Okie dokie, I have some time now for replies/questions. I'm pretty much on Input Mode, with the exception of one thing to Truean...
It might be slightly, but it isn't beyond the pale to call into question contradictions.
If something is "slightly" fallacious, then the argument is flawed. If the argument isn't flawed, then there are no fallacies. It's never justified to use a fallacy, though one might be correct
in spite of the fallacy.
So yeah, no "yes but..." excuses when it comes to fallacies
If the conclusion is still correct, you have to find a new way to reach it that actually makes sense.
There was also some stuff in your post about contradictory positions. That is a fine thing to talk about, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure that applies to GreatJustice. If you want to point out contradictions as an argument, make sure it's your opponent's contradictions you're arguing against, not some vague group they ostensibly belong to. Any arguments against "conservativism" as a philosophy do not necessarily apply to any particular conservative, and it's an association fallacy to think they do.
Okay, now Input Mode.
You specifically said that my intent was only to attack the person and not the argument - thus, it is a personal attack, but it is not a logical fallacy, simply a cheap shot.
That's what I read it as, yes: a cheap shot. Sort of like Descan said below you: a no true scotsman fallacy type thing (though I don't think it fits that perfectly).
I cannot see how something can be a cheap shot but not an ad hominem, unless it's an insult for giggles rather than an attempt to discredit. This would be where I guess I'm missing something?
Anyway, no hard feelings or anything; if an insult wasn't intended, then I see no reason to be insulted once that's cleared up (even though it'd be GreatJustice in this case rather than me).
None of which changes the fact that it was intended as an appeal.
This is where I'm mainly confused. What do you mean by "appeal"?
"Appeal" when used in logical debate, as I understand it, always is an appeal
to something. When making an argument, what you "appeal" to is the support. An appeal to authority would be saying "this dude says X, and is a valid authority on the subject, therefore X is true." An appeal to popularity would be saying "X movie is the best since it's the most popular."
But that doesn't seem to fit the word as you used it. Based on context, I guess you're indirectly asking a question?
Blah. I suppose you could argue the tu quoque form, but even that would be a stretch.
Tu Quoque, as I understand it, is the fallacious appeal to hypocrisy. Responding to "X is bad" with "but you do X!" is tu quoque. Whether or not they do X is irrelevant.
@Palsch
Okay. I can see insults being thrown to get an audience on one's side, rather than a real attempt to discredit an opponent.
Side note: What kind of argument would you classify the part of Glyph Gryph's original post I quoted as?