Your support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)
Krimson
Super-Earth
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
MisterKing said:
I like how I didn't choose to respond to the additional response, trying to end the conflict before it escalated, only for someone else to jump in in defense of ad hominem attacks.
Allow me to give you a crash course on ad hominem attack then.
Ad hominem - Latin for "to the man," meaning to attack a person's character or personal attribute rather than their argument, a common fallacy employed in debate at any level.
The implication of this argument is:
A) that I'm intentionally "trolling" to some extent, that I chose to interpret "If you can't/wouldn't do it with the s/o sitting next to you, it's cheating" literally, when it unequivocally intended to mean something else.
B) that I'm too stupid to understand her point. Once again, rather than directly addressing my point, the attack is upon my intelligence, rather than the soundness of my logic.
The comment in question:
This simple, declarative statement is supposed to be unequivocally non-literal? In arguendo, I will assume for a moment that the above statement is immediately obvious to everyone else as non-literal, and I am actually completely ignorant to have made this mistake as reading a simple declarative statement as indeed that, I moved on to attempt to clarify my point with a non-literal interpretation.
The above is a clarification of my point, that just because something bothers your s/o, doesn't automatically make it amount to "cheating." Whether"if you can't/wouldn't do it with the s/o sitting next to you, it's cheating" literally or figuratively, my assertion runs directly contrary to that. And again, I emphasis, my assertion. Because ya know, this is a forum where we are allowed to voice our opinions and discuss those options without inviting condescension in the form of "very cute" and "went over your head."
Moving on from the initial ad hominem attack, Quin proceeds to set up a strawman.
My point is that they might care, but their caring does not automatically make it cheating. Suppose person A is dating an extremely possessive girlfriend, who interpret A talking to another girl as cheating, does that make that behavior cheating? There is some objective basis for what constitute cheating beyond what your s/o care to define it as. Of course, in any functional relationships, a couple has to agree on what that definition is, but that does not alter my point that your s/o's opinion of something doesn't make that something cheating.
Once again, instead of simply confining herself to simply responding to my argument, she just couldn't resist throwing in a few personal attacks directly not at my assertion, but my intelligence.
In addition to the ad hominem, the same strawman is utilized once more. My last statement was: "Some girls (or guys) might dislike it if their s/o watched porn, but they don't consider it cheating. The same distinction can be drawn about erotic roleplay." As I have elaborated above, this is fairly an assertion of "something can bother someone, but that doesn't make it cheating." This is a literal interpretation of his/her's first assertion how?? Rather than taking the time to even comprehend my point, Quin responded derogatorily and set up a strawman as my opinion. So please, take a moment to actually read what I wrote before dismissing it as either A) trolling, B) completely inane.
Tl;dr: I'm allowed to disagree with someone's opinion, and at no point have I made any assertions such as "if you believe x, you must be dumb." The same cannot be said for Quin, and an attack on either character or intelligence is ad hominem.
