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

That's the source that is being quoted

And the dictionary definition that I just read from oxford contradicts that.

So which is true?

are you guys really arguing about the definition of logical fallacies

Here's another template if anyone wants it

@Gabe Yes.

Oxford didn't give the full definition because it's more obscure and has been replaced incorrectly in informal talk as "ad hominem"

Things That Matter™

I have a state of emergency because of Mr. Spencer

>national communism
You mean nazbol, dummy?

But you don't know that.

@Deleted User yes I do

Richard Spencer?

Yep