• Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ok, I get what you’re saying, but I really don’t know how to say this differently for the third time: that’s not what ad hominem means

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      As a side note, I’d like to thank you for the polite, good-faith exchange. If more people adopted your conversational style, I’d definitely enjoy my time here a lot more.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ah, now I feel bad for getting a bit snippy there. You were polite and earnest as well. Thanks for the convo 🫡

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s a form of ad hominem fallacy. That’s atleast how I see it. I don’t know a better way to describe it. I guess we’ll just got to agree to disagree on that one.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ad hominem is when you attack the entity making a claim using something that’s not relevant to the claim itself. Pointing out that someone (general someone, not you) making a claim doesn’t have the right credentials to likely know enough about the subject, or doesn’t live in the area they’re talking about, or is an LLM, aren’t ad hominem, because those observations are relevant to the strength of their argument.

        I think the fallacy you’re looking for could best be described as an appeal to authority fallacy? But honestly I’m not entirely sure either. Anyways I think we covered everything… thanks for the debate :)