You're going to have to be more specific about how you interpreted my definition of ad hominem, and your sources that counter that idea. That search turned up some interesting ideas, but I have no idea which ones you espouse, and we'll never get anywhere on this unequal footing.
I think you're going to have to be more specific about which of my arguments have something to do with 'ThomPete's deficiencies as a person or his personal unsuitability to be making statements about Trump or Thiel or Altman. That's an uphill climb, because I don't know anything about 'ThomPete, so I doubt I've made any such arguments.
Ah, I think this is where the confusion lies, I never meant to accuse you of ad hominem against ThomPete. Sorry if I caused confusion there.
> And no I don't want to defend Trump or Theil but rather the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions
I interpreted "repercussions" to mean ad hominem. Peter Theil has his reasons for supporting Trump. But I see the conversation shifting to his transitive guilt of bigotry/misogyny, as opposed to the political motivations for that support. I think this is ad hominem, as it's a focus on the moral scandal and not the political issues.
I'm a little lost. How is the bigotry and misogyny of someone with a very real chance to be elected President of the United States and Command in Chief of the world's largest military force not a political issue?
It is a political issue but so is sending drones out to kill people without trial.
There are collateral damage to all political decisions you are just more accepting some rather than those the Trump supporters accept.
That doesn't mean they can't have a higher political goal than purely bigotry. In fact I believe both Altman and Thiel shows that you can in fact disagree without shaming.
What's your point? I agree with you about drones. You know who doesn't? Donald Trump. Donald Trump doesn't merely support using drones against terrorists. He thinks we should firebomb Raqqa. He thinks that the families of terrorists should be captured and tortured in order to dissuade terrorists. He is in favor of --- he said this publicly --- limited regional tactical nuclear war. He is a staunch advocate of torture, not just to obtain information (itself an odious plan) but as retributive justice to those who oppose him.
Peter Thiel supports this man. He donates millions to his campaign. He's a surrogate for the campaign. He stood on stage and endorsed the campaign even as dozens of senior Republicans refused. He donated just last week, so much that he made the front page of CNN, after Trump pivoted to attacking the election itself.
If drones are a major concern of yours, good on you! You, too, should be working as diligently as possible to prevent Donald Trump from killing millions of people in new military strikes.
Trump is for firebombing Raqqa. Trump is for capturing and torturing the families of terrorists. I don't have to extrapolate his platform from the definition of "isolationist". He has made his plans clear.
