Actually I used the term ad hominem properly in both threads where this has happened. I was not the one who called another person "absolutist" or "judgmental" or made "throne" references. These are examples of ad hominem.
You and I have differing opinions of Jinks and Kate. Fine. But there is no need to start insulting people, especially when all I did was write a review post and in it state a concern I had. Noting the presence of ad hominem (which is insulting the presenter to discredit what is presented) is not a "poor debate tactic". It is possible to have differing opinions on things without warfare to determine a victor.
Stretching the definition of
ad hominem a bit, aren't we? The terms "absolutist" and "judgmental" were accurately descriptive of your attitude regarding the subject of discussion. To claim that is an
ad hom is a bit of a stretch. You must be using the wiki definition here. :roll:
And as for the "throne" crack, again, it was apropos. You were blatantly declarative in your opinion that Jinks was an unnecessary character that should be gotten rid of and you would broach no disagreement with that belief. If that isn't a petulant "I am the king!" sort of stance I don't know what is. So enough with the
"I'm a victim call the waaaaaahhhmbulance!!!" type of nonsense. You have no right to cry foul here and it's rather ridiculous to even try. Besides, it's an incredibly juvenile debating tactic that calls into question your age and maturity.
And your debating tactics are poor as the last line of your post proves. I never said or attempted to be a "victor" or engage in "warfare" in this discussion. The fact that I started off by admitting that opinions regarding fictional characters was subjective
proves the point that one can't be a "victor" in this regard. Nice try to slam me with a back-handed insult while taking the lofty high road in that last line of yours. (*cough*
"Throne" *cough*)
So far I like the character of "Jinks" (because there hasn't been anything presented yet that would make me dislike him) and you, clearly, don't respect my opinion of him. That's insulting. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but to insist that I'm wrong when the character hasn't even been in more than two episodes is ridiculous and insulting.
Why do you think I brought up "Kate" from
Sanctuary? I was holding up a mirror to your argument about "Jinks".
It was the exact same thing, an absolutist and insulting opinion that petulantly suffered no argument. The only difference is that my "Kate" opinion had more merit as she has been in two whole seasons of Sanctuary. "Jinks" on the other hand hasn't been in more than two episodes of WH13. One can make an argument for or against "Kate" at this point as there is a history to judge the character on, but "Jinks" can't be judged effectively yet because we haven't seen enough of him to form a solid opinion yet. Even I admit that. But if you think you can form such a firm, intransigent
negative opinion about a character that we know very little about at this point then more power to you. Must be nice to form opinions before even half the facts are in on any given subject but it's your life, not mine. Just do me a favor and don't whine when your method of opinion formulation gets questioned, m'kay? Having one's opinion challenged happens a lot in the real world. You better get used to it.
P.S. I think we can all agree that "Kate" should be fed to an abnormal and "Ashley" should be brought back to Sanctuary post haste. And also "Jinks" should be made a permanent cast member of WH13.
