Replies

you all three engaged in ad hominem attacks on libertarians on this thread.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

You can't pursue ad hominem attacks on a generalized group or class of people. An ad hominem attack is a "personal" attack. If you took generalized comments on libertarians personal, you were in error. If I attack Barac Obama for having big ears, that is an ad hominem attack. If I attack liberalitarians for being potheads that is not ad hominem. If you identify with liberalitarinaism but don't smoke weed, understand that personally those comments don't apply to you. However you have in no way refuted the assertion that most liberalitarians smoke pot and that governs much of their motivation for their stance on freedom. you are simply the exception which proves the rule and perhaps might want to more closely examine the company you keep. If, that is, you are capable of that high a level of understanding. No pun intended of course (smile)

You can't pursue ad hominem attacks on a generalized group or class of people. An ad hominem attack is a "personal" attack. If you took generalized comments on libertarians personal, you were in error. If I attack Barac Obama for having big ears, that is an ad hominem attack. If I attack liberalitarians for being potheads that is not ad hominem.

You are wrong

I imagine you have pet names for every Jew you encounter, every black, every person that is not a member of your clann and cult, and you use them frequently, when you encounter these folks on the street.

Or ... perhaps not.

If I attack liberalitarians for being potheads that is not ad hominem. If you identify with liberalitarinaism but don't smoke weed, understand that personally those comments don't apply to you.

Quite possibly the most stupid thing I've read on FR in quite some time.

"If I attack Jews for being cheap and you're a jew but you're not cheap, understand that personally these comments don't apply to you."

Yeah, that'll fly, genius.