WHOOO-HOOOO: "Giancarlo Granda says his sexual relationship with the Falwells began when he was 20."

[basquebromance]

must read if you care about this story! NY Post always bring the goods. the most entertaining paper!

Inside Jerry Falwell Jr.’s life of luxury before shocking pool boy sex scandal

Falwell, 58, portrayed himself as the consummate family man on Instagram, posting photos of his daughter’s picture-perfect engagement and riding horses on his sprawling farm.

nypost.com

 

[BWK]

If it's true it's weird and kind of disgusting but so what? There are allegations of the Clinton's flying to Epstein's freaking sex island to engage in God knows what with sex slaves. Does that matter?

But, but, but, the Clinton's. But it wasn't a "so what" moment for him now was it? There were consequences for his affairs. Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither. Your bias is totally disgusting.

"Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither".

We don't want to know about your particular sexual fetishes

It's not sexual. It's what radical right wing fanatical evangelical Christians do on a daily basis.

Well IF that's what they are doing on a daily basis I HOPE they are using Hand Sanitiser post-action.

If it's true it's weird and kind of disgusting but so what? There are allegations of the Clinton's flying to Epstein's freaking sex island to engage in God knows what with sex slaves. Does that matter?

But, but, but, the Clinton's. But it wasn't a "so what" moment for him now was it? There were consequences for his affairs. Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither. Your bias is totally disgusting.

"Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither".

We don't want to know about your particular sexual fetishes

Democrats sought to protect president Clinton from scandal by citing "his sexual life is nobody's business but his own". But he was President of the United States and his sexual life with an intern was the people's business. Here we are when a Christian leader of a University is accused of a "legal" if perverted sexual life and the left cries "whooo-hoooo". What has changed?

What has changed? Remember family values by the Right? That's all the Left ever heard about. And now? And now the Right are hypocrites. The truth is, the Right didn't give a shit about it then. They just pretended to.

Is family values what it's all about? The right doesn't have a freaking chance in that argument since democrats don't claim any family values.

What it's all about, are the lies and the hypocrisy. The Right stands for their own individualism, so they have to hide behind the business of taking Christianity hostage, while sabotaging its true intentions for personal interests, and pleasure, such as the case with Falwell.

Individualism isn't a synonym for self-centeredness.

In the case of these right-wing hypocrites, it most certainly is.

Wishing for the individual nature of each human to be easily dismissed won't make the nature of existence as simple as you portray, nor will it make your utopian ideals any more realistic.

Obviously you did not get the part about "their own individualism." The meaning refers to their own "individualism" and no one else counts. My post is not condemning "individualism" in the literal sense. But, I'm sure you already knew what I meant to begin with. You just made the choice to hijack the message by way of your own frustrations failing to counter the actual argument.

Actually, I honestly thought that I'd read your meaning and responded appropriately. My bad for the presumptuous comeback, it was probably a dick move.

As far as being frustrated by your argument. . . there was an argument in there? It looked like an ad hominem to me. Granted, it was worded well enough to sound more substantive than a simple personal attack, but if you go back and reread your post, I think you'll find, as I did, that all you did was accuse the entire right of hijacking Christianity and cited this one guy. I wasn't too frustrated to counter that absolute juggernaut of logic and reason with which you've destroyed the entire conservative movement, I just didn't think it was worth my time.

My original thoughts concentrated on the self centered interests of the radical evangelical Right. Which does not include all Republicans. However, if you wish to go down that road, I'm happy to accommodate. Anyone who votes for Trump, whether they be evangelicals, Republicans, Independents, or even Democrats, has signed off with the devil. Any one, and I do mean any one, who supports a guy who stole millions from a charity that was supposed to go to children with cancer, has no relationship with Christ. Period!

Also, I fail to understand your connection between ad hominem and my claim that they lie and are hypocrites? I haven't injected any ad hominem yet, but I'm not opposed to it. The fact that they habitually lie and are hypocrites is undeniable. Evangelicals preach one thing, do another, then cover it up with lies. Nothing new about that. And being called a hypocrite isn't ad hominem, it's just a fact.

It was absolutely an ad hominem, buddy. Ad hominem is when you ignore someone's arguments and resort, in stead, to personal attacks. Let me clarify. If you were to point to something that someone said and then explain why that statement was hypocritical, that's not ad hominem. If you simply assert that a group of people are hypocrites without actually addressing anything any of them have actually said, that's purely a personal attack, and textbook ad hominem, regardless of how factual you believe the accusation to be.

Apparently, however, I took you too literally in terms of how much of "the right" it was to which you were applying said ad hominem. My apologies, but you did literally say, "the right", and it can be hard to discern the absolute bigots on boards like this from those who keep their bigotry limited to slightly smaller demographics. Anyway, thanks for clarifying, distinction noted.

As far as your conclusions about evangelical Trump voters, I'd advise you to keep in mind that everybody doesn't believe the same premises to be true that you do. Consider the likelihood that Trump's evangelical voters are largely holding their nose when they vote for a flawed individual who's the alternative to a party that they view to be an active opposition to their very religious values. Consider the even greater likelihood that, like most Trump voters, the evangelicals in the mix largely aren't even engaging with the individual accusations against Trump, and are at this point just discarding them onto the PILE of similar accusations that were quickly debunked. Basically, if the MSM wasn't crying wolf so insanely often, maybe some of these evangelicals would address some of the actual wolves?

Attacking by way of facts and the truth is not ad hominem. Attacking someone and calling names for no reason is. If someone lies, they are a liar. It is what it is. If the truth or the lie is proven, without pointing it out, then what is the point of debating either one?

You didn't attack by way of facts and truth. You attacked by way of your own presumptions of their motives and didn't even attempt to substantiate those presumptions.

Also, ad hominem isn't a synonym for untrue. Whether what you said is true or not (and lemme save you the suspense: When you try to make a blanket statement about the viewpoints of a group of people who's membership numbers in the millions, you're ALWAYS going to be wrong to a rather great degree) is irrelevant. Ad hominem simply means that you've ignored any position that someone has put forward and chosen to attack them personally in stead. That's PRECISELY what you did.

Keep trying.

I chose to personally support Donald Trump for president early on and referred to him as America's blue-collar billionaire at the Republican National Convention because of his love for ordinary Americans and his kindness, generosity, and bold leadership qualities. Jerry Fallwell lied right here. "His generosity?" Really? Trump stole millions from a charity that was supposed to go to children with cancer, got caught, paid a fine, and that's "generosity?" LOL! It's called stealing. That's a fact that has nothing to do with generosity. Care to prove me wrong through my substantiation? I didn't think so.

We weren't discussing Jerry Fallwell. Your claim was regarding "the right", which you later clarified to mean right wing evangelicals. You haven't substantiated the quote that I correctly identified as ad hominem.

Keep trying.

If you want lies from the Right, that's no problem either. How many do you need?

