Really? Because to me it sounded like he was describing the type of thinking, not making a statement about the person engaged in that thinking -- I don't even know which person it is supposed to be an ad-homienem attack on.
I'm not sure how, but that was not the intention. It means exactly what it says. I disapprove of the line of reasoning, that's what the comparison was about, not his person. It reminded me of something.
I could see how some people might interpret it as such, but my impression was that tripzilch was aiming for a more general metaphor. The term "stockholm syndrome" might also have been fitting. I interpreted it as a general statement about victims becoming inured to their suffering to the point where they start to defend it.
As someone not previously involved in this thread, it doesn't read that way to me. Abuse is one of many areas where there's a tendency for pretty much everyone to keep quiet, even third parties who see the signs. That's why organizations trying to help devote so much of their time trying to get people to openly talk about things.
This seems like a veiled ad-hominem.