3 ms·
Smugfuckem
- emmelaich 4y agoSounds like the inverse of the motte and bailey.[0] Someone claims the bailey is safe, response is to accuse them of advocating the motte. Can be solved in part by trying to get clarity on the terms, but that can bog down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
- thebetatester 4y agoTo me this sounds like an ad hominem attack/fallacy[0] wherein someone attacks the person they're arguing with instead of the idea they're presenting [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- _zzaw 4y ago“i am nodding and grrinning at this, completely unaware that it is probably a grievous assault against my character” —@dril