Enough to paint the entire demographic that you were trying to broad-brush, which I can absolutely guarantee that you can't produce.

Also, you weren't just talking about generic lies. You claimed, specifically, that right wing evangelicals "hide behind the business of taking Christianity hostage, while sabotaging its true intentions for personal interests, and pleasure". This is not a position that you will be able to find any right wing evangelical proposing explicitly. It's ONLY something that you might be able to infer through observation. That sort of observation tends, in politically charged situations such as this, to be heavily tainted when the observer has a strong bias, as you clearly do. Moreover, given the mere fact that this isn't a position that any right wing evangelical actually stands by, it can be nothing other than ad hominem, as it is an argument that necessarily bypasses anything that right wing evangelicals are actually saying in order to expose what you believe to be their hidden motives.

As far as not knowing what an ad hominem is. . .


ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

adverb

1. 1.
   in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
   
   
2. 2.
   in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

". . . directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." When I said that your claim bypassed any actual position taken by right wing evangelicals, I was tailoring that explanation SPECIFICALLY to the dictionary definition of ad hominem.

Keep trying.

Of course they are not going to propose that. They are a lot of things, but stupid they are not. They will never tell you what they really stand for. That's giving the store away. And boy howdy, do they need the store. It's a business. A money maker. What do you think organized religion is all about? Jesus? Think I'm cynical? Think again. All you need is a resume full of truths, lies, and their own actions to expose them for who they are. Evangelicals and the Ten commandments? Now that's a good one.

I noticed you weren't entertaining my question about all the lies from the Right? That figures.

Also, the reason I'm not addressing the accuracy of your particular claims is because you're trying to broad-brush paint a demographic of people that numbers in the millions. You are DEFINITELY inaccurate, merely by oversimplifying the situation into a narrative where these people are all an ideological monolith. If you claimed that "blacks drink 40's" it would be the same kind of inaccurate, regardless of how many pictures you could show me of individuals of African descent imbibing.

The other reason I'm not addressing it is because I don't feel like trying to disabuse someone who's doing mental gymnastics to avoid admitting being wrong about something totally minor, of emotionally charged political preconceptions that compare to this minor point like a mountain compares to a grain of sand.

Except you are addressing it, while telling me you are not, and in midstream making small potatoes about an organization that wouldn't exist if it weren't for it's monolithic money making ways. It's nothing but a giant corporation pretending to care about Christianity, while syphoning millions from the suckers who fall for that crap.

You're right, there. It would have been more accurate for me to say, "the reason I haven't been addressing...".

See how easy that is? Now you try.

It should look something like, "Yeah, saying that right wing evangelicals are hiding behind taking Christianity hostage was technically ad hominem."

Seriously, just owning your errors is WAY less embarrassing than this game you're playing.

You were served up the definition as I was. Too bad your interpretation does not align with the actual definition. Nothing I can do about that.

You dummy, the definition you served up was that ad hominem was when you make a personal attack for no reason. That's not the definition, and my interpretation aligns PERFECTLY with the ACTUAL definition.

Keep trying.

ADJECTIVE

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

ADVERB

1. in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
2. in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

You.ve been at this too long chief. Keep trying. The definition is clear. Find yourself another pair of glasses. This beginning to be a bore.

Yeah, that first definition is the one I've been going with.

Again, when you bypass any points that the evangelical right actually makes and simply claim that they're liars, that's an attack directed against a person (multiple, in this case) rather than the position they are maintaining. Seriously, how are you not getting this? It's so simple.

It says person, seriously, how are you not getting this? But ha, if that's your thing, have at it. At the end of the day, the facts about what they do, like lying to their congregations and making business from that, is what they ultimately care about. It's all about the money. They don't practice what they preach, and folks who aren't so gullible haven't been duped to go along with all their garbage.

I know it says person. Check this out:

mur·der


noun

1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
   "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

The definition of murder also specifies a single victim. However, if you kill multiple people with the same action, it's still murder. If you run a car off a cliff with three people in it, the act doesn't cease to be murder because there were multiple victims. It simply becomes multiple counts of murder. Amazing how that works, no?

Lol! Then all you are telling us then, is that ad hominem can have two different meanings. So what the hell are you arguing about? Answer, nothing!

 

[BWK]

Let QAnon put that in their hash pipe and smoke it. LOLOLOLOL

If true Falwell‘s behavior was wrong and he should step down from the university

But it does not change the correctness of trumps policies as president

What is correct about his policies?

 

[BWK]

If it's true it's weird and kind of disgusting but so what? There are allegations of the Clinton's flying to Epstein's freaking sex island to engage in God knows what with sex slaves. Does that matter?

But, but, but, the Clinton's. But it wasn't a "so what" moment for him now was it? There were consequences for his affairs. Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither. Your bias is totally disgusting.

"Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither".

We don't want to know about your particular sexual fetishes

It's not sexual. It's what radical right wing fanatical evangelical Christians do on a daily basis.

Well IF that's what they are doing on a daily basis I HOPE they are using Hand Sanitiser post-action.

If it's true it's weird and kind of disgusting but so what? There are allegations of the Clinton's flying to Epstein's freaking sex island to engage in God knows what with sex slaves. Does that matter?

But, but, but, the Clinton's. But it wasn't a "so what" moment for him now was it? There were consequences for his affairs. Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither. Your bias is totally disgusting.

"Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither".

We don't want to know about your particular sexual fetishes

Democrats sought to protect president Clinton from scandal by citing "his sexual life is nobody's business but his own". But he was President of the United States and his sexual life with an intern was the people's business. Here we are when a Christian leader of a University is accused of a "legal" if perverted sexual life and the left cries "whooo-hoooo". What has changed?

What has changed? Remember family values by the Right? That's all the Left ever heard about. And now? And now the Right are hypocrites. The truth is, the Right didn't give a shit about it then. They just pretended to.

Is family values what it's all about? The right doesn't have a freaking chance in that argument since democrats don't claim any family values.

What it's all about, are the lies and the hypocrisy. The Right stands for their own individualism, so they have to hide behind the business of taking Christianity hostage, while sabotaging its true intentions for personal interests, and pleasure, such as the case with Falwell.

Individualism isn't a synonym for self-centeredness.

In the case of these right-wing hypocrites, it most certainly is.

Wishing for the individual nature of each human to be easily dismissed won't make the nature of existence as simple as you portray, nor will it make your utopian ideals any more realistic.

Obviously you did not get the part about "their own individualism." The meaning refers to their own "individualism" and no one else counts. My post is not condemning "individualism" in the literal sense. But, I'm sure you already knew what I meant to begin with. You just made the choice to hijack the message by way of your own frustrations failing to counter the actual argument.

Actually, I honestly thought that I'd read your meaning and responded appropriately. My bad for the presumptuous comeback, it was probably a dick move.

