Small question: What armour is this?

[dofod]

Prologue: if you are those whom are too lazy to read, you only need to read the bolded words. Or not. Suit yourselves.

Hi...um, I usually lurk in the corner of this virtual hall yet today I was stirred to voiced out my opinions.

I myself am no historian, not by academic standard anyway. And as to EB I merely am one of the (many?) thousands of players whom were swept away by the depth of research and volunteered effort, you know, merely a game, yet something the team has transformed into a magnum opus that held great wealth of knowledge (and plenty of respect, I might add)

Of course this is perhaps also the reason why some of us are empassioned about the fine details of such projects; and in many times argue heatedly too.

Yet, it should be clear why ad hominem is a logical fallacy. An argument is an attempt to elicit our consent to the truth of a proposition by appealing to other propositions we accept--not by appealing to force, flattery, or personality. If you disagree with a claim, logic demands that you inspect the reasons put forward to support it.

Ad hominem is obviously fallacious. Why do people continue to commit it and be persuaded by it? Maybe because there's something satisfying, emotionally, about putting down someone you disagree with. It's irritating to admit that someone you dislike has made a valid point. Also when you identify with a view, an attack on it seems like an attack on you, so it's natural to counter with a personal challenge of your own.

While some more learned (or better-read) members of EB might try to point out some of our very own points of arguments are filled with fallacies. Yet I might add by trying to identify these fallacies and defend your charges you should be led to a deeper understanding of the argumentative interaction in adversary contexts. If you treat the charge of fallacy as in incantation with which to strike down the person you criticize and end debate, you reveal yourself as a name-caller who is hostile to the rationality of argumentation.

I really would like to say that, in all arguments, it requires some detachment from your beliefs--the Socratic ideal of pursuing the truth, wherever the path to it may lead.

Postscript:Do you understand now, Mr. MP why am I stirred to type these jibberish for, what reason? I am simply dumbfounded by your dogged attitude of ego-centrism, good sir. Thus I have now jumped my own gun to give you a friendly (perhaps not too friendly) prod at your side.