dun understand what you trying to say here. Ban religion related
activity? dun tink so .. we have lots of them in varsity.
Read what you have post and ask yourself once more. Do you have
the right to condemn others with 1 fact with little truth (because
this is supported by moderator of Buddhism Forum).
Oh yah .. then aren't you condemning me with no facts
and no truth? You see, if you want to defend or
counter-argue, then at least present some facts. But did you? I'm
sure you CAN .. nt trying to belittle you .. but you obviously
didn't.
What about the islam part that you post.
What about the taoist part.
Can't rem the Islam part. The Taoist part is immaterial in
Buddhist discussions. I was just urging believers not to mix them
up together. I think many Buddhists are in fact Taoists but they
not realized it.
fallacy of ad hominem - in which a
claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact
about the author of or the person presenting the claim or
argument.
aren't you guilty of it? by the way, here is a more complete
picture of ad hominem:
1. ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the
argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
2. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion
the author points to the relationship between the person making the
assertion and the person's circumstances.
3. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes
that a person does not practise what he preaches.
