Churchill was a genocidal war criminal on par with Hitler, he’s not someone one should ever quote: unless you’re just okay with Indians not being people.
The ultimate genocider could claim “1 + 1 = 2”: that doesn’t make it false.
Who they are is irrelevant to their argument, and that’s a classic ad hominem fallacy.
Learn to respect logic.
There would be no reason to quote them, period. Someone else somewhere would have said it better.
To make you understand; if someone says they became vegan because of Hitler, and someone else says they became vegan because of some pop star, you can easily guess the Hitlerite is a nazi fuck that needs to die.
Its not an ad hominem to have the persons choice of who to quote taint them themselves.
Stop pretending your high school debate classes are real life, stop quoting fascists if you don’t want people to think you’ve decided to label yourself as a target for righteous violence.
Genetic fallacy: your “taint” concept is irrational.
Again, sometimes a quote is brought up for the idea it expresses rather than who said it.
Like here: the commenter merely wrote that person is known to have said something relevant to the topic.
Instead of addressing the substance of that message they’re referring to, you’re getting distracted by who said it.
stop quoting fascists if you don’t want people to think you’ve decided to label yourself as a target for righteous violence
ad baculum
Stop pretending your high school debate classes are real life
Start meeting basic standards of logic that don’t fail high school?
Churchill was a genocidal war criminal on par with Hitler, he’s not someone one should ever quote: unless you’re just okay with Indians not being people.
ad hominem
Genocide isn’t an ad hominem attack. Hitler wishes he got Churchill’s numbers.
The ultimate genocider could claim “1 + 1 = 2”: that doesn’t make it false. Who they are is irrelevant to their argument, and that’s a classic ad hominem fallacy. Learn to respect logic.
There would be no reason to quote them, period. Someone else somewhere would have said it better.
To make you understand; if someone says they became vegan because of Hitler, and someone else says they became vegan because of some pop star, you can easily guess the Hitlerite is a nazi fuck that needs to die.
Its not an ad hominem to have the persons choice of who to quote taint them themselves.
Stop pretending your high school debate classes are real life, stop quoting fascists if you don’t want people to think you’ve decided to label yourself as a target for righteous violence.
More irrelevance.
No reason not to either, logically.
Genetic fallacy: your “taint” concept is irrational. Again, sometimes a quote is brought up for the idea it expresses rather than who said it.
Like here: the commenter merely wrote that person is known to have said something relevant to the topic. Instead of addressing the substance of that message they’re referring to, you’re getting distracted by who said it.
ad baculum
Start meeting basic standards of logic that don’t fail high school?
How about “respect logic”? It’s pretty simple.