| >Ad hominem is an attack. Ad hominem is not simply an attack; it's disparaging someone to undermine their argument. >I have not attacked you, and I do not see how you could find ad hominem in my replies. I didn't say tou attacked me. You threw in Einstein being a womanizer in a discussion about people worthy of Nobel Prizes. I don't think the Nobel comittee takes that into consideration. >Unfounded paranoia is probably not something you should ignore. Agreed. Since you brought up unfounded paranoia, and since you thought the ad hominem was about you attacking me when that is not what I wrote, you should get that paranoia checked :) >My point was very simply was that Einstein did not walk on water nor did he operate in a vacuum. I am not sure why this is so difficult to believe. I never claimed anything like that. Strawman? I agree he didn't operate in a vacuum, which is why I think there's ample evidence his work would have been done by others soon after he did it if he did not exist. This is true for just about every person and discovery. You're the one arguing that all of mankind could not have developed General Relativity for decades without Einstein. Which is it? Was his work able to be done by others around the same time (i.e., not in a vacuum), or was his work so spectacular and impossible for all of mankind to not be able to produce it for decades (i.e., the walks on water argument)? |
Which is why it is also fallacy. Attacking the man does not undermine the argument, so the argument stands unassailed. Anytime we say "you..." it is the beginning of an ad hominem fallacy. Informal fallacy is invalid argument.
The rest of your last comment is all ad hominem fallacy. It's all you you you with you.