In this article Daniel makes the case that Dan Kimball is not really orthodox, as both Chris and Dan are claiming.
Also, this morning Jason articulated something we have been saying for most of this two weeks, but articulated more specifically than either of us has so far:
Given that Guilt By Association is a form of Ad Hominem -AND THAT ad hominems are NOT always fallacious depending on how they are used.
My summary of what Jason said this morning
Jason has been analyzing Ingrid's and Chris's arguments. Ingrid is asserting that in this context, guilt by association IS valid, although she assumed that and did not explicitly say that this was her argument and probably should take the time to do so.
In response, Chris is saying Look! This is the logical fallacy guilt by association, and you use it here here and here therefore you are wrong!
On Ad Hominems not always being fallacious:
Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument.
Well...since people already admitted to using guilt by association and that it is valid in this case, Chris is arguing against a defense that is not being made. Guilt by association is not the defense, it is the assertion itself.
We keep telling him he's arguing against something no one is arguing FOR and he's publicly maligning people in the process and allowing others to do so also. In response he just keeps asking the same question "where is DK teaching heresy?" NO ONE IS MAKING THAT ARGUMENT. (Correction: Maybe a few people have made that argument, but not me, and I don't recall Ingrid making it.)
I hope I got that right... I wrote it rather quickly. (yep that's a disclaimer...)
So I'm hoping he'll get something written up that will help point Chris at least to the correct battlefield, because right now he's shelling his own troops while accusing us of the same.