This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- The Arsenal Thread XXVI
- The Arsenal Thread XXV
- What team do you support and why?
- Premier League Predictions 2023-24
- Premier League Run In
- Spanish books
- elsie wellbeing update at the end of 2023 :)
- Im bored as hell
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
- Tottenham Hotspur Society II
- ✨All Things Royal✨ Spam!
- Is Bukayo Saka the face of the Premier League?
- TSR emojis are so silly
- Does carbohydrates cause acne?
- Best football match you saw as a child?
- How to understand football as a girl - help
- What will the false prophet of revelation use at his disposal to deceive people ?
- Can a Premier League team win all these in one season or is it impossible?
- Chelsea transfer strategy
- Last Person to Post an Emoji Here Wins!
The Arsenal Thread XIX
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Slow Jamz
Bad life, I think.
I've been nothing but cordial
I've been nothing but cordial
Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy. Mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.[8]
To reduce van Persie's successes since 2010 into 'Sturridge was better last year' is retarded. Grow up, take your blinkers off and lose the Sturridge boner.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jam278
Yes, according to that part you are using ad hominem in attacking the traits of a reader by implying I am a homosexual and in doing that saying that I'm also biased towards Sturridge. So yes I believe you have usedAd hom in your argument.
Yes, according to that part you are using ad hominem in attacking the traits of a reader by implying I am a homosexual and in doing that saying that I'm also biased towards Sturridge. So yes I believe you have usedAd hom in your argument.
Never did I say: 'Jam, because you are a homosexual, you have no credibility in a football discussion'. That is an example of an ad hominem, and it fits your definition too - an ad hominem is an argument used in a discussion which is deliberately irrelevant to a person's actual point but rather focuses on the negative aspects of an unrelated fact about them.
What I said was not an ad hominem; 'lose the Sturridge boner' is just a street way of saying 'take off your Sturridge blinkers', which equates to 'you are being biased towards Daniel Sturridge'. The phrase 'lose the Sturridge boner' in no way indicates that boners in general are negative, in no way indicates that it makes you a homosexual and that's negative, and in no way suggests that a love of/bias towards Daniel Sturridge is negative. There is nothing in that statement that is negative and/or usable in an ad hom attack.
*besides, if it did suggest that a love of Sturridge was negative, it would not be an ad hom at all, seeing as Sturridge is relevant to this case. But it does not suggest that a love of Sturridge is negative. To further back this up, you only have to look at my own love of Sturridge.
Before you try and act clever, pick arguments on TSR, or try and use fancy Latin, try and understand the terms that you're using and keep a rational mindset.
Seeing as you said 'repeated' ad homs, could you find me two instances of ad homs in this discussion from me to you? The one you tried to give above is not an ad hom, and 'repeated' would imply more than one.
Original post by jam278
Yes, according to that part you are using ad hominem in attacking the traits of a reader by implying I am a homosexual and in doing that saying that I'm also biased towards Sturridge. So yes I believe you have usedAd hom in your argument.
Yes, according to that part you are using ad hominem in attacking the traits of a reader by implying I am a homosexual and in doing that saying that I'm also biased towards Sturridge. So yes I believe you have usedAd hom in your argument.
And me?
And for what it's worth, I use ad homs all the time, and so do other people, and they are not necessarily fallacious.
This was not an ad hom.
This was not an ad hom.
Original post by Slow Jamz
Never did I say: 'Jam, because you are a homosexual, you have no credibility in a football discussion'. That is an example of an ad hominem, and it fits your definition too - an ad hominem is an argument used in a discussion which is deliberately irrelevant to a person's actual point but rather focuses on the negative aspects of an unrelated fact about them.
What I said was not an ad hominem; 'lose the Sturridge boner' is just a street way of saying 'take off your Sturridge blinkers', which equates to 'you are being biased towards Daniel Sturridge'. The phrase 'lose the Sturridge boner' in no way indicates that boners in general are negative, in no way indicates that it makes you a homosexual and that's negative, and in no way suggests that a love of/bias towards Daniel Sturridge is negative. There is nothing in that statement that is negative and/or usable in an ad hom attack.
*besides, if it did suggest that a love of Sturridge was negative, it would not be an ad hom at all, seeing as Sturridge is relevant to this case. But it does not suggest that a love of Sturridge is negative. To further back this up, you only have to look at my own love of Sturridge.
Before you try and act clever, pick arguments on TSR, or try and use fancy Latin, try and understand the terms that you're using and keep a rational mindset.
Seeing as you said 'repeated' ad homs, could you find me two instances of ad homs in this discussion from me to you? The one you tried to give above is not an ad hom, and 'repeated' would imply more than one.
What I said was not an ad hominem; 'lose the Sturridge boner' is just a street way of saying 'take off your Sturridge blinkers', which equates to 'you are being biased towards Daniel Sturridge'. The phrase 'lose the Sturridge boner' in no way indicates that boners in general are negative, in no way indicates that it makes you a homosexual and that's negative, and in no way suggests that a love of/bias towards Daniel Sturridge is negative. There is nothing in that statement that is negative and/or usable in an ad hom attack.
*besides, if it did suggest that a love of Sturridge was negative, it would not be an ad hom at all, seeing as Sturridge is relevant to this case. But it does not suggest that a love of Sturridge is negative. To further back this up, you only have to look at my own love of Sturridge.
Before you try and act clever, pick arguments on TSR, or try and use fancy Latin, try and understand the terms that you're using and keep a rational mindset.
Seeing as you said 'repeated' ad homs, could you find me two instances of ad homs in this discussion from me to you? The one you tried to give above is not an ad hom, and 'repeated' would imply more than one.
tl;dr
Nah that's too much 
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jam278
tl;dr
tl;dr you can read it for yourself and try and respond
If the chat forum can easily detect trolling and take swift action why can't the football forum?
Original post by jam278
15-20 direct goals from Toure a season or indirectly being part of preventing 11 less goals? Considering we're looking at the best seasons for the club. I thought we'll look at this season and your invincibles season and note the differences.
I think I'll know what I'll take anyway.
I do think they're both very good players but having central midfielders/AMs who score regularly helps a team a lot, see Ramsey and Hazard.
I think I'll know what I'll take anyway.
I do think they're both very good players but having central midfielders/AMs who score regularly helps a team a lot, see Ramsey and Hazard.
I've only read up to here so if you've addressed this point ignore me.
Toure isn't better than Vieira and Vela isn't even close to Pires (wasn't sure if you were serious on the latter) in terms of the roles they played for Arsenal in 04. There's also the fact that defending now is shambolic in comparison to 10 years ago (I thought we had agreed on that?) Toure in 2004 wouldn't have scored anywhere close to as many goals as this year.
Genuinely wouldn't take a single member of the starting XI of City in the 2004 arsenal team (bar maybe Zabaleta).
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Pete_91
I've only read up to here so if you've addressed this point ignore me.
Toure isn't better than Vieira and Vela isn't even close to Pires (wasn't sure if you were serious on the latter) in terms of the roles they played for Arsenal in 04. There's also the fact that defending now is shambolic in comparison to 10 years ago (I thought we had agreed on that?) Toure in 2004 wouldn't have scored anywhere close to as many goals as this year.
Genuinely wouldn't take a single member of the starting XI of City in the 2004 arsenal team (bar maybe Zabaleta).
Toure isn't better than Vieira and Vela isn't even close to Pires (wasn't sure if you were serious on the latter) in terms of the roles they played for Arsenal in 04. There's also the fact that defending now is shambolic in comparison to 10 years ago (I thought we had agreed on that?) Toure in 2004 wouldn't have scored anywhere close to as many goals as this year.
Genuinely wouldn't take a single member of the starting XI of City in the 2004 arsenal team (bar maybe Zabaleta).
Vincent Kompany? Sergio Aguero? Joe Hart?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Aguero and Henry aren't really too far apart from each other tbf.
I can see the arguments for each person.
I can see the arguments for each person.
Original post by FKLW
Kompany in for Kolo is arguable actually, Hart not even close to Lehmann. Aguero very very slightly inferior to Henry.
Original post by Pete_91
Kompany in for Kolo is arguable actually, Hart not even close to Lehmann. Aguero very very slightly inferior to Henry.
Yeah that was a legit question for me- 2004 was before the time where I could truly analyse teams.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by FKLW
Yeah that was a legit question for me- 2004 was before the time where I could truly analyse teams.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Campbell was an absolute tank so to have yet another tank next to him in Kompany would be ridiculous tbh.
Henry and Aguero are similar, Henry less injury prone and brought slightly more to the team.
Original post by Pete_91
Campbell was an absolute tank so to have yet another tank next to him in Kompany would be ridiculous tbh.
Henry and Aguero are similar, Henry less injury prone and brought slightly more to the team.
Henry and Aguero are similar, Henry less injury prone and brought slightly more to the team.
From seeing Henry on programmes/05 onwards and barca years where I properly could analyse football he's one of my favourite players. Wouldn't swap him for anyone bar CR7 and LM10.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by FKLW
From seeing Henry on programmes/05 onwards and barca years where I properly could analyse football he's one of my favourite players. Wouldn't swap him for anyone bar CR7 and LM10.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Messi was starstruck when Henry first walked into the Barca dressing room in 2007, that's pretty high praise!
Toure over viera
Fernandinho = gilberto
Silva over pires
Nasri/Aguero over ljungberg
Kompany over kolo
Fernandinho = gilberto
Silva over pires
Nasri/Aguero over ljungberg
Kompany over kolo
lol ^
Original post by AR_95
lol ^
Don't even bother, pretend he's not there.
The league had a lot less quality teams in at the time though so maybe it'd be a primarily city player based team
Arsenals form in Europe more or less shows how overrated the invincibles actually were
Arsenals form in Europe more or less shows how overrated the invincibles actually were
Related discussions
- The Arsenal Thread XXVI
- The Arsenal Thread XXV
- What team do you support and why?
- Premier League Predictions 2023-24
- Premier League Run In
- Spanish books
- elsie wellbeing update at the end of 2023 :)
- Im bored as hell
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
- Tottenham Hotspur Society II
- ✨All Things Royal✨ Spam!
- Is Bukayo Saka the face of the Premier League?
- TSR emojis are so silly
- Does carbohydrates cause acne?
- Best football match you saw as a child?
- How to understand football as a girl - help
- What will the false prophet of revelation use at his disposal to deceive people ?
- Can a Premier League team win all these in one season or is it impossible?
- Chelsea transfer strategy
- Last Person to Post an Emoji Here Wins!
