11.2 million. That’s the number of American citizens who rank climate change as their top issue but didn’t vote in the 2024 election, according to research by the Environmental Voter Project. For context, Donald Trump won the presidency in 2024 by less than 2.3 million votes. For a little over a decade, EVP has been [...]Read More... from If So Many Americans Care About Climate, Why Don’t They Vote Like It?
It is is a dismissal of the others arguments based on nothing but the perceived character of the arguments/the person making the argument. It is an ad hominem. You are in no way engaging with anything the other says, instead you are relying on a simple attack on character. That is an ad hominem.
If the statements are conspiracy theories then it would do well to prove such an assertion. By simply stating it and then fleeing from any reasonable discussion makes you appear as a fanatic cultust that cannot handle challenge. This is not good optics for you
Ad hominem literally means against/to human, if I said “you are brainwashed so you believe a conspiracy theory” then I am dismissing their argument based on a personal aspect. I was stating what I believe to be a fact about their argument, not anything related to them as a person. I said many of those arguments are conspiracy theories, the implication being it would take 200 hours of research and a dissertation to disprove them, so I just responded to the things I had evidence on hand of.
Go watch someone debate a flat earther, something that we have mountains of evidence to disprove. Anyone who has not spent massive amounts of time researching will make the flat earther seem like they are 100% correct. I know those are conspiracies the same way I know the earth is not flat, but I’m not willing to spend 200 hours researching it for no actual gain in knowledge.
The fact that several things I did know were misrepresented to me (Biden supported the crime bill, but leave out that black Americans also supported it) makes me highly skeptical of everything else, which further proves to me that the rest were conspiracy theories. If it’s correct why the need for misrepresentation?
Thanks for starting out with showing you’re arguing at the level of Jordan Peterson, so I know I dont have to waste my time reading the rest of your drivel. We all know what the words mean, you need to learn what the fallacy is.
You are doing the thing little children do of going “Uhh i didnt specifically say the thing” but in your case its even more pathetic because you did and it has been explained to you.
Idk what to tell you ad hominem is a strictly defined fallacy, Jordan Peterson redefines common words to mean something completely different, this is something with a very narrow definition. Ask a philosophy major, I can ask my philosophy prof from 10 years ago if you want.
Why does it not surprise me youre the type to rely on Googles AI summary?
Buddy I dont know how to spell it out more clearly than this: “you are saying conspiracy theories” and “you are a conspiracy theorists” are functionally the same statements when they are not supported by any evidence. You are like a child trying to argue that you didnt call someone ugly, you just said they looked ugly.
Your statements have the function of attacking some imaginary moral value of the argument, rather than attacking the arguments content.
You are arguing like a terminally online pill-addict because you, like him, try to argue out from what the words mean in a literal translation, rather than engaging with the meaning of the concept. Instead of asking a philosophy prof, go talk to someone who does rhetorics.
Of course you study philosophy, it would make sense that an idiotic halfwit farthuffer like you would study such a thing. Hopefully you one day actually manage to move on from your terminal reddit-brain. And in case you’re in doubt, this was not an ad hominem, its just an insult. Im not attaching the value of your character onto the argument, im just calling you stupid.
Sad to start out with an ad hominem. All of the things stated is verified, that you do not like facts do not make them less so
“Your statement is a conspiracy theory” is a true about what they said, not a statement about their character but alright.
It is is a dismissal of the others arguments based on nothing but the perceived character of the arguments/the person making the argument. It is an ad hominem. You are in no way engaging with anything the other says, instead you are relying on a simple attack on character. That is an ad hominem.
If the statements are conspiracy theories then it would do well to prove such an assertion. By simply stating it and then fleeing from any reasonable discussion makes you appear as a fanatic cultust that cannot handle challenge. This is not good optics for you
Ad hominem literally means against/to human, if I said “you are brainwashed so you believe a conspiracy theory” then I am dismissing their argument based on a personal aspect. I was stating what I believe to be a fact about their argument, not anything related to them as a person. I said many of those arguments are conspiracy theories, the implication being it would take 200 hours of research and a dissertation to disprove them, so I just responded to the things I had evidence on hand of.
Go watch someone debate a flat earther, something that we have mountains of evidence to disprove. Anyone who has not spent massive amounts of time researching will make the flat earther seem like they are 100% correct. I know those are conspiracies the same way I know the earth is not flat, but I’m not willing to spend 200 hours researching it for no actual gain in knowledge.
The fact that several things I did know were misrepresented to me (Biden supported the crime bill, but leave out that black Americans also supported it) makes me highly skeptical of everything else, which further proves to me that the rest were conspiracy theories. If it’s correct why the need for misrepresentation?
Thanks for starting out with showing you’re arguing at the level of Jordan Peterson, so I know I dont have to waste my time reading the rest of your drivel. We all know what the words mean, you need to learn what the fallacy is.
You are doing the thing little children do of going “Uhh i didnt specifically say the thing” but in your case its even more pathetic because you did and it has been explained to you.
Idk what to tell you ad hominem is a strictly defined fallacy, Jordan Peterson redefines common words to mean something completely different, this is something with a very narrow definition. Ask a philosophy major, I can ask my philosophy prof from 10 years ago if you want.
Why does it not surprise me youre the type to rely on Googles AI summary?
Buddy I dont know how to spell it out more clearly than this: “you are saying conspiracy theories” and “you are a conspiracy theorists” are functionally the same statements when they are not supported by any evidence. You are like a child trying to argue that you didnt call someone ugly, you just said they looked ugly.
Your statements have the function of attacking some imaginary moral value of the argument, rather than attacking the arguments content.
You are arguing like a terminally online pill-addict because you, like him, try to argue out from what the words mean in a literal translation, rather than engaging with the meaning of the concept. Instead of asking a philosophy prof, go talk to someone who does rhetorics.
Of course you study philosophy, it would make sense that an idiotic halfwit farthuffer like you would study such a thing. Hopefully you one day actually manage to move on from your terminal reddit-brain. And in case you’re in doubt, this was not an ad hominem, its just an insult. Im not attaching the value of your character onto the argument, im just calling you stupid.