Quote:
Originally Posted by Propianotuner1
Here's the glaringly obvious reasons I am guilty of neither argument:
In order to be guilty of argumentum ad hominem, one must be presenting an argument in the first place. What I did to Hammer rather than present an argument, was casually dismiss his notion. To be blunt, I don't consider it worth my time arguing against such a pre-Copernican claim. Hence, you were arguing against a non-argument and as such I can't meet the criteria for a tu quoque fallacy. You can't use an indirect red herring after all if you weren't even presenting an argument in the first place.
What I was referring to, as opposed to your apt but fundamentally misguided assumptions, was hypocrisy. I have a litany of ad homs slung against me by several members and I get charged with it for what was clearly a casual dismissal? Your condescension and critique of my reasoning abilities only demonstrates your own vanity, not some righteous crusade.
|
This man is full of contradictions and talks in circles like every Jesuit we have ever caught. He would likely admit it quick if we could lay hands upon him.