History Main / ArgumentumAdLapidem

17th Jul '16 7:25:18 PM Premonition45
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

Compare FallacyFallacy, which is when an argument is dismissed just because it uses a fallacy.
16th Apr '16 5:29:00 AM trumpetmarietta
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** A similar story is told about [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes Zeno's paradoxes]]. Namely, that the Cynic Diogenes, upon having heard Zeno's arguments, said nothing, but merely stood up and walked.
26th Mar '16 10:19:27 AM Josef5678
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The origin of the fallacy is {{Samuel Johnson}}'s response to Bishop Berkeley's argument that material objects do not exist, only minds and the ideas within them. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone, which, naturally, failed to show that this was a material object rather than just an idea within a mind.

to:

* The origin of the fallacy is {{Samuel Creator/{{Samuel Johnson}}'s response to Bishop Berkeley's argument that material objects do not exist, only minds and the ideas within them. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone, which, naturally, failed to show that this was a material object rather than just an idea within a mind.
26th Mar '16 9:18:14 AM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The origin of the fallacy is {{Samuel Johnson}}'s response to Bishop Berkeley's argument that material objects do not exist, only minds and the ideas within them. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone, which naturally failed to show that this was a material object rather than just an idea within a mind.

to:

* The origin of the fallacy is {{Samuel Johnson}}'s response to Bishop Berkeley's argument that material objects do not exist, only minds and the ideas within them. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone, which naturally which, naturally, failed to show that this was a material object rather than just an idea within a mind.
26th Mar '16 9:18:01 AM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The origin of the fallacy is {{Samuel Johnson}}'s response to Bishop Berkeley's argument that material objects do not exist, only minds and the ideas within them. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone, which naturally failed to show that the stone was a material object rather than just an idea within a mind.

to:

* The origin of the fallacy is {{Samuel Johnson}}'s response to Bishop Berkeley's argument that material objects do not exist, only minds and the ideas within them. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone, which naturally failed to show that the stone this was a material object rather than just an idea within a mind.
26th Mar '16 9:17:39 AM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:


[[AC:RealLife]]

* The origin of the fallacy is {{Samuel Johnson}}'s response to Bishop Berkeley's argument that material objects do not exist, only minds and the ideas within them. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone, which naturally failed to show that the stone was a material object rather than just an idea within a mind.
10th Jun '15 2:03:35 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for Senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finistirre counters with "I...just...psh...no." The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.

to:

* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', ''Film/ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for Senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finistirre counters with "I...just...psh...no." The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.
22nd Feb '14 11:41:27 AM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finistirre counters with "I...just...psh...no." The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.

to:

* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finistirre counters with "I...just...psh...no." The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.
25th Aug '13 6:04:16 PM johnnye
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finnistre counters with "I...just...psh...no." The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.

to:

* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finnistre Finistirre counters with "I...just...psh...no." The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.
25th Aug '13 5:43:22 PM johnnye
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finnistre counters with "I...just...psh...no."

to:

* In ''ThankYouForSmoking'', Nick Naylor says that the anti-tobacco council wants kids to die because it's good for their chequebooks, which is countered by "that's ridiculous". Later, he says that it's hypocritical for senator Finnistre to say he supports American farmers while calling for the end of tobacco farming, which Finnistre counters with "I...just...psh...no."" The point in both instances is that Naylor is excellent at winning arguments, rather than that he's ''right''.
This list shows the last 10 events of 18. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ArgumentumAdLapidem