Originally posted by no1marauderLook up the definition of ad hominem. It clearly falls under that.
That's a "personal attack"???🙄
Obviously you don't want to address the points raised.
Also, questioning my motivations "you don't want to address the points raised" is another ad hominem.
Personally, I think your points are valid, but I'd rather not banter with you.
Originally posted by darvlayPerhaps not, but that is the standard the three Mods here are espousing. That they aren't as diligent in enforcing that policy (well, not against everybody) as they profess shouldn't stop me from debating their professed position.
Please, no1, this forum hardly fits that description.
What is it you say? You're being shrill and emotional, Mary?
Originally posted by DraxusThen don't.
Look up the definition of ad hominem. It clearly falls under that.
Also, questioning my motivations "you don't want to address the points raised" is another ad hominem.
Personally, I think your points are valid, but I'd rather not banter with you.
BTW, that's not an "ad hominem"; it's a characterization of his position, not of HIM.
Originally posted by no1marauderWikipedia says:
Then don't.
BTW, that's not an "ad hominem"; it's a characterization of his position, not of HIM.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."
You made an attack on his (or my) belief.
It is hard not to respond to you when you are so absolutley wrong.
Originally posted by DraxusJesus H Christmas.
Wikipedia says:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing e n his (or my) belief.
It is hard not to respond to you when you are so absolutley wrong.
"than by addressing the substance of the argument"
I was addressing the substance of his argument which is that all posts on this site have to be acceptable to a 13 year old mentality. This is a curious position on a site which states in its TOS that you should be over 18 to use the site.