Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Us government's trick to violate civil liberties
View Single Post
Old 12-21-2011, 06:45 PM   #147
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
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 completely disagree.
If you had merely mentioned it in passing not having realized I was here, or stated it being unaware of my beliefs, then it would be coincidental.
But since my beliefs were the start of the discussion, bringing it up in direct opposition to my beliefs is not coincidental in any sense of the word.



Quote:
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 misread what you said initially and have since changed my response.





Quote:
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?
No, against any statement I hold as a belief I base my life around.

Quote:
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.
Again this isn't what I am claiming, the 'base my life around it' is the difference, and it is entirely valid. Once I base my life around it it becomes both a trait, and a moral and is applicable under definitions #1-#4 of character.

Quote:
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.
I do not claim that producing a counter-argument against a belief I just so happen to hold is abusive and circumstantial.

I do maintain that an attack on a philosophy I base my life around is indeed abusive and circumstantial by way of the definitions linked earlier to prove exactly this.

Last edited by almightywood; 12-21-2011 at 07:22 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)