3 ms·

So, again, you’re not showing how it’s an ad hominem, you’re just disagreeing with the biased reporting.

• timr 11mo ago
  Where did I say it was an ad hominem?
  • abduhl 11mo ago
    >> Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first.
    • timr 11mo ago
      Touché. I shouldn't have said "ad hominem attacks", because, while these arguments are certainly specious, and completely unrelated to the subject of the article, they're not strictly ad hominem. I agree with your comment that my criticism is (and was) biased reporting.