On the contrary, opening with an unsubstantiated claim that your opponent is under satanic delusion is not argument. It is an ad hominem escape from argument of the first order, a fallacy known as argument from intimidation. It may be what you believe, but it adds nothing to the discourse of ideas, and instead is typically used to discredit one's opponent *personally* before real, objective argument can be engaged. Oh yes, it is ad hominem, and a doozy at that.
“On the contrary, opening with an unsubstantiated claim that your opponent is under satanic delusion is not argument. It is an ad hominem”
Sigh. I just provided the definition of argumentum ad hominem. You are right that my statement is not argument. It is a simple declarative sentence that conveys a thought.
“a fallacy known as argument from intimidation.”
You can’t have it both ways. Either it is an argument, or it is not. That said, there was no intent to intimidate anyone. I merely conveyed information.
“It may be what you believe, but it adds nothing to the discourse of ideas”
I am well aware of the presumption that dissent “adds nothing to the discourse of ideas.” This statement does add one thing: the only plausible explanation for the behavior of some human beings on planet Earth. Only the father of lies could spawn and fuel such a protracted campaign.
“and instead is typically used to discredit one’s opponent *personally* before real, objective argument can be engaged.”
The father of lies must have gotten a chuckle at that. I have no motivation to discredit anyone personally, because it has been demonstrated that “real, objective argument” is impossible. I seek only to say some true things once in a while.
And now I have become bored. Again.
“You Catholics believe X.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”
It is as wrong-hearted as it is wrong-headed, and I think that’s the worst part of it.
But when a Roman has spoken, is not the matter settled?:)