John, I do wish to point out something to you and perhaps you will learn something from it. There is nothing, nothing at all in my post that indicates any sort of 'ad hominem' attack. Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. What happened here is that you "knee-jerked" reacted (sic) to some pre-conceived (sic) notion in your own head and rather than try to understand what I wrote(,) you decided to cancel my thoughts because they did not directly align with yours. Though not relevant, I wish to let you know that I have been of voting age for 45 years and have often missed the opportunity to vote when available. As to what I 'recommend instead'? I would suggest looking at how you talk down to someone when you speak to them, especially when you talk to a woman. But I am at a loss as to why you seem to state that I have retreated to an 'ad hominem' attack when I am not attacking you, just your entitled way of speaking to others on this forum.
If you've been paying attention, you'll notice that I cut and pasted most of this response to you directly from your response to Judith. While I very much welcome your thoughts and ideas, please know that how you present these thoughts and ideas make a huge difference to those that you present them to as well as how you will be received by said people.
Seems rather presumptuous and disconnected. But…whatever.
John, I do wish to point out something to you and perhaps you will learn something from it. There is nothing, nothing at all in my post that indicates any sort of 'ad hominem' attack. Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. What happened here is that you "knee-jerked" reacted (sic) to some pre-conceived (sic) notion in your own head and rather than try to understand what I wrote(,) you decided to cancel my thoughts because they did not directly align with yours. Though not relevant, I wish to let you know that I have been of voting age for 45 years and have often missed the opportunity to vote when available. As to what I 'recommend instead'? I would suggest looking at how you talk down to someone when you speak to them, especially when you talk to a woman. But I am at a loss as to why you seem to state that I have retreated to an 'ad hominem' attack when I am not attacking you, just your entitled way of speaking to others on this forum.
If you've been paying attention, you'll notice that I cut and pasted most of this response to you directly from your response to Judith. While I very much welcome your thoughts and ideas, please know that how you present these thoughts and ideas make a huge difference to those that you present them to as well as how you will be received by said people.
Peace.
Sad