3 ms·

Ad hominem. Trump may be awful, but that has no bearing on the argument you're responding to.

• CamperBob2 6y ago
  I especially like how I'm guilty of an ad-hominem fallacy, while the person calling their opponents "con artists" while citing no evidence whatsoever wasn't. Re-examine your own biases, then post.
  • Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
    Name-calling isn't ad hom. Poster didn't say "they are con artists", they said "they are doing this and this, because they are con artists". Your response was tu quoque mixed with ad hom: "oh yeah? Well the other guy is a bad person!"
    • CamperBob2 6y ago
      There is such a thing as moral authority, you know. Look around you. Does it look like you're sitting in a philosophy classroom? (If it does, take the opportunity to freshen up on your Kierkegaard.)
      • Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
        I'm simply pointing out your argument was cognitive dissonance and completely ineffective. I'm sure you could engage with it directly and without fallacy, you're obviously bright, but your replies were very low-brow ad hominem and tu quoque. PS I don't invest "moral authority" in almost any leading politician today, though I certainly rank Biden higher than Trump in the "personal morality" stakes.