President Trump did in fact offer 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol, which was turned down.

[ImmortalFlame]

@Calisto wrote about me,

"Ad Hominem​

(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument." ( Ad Hominem )

@Calisto was wrong in making an ad hominem attack and you are wrong for not recognizing one and defending his fallacy.

Except they DID address your argument and position, and they didn't irrelevantly attack you. The accusation "you don't know what you're talking about" isn't an irrelevant aspect of your personality, it's a relevant accusation to the claims being made.

And ad hominem is when it is IRRELEVANT to the position or argument. For example, the argument "You may claim X, but I know for a fact you one forged a signature for a school trip so your claim must be false" is an ad hominem. Whereas "On the weight of evidence x, y and z, I believe you do not know what you are talking about" is not.

And they clearly DID backup their allegation with relevant claims:
"Continuing to cherry pick half details while ignoring the full J6 committee conclusions and ignoring laws only reaffirms your lack of, and no doubt unwillingness to accept, fact. Case in point, those links I gave provide info directly from the J6 committee and proves you wrong. Again."

I mean, by your absurd standard, calling me and Callisto "wrong" is ALSO an ad hominem. So you're committing the same fallacy. In fact, by your standard, accusing someone of committing an ad hominem IS AN AD HOMINEM.

Learn the fallacy before you use it.

 

[Shaul]

Except they DID address your argument and position, and they didn't irrelevantly attack you. The accusation "you don't know what you're talking about" isn't an irrelevant aspect of your personality, it's a relevant accusation to the claims being made.

And ad hominem is when it is IRRELEVANT to the position or argument. For example, the argument "You may claim X, but I know for a fact you one forged a signature for a school trip so your claim must be false" is an ad hominem. Whereas "On the weight of evidence x, y and z, I believe you do not know what you are talking about" is not.

And they clearly DID backup their allegation with relevant claims:
"Continuing to cherry pick half details while ignoring the full J6 committee conclusions and ignoring laws only reaffirms your lack of, and no doubt unwillingness to accept, fact. Case in point, those links I gave provide info directly from the J6 committee and proves you wrong. Again."

I mean, by your absurd standard, calling me and Callisto "wrong" is ALSO an ad hominem. So you're committing the same fallacy. In fact, by your standard, accusing someone of committing an ad hominem IS AN AD HOMINEM.

Learn the fallacy before you use it.

Saying someone "doesn't know what they are talking about" and saying they are wrong about particular point are quite different. The former is an attack of the person. The latter is not. That is why the former is an ad hominem and the latter is not. I was correct in describing the comment as ad hominem.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Saying someone "doesn't know what they are talking about" and saying they are wrong about particular point are quite different.

Nope, they're both personal assessments about someone else. Therefore, by your logic, ad hominems.

The former is an attack of the person. The latter is not.

Both false. The former can be just as justified as the latter. Both are personal accusations.

That is why the former is an ad hominem

Except it's not, even by the definition YOU provided.

and the latter is not. I was correct in describing the comment as ad hominem.

No, you're not. It doesn't fit the definition.

Stop misusing fallacies.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't buy the conspiracy that the Left actually orchestrated Jan 6, it was a riot by frustrated Trump supporters after 4 years of the Russian collusion hoax.....but I think that the politicians on Capitol Hill relished it and have exploited it as much as they could.

From the interviews I've read, it wasn't about
the bogus Russian collusion at all. It was love
for Trump, & the belief in a stolen election.

 

[Shaul]

Nope, they're both personal assessments about someone else. Therefore, by your logic, ad hominems.


Both false. The former can be just as justified as the latter. Both are personal accusations.


Except it's not, even by the definition YOU provided.


No, you're not. It doesn't fit the definition.

Stop misusing fallacies.

This is redundant. I have explained why this isn't correct. We still disagree. I see no further point in discussing it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is redundant. I have explained why this isn't correct.

No, you pointed to a definition that explicitly contradicted you.

Stop using fallacies unless you understand them. Especially when you use them to avoid dealing with actual arguments, like in this case.

Lemme guess: that's an ad hominem, right?

 

[Callisto]

@Calisto wrote about me,

"Ad Hominem​

(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument." ( Ad Hominem )

@Calisto was wrong in making an ad hominem attack and you are wrong for not recognizing one and defending his fallacy.

Not an attack. Your posts indicate a lack of knowledge on the matter and you persist with incorrect assertions despite being provided information. Anyone reading this thread would make the same observation.

 

[Colt]

From the interviews I've read, it wasn't about
the bogus Russian collusion at all. It was love
for Trump, & the belief in a stolen election.

The fake Russin collusion conspiracy was an attempt to overturn the 2016 election. While I don't personally believe in the claim of a stollen 2020 election I can understand why some people mistrusted the election results.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The fake Russin collusion conspiracy was an attempt to overturn the 2016 election. While I don't personally believe in the claim of a stollen 2020 election I can understand why some people mistrusted the election results.

There's mistrust, then there's belief. Rioting in the Capitol after a Trump rally while electoral votes were being certified for Biden indicates belief and not simply mistrust. Specifically, unfounded belief.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fake Russin collusion conspiracy was an attempt to overturn the 2016 election.

Actually, it was just politicking.
Each side attacks the other with accusations & even impeachment.
This differs from attempts to overthrow an election, eg, Trump's
using fake electors in several states to elect the one rejected
by the voters, Trump's threatening the GA Secretary of State
with prosecution if the needed votes weren't found, ordering
Pence to overturn the Electoral College.

While I don't personally believe in the claim of a stollen 2020 election I can understand why some people mistrusted the election results.

Because some people are conspiracy nuts in love with Trump.

 

[tytlyf]

The fake Russin collusion conspiracy

It's not a conspiracy, Paul Manafort plead guilty to it (in total 34 people, 3 companies). Conservative media continues the lying.

 

[Shaul]

Not an attack. Your posts indicate a lack of knowledge on the matter and you persist with incorrect assertions despite being provided information. Anyone reading this thread would make the same observation.

LOL
Now you use ad populum. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

 

[Shaul]

No, you pointed to a definition that explicitly contradicted you.

Stop using fallacies unless you understand them. Especially when you use them to avoid dealing with actual arguments, like in this case.

Lemme guess: that's an ad hominem, right?

<yawn>
I will point out logical fallacies when, as in this case, they occur.

 

[Callisto]

LOL
Now you use ad populum. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Once again, you incorrectly try to apply something.

 

[Shaul]

Once again, you incorrectly try to apply something.

So you say.

 

[Callisto]

So you say.

At least you comprehend that much.

 

[Riders]

Another crime? That's I unbelievable.