I have already remarked that I find it a bit thick to be accused by the author of the Dare to Know blog of having blood on my hands and being responsible for the suicide and sterility of young people who have been compelled to attend school. Having posted a personal attack on me, Carlotta then followed it up with this,
"I don't want to get bogged down in unproductive debate with this particular individual who has repeatedly demonstrated an incapacity to argue with a due respect for reality, the rules of logic or with much integrity,"
Harsh words indeed! But what I find utterly astonishing is that she then comments here, saying,
"Go easy on the ad hominems,"
The correct time to reproach somebody for making an ad hominem attack is probably before you have attempted to implicate him in the sterility or death of your friends and accused him of lacking integrity, not after! I can only assume that this complaint about ad hominem attacks was meant humorously. Nothing would please me more than to avoid getting bogged down in an unproductive debate with this lunatic, but I can hardly be expected to ignore it when an open Internet site is mentioning my name in connection with causing suicide and sterility!
(For those who are scratching their heads at this point and wondering what this is all about, the argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy whereby one avoids debating rationally and resorts to personal attacks. For example, rather than debating the continued significance of Bevan V Shears 1911, one might instead say, " I refuse to debate with this person because he has repeatedly demonstrated an incapacity to argue with a due respect for reality, the rules of logic or even much integrity". This, in a nutshell, is the argumentum ad hominem.)