zane said:
…the truth is as a catholic apologist you [Spencer] have an agenda. Derbyshire wins..HANDS DOWN
That’s a fallacious kind of argment, zane. It’s a sort of argumentum ad hominem. Typically used by someone who can’t deal on the merits with the arguments made, so instead attacks the person making the argument.
Refute his arguments and facts, if you can. Because even if you could prove that Spencer had an “agenda,” that in itself wouldn’t yet demonstrate that Spencer’s arguments are wrong. To demonstrate that, you’d still have to deal with the arguments on their own terms and show just where the logical or factual flaws are. But it certainly is easier to simply slander a person’s background, isn’t it?
One should resist that temptation and restrict oneself in one’s criticisms to what can actually be looked at and criticized: Spencer’s arguments.
What you said was little more than a modern spiritual vestige of the medieval “witch” accusation, which sometimes involved confusing mere accusation with proof of some kind of guilt, so that any gullible types standing about might be ginned up into instantly condemning the accused and burning her at the stake. In a spiritual way your comment seeks to get foolish people to have a sort of mental mob reaction, and in effect mindlessly burn Spencer’s intellectual reputation at the stake, without any kind of prior due process (examination of his intellect on the merits).
