(February 9, 2015 at 8:48 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Ah no... Ad Hominem would be for me to attack the source just to discredit - But attacking the source with truthful facts is not an ad hominem, it's legitimate - If my opponent is a well known liar, I can point it out if I have proof that he is so, it's only an ad hominem. Also, it would be an ad hominem if I attacked TheMessiah, which I didn't (ok I told him to fuck himself but sometimes I lose patience - That was not to be taken seriously)
Perhaps then you should answer the point be bruited. The fact is, you have indeed waved away some points simply by asserting that the source was conservative. Well, I don't give two shits rubbed together what their political leaning is. I want to know the facts of the assertion.
You have at times addressed actualy points, but pretending that you yourself don't have an ideologial base in this conversation is not doing you any favors.
As I said earlier, there is enough irrationality in the conversation to go around.
