Comment: Uhh...

(See in situ)


Uhh...

How are you failing to read what he wrote correctly? He is saying that when he points out the obvious, you're calling it an ad hominem. How is using the word obvious is the quoted usage an ad hominem?

I'm just making a statement that Veritas Aequitas made a logical fallacy by using the word 'obvious' in the above statement.

I'm REALLY interested in how or what fallacy, because it's certainly not an attack on your personal credibility as a method of refuting your point. He's saying that you're calling everything an ad hominem, whether it is or not, or at the very least overusing the term to the point of supposedly occurring every time you're personally attacked or put down.

The reasons you've stated are clearly outlined in the wikipedia article you quoted as not applying, so I'm having a tough time figuring out why you keep trying to hold them as valid.

As a side question, have you really argued that no one died in the 9/11 WTC attacks? Seriously? Oh God I just realized that you have, looking at your signature. I'm just going to exit stage left at this point. Please stop trying to redefine everything encompassing verbal abuse as an ad hominem. You aren't allowed to redefine logical fallacies to suit your whim.

Eric Hoffer