Nuh-uh is not my argument. My argument is that @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml hasn’t actually addressed the content of the article linked, and keeps using personal attacks in lieu of having anything of actual substance to say.
Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is “A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong”.
I urge you to read the description of ad hominem that you linked until you’ve actually understood it. In particular, try to comprehend what this says:
Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Ad hominem would be you making some argument and me attacking your character instead of addressing a point you made. You’ve made no actual point and just used personal attacks, now you’ve found a latin term that sounds clever to you.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
“nuh-uh!” isn’t much of an argument, either
Nuh-uh is not my argument. My argument is that @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml hasn’t actually addressed the content of the article linked, and keeps using personal attacks in lieu of having anything of actual substance to say.
accusing people of doing what you’re doing isn’t going to get you anywhere. might get you some laughs, though.
I see you made a self referential comment.
there’s that familiar “i know you are but what am i?”
know any other tunes?
I love how you’re only capable in communicating by regurgitating cliches. Even ChatGPT shows more creativity than that.
Spoiler Alert: Its ChatGPT all along
/j
A budget knock off of chatgpt maybe :)
Ad hominem
I urge you to read the description of ad hominem that you linked until you’ve actually understood it. In particular, try to comprehend what this says:
Ad hominem would be you making some argument and me attacking your character instead of addressing a point you made. You’ve made no actual point and just used personal attacks, now you’ve found a latin term that sounds clever to you.
Cherry picking