- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I feel this argument applies in many situations
why doesn’t the guy on the right have any ears
The shit would leak
“shit-for-brains” kinda discredits any and all arguments though doesn’t it?
Technically not, since a lack of intelligence doesn’t necessarily imply that something said by a given person is wrong (else an unintelligent person could make things more likely to be wrong by saying something, or would be unable to say that thing if it is true.)
a lack of intelligence doesn’t necessarily imply that something said by a given person is wrong
This doesn’t seem convincing to me because it’s the exact same sort of criticism you’d make about any other ad hominem statement.
User name doesn’t check out, and why would you open yourself to being called shit for brains like this?
Strangely, I’ve never had someone say that my username doesn’t check out who also explained clearly why they thought that way. I think this is the second time.
And being called names by strangers online doesn’t really register as anything but noise. I guess if it was in this thread, it would be slightly on topic, but elsewhere, it would probably just lead to reports and blocks.
Okay dumbass
Ok, shit-for-brains. 😜
The bonus panel explains why it doesn’t.
Oh I forgot to open the page to see it, thanks for the reminder 😅
It’s hard to take any of your posts seriously when all you do is twerk, eat hot chips and steal crow pictures.
What is it using to hold the hot chips?
Robotic crow arm, crow technology is quite advanced
How long until you’re walking around with a stolen robotic crow arm, cm0002?
Pics are one thing, but, as a human, if I’m caught with crow tech it’ll violate the Crow-Human Treaty of 2002 and the US will have no choice but to extradite me for trial in Crowlandia otherwise it risks sparking another war.
Have you been to Crow prison? I’d rather go to the Gulag or a CIA blacksite tyvm.
But an insult is not an argument. And he himself calls it an argument, implying that he is trying to discredit, thereby making it ad hominem.
Even if it’s not an attack of their argument, and is stated simply as a fact, a personal attack does still work to discredit the opponent to any audience, and can therefore be considered a fallacious ad hominem tactic.
It’s basically poisoning the well. Even though you’re not explicitly saying it, the audience will infer that someone who can justifiably be described as “shit for brains” should not be trusted on the relevant topic. Even someone profoundly stupid can be right, and even someone incredibly intelligent can be wrong.
That being said, even if someone has been viciously personally attacked, if the attacker has otherwise proved their argument wrong, that’s what truly matters. It does definitely make me think less of someone if they constantly personally attack their opponent, though.
I wonder if it can be ad hominem if it’s a personal attack that technically bolsters your opponent’s argument. For example, if you’re debating a scientist about some scientific subject, and you call them an egghead or a nerd. I think it still counts.
“strawman”
does not eleborate further, thinks they won, leaves
How to win debates on the Internet 101.
In 201, you learn how to do it with more Latin.
The sequel to https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/phenom we have all been waiting for
I stand forever enlightened
Further, the fallacy fallacy states that even if you did it doesn’t make the other side “the automatic winner because the other guy was mean.”
I thought that was the “neener neener” fallacy
First of all, I’m a fucking shit for brains idiot. Second of all, *presents highly intelligent nuanced opinion.*
