Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo
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.
|
Whatever, the difference here would be that I didn't do it to ATTACK your belief (see the definition of abusive and circumstantial above)
Quote:
|
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.
|
It does indeed. If someone bases their life around a belief, it is a trait. If it's just something they happen to believe, it isn't.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I linked the definition of abusive and circumstantial.
I linked the definitions of the words in question.
By the very definitions needed for the logical fallacy I proved my case.
Either disprove what I have proven, or quit lying that it wasn't.
By the way 'counter-arguments are ad hominens' is your statement, not mine.
I said "to attack the philosophy at all would be an attack on my character."
Prove your own words, I already proved mine.