To bad you have to go. I'd like to hear more about your opinion.
No. You like to play your game. If you wished to hear more you would have engaged on one or more of the more salient points made in the post rather than choosing to question the use of a metaphor in a side note.
You would have asked for clarification on things that were brand new to you. Your object is not to hear opinions, nor to discern facts. Merely to play your game long after the OP has been clearly answered.
You would have acknowledged other's arguments rather than to simply shift to a lessor point in their posts.
Socrates used the same set of facts to arrive at opposite conclusions. He disqualified his method as a way of discerning truth. I know you are aware of this and the problem of universal ignorance and the Socratic false dilemma, yet you continue to troll.
What is this, but your nonsensical game?: "But do you think it possible that even an evil man can sometimes make a strong argument for a true conclusion?"
You know the answer, and you know it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the answer "that even an evil man can sometimes make a strong argument for a true conclusion" since arguments stand of fall on their own (in Greek logic). But that isn't the question you asked. You asked "Do you think the ad-hominem fallacy is really a fallacy?"
This is nothing but pure sophistry.
I had hoped you had reformed. Obviously not. The game is more important to you than truth. I won't play.
The answer is: You have demonstrated the sophistry of the Socratic method perfectly. There is a reason he chose to die rather than continue to play his game. It was nonsense even to him. Greek logic is not good for discerning truth even in Greek writing, it certainly cannot be applied to Hebrew multi-layered text.
I've said before, you mimic the Socratic nonsense better than any I have seen. But it is a game, since you know it does not lead to truth. Your mind could be put to better use.
You asked for my opinion. You have it. Bye.