Oh, Dan, don’t be a pinhead! (O’Reilly reference).
When you look up the definition of the word “bigoted” and “bigotry”, notice that the definition includes the “prejudices of a bigot”. You said yourself that my statements were “bigoted”, and by your usage of that word, you are also calling me “bigoted”. So that is name-calling. So you’ll have to pardon me if I lose respect for someone who calls me names.
As a tactic, I am deliberately choosing not to quote “more trusted experts” because that would mean I agree with your argument, that credentials matter before data. And I don’t. I gave you two authors who have written books on how muslims did not treat their minorities well. I’m sure there are more. All you have to say against the argument is that, well they’re not respected. That doesn’t mean that the muslims treated their minorities well. That is an ad hominem attack and ultimately irrelevant.
And shadowfax may agree with that notion, because many people are unable to see that just because a person has credentials, that does not invalidate the argument itself. The data itself has to be challenged. You cannot bring up the “because mommy said so” argument into a debate. Unfortunately, people do rely on their purported “experts” in order to simplify their thinking.
By the way, the definition of an ad hominem attack is when you bring up an IRRELEVANT fact and use it as a way to impeach the argument. So when you bring up the reputation of Spencer, Bolton, et. al., and use that reputation as a means to say that their argument does not matter, that is an ad hominem attack and it is highly unimportant when it comes to the argument. That is weak. It doesn’t attack the basis of the argument.
Anyways, I put the In God we Trust thing because it’s down at the bottom of this website. Extolling the credentials over the data is the direct opposite of the phrase “In God We Trust.”
(1956? Do I come off as that OLD?). Hahaha. I’m only 38.
