On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:22:35 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:19:20 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > I said, and I quote: "Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong
>> > because of what kind of person you are, or what you have done, or
>> > anything of the sorts."
> 
>> You tried to imply that if I disagree with you, I'm a horrible,
>> horrible,
>> immoral person.
> 
> Yes, and I'm still saying it.
> 
> However, you accused me of making ad hominems (ie. claiming that you are
> wrong *because* you are a horrible person), and I didn't, as
> demonstrated.

*sigh*

You seem to be thinking that "ad hominem" only is used in the context of 
"argumentum ad hominum".

So, here's a very simple explanation.  If you don't understand it, well, 
I guess then you're just stupid.

"Ad hominem" is latin:  "ad" meaning "to", and "hominem", which is the 
accusative form of "homo", which means "person".

Clear?

By definition, this means "Relating to or directed at a particular 
person; (also) directed against the individual concerned rather than the 
relevant issue; personal.¨  (Citation, Oxford English Dictionary, Online 
edition)

An "ad hominem attack" is therefore an "attack directed at a particular 
person".

Clear?

Now, you said that I make you sick because I don't agree with you that 
forced vaccination is appropriate, because the goal of eliminating deadly 
diseases trumps everything.  You favor an authoritarian approach, whereby 
you force people to be vaccinated whether they want it or not.

You want to use the force of your authority to vaccinate people to make 
them not have a choice.  That's the definition of authoritarianism.  It 
has nothing to do with government, it has everything to do with your own 
self-perceived position of authority.  "I know better then them, so I'm 
going to force them to do what I think they should do."  That is, by 
definition, and authoritarian approach to solving a problem.

You say that anyone who has a problem with that (a) doesn't really want 
to rid the world of disease, (b) makes you sick.

Now.

I have a problem with that approach.  NOT because I think deadly diseases 
are wonderful things and should be allowed to flourish.  I have a problem 
with that approach because it dehumanizes the people you would force to 
be vaccinated.  It treats them as less than people, and it imposes your 
will and your sense of "I know better" on them, regardless of the actual 
consequences.

The approach that I favor (which - surprise - doesn't include NOT 
VACCINATING PEOPLE AGAINST DEADLY DISEASES) is educating the people you 
want to vaccinate, and give them the choice after they've been educated.

I DO NOT advocate doing so by force.  I advocate vaccinating them by 
educating them and giving them a choice.  I would advocate encouraging 
them to make the "right" choice, but in the end, THEY GET TO MAKE THE 
CHOICE BECAUSE THEY ARE PEOPLE AND NOT CATTLE.

Now, if you have a problem with that, you are a sick, twisted individual 
who doesn't understand the value of individual freedoms, and because 
people with less education than you are nothing more more than cattle to 
be "managed".  That makes me want to vomit.  If you think that, then you 
are an asshole and I don't want you anywhere near having the authority or 
the power to actually put your plan into action.

Jim

Post a reply to this message