Skeptic Project

I've noticed that "ad hominem" are CTs' favorite Latin words. They like them even more than "cui buono?"

There's a difference, conspiracists, between questioning a source's credibility to speak on a particular issue, and an "ad hominem" attack. Most CTs can't understand this difference, so I'll illustrate it.

QUESTIONING CREDIBILITY:
Alex Jones: "We're going to have martial law and one world government by 2011!"
Edward: "Alex, you predicted martial law in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and on down the line. Why should we believe that this prediction will be any more accurate than any of your others?"

AD HOMINEM:
Dylan Avery: "Larry Silverstein blew up WTC7."
Muertos: "Dylan, you have a small penis."

QUESTIONING CREDIBILITY:
Peter Merola: "The Zeitgeist Movement is not a conspiracy movement."
Ed: "But you are a 9/11 Truther, your spokesman is a 9/11 Truther, you ban people critical of conspiracy theories, and continue to promote Zetigeist I."

AD HOMINEM:
VTV: "Jacque Fresco is the key to the future of humanity."
Matt: "You're fat and your wife works at Burger King."
(Sorry Matt!)

QUESTIONING CREDIBILITY:
Brad270: "Dr. Gerlich says global warming violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
Muertos: "Is this the same Dr. Gerlich who said that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer?"

See the difference?

"(Sorry Matt!)"

No problem at all.

I freely admit that I engage in ad hominems, but not for lack of the ability to dissect a conspiracy theory and point out the flaws. Mostly because I hate fat guys who send their wives off to work at Burger King.

I think more accuractly...

Dylan, you are wrong because you have a small penis

Muertos, stop lying, you know that smoking tobacco cures asthma, I heard it from a MEDICAL DOCTOR.

research has shown that asthma causes tobacco smoking

A true ad hominem would have been a response that had nothing to do with the doctor's scientific credibility.

Don't feel foolish Aaron, the line becomes very fuzzy in certain situations.

Most CTs won't acknowledge that there is a such thing as legitimately questioning the credibility of a source without engaging in "ad hominem" attacks, because if they did so, virtually all of their trusted sources would be reduced to nothing.

VTV, notably, made the argument recently that it doesn't matter whether Peter Merola is wrong about everything else in his life but he's right about the Venus Project. My point is that it does matter.

Ad hominem is fun.

"@ Matt, so a red herring would have to have been a response that had nothing to do with the Dr.'s scientific credibility?"

The point of a red herring is to steer the direction of the discussion off the topic and into another topic.

Muertos did not do that, he established credibility within the context of the previous statement. The focus of the conversation never changed, it was merely elaborated upon.

Climate change is not one of my strong suits, so I am having trouble thinking up an example of a red herring in this case. Maybe posting a link to a Lord Mockfuck video or something.

re: Kevin Ryan: And as far as I know he is just a "Water Tester" and had nothing to do with steel testing division of UL. I've seen that turned into Ryan working at NIST that was fired for questioning them. LOL!