An ad hominem fallacy is distinct from an insult.
That's what you're calling either insult or a fallacious argument (I can't tell which it is). And that was as extreme as it gets?
If you wish to be unambiguous, refer to ad hominem fallacies (all three words) when you mean fallacious arguments with that fallacy and insults when you mean insults.
*******
I notice that you ignored most of my post to you. Was there a reason for that (I've proposed one below on the assumption that I probably won't get an answer to that, either.)
Apparently, the only words that caught your eye were, "The word
demand might be a little stronger than need be." They're the only ones you disliked or even acknowledged seeing.
Points you ignored:
- The proper name is an ad hominem fallacy. Lay people use the term ad hominem as a synonym for insult as you seem to be doing here
- Where do you see an argument there? I see unsupported claims which I happen to agree with. The evidence in prior posts, not that claim.
- My point is that if one doesn't make an argument, once cannot make a fallacious argument.
- His language was descriptive (expository).
- You HAVE called bare assertions arguments when they are not
- What is it you teach and to what aged students?
- you are just some random person that we don't know
- it is indeed almost as old as writing itself that people have simply asserted ideas as fact even when they're not. It's at least as old as the Old Testament.
I'll assume that you felt that you couldn't rebut any of those and so ignored them. The first bullet point might have been useful to you (it would have been useful to me had you assimilated those words) before writing your ambiguous opening line above.
Do you realize that you demand much from others regarding when and how to address you, but hold yourself to no similar standard?
I'll say the same to you. I can't tell whether you mean insult or ad hominem fallacy when you use nonstandard language like this.
Furthermore, not all ad hominem fallacies are insults or attacks. We can attempt to disqualify an argument by calling the arguer too young or inexperienced to have much to offer yet. It may be correct or it may be incorrect, but it isn't an attack.
