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?
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.
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.