Comment

Comment on This is a simple and satisfying way to fight Trump and Musk | It's time to delete X

TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion?

I’m not passing any judgement on whether anything is an “OK comment.” In fact, on the topic being discussed, I think I agree with you more than that person you’re replying to, but as I said, I only stopped by to comment on your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem, because it’s super fucking annoying to me when people throw that term around when they don’t know what they’re doing.

you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”

THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT, no matter how good or bad as it might be, and no matter how much it is surrounded by words that you view as insulting. Therefore I hope you agree with me that it’s not an ad hominem. Or did you not read the link I posted yet?

source

Sort:hotnew top

Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem

I’m surprised you still consider it fallacious?

THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT,

Yes I know, it’s the way the argument is put with “You have to understand”, as if I wasn’t aware of a very obvious fact.

source
- TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  
  Yes I know, it’s the way the argument is put with “You have to understand”, as if I wasn’t aware of a very obvious fact.
  Put together with the bubble comment, he argues like a camouflaged MAGA, using “you too” arguments.
  
  Cool, now we’re getting somewhere. I agree with you! I’ll ask you for a THIRD time, have you read the article that I shared a link to? Because if you do, you’ll see why what you describe here is not an ad hominem.
  
  source
  - Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    I don’t get the relevance of that link, it talks about logical falacies like:
    
    A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”
    
    I don’t see how that’s relevant, there is no way that can be seen as an ad hominem. The entire piece seems to be like that. And obviously ad hominem is not a logical fallacy of any kind.
    
    From wikipedia which is way more concise, and actually talks about what an ad hominem is instead of what it is not:
    
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    
    Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, **or some other attribute of the person making an argument **
    
    In this case me being emotional.
    
    source
    TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    You evidently don’t know enough about logic and logical fallacies to grasp what I’m saying. Take care.
    
    source