Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370 - “usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.”
Originally Posted by almightywood
Explain how the fuck I have to justify my beliefs to you in order for them to be valid?
Sounds like something along the lines of religious persecution to me.
You're claiming that counter-arguments are ad hominens. No one else said that. That is what you said. You have the responsibility of defending it. It's not my job to disprove something that you have never proven to be true, after all. That'd be ridiculous, and I'm sure the last thing you want is for this discussion to take that turn.
For something to be logically valid you must demonstrate that it's logically valid. Do you honestly expect people to just go along with whatever you say without you showing them that what you're saying is logical first? Come on, this shit isn't complicated.
But hey, if you can't show that your belief is logically valid, then that's fine. Believe whatever stupid shit you want, I don't care. But don't expect anyone to take it even remotely seriously if you are incapable of providing any compelling reason for them to do so.
Edit: Oh, you edited your entire post. And somehow managed to make it way more stupid than before. Bravo. But yeah, I'm not trying to disprove anything right now, because you would have to actually provide some proof for your shit first. There isn't anything to dis
And just answer this: Can you back up the 'counter-arguments are ad hominens' thing with proof or not? If you can, then just do it. Should be easy, and I'll gladly admit my error and thank you for educating me. If you can't, then nothing else you're saying matters.