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

[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 fucking 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?

Sorry I have been in hundreds of Abortion threads and it is now pointless having this argument again. I do not agree with you, we will have to agree to disagree.

I say that Abortion on Demand is murder, you say it is not.

I'm even sorrier you brought it up without any documentation to support your argument. That was on you, not me.

Remember, kids, a genetically-distinct being with human DNA is not human.

Leftists are anti-science.

Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'

A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).​

​

​

Oh, look. Biologists say you're wrong.​

​

But you just keep denying science.​

[/QUOTE]
No one said anything about human. Try again. Your failed diversion was cute, but it was a total fail.

There are no humans on the planet who can tell you when life begins.

Are we talking about humans or life, because you are swinging wildly with both? When Do Human Beings Begin? You need to dive deep buddy. Something you have failed to do.

B. "Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.


Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"


Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.


Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."


Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)


Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."


Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.


Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."


Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.


Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."


Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16


Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)


Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)


Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."


Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

The term "pre-embryo" was also used as the rationale for permitting human embryo research in the British Warnock Committee Report (1984),21 and then picked up by literally hundreds of writers internationally, including, e.g., Australian wr

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Leo123]

The fucking 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.""""

Sounds more like a Democrat.

 

[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 fucking 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?

Sorry I have been in hundreds of Abortion threads and it is now pointless having this argument again. I do not agree with you, we will have to agree to disagree.

I say that Abortion on Demand is murder, you say it is not.

And out of those hundreds you've won none of them; Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�

 

[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?

 

[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.

You do not understand the true meaning of ad hominem, therefore, there is nothing to try.

 

[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.

 

[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.

adhominem - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. The "position" of the evangelical Right, that "they are maintaining" is one of hypocrisy. That's not ad hominem towards any one person who is part of the evangelical Right. That is a matter of fact. They are proven liars.

 

[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.

adhominem - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. The "position" of the evangelical Right, that "they are maintaining" is one of hypocrisy. That's not ad hominem towards any one person who is part of the evangelical Right. That is a matter of fact. They are proven liars.

It's only a matter of fact if you can prove that they believe the same premises that you do. Also, hypocrisy is not a position that they explicitly stand by! If you're not addressing a position that they actually propose, but in stead you address what YOU BELIEVE to be their beliefs, that's textbook ad hominem.

No matter how you try to explain away the accuracy of your claim, it's still an attack that bypasses any argument made by the people you're attacking.

Keep trying.

 

[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.

 

[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.

It doesn't matter if you believe that they're intentionally hiding the things for which you attack them. Bypassing their explicitly held positions to allege that they are hypocrites is STILL AD HOMINEM.

Keep trying.

 

[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.

adhominem - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. The "position" of the evangelical Right, that "they are maintaining" is one of hypocrisy. That's not ad hominem towards any one person who is part of the evangelical Right. That is a matter of fact. They are proven liars.

It's only a matter of fact if you can prove that they believe the same premises that you do. Also, hypocrisy is not a position that they explicitly stand by! If you're not addressing a position that they actually propose, but in stead you address what YOU BELIEVE to be their beliefs, that's textbook ad hominem.

No matter how you try to explain away the accuracy of your claim, it's still an attack that bypasses any argument made by the people you're attacking.

Keep trying.

It's not a matter of believing. A documented lie that cannot be refuted by way of documentation is a lie, unless you are part of the Right's alternate facts crowd, who make up different versions of the truth to fit their desired narrative. Call it whatever you like. At the end of the day, it's still an unrefuted lie.

 

[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.

 

[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.

adhominem - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. The "position" of the evangelical Right, that "they are maintaining" is one of hypocrisy. That's not ad hominem towards any one person who is part of the evangelical Right. That is a matter of fact. They are proven liars.

It's only a matter of fact if you can prove that they believe the same premises that you do. Also, hypocrisy is not a position that they explicitly stand by! If you're not addressing a position that they actually propose, but in stead you address what YOU BELIEVE to be their beliefs, that's textbook ad hominem.

