I responded when you stated that I believe that ad hominem is horrific. The only that thing that I called you out for was signing values to my belief system. I simply asked you to cite a reference of where you gained this knowledge of my personal moral code.
You now appear to be assigning status to folks for my affections that I have not expressed.
What gives you the power to know and state my deeply held beliefs?
As the gatekeeper of Oz asked, “Well, why didn’t you say so in the first place?” I believe that I answered that already. Your Ad Hominem of:
I would only add that this individual's examples of "MonroeBerry" and "land of the bigoted inbreds" expose his intellectual dishonesty.
Clearly states that you personally have the emotional response that the original poster is “intellectually dishonest” using an Ad Hominem to create a negative emotional response. That created a personal attack on the individual to propagate your Ad Hominem. Even aside from that you put forth your apparent belief that name calling of a group by an individual makes that individual “intellectually dishonest” inferring that you have a strong emotional reaction. Now, I could have overstated your response as being “horrified” rather than maybe “mildly disgusted” or even “barely noticed”. I suppose from your reaction to assigning any emotion that possibly you are completely lacking in emotion, and therefore, not able to show an emotional response in an Ad Hominem.
Whatever way, you still flounder away trying to pick at my writing, when you are repeatedly not making what you say or ask clear. If you had wanted me to address “horrific” and not “Ad Hominem is horrific” then you should have been clear in your question.
And now, since it seems to bother you so much, I will apologize for assigning any emotion to you. That you used an Ad Hominem intended as an emotional retort is totally coincidental to you not having feelings to express.
But, now that I got that out of the way, why do you feel that a personal attack done by you is appropriate for someone that seems to try to present a better than everyone attitude? Isn’t that a conflict, to assign what others think or feel and reject the idea that your own posting is faulty and can only be interpreted as an emotionally based Ad Hominem attack of a person? Again, you clearly did not state that the ACT of using those examples was “intellectually dishonest”, but that the person was “intellectually dishonest” which is a personal attack to fulfill the Ad Hominem.
Tell ya what though; you can say I am from Monrotucky in the nastiest meanest wrongful way, and guess what? It would mean nothing. I know that I am human, have emotions, and make mistakes. Just as with my original use of “Ad Hominem is horrific”. I corrected the error that I made with the use of Ad Hominem in that context since it was what you highlighted, and was in error. If you had only meant “horrified” then you were clearly in error to post the “Ad Hominem” part. If you meant both then you should have addressed the question as a plural.