QuoteThe ad hominem fallacy known as Poisoning the Well is a little bit unusual because it involves a preemptive attack on a person, before they can really make any arguments. Instead of responding to their arguments by questioning their character, a person committing this fallacy "poisons the well" by making a person appear bad, immoral, or untrustworthy before they even have a chance to say anything.
Almost any other ad hominem fallacy can be changed into an example of Poisoning the Well by simply having it occur in advance of any other arguments being made:
1. You have been proven to be a liar numerous times, so I don't believe what you are saying now.
2. He has been proven to be a liar numerous times, so don't believe anything he tells you.
The origin of the label "Poisoning the Well" comes from the medieval myth of Jews poisoning the wells used by Christians in towns and villages across Europe. Charges of such actions, for example when a plague struck an area, often resulted in expulsion or death for many, many Jews.
This fallacy is used a lot by some people at this forum. It's usually used by neurotics, and that is an example of poisoning the well fallacy. :shock: :P Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"This fallacy is used a lot by some people at this forum. It's usually used by neurotics, and that is an example of poisoning the well fallacy. :shock: :P Solitary
Who are you referring to, at least generally? Just people on this forum, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, immature people...?
Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Quote from: "Solitary"This fallacy is used a lot by some people at this forum. It's usually used by neurotics, and that is an example of poisoning the well fallacy. :shock: :P Solitary
Who are you referring to, at least generally? Just people on this forum, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, immature people...?
Neurotics in general. So when I say that I am poisoning the well for neurotics by saying they are neurotic that post Ad Hominems in response at the forum it also includes neurotic atheists too because by saying that I take away their credibility. :shock: :-$ 8-[ because they took away mine. This is the very reason debates can't be won if people are using fallacies in their arguments. Here is an extreme example. You go into a Biker bar that are religious and believe in Jesus with His tattoos all over them and are called the Fallen Angels with White Angel wings on their jackets. You go in and yell out, JESUS IS A MYTH! Who do you think is going to win the argument? :shock: :twisted: Solitary
You mean like people that attempt to discredit whistle blowers that release information which refutes a claim by calling them traitors without trying to refute what they said?
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"You mean like people that attempt to discredit whistle blowers that release information which refutes a claim by calling them traitors without trying to refute what they said?
NO! That was not an argument, nor even an opinion, but a fact based on the definition of a traitor, and I did refute what they said. But it doesn't make any difference to refute what they said and the fact that the article was a fabrication and to release classified information is a traitorous act. It doesn't make any difference what the information they released says, only the fact that they released classified information when it was still classified---which makes them a traitor by definition. There are two definitions of traitor as I pointed out. And it also doesn't make any difference to the argument just because our government has betrayed our trust too. Two wrongs don't make it right. Solitary
Maybe a better example was when James Carville, as a spokesman for William Clinton, said that Paula Jones was "white trailer trash." Therefore, anything she said couldn't be trusted.
A personal hero of mine, is Nathaniel Hale. Best known for his last words, "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country." He was a liar, a spy, and a traitor. But, he didn't seek profit, fame, or glory.
The point being, even someone we don't like can tell the truth about somethings. And we would be foolish to disregard someone's opinion about one thing, because we disliked their opinion about something else. But, being human, we will do it.
Solitary, I like it when you post things which help me to learn. I think this is one of those posts. Thanks. =D>
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"You mean like people that attempt to discredit whistle blowers that release information which refutes a claim by calling them traitors without trying to refute what they said?
NO! That was not an argument, nor even an opinion, but a fact based on the definition of a traitor, and I did refute what they said. But it doesn't make any difference to refute what they said and the fact that the article was a fabrication and to release classified information is a traitorous act. It doesn't make any difference what the information they released says, only the fact that they released classified information when it was still classified---which makes them a traitor by definition. There are two definitions of traitor as I pointed out. And it also doesn't make any difference to the argument just because our government has betrayed our trust too. Two wrongs don't make it right. Solitary
None of which makes any difference to the fact that they made claims which are verifiable, and have in fact been verified on multiple occasions. All you have done is attack their character and present hearsay that you know better.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Maybe a better example was when James Carville, as a spokesman for William Clinton, said that Paula Jones was "white trailer trash." Therefore, anything she said couldn't be trusted.
