All Arguments are Ad Hominems

[Skepdick]

I think the way that you use “equivocation” it means that the rules of logic don’t apply.

"THE rules of logic"? "THE" being the definite particular in English implies that there is one set.

There are as many logics as there are religions.

Deciding which logic is "THE" correct logic is just another unresolvable fact of life.

[Eodnhoj7]

All arguments, stemming from the point of the observer, necessitate an inherent ad hoministic nature. Each argument is a projection of the observer thus to negate the argument is to negate the perspective of the individual through whom the argument is formulated.

This is the reason why many take any refutation of their point of view as personal. All arguments, as a reflection of a subjective "I" nature, are variations of the "I" as an interpretation of the "I" itself. Argumentation is definition of the "I" through a dynamic interplay between other "I"s.

No.
I do not know you and I do not care to know you.
Despite this, your argument is false. It is false for the simple reason that anyone could attempt to make this argument, but no matter who or what they are they would also be wrong.

Your stance is circular: I am wrong because anyone who makes this argument is wrong. The argument is wrong because it is wrong.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not without you making yet another fallacy, the "fallacy of equivocation," also known as "amphiboly." If you fix the meaning of "exists," and don't equivocate it (just as you admitted to doing) then the statement is simply false.

False. Equivocation is subject to equivocation through slippery slope. Equivocation doesn't exist as a fallacy under the stance I argue.

Second it isn't equivocation as one context allows unicorn to equivocate to existence. Under another context unicorn does not equivocate to existence. One contains a middle term through which contexts equivocate, another doesn't. My stance does not allow for universal equivocation precisely because it is context dependent.

Third you equivocating my stance to a fallacy is a fallacy of equivocation.

Fourth the fallacy fallacy allows me to have any perceivable fallacy, you claim, while being correct. Just because the statement contains a fallacy does not necessitate it as false. Considering you believe in fallacies, and I believe they both exist and do not exist simultaneously, my stance is still correct from your premises.

I think the way that you use “equivocation” it means that the rules of logic don’t apply.

The fallacy of equivocation is an act of equivocating a fallacy to an argument. Equivocation is subject to itself. The standard rules of logic are contradictory.

[commonsense]

I think the way that you use “equivocation” it means that the rules of logic don’t apply.

"THE rules of logic"? "THE" being the definite particular in English implies that there is one set.

There are as many logics as there are religions.

Deciding which logic is "THE" correct logic is just another unresolvable fact of life.

Not the correct logic, but the rules of all the logics.

[commonsense]

False. Equivocation is subject to equivocation through slippery slope. Equivocation doesn't exist as a fallacy under the stance I argue.

Second it isn't equivocation as one context allows unicorn to equivocate to existence. Under another context unicorn does not equivocate to existence. One contains a middle term through which contexts equivocate, another doesn't. My stance does not allow for universal equivocation precisely because it is context dependent.

Third you equivocating my stance to a fallacy is a fallacy of equivocation.

Fourth the fallacy fallacy allows me to have any perceivable fallacy, you claim, while being correct. Just because the statement contains a fallacy does not necessitate it as false. Considering you believe in fallacies, and I believe they both exist and do not exist simultaneously, my stance is still correct from your premises.

I think the way that you use “equivocation” it means that the rules of logic don’t apply.

The fallacy of equivocation is an act of equivocating a fallacy to an argument. Equivocation is subject to itself. The standard rules of logic are contradictory.

Yes, and the act of posting a thought is the thought of posting on the Forum. Equivocation is the vocation of equidistant points on a line of equidistant points scaled to equal points equivalent to scale a wall of equivocation.

[Eodnhoj7]

I think the way that you use “equivocation” it means that the rules of logic don’t apply.

"THE rules of logic"? "THE" being the definite particular in English implies that there is one set.

There are as many logics as there are religions.

Deciding which logic is "THE" correct logic is just another unresolvable fact of life.

Not the correct logic, but the rules of all the logics.

And which rules are those in light of the number of logics?

[Sculptor]

All arguments, stemming from the point of the observer, necessitate an inherent ad hoministic nature. Each argument is a projection of the observer thus to negate the argument is to negate the perspective of the individual through whom the argument is formulated.

This is the reason why many take any refutation of their point of view as personal. All arguments, as a reflection of a subjective "I" nature, are variations of the "I" as an interpretation of the "I" itself. Argumentation is definition of the "I" through a dynamic interplay between other "I"s.

No.
I do not know you and I do not care to know you.
Despite this, your argument is false. It is false for the simple reason that anyone could attempt to make this argument, but no matter who or what they are they would also be wrong.

Your stance is circular: I am wrong because anyone who makes this argument is wrong. The argument is wrong because it is wrong.

