@spendius,
spendius wrote:
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.
Erm. You do know that's short for
ad hominem, right? As in "to the man"? There is no human in that sentence of mine.
Quote:Where is the example I asked for of me using an ad hom about you?
...
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.
...
You so, so very, very obviously don't know what an
argumentum ad hominem is, so I don't see much point in trying to convince you that you've made one. You seem bent on arguing at the expense of intellectual honesty. I guess I misjudged you, after all. I don't post here regularly, and somehow I had the impression that you could argue dispassionately and that empirical evidence and necessary inference based on it would carry weight. However, you riddle your posts with logical fallacies, empty, emotion-laden rhetoric. That's so common to find on the internet these days that you simply aren't an interesting interlocutor. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a sock puppet of Romeo. Anyhoo, goodbye and good luck. I hope you educate yourself soon.