Radorth

Definition of "ad hominem"

"The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel.·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style."

Never mind. I doubt you can find a better word to describe this thread.

Rad

Toto

This is false. It was pointed out to you that you did not understand what Madison was saying. You took every positive reference to Christianity in that piece as supporting your position while ignoring Madison's clear meaning.

And I do not see any ongoing ad hom feeding frenzy.

Radorth

Virtually every post after that is talking about Rad's personal faults somewhere in the post. Rad's dishonest. He has no point. It is no use talking to him. He's blind tot he truth. Yak yak yak.

But that is when ad hom shows up, when one has a weak case, or no response.

Yeah I forgot. When he called Christianity a "precious gift" and said the bill would hinder the spread of the Gospel, he was just manipulating the Christians for his own political ends, but did not really believe what he was saying. I don't know, because we got lost in the ad hom you and Freddy daily engage in. Apparently you think all the skeptics here are too dumb to see my great faults, so you keep repeating them over and over and over. You even tried to close that thread with one of your insults and a gross misrepresentation of my position.

But let us use the definition of a hypocrite from one of your sites (Lincoln the Free-thinker) and apply it to Madison.

But we will measure Lincoln for not only what he said, but also for what he did not say. We will follow the motto that although "actions speak louder than words," only hypocrites say what they do not believe.

Which is why you guys should at least be calling Madison and even Washington hypocrites- for saying what they did not believe. We do not have Lincoln calling Christianity a "precious gift." We do not hear him say that the morally ignorant should study "above all, the religion of Jesus Christ," or calling him "the Author of our religion."

Rad

Toto

Radorth: Apparently you think all the skeptics here are too dumb to see my great faults, so you keep repeating them over and over and over.

You pulled the wool over Amie's eyes, didn't you?

All politicans are hypocrits to an extent.

Fred Flintstonensis

I have a 12 page document that specifically impugns Radorth's intregrity and intelligence I will post it here later this week after I edit it some more. I had hoped that this thread would be a quote-fest, not a flame-fest. I have quoted Radorth showing his position to be inconsistent, noted his silence when he is refuted and noted his use of logical fallacies. I also addressed the Madison thread point-by-point and shown how Radorth not only read into it things that he wanted to be there, but also actually misunderstood a great deal of what Madison was even talking about. On two of his commentaries, he simply got it wrong, Madison was not at all saying what Radorth thought he was saying. Anyway, I am a busier than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest, but I am getting laid off in two weeks, so I will have more time to enage Radorth, the quintessential lying-ass right wing Christian.

Re: the 'Madison' thread.

I knew that Radorth was not going to believe me. As I said, he is so utterly void of honesty that he automatically assumes that everyone else is to. The reason he has concentrated on that misstatement is because he is trying to ensure that that he is never put into the position of having to address the corrected version of that statement, which for the record is as follows:

Radorth cannot address this statement, that is why he kept that misstatement going for so long. He knows I am right. Notice in the post where I admitted it was a misstatement that I said, "That out of the way...". Since people make misstatements, I thought that would be the end of it. I naively thought that Radorth would say "Oh, it was a misstatement. Ok." and not bring it up again. By the third time he brought it up, I started seriously thinking that he might be an inordinately verbose middle school student. I still think he might be a young immature punk-ass kid.

Daggah

So what's the case being made here, in this thread?

Oh wait, I forgot. There isn't one. This thread is SOLELY about your [lack of] integrity.

When an insult is just an insult, it's not an ad hominem.

"You're stupid." = insult
"Your argument is wrong because you're stupid." = ad hominem

Tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen, we'll introduce the "non-sequitur" to Radorth. And then the day after that we'll review another fallacy. And another. And another. Maybe if we take it slow Radorth will finally begin understanding logic, at least a little.

Sabine Grant

Hello TOTO : I agree with Amie....inciting people to bash another individual has nothing to do with Separation of Church and State.

I avoid certain threads to not be exposed to the evaluation of anyone's character based on cyber communication.... I saw the word INTEGRITY in an earlier post.

Stating that one disagrees with the style and behavior of a participant is OK.... but calling that person a liar, defaming their character by mentionning "lack of integrity" is very serious. I expect more personal accountability from other participants.

I mean you guys are attacking the character of a real person in a public forum. Nothing justifies that course of action.

If you have problems with Rad's behavior correction could have been presented in PM and to him alone.

I gladly join the protesting minority.

Yellum Notnef

Will somebody please edit the offensive comments out of the OP (whatever they are) before any other members of the Christian ladies hugging club decide to join thie protest.


:banghead:

Sabine Grant

((((((( Fenton)))))) oh poor thing... we neglicted you! let me go get Amie !

Toto

Hi Sabine - Fred (and others) have accused Radorth of dishonesty. Not personal dishonesty, but providing dishonest arguments and quoting Christian authors who dishonestly invent material to show that the founders of this country were Christians. That's what this debate is about, and there is no other way of resolving it than putting all of the issues on the table.

Rad is also accused of being a troll - of saying things just to incite a reaction. We feel that he is putting on a performance here, not trying to engage in real dialogue. He has admitted as much.

Rad has not provided an email address or any other way to contact him.

Is your sympathy for him just based on your sympathy for underdogs in general, or is there some specific instance where you think he has been treated unfairly?