I agree. The problem with you is you simply call names and dismiss opinions and even factual data without explaining grounds for dismissal, as I have now demonstrated.It’s perfectly legitimate to question the qualifications of a source, or to examine their potential bias on an issue. It is not acceptable however, to simply call them names and dismiss their opinion without explaining the grounds for the dismissal.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
No, what I usually do is, having already read up on the subject, I go to my source of information and post that source. YOU and others of the far right here have never been able to successfully refute such sources; like the one I just posted on ad-hominem.
You need to learn that sources that depict factual information is NOT going after something that happens to agree with me. Take the ad-hom argument here: Burden of Proof is a factual well researched college text book that outlines and defines argumentation and debate: it was great class and was coupled with political science. That's how one advances an argument instead of just saying "nu-uuuhh"...
Chris (01-16-2022)
Oh, it - dismissing facts presented on the basis of where they're published - is definitely a logical fallacy. Jet may be correct, however, in that the standard definition of "ad hom" doesn't fit this situation. I suggested "hasty generalization" because I think it might apply, but there may be a better one that I'm just not remembering.
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry