(August 10, 2010 at 4:12 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Except that none of what Welsh said was directed to the questions I raised. So maybe it is an ad hominem via implication, i.e., maybe he is implying that because of Jason's alleged "intellectual bankrupcy" in one area, why listen to what he says in this other paper. One could also possibly make such an argument relative to Void's comments also.Ad hominem by implication doesn't exist as a fallacy, nor would it. There is a difference between saying outright that "Person X is a liar, so we shouldn't trust anything he says." and making an argument against what someone has said on logical grounds, and then adding that they are a liar. In the first case, the person being a liar is linked directly to the conclusion to not trust them. In the second, there is no such direct link.
Anyway, I see no need to push this "ad hominem" issue any further as it gets me no closer to an answer to my original questions.
You wanting it to be a fallacy reveals much about your intellectual honesty in my opinion. There is more to debates than pointing out fallacies.
