Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosma
A = Yahtzee is wrong.
B = Because he's a wanabee comedian with nothing intelligent to say.
That's an ad hominem because he's disparaging the character of the individual rather than attacking the review. Hence, "argument to the man."
Yes, that is what he did. Look at Alexander's other posts for more of the same.
|
"Is it just me who thinks this is a wanabe comedian with absolutely nothing intelligent to say?"
In saying he has nothing intelligent to say I admit he is adding in a implicit judgment of the truth of the review but not as a consequent of him being a wannabe comedian, merely as an addition.
If, instead, he had said that the review was bullshit BECAUSE he was a whiny wanker then THAT would be an ad hominem. I haven't read his other posts but that post in particular contained 0 ad hominems, just insults.
His post suggests this order:
disagree with Yahtzee>>>>>>>>wannabe comedian+nothing intelligent to say
But you seem to want this order:
wannabe comedian>>>>>>>>disagree with Yahtzee+nothing intelligent to say
I assume you are attacking specifically the wannabe comedian comment because "nothing intelligent to say" is referring Yahtzee's opinions and arguments, not the person, and can not be an ad hominem in any order.