As far as being frustrated by your argument. . . there was an argument in there? It looked like an ad hominem to me. Granted, it was worded well enough to sound more substantive than a simple personal attack, but if you go back and reread your post, I think you'll find, as I did, that all you did was accuse the entire right of hijacking Christianity and cited this one guy. I wasn't too frustrated to counter that absolute juggernaut of logic and reason with which you've destroyed the entire conservative movement, I just didn't think it was worth my time.

My original thoughts concentrated on the self centered interests of the radical evangelical Right. Which does not include all Republicans. However, if you wish to go down that road, I'm happy to accommodate. Anyone who votes for Trump, whether they be evangelicals, Republicans, Independents, or even Democrats, has signed off with the devil. Any one, and I do mean any one, who supports a guy who stole millions from a charity that was supposed to go to children with cancer, has no relationship with Christ. Period!

Also, I fail to understand your connection between ad hominem and my claim that they lie and are hypocrites? I haven't injected any ad hominem yet, but I'm not opposed to it. The fact that they habitually lie and are hypocrites is undeniable. Evangelicals preach one thing, do another, then cover it up with lies. Nothing new about that. And being called a hypocrite isn't ad hominem, it's just a fact.

No anyone who votes for Trump has not signed off with the Devil, if you are Anti-Murdering Babes In Utero you CANNOT be on the Devil's Team.

The situation is that IF anyone votes for not only Joe Biden but ANY Leftist politician on the PLANET they are literally aligned with EVERYTHING that is AGAINST what Our Lord preached, the most immediate example would be the Left's FANATICAL support for Abortion on Demand, their INSATIABLE BLOODLUST for the mass murder of the most innocent as they slumber in the womb and not ONLY supporting this but openly CELEBRATING Abortion and PROMOTING it. Now THAT is Satanic, that is signing off with the Devil.

I support Abortion ONLY in the cases of where the life of the Mother is in danger and in the cases of rape and incest. The Left support Abortion as a means of Contraception. They are ******* evil.

There is no scientific evidence it is murder, because life itself has not been established, nor can any living human being prove that it has. There is a collection of developing, growing, body parts that have never been associated with life as human science understands it, so no one knows what the hell you are talking about? Tell me, do all those different, developing, body parts have different names, or do you bunch them all together and give them one name?

There is just to many of the abortions and it is for pleasure. Another sign that civility is in decline. There is no shame for it.

"Pleasure?" Really?

 

[Mac-7]

Let QAnon put that in their hash pipe and smoke it. LOLOLOLOL

If true Falwell‘s behavior was wrong and he should step down from the university

But it does not change the correctness of trumps policies as president

What is correct about his policies?

Trump wants to end the illegal alien invasion from mexico

he wants to end the trade imbalance with china and return jobs to America

trump is pro 2nd Amendment and pro flag

I could go on but you get the idea

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If it's true it's weird and kind of disgusting but so what? There are allegations of the Clinton's flying to Epstein's freaking sex island to engage in God knows what with sex slaves. Does that matter?

But, but, but, the Clinton's. But it wasn't a "so what" moment for him now was it? There were consequences for his affairs. Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither. Your bias is totally disgusting.

"Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither".

We don't want to know about your particular sexual fetishes

It's not sexual. It's what radical right wing fanatical evangelical Christians do on a daily basis.

Well IF that's what they are doing on a daily basis I HOPE they are using Hand Sanitiser post-action.

If it's true it's weird and kind of disgusting but so what? There are allegations of the Clinton's flying to Epstein's freaking sex island to engage in God knows what with sex slaves. Does that matter?

But, but, but, the Clinton's. But it wasn't a "so what" moment for him now was it? There were consequences for his affairs. Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither. Your bias is totally disgusting.

"Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither".

We don't want to know about your particular sexual fetishes

Democrats sought to protect president Clinton from scandal by citing "his sexual life is nobody's business but his own". But he was President of the United States and his sexual life with an intern was the people's business. Here we are when a Christian leader of a University is accused of a "legal" if perverted sexual life and the left cries "whooo-hoooo". What has changed?

What has changed? Remember family values by the Right? That's all the Left ever heard about. And now? And now the Right are hypocrites. The truth is, the Right didn't give a shit about it then. They just pretended to.

Is family values what it's all about? The right doesn't have a freaking chance in that argument since democrats don't claim any family values.

What it's all about, are the lies and the hypocrisy. The Right stands for their own individualism, so they have to hide behind the business of taking Christianity hostage, while sabotaging its true intentions for personal interests, and pleasure, such as the case with Falwell.

Individualism isn't a synonym for self-centeredness.

In the case of these right-wing hypocrites, it most certainly is.

Wishing for the individual nature of each human to be easily dismissed won't make the nature of existence as simple as you portray, nor will it make your utopian ideals any more realistic.

Obviously you did not get the part about "their own individualism." The meaning refers to their own "individualism" and no one else counts. My post is not condemning "individualism" in the literal sense. But, I'm sure you already knew what I meant to begin with. You just made the choice to hijack the message by way of your own frustrations failing to counter the actual argument.

Actually, I honestly thought that I'd read your meaning and responded appropriately. My bad for the presumptuous comeback, it was probably a dick move.

As far as being frustrated by your argument. . . there was an argument in there? It looked like an ad hominem to me. Granted, it was worded well enough to sound more substantive than a simple personal attack, but if you go back and reread your post, I think you'll find, as I did, that all you did was accuse the entire right of hijacking Christianity and cited this one guy. I wasn't too frustrated to counter that absolute juggernaut of logic and reason with which you've destroyed the entire conservative movement, I just didn't think it was worth my time.

My original thoughts concentrated on the self centered interests of the radical evangelical Right. Which does not include all Republicans. However, if you wish to go down that road, I'm happy to accommodate. Anyone who votes for Trump, whether they be evangelicals, Republicans, Independents, or even Democrats, has signed off with the devil. Any one, and I do mean any one, who supports a guy who stole millions from a charity that was supposed to go to children with cancer, has no relationship with Christ. Period!

Also, I fail to understand your connection between ad hominem and my claim that they lie and are hypocrites? I haven't injected any ad hominem yet, but I'm not opposed to it. The fact that they habitually lie and are hypocrites is undeniable. Evangelicals preach one thing, do another, then cover it up with lies. Nothing new about that. And being called a hypocrite isn't ad hominem, it's just a fact.

It was absolutely an ad hominem, buddy. Ad hominem is when you ignore someone's arguments and resort, in stead, to personal attacks. Let me clarify. If you were to point to something that someone said and then explain why that statement was hypocritical, that's not ad hominem. If you simply assert that a group of people are hypocrites without actually addressing anything any of them have actually said, that's purely a personal attack, and textbook ad hominem, regardless of how factual you believe the accusation to be.

Apparently, however, I took you too literally in terms of how much of "the right" it was to which you were applying said ad hominem. My apologies, but you did literally say, "the right", and it can be hard to discern the absolute bigots on boards like this from those who keep their bigotry limited to slightly smaller demographics. Anyway, thanks for clarifying, distinction noted.

