit wum, if not the kids a cock.
This is a shit wum, if not the kids a cock.
Re: Hazard (continued)
<a class="postlink" href="http://sportmagazine.knack.be/sport/belga-sport/marc-wilmots-hazard-laat-zich-niet-opjagen/article-4000104889563.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sportmagazine.knack.be/sport/bel ... 889563.htm</a>
National team coach:
" Hij is niet degene die hier stress van krijgt.Waarschijnlijk stuurt hij nog een tweet en houdt hij dan tien dagen de kiezen op elkaar, tot zijn nieuwe werkgever het tijd vindt zijn keuze toe te lichten."
"He isn't the one getting stress from this.Probably he'll send out another tweet and then keeps his mouth shut for 10 days, till his new employee finds it's time to share it with the world"
<a class="postlink" href="http://sportmagazine.knack.be/sport/belga-sport/marc-wilmots-hazard-laat-zich-niet-opjagen/article-4000104889563.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sportmagazine.knack.be/sport/bel ... 889563.htm</a>
National team coach:
" Hij is niet degene die hier stress van krijgt.Waarschijnlijk stuurt hij nog een tweet en houdt hij dan tien dagen de kiezen op elkaar, tot zijn nieuwe werkgever het tijd vindt zijn keuze toe te lichten."
"He isn't the one getting stress from this.Probably he'll send out another tweet and then keeps his mouth shut for 10 days, till his new employee finds it's time to share it with the world"
rushts
Well-Known Member
Re: Hazard (continued)
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 :-(
carlos92 said:rickmcfc said:rushts said:ive had my cock out for 3 hours now, should i put him away ?
Yes, your mrs is with me
joke, just trying to inject some humour into the thread
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 :-(
rickmcfc
Well-Known Member
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 !!!
im worried, very woried. It isnt even june and this place is in meltdown!!!
-- Mon May 28, 2012 8:32 pm --
rushts said:carlos92 said:rickmcfc said:Yes, your mrs is with me
joke, just trying to inject some humour into the thread
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 !!!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.