Originally Posted by almightywood
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.
How fucking dare you bring my personal beliefs into this! I base my entire life philosophy on the sun rising. For you to trivialize it by calling it 'just a random belief' and that your philosophy is "something much more" is a blatant insult against me.
So looks like I win this one. Unless, of course, you stop being retarded and realize that you basing your life philosophy around some random beliefs doesn't make them special or unassailable in any way. All it does is make this discussion that much more amusing, and make you kind of pathetic. That's it.
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.
You taking something personally like some egomaniac doesn't mean anything. I'm not talking about you, I don't care about you. Even if you didn't exist there would still be no compelling logical reason to take the statement of 'counter-arguments are ad hominens' seriously. That's all I'm talking about. Just that statement. I would just like to see some proof of it's logical validity. That's all.