Quote from: oda.krell on September 03, 2014, 12:46:26 PM

Quote from: mmortal03 on September 03, 2014, 12:18:17 PM

Quote from: oda.krell on September 03, 2014, 10:59:09 AM

Quote from: exocytosis on September 03, 2014, 10:30:49 AM

Quote from: NamelessOne on September 03, 2014, 03:35:35 AM

Chuckee - Registered August 16, 2014, 06:56:52 PM

Its amazing watching the same shit play out every freaking year on this forum. I've seen the same posts by the latest noob troll over and over and over.

Ad hominem attacks just show us you don't have any arguments.

The argument here isn't an ad hominem. The argument, if you want a catchy name, is perhaps best called 'extrapolation from pattern'.

Could be a false equivalence, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

The problem with the fallacy classification is that it is circular to a degree, or perhaps more accurately: they only describe the structure of an argument, but doesn't answer conclusively if, in the given context, the argument is valid or not. People however tend to use the term fallacy to mean "your argument is wrong".

"Ad hominem" is a good example: depending on the circumstances, an ad hominem can be evidence that an argument is not valid ("We should lower taxes because of X". "No we shouldn't, you cheated on your wife!"), or it can be a reasonable objection given the right context ("We should forbid gay marriage. Only the marriage between man and woman is free of sin." "Oh really. So how come you cheated on your wife?")

I get your point, but, actually, even that example's retort is a fallacy, because the person arguing for marriage between a man and a woman is arguing that only the act itself of getting married in a different context involves sin, not that a separate sin can't be committed while a man and woman are married. In other words, that retort is no different than "Oh, really. So how come you murdered someone while you were married to your wife?")