Originally Posted by almightywood
You are putting words in my mouth with bullshit logic. My saying that all counter-arguments are attacks doesn't in any way constitute all attacks being counter-arguments. I said "attacks against my philosophy, are attacks against my character", which is the more specific term, I will not switch to the broader term under the all umbrella to provide proof of something I never once claimed. Quit being a jackass and trying to switch my words around if you want me to back them up.
So now you're saying actual formal logic is bullshit? Might as well say math is bullshit while you're at it.
Attacks against your philosophy are ad hominens.
Counter-arguments are attacks.
∴ Counter-arguments against your philosophy are ad hominens.
This is a valid proof created using deductive reasoning. The wikipedia entry on deductive reasoning explains it very well, and I'm sure there are plenty of other sites I could direct you to should you want something other than wikipedia.
We've entertained your attempts to weasel your way out of shit enough. I'm going to keep on you until you post the links. Let's see some credible evidence that backs your shit up already.
I need demonstrate nothing. This has never been an argument of logic, it has always been about ethics.
They're not mutually exclusive. Post the links, unless of course you can't.
Edit: Pretty sure neither 'the law' nor 'the 12 step program' would accept the philosophy of "I'm always right" as a religion. In fact, I think that would go over terribly at an AA meeting. "How dare you assault my character by suggesting I have a problem that I need to admit to!" Post the links.