Quote:
Originally Posted by R Flair
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
What you said was 100% an ad hominem couched in a psychoanalysis of people who follow conspiracy theories.
Instead of responding to the topic discussion, you leveled an accusation against him concluding by way of implication that he "wasn't as smart as he thinks he is" among other things.
|
Nope. And you fail to explain how it's an ad hominem. All you're saying is that I didn't respond to the topic (which is true) but instead attacked him (which is true). That is not the definition of an ad hominem.
If I in any way claimed or even implied that the validity of the video was affected by my assertion of his character than that would have been an ad hominem. It's a logical fallacy. Attacking someone is not a logical fallacy.
I have seen his posts and decided today to simply post my opinion of him. Unrelated to the thread.
It wasn't against people who follow conspiracy theories (note how I said 'so-called') persay. It was about a specific subsection of the people who do. I explained it in more detail in my second (I think) post. But if you think you know what I meant better than I do then that's perfectly fine for you to believe. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first post but even if that's true I explained my position later on and now you know what I mean. This part has nothing to do with it being an ad hominem.
Interestingly enough it's almost becoming an ad hominem to accuse me of using an ad hominem.