Originally Posted by Miburo
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.”
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.
There's a reason that it starts off with the word usually:
If we were talking about just random beliefs on whether the sun would come out tomorrow, then you would be correct.
But since we are talking about the philosophy I base my life on, it becomes something much more, and you are not.
I did in fact prove that attacking my character is abusive and circumstantial, there was no valid reason ever given why the definitions of the words I linked shouldn't apply the way I stated.
Definition #1 is the only definition that could apply to calling someone a jew bastard instead of arguing against them.
If definition # 1 is applicable to the term character as used in the logical fallacy, then attacking my beliefs is abusive and circumstantial since my beliefs are one of my traits.
I have already provided proof of this statement you are saying I didn't.
Either explain how that would fit under another definition in a way that wouldn't also entail my belief system to fit under that definition, or quit saying I didn't prove what I already proved.