As far as your conclusions about evangelical Trump voters, I'd advise you to keep in mind that everybody doesn't believe the same premises to be true that you do. Consider the likelihood that Trump's evangelical voters are largely holding their nose when they vote for a flawed individual who's the alternative to a party that they view to be an active opposition to their very religious values. Consider the even greater likelihood that, like most Trump voters, the evangelicals in the mix largely aren't even engaging with the individual accusations against Trump, and are at this point just discarding them onto the PILE of similar accusations that were quickly debunked. Basically, if the MSM wasn't crying wolf so insanely often, maybe some of these evangelicals would address some of the actual wolves?

Attacking by way of facts and the truth is not ad hominem. Attacking someone and calling names for no reason is. If someone lies, they are a liar. It is what it is. If the truth or the lie is proven, without pointing it out, then what is the point of debating either one?

You didn't attack by way of facts and truth. You attacked by way of your own presumptions of their motives and didn't even attempt to substantiate those presumptions.

Also, ad hominem isn't a synonym for untrue. Whether what you said is true or not (and lemme save you the suspense: When you try to make a blanket statement about the viewpoints of a group of people who's membership numbers in the millions, you're ALWAYS going to be wrong to a rather great degree) is irrelevant. Ad hominem simply means that you've ignored any position that someone has put forward and chosen to attack them personally in stead. That's PRECISELY what you did.

Keep trying.

I chose to personally support Donald Trump for president early on and referred to him as America's blue-collar billionaire at the Republican National Convention because of his love for ordinary Americans and his kindness, generosity, and bold leadership qualities. Jerry Fallwell lied right here. "His generosity?" Really? Trump stole millions from a charity that was supposed to go to children with cancer, got caught, paid a fine, and that's "generosity?" LOL! It's called stealing. That's a fact that has nothing to do with generosity. Care to prove me wrong through my substantiation? I didn't think so.

We weren't discussing Jerry Fallwell. Your claim was regarding "the right", which you later clarified to mean right wing evangelicals. You haven't substantiated the quote that I correctly identified as ad hominem.

Keep trying.

If you want lies from the Right, that's no problem either. How many do you need?

Enough to paint the entire demographic that you were trying to broad-brush, which I can absolutely guarantee that you can't produce.

Also, you weren't just talking about generic lies. You claimed, specifically, that right wing evangelicals "hide behind the business of taking Christianity hostage, while sabotaging its true intentions for personal interests, and pleasure". This is not a position that you will be able to find any right wing evangelical proposing explicitly. It's ONLY something that you might be able to infer through observation. That sort of observation tends, in politically charged situations such as this, to be heavily tainted when the observer has a strong bias, as you clearly do. Moreover, given the mere fact that this isn't a position that any right wing evangelical actually stands by, it can be nothing other than ad hominem, as it is an argument that necessarily bypasses anything that right wing evangelicals are actually saying in order to expose what you believe to be their hidden motives.

As far as not knowing what an ad hominem is. . .


ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

adverb

1. 1.
   in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
   
   
2. 2.
   in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

". . . directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." When I said that your claim bypassed any actual position taken by right wing evangelicals, I was tailoring that explanation SPECIFICALLY to the dictionary definition of ad hominem.

Keep trying.

Of course they are not going to propose that. They are a lot of things, but stupid they are not. They will never tell you what they really stand for. That's giving the store away. And boy howdy, do they need the store. It's a business. A money maker. What do you think organized religion is all about? Jesus? Think I'm cynical? Think again. All you need is a resume full of truths, lies, and their own actions to expose them for who they are. Evangelicals and the Ten commandments? Now that's a good one.

I noticed you weren't entertaining my question about all the lies from the Right? That figures.

Also, the reason I'm not addressing the accuracy of your particular claims is because you're trying to broad-brush paint a demographic of people that numbers in the millions. You are DEFINITELY inaccurate, merely by oversimplifying the situation into a narrative where these people are all an ideological monolith. If you claimed that "blacks drink 40's" it would be the same kind of inaccurate, regardless of how many pictures you could show me of individuals of African descent imbibing.

The other reason I'm not addressing it is because I don't feel like trying to disabuse someone who's doing mental gymnastics to avoid admitting being wrong about something totally minor, of emotionally charged political preconceptions that compare to this minor point like a mountain compares to a grain of sand.

Except you are addressing it, while telling me you are not, and in midstream making small potatoes about an organization that wouldn't exist if it weren't for it's monolithic money making ways. It's nothing but a giant corporation pretending to care about Christianity, while syphoning millions from the suckers who fall for that crap.

You're right, there. It would have been more accurate for me to say, "the reason I haven't been addressing...".

See how easy that is? Now you try.

It should look something like, "Yeah, saying that right wing evangelicals are hiding behind taking Christianity hostage was technically ad hominem."

Seriously, just owning your errors is WAY less embarrassing than this game you're playing.

You were served up the definition as I was. Too bad your interpretation does not align with the actual definition. Nothing I can do about that.

You dummy, the definition you served up was that ad hominem was when you make a personal attack for no reason. That's not the definition, and my interpretation aligns PERFECTLY with the ACTUAL definition.

Keep trying.

ADJECTIVE

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

ADVERB

1. in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
2. in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

You.ve been at this too long chief. Keep trying. The definition is clear. Find yourself another pair of glasses. This beginning to be a bore.

Yeah, that first definition is the one I've been going with.

Again, when you bypass any points that the evangelical right actually makes and simply claim that they're liars, that's an attack directed against a person (multiple, in this case) rather than the position they are maintaining. Seriously, how are you not getting this? It's so simple.

It says person, seriously, how are you not getting this? But ha, if that's your thing, have at it. At the end of the day, the facts about what they do, like lying to their congregations and making business from that, is what they ultimately care about. It's all about the money. They don't practice what they preach, and folks who aren't so gullible haven't been duped to go along with all their garbage.

I know it says person. Check this out:

mur·der


noun

1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
   "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

The definition of murder also specifies a single victim. However, if you kill multiple people with the same action, it's still murder. If you run a car off a cliff with three people in it, the act doesn't cease to be murder because there were multiple victims. It simply becomes multiple counts of murder. Amazing how that works, no?

Lol! Then all you are telling us then, is that ad hominem can have two different meanings. So what the hell are you arguing about? Answer, nothing!

2 different meanings? WTF are you talking about?

What I'm clearly pointing out is that the simple fact that a definition is written as being applicable to a person doesn't eliminate the possibility that it can apply to multiple people simultaneously, as in the case of murder.

Tell me you're not really as dumb as you're putting on.

 

[JoeB131]

rump wants to end the illegal alien invasion from mexico

he wants to end the trade imbalance with china and return jobs to America

trump is pro 2nd Amendment and pro flag

I could go on but you get the idea

Yeah, those things are all stupid.

