For everything you have said.

Because how am I supposed to believe a random guy?

Scroll down https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

afaik the BUF was heavily into racialism / eugenics / antisemitism

@sleeping zzz >WIKIPEDIA

Come on, you are not even trying.

As for Mosley https://youtu.be/kpyHFWbcDmo

@Deleted User Fucking idiot, it's all cited, go have a look

>muh wikipedia tho stop proving me wrong with direct quotes from Mussolini

i'll give it a watch

@sleeping zzz Oy vey, nice ad-hominen rebuttal right there.

@Deleted User wrong, it was an ad personam

Ad hominem is commonly mixed up with ad personam

Ad hominem is discrediting an argument by linking a character flaw to it

Eg "why should we trust someone who is fat to tell the truth?"

>mussolini was a glorified prime minister

Ad personam is a personal attack

🤔

?

@Gabe yes because the throne oversaw it all

it was impotent

@Deleted User it means a personal attack ie attacking the individual

Now BRB I'll find a better video for you @Gabe

@Gabe watch this as well, it will help you a lot https://youtu.be/BHibZA-Qs78

Lmao

@chill with that shit strasserite?

More nazbol then strasserite

@Deleted User now to help you better understand where you mixed up the "ad hominem" read the lower section

hot take: capitalism is good

😏

Read Perelman New Rhetoric

@sleeping zzz Still don't see anything that relates to a personal attack in the definition.

@Deleted User it literally says it right there

Ad hominem never meant a personal attack, it is misconstrued that way by brainlets

Ad hominem is attacking an argument via attaching it to a perceived character flaw

Not clicking that

Nice doxx link retard

@sleeping zzz That is literally his email name.

Did you read the citation?

I don't think I should trust anybody coming from that website.

Perelman New Rhetoric 1958 Notre Dame 1969 page 111

The problem with brainlets is they won't trust a source even if it validly cites another source