"Argumentum ad hominem. By your definition, you're demeaning those you're addressing in a debate. Ironically, it's one of the three tips you so patronisingly passed on to your opponents. It's also something you've perpetrated repeatedly over here."
That's very true. I'm glad you've spent so much time analysing my trolling spree. However all that hardly qualifies as employing ad-hominem attacks, which would more accurately describe the "fuck off you asshole"s, "you retarded fundamentalist"s and the rest viewable all throughout the forum. This is certainly no place for actual discussion, just attacking the poster of stuff that easily-entertained atheists find funny; as long as we understand that we can all move along.
"Your definition, however, is wrong.
The fact of the matter is, we respond to your 'points' (for lack of a better word) with the same attitude as you state them: you behave like an asshole. That gives us absolutely no reason to be especially nice or civil with you. However, ad hominem attacks are not fallacious. For that to be the case, those debating or arguing with you would need to do nothing but insult you, without offering any kind of rebuttal to your argument. This is obviously not so."
Well I never said they were fallacious, I said it was a sign of defeat or frustration. By the way, the "asshole" got here lonnnnnng before I did.
"We choose to insult you while making inherently valid points on the topic. Indeed, simply calling you an asshole (as I have done) does not even constitute an ad hominem attack. I once again suggest that you look up the definition of the terms you're using."
Or maybe you should realise the basic difference between an ad-hominem argument and an ad-hominem attack.
"As with the concept of hypocrisy, you have either misinterpreted the definition or invented your own to suit your temporary needs in an argument. Personal abuse, sarcasm and name-calling do not constitute an ad hominem attack, and therefore do not constitue [sic] fallacies in the debate situation."
Can you choose one idea and stay on that one please? It makes it hard to quote.
I have taken "hypocrisy" to mean essentially "a rational or logical contradiction in one's opinions or actions." Is this not the same concept that you would define as hypocrisy?
"You, however, are repeatedly using argumentum ad hominem circumstantial. This means that you are accusing a source of bias, a common rookie error. You judge that because of certain circumstances, arguments made are biased (such as a "pro-abortion site" providing evidence contrary to your argument - they have circumstances that would suggest bias, but this does not automatically mean their evidence is wrong.) and therefore should be dismissed."
Wow, this is beautiful, just beautiful. Because not only did I not do that once at any point, but I actually just argued against exactly that principle which was being so heavily employed by your own godless lackeys. You can see that right on the previous page when I was accused that my sources were "obviously a lie" because they were not published neutrally. I never made that argument once in my entire time here, and ironically, I'm probably the only one who can say that.
"This IS a fallacy. It may be in the person or company's best interests to present one kind of argument, but that does not automatically mean their argument is without merit."
Thank you. Please direct this argument to those applying the notion.
"Personally, I find you a rather pitiable sort of fellow. You aspire to display intelligence greater than those you oppose, but you simply do not understand the terms and techniques you attempt to describe and utilise. You secretly expect that your opponents understand as much as you, or less than you, when in fact that is not the case. Unable to comprehend the idea that those you are debating may have studied logic and rhetoric, you try to use it to belittle them. This alone belittles you."
Wow. Do you write poetry often? To quote a certain few of my acquaintances -- fabulous darling. Was not aware I was talking to a very opinionated Dr Phil.
"I do not know who you are, what you do or where you live. I do, however, know that you are so desperate to be let in on the secrets of the world that you belong to a minority. This minority believes that US news networks are controlled by "a jewish[sic] minority", that abortion doctors "rape and sexually assault [women]", that those who profess to be pro-choice are ignorant, naive, fanatical, and - ultimately - of a lower intellectual capacity than you."
And that is because I have yet to see any of this even begin to be disproven.
"You seem to need to believe these things, as they give you status, the illusion of a superior intellect, the higher moral ground that validates your beliefs. Doubtlessly, you have contacts who hold these same views, and feel you belong with a cohesive group that mirrors all you've spewed in your time on this site."
I'm not the one frequenting a website with perhaps thousands of members which exists for no other purpose than to call names and make accusations of small penis size at those that oppose me. Of course I have "contacts" that support the same things I do, what do you think I just hang out in the attic watching television all day? Or perhaps that I don't know people that I agree with in any way, shape or form?
"I have no desire to interfere with this. I have no desire to seek you out and debate with you the logical fallacies of your attempts to debate, nor the lack of respect you show all and sundry. I have no desire to communicate with you in any way."
Weird, that's not what you said last night.
No, really. What with you begging me to come back to other long-dead discussion threads here as if I actually sit here hitting F5 all day on every page I've ever posted on.
"I hope that you have a social organisation or group where you feel validated and correct; I have no desire to infringe upon it."
I do. It's called Stormfront, and actually, we WOULD appreciate if you would "infringe" upon it. We have a huge forum just for doing that. But considering I have yet to actually be even remotely disproven here, on YOUR playing field, I really doubt your chances on mine, no offense.
"I also have no desire to have a pompous, arrogant and ultimately inferior wingnut on FSTDT."
Seems to me you've had plenty of that from day one. Who else feels the need to laugh at things said by other people behind their back -- the entire premise on which this forum survives? Someone made the mistake of posting my comment here and then sending me the link to the page, so it would be nothing less than dishonourable for me not to defend it. But I guess I'm "ruining" the web site by disagreeing, yeah, that's some forum you have there. And you call ME a fundamentalist, hah.
"This is not your social playground; we are not going to make you feel clever or right."
Translation: we are never going to admit you're right, we'd sooner just abandon the discussion. Who's going to call us out on that?
It's just the opposite, really. You have no idea how assuring it is that I can state my arguments here and find that -- even though I am probably 1:1,000 here -- they go completely unchallenged. I can say these things amongst my own communities, and while I know I am correct, it doesn't really make you feel clever; it's more like preaching to the choir. Here it's like winning a thousand chess games in a row.
"So until you learn some manners, or at the very fucking least a civil and logically correct manner in which to challenge our viewpoints and juxtapose them with your own, where we can then have some intellectual exchanges based on evidence rather than conspiracy theories and ancient morality books speaking out against homosexuality while supporting infanticide..."
lolwut? Supporting infanticide, isn't that what I'm arguing AGAINST here? For someone with such a convincing façade of confidence, you certainly seem to get the sides confused often enough. Never once did I mention a conspiracy theory, and never once did I reference a book that is by any means "old."
I am being civil, very civil. Me discussing abortion here diplomatically is something to be appreciated, let alone asking for more than that. Because if I had my way abortion would be a high crime of genocide and all its perpetuators would be rightfully executed.
And you know what's even MORE funny? You just tried explaining to me that "ad-hominem" can only be applied to an argument that is in its entirety made for the purpose of attacking the person of your opponent, and yet after all that, this last tiny little part is the only segment of your response that actually tries to establish any argument against my points. It does that, by the way, laughably bad. If this kind of thing weren't so common amongst you and your kin, I'd at this point assume you too are a troll operating on comical irony.
"Kindly fuck off :)"
Nope. The internet was designed for people like me. A free media where everyone has perfect equal ability and opportunity to be heard anywhere they like. After these great responses from you I can see I really do have something entertaining to get out of this shit-hole of a forum.