@FBM,
Quote:And there is no paucity of evidence for injurious behavior motivated by religions.
That is an
ad hom as well. It does not address alternatives and it does not define "others". Nor does it say what injurious means. And it implies that only you are against injurious behaviour and only you can define it.
Where is the example I asked for of me using an
ad hom about you? hinge uses little else but
ad homs. And he can't take the heat either and is proud of it.
It is very odd that those who use
ad homs the most are so ready to accuse those who don't of the glaring fault. Doing that is an
ad hom.
Total Senate
100 (53D, 45R, 2I)
Women
20 (16D, 4R)
Total House
435 (201D, 234R)
Women
79 (60D, 19R), plus 3 (3D)
Does that mean that voters consider women unfit? There are moves here to impose women on the electorate. In 2014. And you are citing selected examples, out of context, from 3000 years ago in a barbaric society written by what have been referred to on this thread, and others like it, as "goat herders" (another gross
ad hom. )
Even Setanta, the
ad hom king, has allowed that there are deeper reasons than religion for the historical violence.
The limitation of freedom is a necessary condition of all organised societies and it is more severe in non-religious ones than we are used to. Talking about the limitation of freedom whilst ignoring that fact is devious. At best. It is actually nonsense and patronising and deliberately misleading.