No matter how you try to explain away the accuracy of your claim, it's still an attack that bypasses any argument made by the people you're attacking.

Keep trying.

It's not a matter of believing. A documented lie that cannot be refuted by way of documentation is a lie, unless you are part of the Right's alternate facts crowd, who make up different versions of the truth to fit their desired narrative. Call it whatever you like. At the end of the day, it's still an unrefuted lie.

You haven't provided a single example of a documented lie by "the evangelical right".

If your point was that Fallwell is probably a liar and a sick douche bag, I wouldn't be here arguing with you. That wasn't your claim.

How many more ways are you going to try and recharacterize what you were saying? This is starting to get really tedious.

 

[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.

It doesn't matter if you believe that they're intentionally hiding the things for which you attack them. Bypassing their explicitly held positions to allege that they are hypocrites is STILL AD HOMINEM.

Keep trying.

The attack is not against "them." I could care less who "them are. My sole interest in debate is truth and accuracy. Everything else is worthless. Actions speak louder than words. A simple phrase that can reveal everything. And with documentation to back it up, nothing more is needed other than to reveal it to those who also believe in what is true.

At the end of the day, your Ad hominem point of view becomes moot. The truth was revealed by way of undisputed documentation, and if someone thought they got their poor little ad hominem feelings hurt, well ha, the truth certainly was more important, don't you think?

 

[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.

It doesn't matter if you believe that they're intentionally hiding the things for which you attack them. Bypassing their explicitly held positions to allege that they are hypocrites is STILL AD HOMINEM.

Keep trying.

The attack is not against "them." I could care less who "them are. My sole interest in debate is truth and accuracy. Everything else is worthless. Actions speak louder than words. A simple phrase that can reveal everything. And with documentation to back it up, nothing more is needed other than to reveal it to those who also believe in what is true.

At the end of the day, your Ad hominem point of view becomes moot. The truth was revealed by way of undisputed documentation, and if someone thought they got their poor little ad hominem feelings hurt, well ha, the truth certainly was more important, don't you think?

Your attack WAS on "them". Just as you worded it. If you wanna reimagine the conversation and tell yourself that you only said anything about Fallwell, fair enough, but the quotes are still right here in the thread for those of us who care to remember things as they actually occurred.

Funny how you spend like 10 posts trying to dispute that all you had posted was an ad hominem, and then when it doesn't work out suddenly the point becomes moot. Seriously fuckin' precious.

The truth is very important, but what you were saying when I responded wasn't the truth, and the claim you're now making regarding what it is that you were saying, also isn't the truth.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

It doesn't matter if you believe that they're intentionally hiding the things for which you attack them. Bypassing their explicitly held positions to allege that they are hypocrites is STILL AD HOMINEM.

Keep trying.

The attack is not against "them." I could care less who "them are. My sole interest in debate is truth and accuracy. Everything else is worthless. Actions speak louder than words. A simple phrase that can reveal everything. And with documentation to back it up, nothing more is needed other than to reveal it to those who also believe in what is true.

At the end of the day, your Ad hominem point of view becomes moot. The truth was revealed by way of undisputed documentation, and if someone thought they got their poor little ad hominem feelings hurt, well ha, the truth certainly was more important, don't you think?

Your attack WAS on "them". Just as you worded it. If you wanna reimagine the conversation and tell yourself that you only said anything about Fallwell, fair enough, but the quotes are still right here in the thread for those of us who care to remember things as they actually occurred.

Funny how you spend like 10 posts trying to dispute that all you had posted was an ad hominem, and then when it doesn't work out suddenly the point becomes moot. Seriously fuckin' precious.

The truth is very important, but what you were saying when I responded wasn't the truth, and the claim you're now making regarding what it is that you were saying, also isn't the truth.

Thanks to you and your contribution, the definition devolved into something you wanted it to mean, but never did. If it was as precious as you claim, you should document with substantive rebuttals those arguments you say are not truths. So far, none of that has happened. And by the way, it won't happen either.