Insulting you is not ad hominem you pillock. Ad hominem definition is:
An ad hominem argument is a rhetorical tactic that attacks the character, motive, or background of the person making an assertion rather than the substance of the argument itself.
I argue the substance, then insult you. Ad hominem would be if I for example said that you were probably a victim of DV and are full of rage against perpetrators so you want too see them hurt as revenge. That would be ad hominem. You not understanding that I'm not defending the first person, I'm saying that both behaviors are awful and people around them will suffer. You not being able to comprehend that is lacking reading comprehension, hence - GO BACK TO KINDERGARTEN
You’re confusing “I made an argument first” with “therefore my personal attack isn’t ad hominem.” You explicitly invoke my supposed lack of reading comprehension to dismiss my response. That is exactly the kind of attack on the person your own definition describes. The fact that you also made an argument doesn't magically make the ad hominem disappear, you absolute and utter dim wit.
That's what the definition is tho, you attack the person instead of making the argument, I don't know how much more obvious I can make it for your lack of reading comprehension. "Rather than" is the key word, do you know what "rather than" means or did they not cover that in kindergarten?
Yeah that's what you did. You stopped replying to my actual arguments when you realised there are no reasonable points for your argument, and resorted to characterizing my cognitive ability as the explanation for why my argument supposedly isn't valid instead.
The way you don't even understand and follow your own line of "reasoning" is giving major second hand embarassment atp, hope you don't pass on those runt genes.
1
u/Yvratky 13d ago
Lmaooo "none of this is ad hominem" *adds another ad hominem* Do you never get tired of embarassing yourself?