We have a trade imbalance with China because Americans like to buy Chinese stuff more than Chinese want to buy American stuff.

There is no "invasion" from Mexico... undocumented crossings dropped to one third of what they were in 2000 by 2016.

We have 39,000 gun deaths a year, because people are misreading the Militia Amendment... It's kind of a high cost for your gun fetish.

 

[BWK]

If it's true it's weird and kind of disgusting but so what? There are allegations of the Clinton's flying to Epstein's freaking sex island to engage in God knows what with sex slaves. Does that matter?

But, but, but, the Clinton's. But it wasn't a "so what" moment for him now was it? There were consequences for his affairs. Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither. Your bias is totally disgusting.

"Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither".

We don't want to know about your particular sexual fetishes

It's not sexual. It's what radical right wing fanatical evangelical Christians do on a daily basis.

Well IF that's what they are doing on a daily basis I HOPE they are using Hand Sanitiser post-action.

If it's true it's weird and kind of disgusting but so what? There are allegations of the Clinton's flying to Epstein's freaking sex island to engage in God knows what with sex slaves. Does that matter?

But, but, but, the Clinton's. But it wasn't a "so what" moment for him now was it? There were consequences for his affairs. Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither. Your bias is totally disgusting.

"Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither".

We don't want to know about your particular sexual fetishes

Democrats sought to protect president Clinton from scandal by citing "his sexual life is nobody's business but his own". But he was President of the United States and his sexual life with an intern was the people's business. Here we are when a Christian leader of a University is accused of a "legal" if perverted sexual life and the left cries "whooo-hoooo". What has changed?

What has changed? Remember family values by the Right? That's all the Left ever heard about. And now? And now the Right are hypocrites. The truth is, the Right didn't give a shit about it then. They just pretended to.

Is family values what it's all about? The right doesn't have a freaking chance in that argument since democrats don't claim any family values.

What it's all about, are the lies and the hypocrisy. The Right stands for their own individualism, so they have to hide behind the business of taking Christianity hostage, while sabotaging its true intentions for personal interests, and pleasure, such as the case with Falwell.

Individualism isn't a synonym for self-centeredness.

In the case of these right-wing hypocrites, it most certainly is.

Wishing for the individual nature of each human to be easily dismissed won't make the nature of existence as simple as you portray, nor will it make your utopian ideals any more realistic.

Obviously you did not get the part about "their own individualism." The meaning refers to their own "individualism" and no one else counts. My post is not condemning "individualism" in the literal sense. But, I'm sure you already knew what I meant to begin with. You just made the choice to hijack the message by way of your own frustrations failing to counter the actual argument.

Actually, I honestly thought that I'd read your meaning and responded appropriately. My bad for the presumptuous comeback, it was probably a dick move.

As far as being frustrated by your argument. . . there was an argument in there? It looked like an ad hominem to me. Granted, it was worded well enough to sound more substantive than a simple personal attack, but if you go back and reread your post, I think you'll find, as I did, that all you did was accuse the entire right of hijacking Christianity and cited this one guy. I wasn't too frustrated to counter that absolute juggernaut of logic and reason with which you've destroyed the entire conservative movement, I just didn't think it was worth my time.

My original thoughts concentrated on the self centered interests of the radical evangelical Right. Which does not include all Republicans. However, if you wish to go down that road, I'm happy to accommodate. Anyone who votes for Trump, whether they be evangelicals, Republicans, Independents, or even Democrats, has signed off with the devil. Any one, and I do mean any one, who supports a guy who stole millions from a charity that was supposed to go to children with cancer, has no relationship with Christ. Period!

Also, I fail to understand your connection between ad hominem and my claim that they lie and are hypocrites? I haven't injected any ad hominem yet, but I'm not opposed to it. The fact that they habitually lie and are hypocrites is undeniable. Evangelicals preach one thing, do another, then cover it up with lies. Nothing new about that. And being called a hypocrite isn't ad hominem, it's just a fact.

It was absolutely an ad hominem, buddy. Ad hominem is when you ignore someone's arguments and resort, in stead, to personal attacks. Let me clarify. If you were to point to something that someone said and then explain why that statement was hypocritical, that's not ad hominem. If you simply assert that a group of people are hypocrites without actually addressing anything any of them have actually said, that's purely a personal attack, and textbook ad hominem, regardless of how factual you believe the accusation to be.

Apparently, however, I took you too literally in terms of how much of "the right" it was to which you were applying said ad hominem. My apologies, but you did literally say, "the right", and it can be hard to discern the absolute bigots on boards like this from those who keep their bigotry limited to slightly smaller demographics. Anyway, thanks for clarifying, distinction noted.

As far as your conclusions about evangelical Trump voters, I'd advise you to keep in mind that everybody doesn't believe the same premises to be true that you do. Consider the likelihood that Trump's evangelical voters are largely holding their nose when they vote for a flawed individual who's the alternative to a party that they view to be an active opposition to their very religious values. Consider the even greater likelihood that, like most Trump voters, the evangelicals in the mix largely aren't even engaging with the individual accusations against Trump, and are at this point just discarding them onto the PILE of similar accusations that were quickly debunked. Basically, if the MSM wasn't crying wolf so insanely often, maybe some of these evangelicals would address some of the actual wolves?

Attacking by way of facts and the truth is not ad hominem. Attacking someone and calling names for no reason is. If someone lies, they are a liar. It is what it is. If the truth or the lie is proven, without pointing it out, then what is the point of debating either one?

You didn't attack by way of facts and truth. You attacked by way of your own presumptions of their motives and didn't even attempt to substantiate those presumptions.

Also, ad hominem isn't a synonym for untrue. Whether what you said is true or not (and lemme save you the suspense: When you try to make a blanket statement about the viewpoints of a group of people who's membership numbers in the millions, you're ALWAYS going to be wrong to a rather great degree) is irrelevant. Ad hominem simply means that you've ignored any position that someone has put forward and chosen to attack them personally in stead. That's PRECISELY what you did.

Keep trying.

I chose to personally support Donald Trump for president early on and referred to him as America's blue-collar billionaire at the Republican National Convention because of his love for ordinary Americans and his kindness, generosity, and bold leadership qualities. Jerry Fallwell lied right here. "His generosity?" Really? Trump stole millions from a charity that was supposed to go to children with cancer, got caught, paid a fine, and that's "generosity?" LOL! It's called stealing. That's a fact that has nothing to do with generosity. Care to prove me wrong through my substantiation? I didn't think so.

We weren't discussing Jerry Fallwell. Your claim was regarding "the right", which you later clarified to mean right wing evangelicals. You haven't substantiated the quote that I correctly identified as ad hominem.

Keep trying.

If you want lies from the Right, that's no problem either. How many do you need?

Enough to paint the entire demographic that you were trying to broad-brush, which I can absolutely guarantee that you can't produce.

