3 ms·
> Predictable, given the author and the venue. No information content. The name of the rhetorical flaw you've engaged in is "ad hominem attack". That is to sa
by tjic 17y ago
> Predictable, given the author and the venue. No information content.
The name of the rhetorical flaw you've engaged in is "ad hominem attack".
That is to say, you didn't give a single disagreement with the facts presented, you just said "well, the person who said it is a pederast and a simpleton..."
- lutorm 17y agoI merely said that the content was predictable once you knew the author and venue and contained nothing new for me. Surely that is a valid sentiment? For sure, it can not constitute an "ad hominem attack" unless you consider saying that people are predictable an "attack". I didn't even say I disagree with the conclusion (though I do).
- miked 17y ago>> I merely said that the content was predictable once you knew the author and venue and contained nothing new for me. "But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created." You could have predicted that by knowing the author and the venue? And if that disqualifies him/them, why is anything Al Gore says at a climate change conference valid?