No, you dolt. I gave you an example of how bad your argument is, since I can, make an argument without making an ad hominem.

Here's an argument.
The geocentric hypothesis is false because the apparent movement of the night stars, and lack of stellar parallax, would have to represent those stars moving at speeds well in excess of the speed of light.
Noe tell me how this is an ad hominem.

[Eodnhoj7]

No.
I do not know you and I do not care to know you.
Despite this, your argument is false. It is false for the simple reason that anyone could attempt to make this argument, but no matter who or what they are they would also be wrong.

Your stance is circular: I am wrong because anyone who makes this argument is wrong. The argument is wrong because it is wrong.

No, you dolt. I gave you an example of how bad your argument is, since I can, make an argument without making an ad hominem.

I said your argument is circular, not an ad hominum.

Here's an argument.
The geocentric hypothesis is false because the apparent movement of the night stars, and lack of stellar parallax, would have to represent those stars moving at speeds well in excess of the speed of light.
Noe tell me how this is an ad hominem.

It isn't an ad hominum, now it is a strawman. I said it is circular, that being the prior argument, not an ad hominum (see the bold).

Assuming you are addressing the thread however, all measurements, including those of the stars, are relative to the point of the observer. The beginning measurement is subject to the premise of the observer. In this case it is the sun being a more accurate point of measurement than the earth. This premise is chosen by the observer. Heliocentrism and geocentrism are beginning points of measurements. The mayans used venus:
http://edj.net/mc2012/fap13.html.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_astronomy

[commonsense]

"THE rules of logic"? "THE" being the definite particular in English implies that there is one set.

There are as many logics as there are religions.

Deciding which logic is "THE" correct logic is just another unresolvable fact of life.

Not the correct logic, but the rules of all the logics.

And which rules are those in light of the number of logics?

Not which rules, but all the rules of all the logics. It looks like all the rules and all the sets of rules of all the logics do not apply to you.

[Skepdick]

Not the correct logic, but the rules of all the logics.

You can't really unify them. Two internally consistent logics can be mutually contradictory.

[commonsense]

Here's an argument.
The geocentric hypothesis is false because the apparent movement of the night stars, and lack of stellar parallax, would have to represent those stars moving at speeds well in excess of the speed of light.
Noe tell me how this is an ad hominem.

It isn't an ad hominum, now it is a strawman. I said it is circular, that being the prior argument, not an ad hominum (see the bold).

Therefore not all arguments are ad hominems.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not the correct logic, but the rules of all the logics.

And which rules are those in light of the number of logics?

Not which rules, but all the rules of all the logics. It looks like all the rules and all the sets of rules of all the logics do not apply to you.

The fallacies are subject to the fallacies, even Aristotle's Law of Identity is subject to the Munchauseen Trilemma: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=29026

The laws of Logic contradict, this is not subject to my opinion alone.

[Eodnhoj7]

Here's an argument.
The geocentric hypothesis is false because the apparent movement of the night stars, and lack of stellar parallax, would have to represent those stars moving at speeds well in excess of the speed of light.
Noe tell me how this is an ad hominem.

It isn't an ad hominum, now it is a strawman. I said it is circular, that being the prior argument, not an ad hominum (see the bold).

Therefore not all arguments are ad hominems.

False, strawman taken out of context. The specific argument was addressing the circularity of his argument, in that context it is not an ad hominum. Under a general context, as an extension of the point of the observer and addressing the perspective of the observer, it is still an ad hominum. It is both an ad hominum, in addressing the individual through the argument, and not an ad hominum in the respect the particular addressed is circularity. All arguments, as I have stated elsewhere:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=28743, are simultaneously true and false. In this case both an ad hominum and not an ad hominum.

[commonsense]

Not the correct logic, but the rules of all the logics.

You can't really unify them. Two internally consistent logics can be mutually contradictory.

All of them individually and ununified.

You may continue to twist the narrative in any way you like, however I will no longer clarify it for you.

[commonsense]

It isn't an ad hominum, now it is a strawman. I said it is circular, that being the prior argument, not an ad hominum (see the bold).

Therefore not all arguments are ad hominems.

False, strawman taken out of context. The specific argument was addressing the circularity of his argument, in that context it is not an ad hominum. Under a general context, as an extension of the point of the observer and addressing the perspective of the observer, it is still an ad hominum. It is both an ad hominum, in addressing the individual through the argument, and not an ad hominum in the respect the particular addressed is circularity. All arguments, as I have stated elsewhere:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=28743, are simultaneously true and false. In this case both an ad hominum and not an ad hominum.

You just said above, “It isn’t an ad hominem.”

Therefore there is at least one argument that is not an ad hominem argument.

Therefore not all arguments are ad hominems.