Also, you weren't just talking about generic lies. You claimed, specifically, that right wing evangelicals "hide behind the business of taking Christianity hostage, while sabotaging its true intentions for personal interests, and pleasure". This is not a position that you will be able to find any right wing evangelical proposing explicitly. It's ONLY something that you might be able to infer through observation. That sort of observation tends, in politically charged situations such as this, to be heavily tainted when the observer has a strong bias, as you clearly do. Moreover, given the mere fact that this isn't a position that any right wing evangelical actually stands by, it can be nothing other than ad hominem, as it is an argument that necessarily bypasses anything that right wing evangelicals are actually saying in order to expose what you believe to be their hidden motives.

As far as not knowing what an ad hominem is. . .


ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

adverb

1. 1.
   in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
   
   
2. 2.
   in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

". . . directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." When I said that your claim bypassed any actual position taken by right wing evangelicals, I was tailoring that explanation SPECIFICALLY to the dictionary definition of ad hominem.

Keep trying.

Of course they are not going to propose that. They are a lot of things, but stupid they are not. They will never tell you what they really stand for. That's giving the store away. And boy howdy, do they need the store. It's a business. A money maker. What do you think organized religion is all about? Jesus? Think I'm cynical? Think again. All you need is a resume full of truths, lies, and their own actions to expose them for who they are. Evangelicals and the Ten commandments? Now that's a good one.

I noticed you weren't entertaining my question about all the lies from the Right? That figures.

Also, the reason I'm not addressing the accuracy of your particular claims is because you're trying to broad-brush paint a demographic of people that numbers in the millions. You are DEFINITELY inaccurate, merely by oversimplifying the situation into a narrative where these people are all an ideological monolith. If you claimed that "blacks drink 40's" it would be the same kind of inaccurate, regardless of how many pictures you could show me of individuals of African descent imbibing.

The other reason I'm not addressing it is because I don't feel like trying to disabuse someone who's doing mental gymnastics to avoid admitting being wrong about something totally minor, of emotionally charged political preconceptions that compare to this minor point like a mountain compares to a grain of sand.

Except you are addressing it, while telling me you are not, and in midstream making small potatoes about an organization that wouldn't exist if it weren't for it's monolithic money making ways. It's nothing but a giant corporation pretending to care about Christianity, while syphoning millions from the suckers who fall for that crap.

You're right, there. It would have been more accurate for me to say, "the reason I haven't been addressing...".

See how easy that is? Now you try.

It should look something like, "Yeah, saying that right wing evangelicals are hiding behind taking Christianity hostage was technically ad hominem."

Seriously, just owning your errors is WAY less embarrassing than this game you're playing.

You were served up the definition as I was. Too bad your interpretation does not align with the actual definition. Nothing I can do about that.

You dummy, the definition you served up was that ad hominem was when you make a personal attack for no reason. That's not the definition, and my interpretation aligns PERFECTLY with the ACTUAL definition.

Keep trying.

ADJECTIVE

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

ADVERB

1. in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
2. in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

You.ve been at this too long chief. Keep trying. The definition is clear. Find yourself another pair of glasses. This beginning to be a bore.

Yeah, that first definition is the one I've been going with.

Again, when you bypass any points that the evangelical right actually makes and simply claim that they're liars, that's an attack directed against a person (multiple, in this case) rather than the position they are maintaining. Seriously, how are you not getting this? It's so simple.

It says person, seriously, how are you not getting this? But ha, if that's your thing, have at it. At the end of the day, the facts about what they do, like lying to their congregations and making business from that, is what they ultimately care about. It's all about the money. They don't practice what they preach, and folks who aren't so gullible haven't been duped to go along with all their garbage.

I know it says person. Check this out:

mur·der


noun

1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
   "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

The definition of murder also specifies a single victim. However, if you kill multiple people with the same action, it's still murder. If you run a car off a cliff with three people in it, the act doesn't cease to be murder because there were multiple victims. It simply becomes multiple counts of murder. Amazing how that works, no?

Lol! Then all you are telling us then, is that ad hominem can have two different meanings. So what the hell are you arguing about? Answer, nothing!

2 different meanings? WTF are you talking about?

What I'm clearly pointing out is that the simple fact that a definition is written as being applicable to a person doesn't eliminate the possibility that it can apply to multiple people simultaneously, as in the case of murder.

Tell me you're not really as dumb as you're putting on.

Yea, but you didn't do that in the beginning. Who's back pedaling now?

As to "what the **** am I talking about?" You answered your own question. Lol! What I'm clearly pointing out is that the simple fact that a definition is written as being applicable to a person doesn't eliminate the possibility that it can apply to multiple people simultaneously, as in the case of murder. Read your own post.

I love how you have turned this into a distraction over the singular and the multiple, when the actual facts of the case had long since been exposed, and you have challenged none of it. You have created your own distraction away from the argument, to attack something else that I would never agree to, based on what my real interests are. Your label is boring. The truth is not. If toes were stepped on, I could give two shits. The truth about who and what these people are hasn't changed at all.

Have fun compartmentalizing definitions to fit your desired distractions.

 

[BWK]

Let QAnon put that in their hash pipe and smoke it. LOLOLOLOL

If true Falwell‘s behavior was wrong and he should step down from the university

But it does not change the correctness of trumps policies as president

What is correct about his policies?

Trump wants to end the illegal alien invasion from mexico

he wants to end the trade imbalance with china and return jobs to America

trump is pro 2nd Amendment and pro flag

I could go on but you get the idea

First policy cannot happen because those people feed us. It's not going to happen. Not to mention, them coming here is totally attributed to us going to Central and South America and taking over there. You've been schooled on this before with zero rebuttal. You lost that argument a long time ago. That policy is dead in the water and we can only blame ourselves.

Second, Trump never did, nor will he ever own the claim that the people in this country want to end the trade balance with China. Too bad his policies towards them failed, and we are paying for the tariffs. He's the ultimate fail.

Again, people, long before Trump, both Democrats and Republicans have guns. I have plenty. And no one on the Right or Left who I know about, is against the flag.

As always, you've said absolutely nothing.

 

[Mac-7]

Second, Trump never did, nor will he ever own the claim that the people in this country want to end the trade balance with China.

Trump does own the mantle of ending the trade imbalance with communist china

dems, and RINO repubs can cry MeToo all they want, but they are just lying through their teeth

 

[pknopp]

Well dang, it seems to be an Evangelical movement.

Kalamazoo pastor paid teenage boys to have sex with his wife, police say

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If it's true it's weird and kind of disgusting but so what? There are allegations of the Clinton's flying to Epstein's freaking sex island to engage in God knows what with sex slaves. Does that matter?

But, but, but, the Clinton's. But it wasn't a "so what" moment for him now was it? There were consequences for his affairs. Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither. Your bias is totally disgusting.

"Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither".

