• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    Ah, an Ad Hominen: hadn’t seen one of those in at least 5 minutes.

    An Ad Hominem, clearly, is when you claim that the evidence doesn’t back a talking point up, and the more you claim the evidence doesn’t back a talking point up, the more Ad Hominem it is.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      doesn’t stop Very Serious Leftists™ from parroting it over and over and over again.

      Mind you the cartoon is already heavilly Red Scare “anybody that disagrees is a Communist” so I’m not suprised with the whole implying that I’m a “commie” for disagreing with your political tribe.

      By the way, you’re still refusing to answer the question of why Biden won’t do himself what he demands from others…

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        doesn’t stop Very Serious Leftists™ from parroting it over and over and over again.

        Wait a minute - does ‘ad hominem’, to you, mean ‘someone said something mean about me’?

        Is that what you’re saying?

        By the way, you’re still refusing to address my point about why Biden won’t do what he demands from others…

        About why he won’t give up ‘a principle’ that is currently popular amongst the majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, to appeal to a minority of voters, who are not even particularly reliable voters at that?

        Huh. I guess it’s a mystery why a politician in a democratic system wouldn’t do that.

        I guess we’ll never know.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            All of them are similar to the general scheme of ad hominem argument, that is instead of dealing with the essence of someone’s argument or trying to refute it, the interlocutor is attacking the character of the proponent of the argument and concluding that it is a sufficient reason to drop the initial argument.

            Don’t worry, sweetheart, I addressed your argument just fine; that you want to play tone police is on you. :)

            • Kanda@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              6 months ago

              Now you’re ad-homineming me as if I was that other guy you were having a fight with. If your refutation is sound, why do you need to attack someone’s character anyway?