Chris P. Bacon schools the dullard Observerofu on the nuances of "ad hominem"
This thread is a continuation of a lengthy discussion regarding the proper (and improper) application of "ad hominem" complaints regarding posts.
I asked Observerofu why calling Hitler evil was not considered an "ad hominem" attack, yet referring to the so-called "pregnancy resource center volunteers" as Christian predators was, in his mind anyway, an "ad hominem" attack.
You can say Hitler was evil without it being an ad hominem attack.
You have failed to explain exactly WHY it is permissible for me to claim that "Hitler was evil". Is it because "everyone knows" Hitler was evil? No, that's the "if everyone believes it, it must be true" fallacy. Here's why it is okay to claim "Hitler was evil": there is a large amount of evidence documenting his transgressions.
However if I were to say Hitler was evil and you attacked me about how I used a NYT
headline without arguing the issue then this is considered an ad hominem. See how it works.
Pointing out an error you make is NOT "ad hominem", it is not a personal attack. If I were to claim 2+2=5, and you were to correct me and point out 2+2=4, could I then claim you were making an "ad hominem" attack on me? You made a claim that was demonstrably false regarding the New York Times and I corrected you. For you to say that was an "ad hominem" attack is absolutely ludicrous.
An ad hominem is an argument based on the real or perceived faults of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack.
When you levy a personal attack against "Christians" (you called them predators amongst other things) based on no real evidence and then refuse to argue the merits of the center. You fulfilled the logical fallacy requirement of the description. Your OPINION was an attack note the perceived portion of the description.
First of all, you are engaging in a logical fallacy called "moving the goalposts" by claiming I am attacking all Christians (the "all" is implied above). I am doing nothing of the sort. I am attacking those purported Christians who attempt to coerce desparate people into becoming Christians.
Secondly, you claim I offered no "real evidence" to support my position. This is not true. If you look here: LINK, I backed up my opinion with a link to Congressional testimony detailing the tawdry nature of these sleazy deceptive pseudoclinics. This, my friend, is real evidence
Summing it up, I voiced my disgust with slimy "pregnancy resource centers", correctly (in my OPINION) referring to them as Christian Predator Centers.
An opinion, backed by facts, can not be considered in any way, shape or form to be an "ad hominem" attack.
Disagreeing with something you happen to favor is NOT an "ad hominem" attack.