If you're gonna use big words Prout, perhaps it would behoove you to learn thewir meaning.
Your pal Dawkins is discussing religion in the article. I am attacking the mans views about religion, not the man. His views are relevant to the article and religion. His views on religion are marxist. Such is life.
"the man's general attitudes on a broad subject are hostile, therefore the points he raises in this narrow and specific case are invalid."
also argumentum ad hominem.
Perhaps also an example of the Genetic Fallacy: You assert that he is wrongheaded on religion in general, therefore he must be wrong in any point he raises on any topic involved with religion. I'm not certain this is quite within the bounds of Genetic Fallacy but, if it is not, it is closely related.
Address the points, not the man.
If you are going to bandy semantics with me, Walsh, it would behoove you think it through first.