Content deleted Content added
Line 354:
===comment from Saxifrage===
Clearly this term is novel and supported by only original research. There should be no debate—it does not belong in the article. [[User:Layman]], use your considerable logical faculties to see how this inevitably follows from the premises laid out in [[WP:NOR]]. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] | [[User talk:Saxifrage|☎]] 22:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
===comment from Ajax1973===
Layman's term is correct and instead of ganging up on him and making fun of him you guys should at least acknolwedge it's something that's not covered in the article as it is now. I came here looking almost explicitly for the concept he defined as Inverted Ad Hominem and was disappointed not to see it until I saw this discussion, which was pretty horrifying to read. Inverted Ad Hominem is not solely confined to "appeal to authority":
When senator Zell Miller went up to the podium at the RNC last year, the fact that he was a Democrat made his endorsement of Bush, a Republican, more compelling regardless of the points he was making.
Being a Democrat does not mean one has more "authority" in politics, but the same above operates as the same device that Layman's neologism describes. In addition, the term "ad hominem defense" turns up 322 times on Google, including an arbitration dispute on wikipedia.
==Argument from Intimidation==
| |||