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

[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.

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.

The definition devolved? Did the dictionaries update their definitions DURING our argument? Because I actually posted said definition and adhered to it throughout the conversation.

And I didn't say IT was precious. I said YOU were precious in declaring the point moot after exhausting a half a dozen rebuttals.

I didn't argue with any of your specifics about Fallwell because I don't care to defend Fallwell. He's not someone I know much about, let alone support.

 

[BWK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Individualism isn't a synonym for self-centeredness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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


ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

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

adverb

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how easy that is? Now you try.

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

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

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

 

[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.

The definition devolved? Did the dictionaries update their definitions DURING our argument? Because I actually posted said definition and adhered to it throughout the conversation.

And I didn't say IT was precious. I said YOU were precious.

No, not the dictionaries. You!

 

[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.

The definition devolved? Did the dictionaries update their definitions DURING our argument? Because I actually posted said definition and adhered to it throughout the conversation.

And I didn't say IT was precious. I said YOU were precious.

Thanks!

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Individualism isn't a synonym for self-centeredness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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


ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

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

adverb

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how easy that is? Now you try.

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

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

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

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

Keep trying.

 

[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.

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.

The definition devolved? Did the dictionaries update their definitions DURING our argument? Because I actually posted said definition and adhered to it throughout the conversation.

And I didn't say IT was precious. I said YOU were precious.

Thanks!

You are most welcome, sir.

Any time you care to be patronized for acting like a child, you come find me. I'm always happy to help.

 

[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.

Again, tell me what I don't know that isn't true; 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.

 

[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.

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.

The definition devolved? Did the dictionaries update their definitions DURING our argument? Because I actually posted said definition and adhered to it throughout the conversation.

And I didn't say IT was precious. I said YOU were precious.

No, not the dictionaries. You!

In what way did my characterization devolve from the definition quoted?

 

[BWK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Individualism isn't a synonym for self-centeredness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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


ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

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

adverb

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how easy that is? Now you try.

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

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

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

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

Keep trying.

ADJECTIVE

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

ADVERB

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

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

 

[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.

The definition devolved? Did the dictionaries update their definitions DURING our argument? Because I actually posted said definition and adhered to it throughout the conversation.

And I didn't say IT was precious. I said YOU were precious.

Thanks!

You are most welcome, sir.

Any time you care to be patronized for acting like a child, you come find me. I'm always happy to help.

And calling me "dummy" is your way of helping? May I remind you that I haven't been so child like as to call you names.

 

[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.

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.

Again, tell me what I don't know that isn't true; 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.

Why do you need me to tell you? It's right there in the quote list we're throwing back and forth. Right there in your own posting history.

What you were saying was that "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". That's not true. It's a gross overgeneralization based on your suspicions of their hidden, shady motivations.

When you now tell me that you were offering documented lies that back your claim, you offered only documented lies that backed ONE PERSON potentially being the things that you claim. Therefore, saying that you were proving what you said is also not true.

It blows my mind that I need to spell this out for you.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Individualism isn't a synonym for self-centeredness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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


ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

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

adverb

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how easy that is? Now you try.

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

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

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

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

Keep trying.

ADJECTIVE

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

ADVERB

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

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

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

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

 

[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.

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.

The definition devolved? Did the dictionaries update their definitions DURING our argument? Because I actually posted said definition and adhered to it throughout the conversation.

And I didn't say IT was precious. I said YOU were precious.

Thanks!

You are most welcome, sir.

Any time you care to be patronized for acting like a child, you come find me. I'm always happy to help.

And calling me "dummy" is your way of helping? May I remind you that I haven't been so child like as to call you names.

Oh shit, did you not catch the irony in that offer? I thought I laid it on pretty thick.

 

[BWK]

ADJECTIVE

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

ADVERB

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

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

Quote Everything here points to "person." Have I been talking about the evangelical right or not? Are they one person? I don't think so.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

ADJECTIVE

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

ADVERB

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

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

Quote Everything here points to "person." Have I been talking about the evangelical right or not? Are they one person? I don't think so.

Holy fuck, that's the hill you're gonna die on? Ad hominem doesn't count in this instance because you were actually smearing multiple people while ignoring their actual points, and this definition only applies to a single target?

Sorry, but no. If that's going to be the distinction, then let me rephrase.

You've simultaneously committed MILLIONS of counts of ad hominem, one for each individual right wing evangelical who you painted as a liar based on your own characterization of their beliefs, rather than on anything any of them have actually said.

 

[BWK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Individualism isn't a synonym for self-centeredness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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


ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

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

adverb

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how easy that is? Now you try.

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

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

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

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

Keep trying.

ADJECTIVE

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

ADVERB

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BWK]

ADJECTIVE

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

ADVERB

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

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

Quote Everything here points to "person." Have I been talking about the evangelical right or not? Are they one person? I don't think so.

Holy fuck, that's the hill you're gonna die on? Ad hominem doesn't count in this instance because you were actually smearing multiple people while ignoring their actual points, and this definition only applies to a single target?

Sorry, but no. If that's going to be the distinction, then let me rephrase.

You've simultaneously committed MILLIONS of counts of ad hominem, one for each individual right wing evangelical who you painted as a liar based on your own characterization of their beliefs, rather than on anything any of them have actually said.

There is only one "holy fuck in this equation, and that's your skewed interpretations of the word. You can't insist on what was never there to begin with, no matter how hard you try.

The only hill to die on is your own special interpretations, and words posted from English text, obviously have no meaning for you. They do for me.

 

[Mac-7]

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

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

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

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Individualism isn't a synonym for self-centeredness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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


ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

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

adverb

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

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

Keep trying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how easy that is? Now you try.

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

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

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

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

Keep trying.

ADJECTIVE

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

ADVERB

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

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

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

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

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

I know it says person. Check this out:

mur·der


noun

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

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

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

ADJECTIVE

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

ADVERB

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

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

Quote Everything here points to "person." Have I been talking about the evangelical right or not? Are they one person? I don't think so.

Holy fuck, that's the hill you're gonna die on? Ad hominem doesn't count in this instance because you were actually smearing multiple people while ignoring their actual points, and this definition only applies to a single target?

Sorry, but no. If that's going to be the distinction, then let me rephrase.

You've simultaneously committed MILLIONS of counts of ad hominem, one for each individual right wing evangelical who you painted as a liar based on your own characterization of their beliefs, rather than on anything any of them have actually said.

There is only one "holy fuck in this equation, and that's your skewed interpretations of the word. You can't insist on what was never there to begin with, no matter how hard you try.

The only hill to die on is your own special interpretations, and words posted from English text, obviously have no meaning for you. They do for me.

Nah, the holy fuck seems to be the level of bullshit you'll resort to in order to avoid admitting a relatively minor error. I'm actually starting to become impressed by this level of shamelessness, even in an anonymous setting.