A personal hero of mine, is Nathaniel Hale. Best known for his last words, "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country." He was a liar, a spy, and a traitor. But, he didn't seek profit, fame, or glory.
The point being, even someone we don't like can tell the truth about somethings. And we would be foolish to disregard someone's opinion about one thing, because we disliked their opinion about something else. But, being human, we will do it.
Solitary, I like it when you post things which help me to learn. I think this is one of those posts. Thanks. =D>
Thanks! That's what I try to do, but it's like dodging bullets in warfare with no armor, with all the barbs of critics here. :shock: :lol: :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"QuoteThe ad hominem fallacy known as Poisoning the Well is a little bit unusual because it involves a preemptive attack on a person, before they can really make any arguments. Instead of responding to their arguments by questioning their character, a person committing this fallacy "poisons the well" by making a person appear bad, immoral, or untrustworthy before they even have a chance to say anything.
Almost any other ad hominem fallacy can be changed into an example of Poisoning the Well by simply having it occur in advance of any other arguments being made:
1. You have been proven to be a liar numerous times, so I don't believe what you are saying now.
2. He has been proven to be a liar numerous times, so don't believe anything he tells you.
The origin of the label "Poisoning the Well" comes from the medieval myth of Jews poisoning the wells used by Christians in towns and villages across Europe. Charges of such actions, for example when a plague struck an area, often resulted in expulsion or death for many, many Jews.
This fallacy is used a lot by some people at this forum. It's usually used by neurotics, and that is an example of poisoning the well fallacy. :shock: :P Solitary
Some usual attacks
You just hate God.
You don't want to be moral and follow God's laws. Just your lustful greed.
Original Sin has blinded you.
You have abandoned God to follow Satan
Cheerful Charlie
Quote from: "Solitary"QuoteThe ad hominem fallacy known as Poisoning the Well is a little bit unusual because it involves a preemptive attack on a person, before they can really make any arguments. Instead of responding to their arguments by questioning their character, a person committing this fallacy "poisons the well" by making a person appear bad, immoral, or untrustworthy before they even have a chance to say anything.
Almost any other ad hominem fallacy can be changed into an example of Poisoning the Well by simply having it occur in advance of any other arguments being made:
1. You have been proven to be a liar numerous times, so I don't believe what you are saying now.
2. He has been proven to be a liar numerous times, so don't believe anything he tells you.
The origin of the label "Poisoning the Well" comes from the medieval myth of Jews poisoning the wells used by Christians in towns and villages across Europe. Charges of such actions, for example when a plague struck an area, often resulted in expulsion or death for many, many Jews.
This fallacy is used a lot by some people at this forum. It's usually used by neurotics, and that is an example of poisoning the well fallacy. :shock: :P Solitary
Some usual attacks
You just hate God.
You don't want to be moral and follow God's laws. Just your lustful greed.
Original Sin has blinded you.
You have abandoned God to follow Satan
Cheerful Charlie
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"You mean like people that attempt to discredit whistle blowers that release information which refutes a claim by calling them traitors without trying to refute what they said?
NO! That was not an argument, nor even an opinion, but a fact based on the definition of a traitor, and I did refute what they said. But it doesn't make any difference to refute what they said and the fact that the article was a fabrication and to release classified information is a traitorous act. It doesn't make any difference what the information they released says, only the fact that they released classified information when it was still classified---which makes them a traitor by definition. There are two definitions of traitor as I pointed out. And it also doesn't make any difference to the argument just because our government has betrayed our trust too. Two wrongs don't make it right. Solitary
None of which makes any difference to the fact that they made claims which are verifiable, and have in fact been verified on multiple occasions. All you have done is attack their character and present hearsay that you know better.
Pot, meet Kettle.
What the hell does the facts posted in classified material have to do with it being treason or not by definition. It's not hearsay or my opinion they did it, that's a fact not my opinion, and if the shoe fits they should wear it! Breaking a trust makes them traitors by definition not my opinion. :roll: I know better? About what? Solitary