We don't want to know about your particular sexual fetishes

It's not sexual. It's what radical right wing fanatical evangelical Christians do on a daily basis.

Well IF that's what they are doing on a daily basis I HOPE they are using Hand Sanitiser post-action.

If it's true it's weird and kind of disgusting but so what? There are allegations of the Clinton's flying to Epstein's freaking sex island to engage in God knows what with sex slaves. Does that matter?

But, but, but, the Clinton's. But it wasn't a "so what" moment for him now was it? There were consequences for his affairs. Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither. Your bias is totally disgusting.

"Shitting in one hand and pissing in the other doesn't excuse neither".

We don't want to know about your particular sexual fetishes

Democrats sought to protect president Clinton from scandal by citing "his sexual life is nobody's business but his own". But he was President of the United States and his sexual life with an intern was the people's business. Here we are when a Christian leader of a University is accused of a "legal" if perverted sexual life and the left cries "whooo-hoooo". What has changed?

What has changed? Remember family values by the Right? That's all the Left ever heard about. And now? And now the Right are hypocrites. The truth is, the Right didn't give a shit about it then. They just pretended to.

Is family values what it's all about? The right doesn't have a freaking chance in that argument since democrats don't claim any family values.

What it's all about, are the lies and the hypocrisy. The Right stands for their own individualism, so they have to hide behind the business of taking Christianity hostage, while sabotaging its true intentions for personal interests, and pleasure, such as the case with Falwell.

Individualism isn't a synonym for self-centeredness.

In the case of these right-wing hypocrites, it most certainly is.

Wishing for the individual nature of each human to be easily dismissed won't make the nature of existence as simple as you portray, nor will it make your utopian ideals any more realistic.

Obviously you did not get the part about "their own individualism." The meaning refers to their own "individualism" and no one else counts. My post is not condemning "individualism" in the literal sense. But, I'm sure you already knew what I meant to begin with. You just made the choice to hijack the message by way of your own frustrations failing to counter the actual argument.

Actually, I honestly thought that I'd read your meaning and responded appropriately. My bad for the presumptuous comeback, it was probably a dick move.

As far as being frustrated by your argument. . . there was an argument in there? It looked like an ad hominem to me. Granted, it was worded well enough to sound more substantive than a simple personal attack, but if you go back and reread your post, I think you'll find, as I did, that all you did was accuse the entire right of hijacking Christianity and cited this one guy. I wasn't too frustrated to counter that absolute juggernaut of logic and reason with which you've destroyed the entire conservative movement, I just didn't think it was worth my time.

My original thoughts concentrated on the self centered interests of the radical evangelical Right. Which does not include all Republicans. However, if you wish to go down that road, I'm happy to accommodate. Anyone who votes for Trump, whether they be evangelicals, Republicans, Independents, or even Democrats, has signed off with the devil. Any one, and I do mean any one, who supports a guy who stole millions from a charity that was supposed to go to children with cancer, has no relationship with Christ. Period!

Also, I fail to understand your connection between ad hominem and my claim that they lie and are hypocrites? I haven't injected any ad hominem yet, but I'm not opposed to it. The fact that they habitually lie and are hypocrites is undeniable. Evangelicals preach one thing, do another, then cover it up with lies. Nothing new about that. And being called a hypocrite isn't ad hominem, it's just a fact.

It was absolutely an ad hominem, buddy. Ad hominem is when you ignore someone's arguments and resort, in stead, to personal attacks. Let me clarify. If you were to point to something that someone said and then explain why that statement was hypocritical, that's not ad hominem. If you simply assert that a group of people are hypocrites without actually addressing anything any of them have actually said, that's purely a personal attack, and textbook ad hominem, regardless of how factual you believe the accusation to be.

Apparently, however, I took you too literally in terms of how much of "the right" it was to which you were applying said ad hominem. My apologies, but you did literally say, "the right", and it can be hard to discern the absolute bigots on boards like this from those who keep their bigotry limited to slightly smaller demographics. Anyway, thanks for clarifying, distinction noted.

As far as your conclusions about evangelical Trump voters, I'd advise you to keep in mind that everybody doesn't believe the same premises to be true that you do. Consider the likelihood that Trump's evangelical voters are largely holding their nose when they vote for a flawed individual who's the alternative to a party that they view to be an active opposition to their very religious values. Consider the even greater likelihood that, like most Trump voters, the evangelicals in the mix largely aren't even engaging with the individual accusations against Trump, and are at this point just discarding them onto the PILE of similar accusations that were quickly debunked. Basically, if the MSM wasn't crying wolf so insanely often, maybe some of these evangelicals would address some of the actual wolves?

Attacking by way of facts and the truth is not ad hominem. Attacking someone and calling names for no reason is. If someone lies, they are a liar. It is what it is. If the truth or the lie is proven, without pointing it out, then what is the point of debating either one?

You didn't attack by way of facts and truth. You attacked by way of your own presumptions of their motives and didn't even attempt to substantiate those presumptions.

Also, ad hominem isn't a synonym for untrue. Whether what you said is true or not (and lemme save you the suspense: When you try to make a blanket statement about the viewpoints of a group of people who's membership numbers in the millions, you're ALWAYS going to be wrong to a rather great degree) is irrelevant. Ad hominem simply means that you've ignored any position that someone has put forward and chosen to attack them personally in stead. That's PRECISELY what you did.

Keep trying.

I chose to personally support Donald Trump for president early on and referred to him as America's blue-collar billionaire at the Republican National Convention because of his love for ordinary Americans and his kindness, generosity, and bold leadership qualities. Jerry Fallwell lied right here. "His generosity?" Really? Trump stole millions from a charity that was supposed to go to children with cancer, got caught, paid a fine, and that's "generosity?" LOL! It's called stealing. That's a fact that has nothing to do with generosity. Care to prove me wrong through my substantiation? I didn't think so.

We weren't discussing Jerry Fallwell. Your claim was regarding "the right", which you later clarified to mean right wing evangelicals. You haven't substantiated the quote that I correctly identified as ad hominem.

Keep trying.

If you want lies from the Right, that's no problem either. How many do you need?

Enough to paint the entire demographic that you were trying to broad-brush, which I can absolutely guarantee that you can't produce.

Also, you weren't just talking about generic lies. You claimed, specifically, that right wing evangelicals "hide behind the business of taking Christianity hostage, while sabotaging its true intentions for personal interests, and pleasure". This is not a position that you will be able to find any right wing evangelical proposing explicitly. It's ONLY something that you might be able to infer through observation. That sort of observation tends, in politically charged situations such as this, to be heavily tainted when the observer has a strong bias, as you clearly do. Moreover, given the mere fact that this isn't a position that any right wing evangelical actually stands by, it can be nothing other than ad hominem, as it is an argument that necessarily bypasses anything that right wing evangelicals are actually saying in order to expose what you believe to be their hidden motives.

As far as not knowing what an ad hominem is. . .


ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

adverb

1. 1.
   in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
   
   
2. 2.
   in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

". . . directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." When I said that your claim bypassed any actual position taken by right wing evangelicals, I was tailoring that explanation SPECIFICALLY to the dictionary definition of ad hominem.

Keep trying.

Of course they are not going to propose that. They are a lot of things, but stupid they are not. They will never tell you what they really stand for. That's giving the store away. And boy howdy, do they need the store. It's a business. A money maker. What do you think organized religion is all about? Jesus? Think I'm cynical? Think again. All you need is a resume full of truths, lies, and their own actions to expose them for who they are. Evangelicals and the Ten commandments? Now that's a good one.

I noticed you weren't entertaining my question about all the lies from the Right? That figures.

Also, the reason I'm not addressing the accuracy of your particular claims is because you're trying to broad-brush paint a demographic of people that numbers in the millions. You are DEFINITELY inaccurate, merely by oversimplifying the situation into a narrative where these people are all an ideological monolith. If you claimed that "blacks drink 40's" it would be the same kind of inaccurate, regardless of how many pictures you could show me of individuals of African descent imbibing.

The other reason I'm not addressing it is because I don't feel like trying to disabuse someone who's doing mental gymnastics to avoid admitting being wrong about something totally minor, of emotionally charged political preconceptions that compare to this minor point like a mountain compares to a grain of sand.

Except you are addressing it, while telling me you are not, and in midstream making small potatoes about an organization that wouldn't exist if it weren't for it's monolithic money making ways. It's nothing but a giant corporation pretending to care about Christianity, while syphoning millions from the suckers who fall for that crap.

You're right, there. It would have been more accurate for me to say, "the reason I haven't been addressing...".

See how easy that is? Now you try.

It should look something like, "Yeah, saying that right wing evangelicals are hiding behind taking Christianity hostage was technically ad hominem."

Seriously, just owning your errors is WAY less embarrassing than this game you're playing.

You were served up the definition as I was. Too bad your interpretation does not align with the actual definition. Nothing I can do about that.

You dummy, the definition you served up was that ad hominem was when you make a personal attack for no reason. That's not the definition, and my interpretation aligns PERFECTLY with the ACTUAL definition.

Keep trying.

ADJECTIVE

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

ADVERB

1. in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
2. in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
   "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

You.ve been at this too long chief. Keep trying. The definition is clear. Find yourself another pair of glasses. This beginning to be a bore.

Yeah, that first definition is the one I've been going with.

Again, when you bypass any points that the evangelical right actually makes and simply claim that they're liars, that's an attack directed against a person (multiple, in this case) rather than the position they are maintaining. Seriously, how are you not getting this? It's so simple.

It says person, seriously, how are you not getting this? But ha, if that's your thing, have at it. At the end of the day, the facts about what they do, like lying to their congregations and making business from that, is what they ultimately care about. It's all about the money. They don't practice what they preach, and folks who aren't so gullible haven't been duped to go along with all their garbage.

I know it says person. Check this out:

mur·der


noun

1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
   "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

The definition of murder also specifies a single victim. However, if you kill multiple people with the same action, it's still murder. If you run a car off a cliff with three people in it, the act doesn't cease to be murder because there were multiple victims. It simply becomes multiple counts of murder. Amazing how that works, no?

Lol! Then all you are telling us then, is that ad hominem can have two different meanings. So what the hell are you arguing about? Answer, nothing!

2 different meanings? WTF are you talking about?

What I'm clearly pointing out is that the simple fact that a definition is written as being applicable to a person doesn't eliminate the possibility that it can apply to multiple people simultaneously, as in the case of murder.

Tell me you're not really as dumb as you're putting on.

Yea, but you didn't do that in the beginning. Who's back pedaling now?

As to "what the **** am I talking about?" You answered your own question. Lol! What I'm clearly pointing out is that the simple fact that a definition is written as being applicable to a person doesn't eliminate the possibility that it can apply to multiple people simultaneously, as in the case of murder. Read your own post.

I love how you have turned this into a distraction over the singular and the multiple, when the actual facts of the case had long since been exposed, and you have challenged none of it. You have created your own distraction away from the argument, to attack something else that I would never agree to, based on what my real interests are. Your label is boring. The truth is not. If toes were stepped on, I could give two shits. The truth about who and what these people are hasn't changed at all.

Have fun compartmentalizing definitions to fit your desired distractions.

Holy shit you're a retard.

Whether or not that was my initial argument is irrelevant. It is telling, however, that rather than address the argument, you simply point out that it wasn't the first thing I said.

And, for the record, you're the one who dug your heels in about whether or not what you said was ad hominem, which it obviously was. Even if it wasn't, making a massive generalization about millions of people based on nothing that they've explicitly said is stupidly inaccurate, whether or not you choose to give it the name of a categorized logical fallacy. This bit of the argument wasn't something that I initiated, nor was it a distraction. Given that your initial statement WAS that aforementioned generalization, there was actually nothing worth arguing with other than your continuing disagreement over the obvious nature of your dumbass assertion.

Anyway, clearly you're done even arguing that point, as you've made no attempt to actually address why murder can be applied to multiple people despite a definition specifying a singular victim, but ad hominem cannot. Unless you've got a point to make in that regard, don't expect any further responses.

 

[esalla]

The ******* phony money-grubbing Evangelicals are the biggest fakes in America next to Donald Trump.

Business partner of Falwells says he had affair with the power couple

Giancarlo Granda said he had sex with Becki Falwell while Jerry Falwell Jr, head of Liberty University, looked on.

www.reuters.com

"He says he had sex with Becki Falwell while Jerry Falwell Jr, head of Liberty University and a staunch supporter of President Trump, looked on.""""

But but but you said was OK when Clinton did it, to a 16 year old

 

[pknopp]

OUCH!!

Larry Flynt: My Final Farewell to the Falwells

 

[schmidlap]

But but but you said was OK when Clinton did it, to a 16 year old

"Oh, yeah!
Well, what about...?"
​

Feeble attempt at diversion noted. You may have intended to be more relevant and refer to Matty Gaetz rather than excavating the myths of yesteryear.

Was Cabana Boy worth it? This sordid saga should be entitled "Tinky Winky's Revenge."

"Another righteous dude that loves ME!"​

​

Liberty University has filed a $10 million lawsuit against former president Jerry Falwell Jr.​

​

Falwell, who resigned last August in the aftermath of a sex scandal involving his wife Becki and a former Miami pool attendant, called the suit "another attempt to defame me and discredit my record"...​

​

"This lawsuit is full of lies and half truths, and I assure you that I will defend myself against it with conviction," Falwell said.​

​

[Jerry Falwell Jr. decries Liberty University's 'hostility' as school files $10M suit]​

​

​

Oh, my.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

But but but you said was OK when Clinton did it, to a 16 year old

Okay when Uncle Hunter gets with his niece.