4 ms·
Pointing out his misogyny is not "ad hominem" as you seem to think and provides further context for understanding the other comment. Not that it's needed, he is
by lucisferre 13y ago
Pointing out his misogyny is not "ad hominem" as you seem to think and provides further context for understanding the other comment. Not that it's needed, he is pretty clear, I don't think anyone here is misunderstanding it.
- roarroar 13y agoI didn't bring up the term "ad hominem". Please stop putting words into my mouth. You are very determined to do anything but address anything anyone's actually saying. Your defense mechanisms are showing.
- jacalata 13y agoFor reference, ad hominem means "attempts to undermine an argument based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the argument" (Wikipedia). It doesn't seem unfair to use it to paraphrase the description "your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said".
- roarroar 13y agoExactly. The guy hating women or not is not _irrelevant_, but it's not relevant in the way GP is trying to use it. That's why he tries to play the "ad hominem" card so he can throw up some moronic straw man about relevancy.
- jacalata 13y agoActually I was pointing out that lucisferre's use of the term 'ad hominem' to characterise your comment was completely fair and not 'putting words in your mouth' just because you never used the explicit phrase.
- roarroar 13y agoPerhaps you're right. Let's chalk that up to misunderstanding, shall we?