"Is calling someone a goat fucker considered ad hom?" If a person boasted in a chat room that the were into having sex with farm animals, especially goats and sheep, it is not ad hom, it is just a restatement of what the person already claimed to be. Joe called himself X. Y repeated what Joe said. No ad hominem.
So I could, for example, point out and repeat YOUR defense of pedophilia and that would not be ad hom. Gotcha.
Try it, see what happens. Start your own threads on it. If you can offer proof of your false claims, please try. I'll only say this one more time. I have never defended pedophilia; I have only attacked Americans spending their time attacking the way in which other countries make their own laws or run their own religion. It is none of our business what other sovereign nations do, as long as they do not directly endanger the U.S. Following the golden rule, Americans would go, and do go nuts if other countries criticize the way we do things in America...yet they see nothing wrong, in fact they see it as righteous to pass judgment on other societies, religions, etc. I have consistently supported our laws in our country regarding pedophilia. Bottom line, your claims are false. The person who I reposted quotes of, never claimed that what I posted was false. So post false claims all you like, if that is what gets you off, and see how far you go with that...
It was all deleted, but you knew that already. Doesn't change the fact that I saw it. Which was interpreted at the time, by more than few, to be defending pedophilia.
Right on the money. It says something about all of us as humans. We tend to vilify people when they do something wrong...write them off as 'monsters'....marginalize them. But under certain circumstances we may well make the same mistakes. People are so afraid to look themselves in the mirror and acknowledge the 'monster' is in all of us. Reminds me of Bob Dylan's drunken NECLC acceptance speech in '63 "I got to admit that the man who shot President Kennedy, Lee Oswald, I don't know exactly where âwhat he thought he was doing, but I got to admit honestly that I too - I saw some of myself in him."
I have only attacked Americans spending their time attacking the way in which other countries make their own laws or run their own religion. It is none of our business what other sovereign nations do, as long as they do not directly endanger the U.S.[/QUOTE] I totally disagree with this notion. In my opinion, as human beings we are obligated to stand up and at least try to put a stop to atrocities wherever they happen. When people's basic human rights are being taken away, etc. Makes zero difference whether it's in the US or anywhere else in the world. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly
So basically, you are making a claim without any empirical data. I know, you can get the ET mob to say they saw the same thing...the same people who vote on threads. It's all good, it just makes the ET Dictator more money. "Which was interpreted at the time, by more than few, to be defending pedophilia." People are entitled to their opinions and interpretations, and the types of bias they have when they do so. It has little to do with search for the truth or fact of a situation. Based on interpretations, false and falsely presented ones, we went to war in Iraq and many people misinterpreted the truth of a situation, believing Saddam had working WMD, and that Saddam was involved in 9/11...which in fact was not true. To this day, even after Bush said, and the facts showed that Saddam and Iraq did not have working WMD, there is something like 25% of the people who still believe the lie. 55% of the republicans believe Obama is not a US citizen. So people base their opinions, beliefs, and interpretations on their on chosen basis...which for certain people leads them to believe a lie. You could believe the lie, but it remains a lie none the less. I'll stick with facts, and you stick with your imaginations and false interpretations...
"In my opinion, as human beings we are obligated to stand up and at least try to put a stop to atrocities wherever they happen." I see, that is your opinion, and I am fine that is your opinion. I don't agree that is our "moral" business to involve ourselves with the manner in which other sovereign nations live their lives. To do so is self righteousness in action. I do see that it has been our "business" to do things when it benefits business, which is why we ignore what Red China does in the areas of human rights...it would be bad for "business" to take a moral position that would hard our "business" which is economically driven much more than morality driven. When America was slaughtering Native Americans, when America was holding slavery as legal, when women were viewed as property...do you think it would have been right for a more powerful nation to invade the US and force America to stop what other nations might have considered atrocious? Golden rule...apply it, and then get back to me. Ask yourself, "How would I like it if someone pushed their morals and beliefs onto me?" Please try to be consistent on your answer, for if it is good for you to push your morals on others, then it would be good for people to push their morals on you. I suspect you would strongly resist having done to you what you propose doing to others. I totally disagree with this notion. In my opinion, as human beings we are obligated to stand up and at least try to put a stop to atrocities wherever they happen. When people's basic human rights are being taken away, etc. Makes zero difference whether it's in the US or anywhere else in the world. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly [/QUOTE]