- Thread starter
- #861
Your previous example, your boycott of Nestle, is based on your judgement that Nestle is evil. I got free formula samples when I gave birth, but no literature stating formula was superior to breast milk. It is all very subjective when you get right down to it and you, apparently, want your views to be the law of the land.I don't have a problem with protests against a business engaged in evil, unfair, unethical, or immoral practices that are harming people who have no choice in the matter and no realistic way to protect or defend themselves. But that is a separate debate and discussion for another thread.
This thread is re tolerance of what people think and believe when they are requiring nobody else to agree with them and/or their right NOT to act in matters/events/activities they believe to be immoral, wrong, or for whatever reason.
A misrepresentation of what I said and argued on all counts and expressly disallowed ad hominem to boot..
How can that be an "ad hom" when the OP topic explicitly states the intention of the OP is to discuss a "new law" and the OP has been advocating for this "new law" throughout this entire thread?
It is ad hom anytime the argument is directed to the intent, motive, character, or anything else personal about the member posting rather than the content of the post itself.
No, ad hom is only when it is directed AGAINST the person, motive, character, etc.
When it is FACTUAL, such as was stated by Ravi, then it is not ad hom.
Sorry but I have been obeying the rules about this stuff, coaching this stuff, and teaching this stuff for 50 years. I know what ad hominem is. AND I get to define the terms in this thread.
I define ad hominem as any argument that is based on or refers to the character, intent, motive, etc. of the member making the post or anybody else rather than commenting on or rebutting what the person has argued. It is usually intended to undermine a person by turning the attention to his/her faults, flaws, or whatever and draw attention away from the person's actual argument.
Last edited: