You recognize that with the following you disqualify yourself completely as a reasonable participant of civilized discussion? (fallacies continue)
Like I said, even among the people here, there's recognition that talking with you is a waste of time, and I've seen for myself their evidence, all of which was provided to them by none other than yourself. But then, I've already addressed that, and I've already given the reason for which I'm addressing your points anyway. I will continue by addressing the arguments in your post on the basis of the arguments themselves, as opposed to the order or text. If anyone doubts the legitimacy of what I say here in addressing what you've said, they can look back at the thread so far, and see for themselves what I am talking about (And who knows? Maybe they'll finally try to understand what I'm saying by actually looking at it, and then they won't have to use ad lapidem arguments!):
-On ad hominem arguments: The attacks I've made against those here are their own argument, able to impact the main discussion yet ultimately separate as arguments in and of themselves. To elaborate, I'll refer (and link) to defenses of legitimate uses of ad hominem arguments from two sources, Scientific American and The Non Sequitur. I can only hope that you're at least familiar with the former, but the latter is a site dedicated to the thorough exploration of informal logical fallacies (it's not exhaustive, of course, but that's how they can continue to update and add to it) and presenting its content in a manner that treats the fallacies, and those who use them, in a manner that is entirely warranted (and, as such, the site can get NSFW at times). Here are the links:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/
http://thenonsequitur.com/?tag=non-fallacious-ad-hominem
As these pages will say, an ad hominem argument is only fallacious if the arguer points to perceived character flaws in an opponent, and draws from that the conclusion that either the person's claims are false, or otherwise that the person's own account can't be trusted. If, on the other hand, the arguer points to flaws that the opponent has already demonstrated, and which actually undermine the validity of their claims, character inferences may be legitimately drawn from this, and those inferences can and should be taken into consideration for future reference. After all, if someone supposedly represents objectivity and reason, their demonstrated failure to use objectivity and reason in their claims shows that they aren't so objective or reasonable. The best use of such realizations on a local level would be for the judged party to realize that they have problems, and then they may get to work on fixing those problems, improving both themselves and their ability to represent their causes. Even if such a thing never happens, if you expand beyond the local level, other people can see the problematic tendencies of the judged party, and with that in mind, said other people can better recognize the flaws of the judged party's claims, because appealing to any authority the judged party may claim is no longer an option.
Also of note is the fact that the others in this discussion have made decidedly illegitimate ad hominem arguments against me; no one has bothered to examine my claims, because they're too busy attacking my character (along with the aforementioned ad lapidem arguments) and dismissing my claims based on the rationale they establish from doing so.
-On your "weak straw man": Your analysis of my words isn't just a straw man fallacy, it's also a "weak man" fallacy, and the distinction between the two is explained, again, by The Non Sequitur, which I will link to:
http://thenonsequitur.com/?p=552
Your argument combines the two, because in your reading of the text in question, as well as my previous statements that the text refers to, you have addressed only a tiny selection of cherry-picked statements, which you had to take out-of context in order to misrepresent their meaning.
When I defined "my own form of respect," I went on and gave examples for the purpose of demonstrating how one can respect someone while still being aggressive and hostile. Basically, to have my form of respect means you can show a person exactly what you think of them. Basically, it's the opposite of having to try to hide what you think because you'd rather have a sense of security in your cringing. I can respect this guy, and simultaneously not be aggressive or hostile to him, because he hasn't warranted any aggression or hostility.
Either way, he's polite, but he's not submissive. He's willing to face any challenges against him or his ideas, and he will address them with honesty. By comparison, the people here can't be bothered to do either. That's why, in comparing and contrasting between my friend and the people here, I have concluded that my friend, the Christian Apologist from Texas, is better at honest and reasoned discussion than the people here, on a forum that supposedly exists for the purpose of honest and reasoned discussion.
I made the distinction because I'm challenging the people here to cut the BS and start acting like they have any business on a website called "Sciforums."