Originally Posted by almightywood
Whatever, the difference here would be that I didn't do it to ATTACK your belief (see the definition of abusive and circumstantial above)
Then there is no difference at all, since no one is doing anything in here to ATTACK your beliefs. They're attacking statements that you just so happen to believe. Just like you trivialized beliefs about the sun rising as no big thing. My beliefs are coincidental. Same exact thing.
I already stated this is just some childish trick.
You've stated a lot of stupid things. Pointing out glaring flaws in your reasoning through the use of satire isn't a trick.
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.
Post 115: "By the very definition of it being a counter-argument (although counter-argument doesn't even fit since there was no argument on the other side, argument implies an attack as well) it is in fact an attack."
Counter-arguments are attacks. Attacks against any statement you hold as a belief = ad hominen. This is what you believe, correct?
Then any counter argument against any statement you hold as a belief would therefore be an ad hominen. According to you, of course. But you have not demonstrated this. Again, that's what I'm asking for.
I'm not questioning the fact that a counter-argument that only attacks your character are ad hominens. I already knew that, because I understand logic. That's what your little definition quoting is addressing. That's not what I'm asking you to prove though. Since no one has ever attacked your character to discredit a statement. Someone would have to say "You're stupid, AW, therefore your statement is stupid." for that to apply. No one has done that in here. So, again, all that shit is irrelevant.
I want to see proof that demonstrates the logical validity that producing a counter-argument against a statement (which irrelevantly is a belief you hold) are ad hominens. If I'm mistaken and you don't believe they are ad hominen fallacies then just say so. If you do believe that then show how that in particular is logically valid.