• TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    You don’t just get to call any words that you don’t like, or even words directly attacking you, an ad hominem. A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person making the argument INSTEAD OF the actual content of the argument. “Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot” is an ad hominem. What the other commenter said to you is not. Note that people claiming “ad hominem” on statements that are not are sometimes said to be committing an “ad hominem fallacy fallacy.”

    https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person

      Which is EXACTLY what he did. And I even explained that in my previous post.

      • TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said. Did you even read the post I linked to? You’re wrong; it’s cool though, we all make mistakes. Accept it and move on.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said.

          I took the part that was essential. Your claim about the below is essentially the same argument.

          Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot

          That’s the same as your argument is wrong, because you are angry and hurt, (and therefore not rational). Both are attacks on the person and not the argument. Although one is more polite than the other.

          And oh he also claimed i was living in a bubble, so he actually made 3 comments that were ill camouflaged personal attacks, first on my emotional state, 2nd on my rationality, and finally claiming I’m uninformed from living in a bubble.

          Yet I’m the one downvoted for calling his ad hominem out.
          The fact that X is used outside USA is obvious, thinking he needs to “explain” that is ridiculous, and I live in EU, so I think I’m aware of that. And Xitter definitely also has a fascist agenda outside USA, but maybe he isn’t aware of that?

          None of the 3 attacks (non arguments) were ever qualified any further, probably because he can’t.

          But I understand why you are hurt and angry, but you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”, and you live in a Bubble.

          So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion? Because that’s EXACTLY what the comment by NoiseColor to me boils down to. It’s an even bigger ad hominem when put together.