ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
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.@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.
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.