• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

It's not an ad hominem.

How about I send you some vlog from my 10 year old niece. She has as much credibility as the guy you posted.
Ah, okay - so you don't know what an ad hominem is...
In which case, fair enough, we've all got things we don't know.
This might help, though I'm afraid I can't find an FT piece on ad hominems
1744309760711.jpeg
 
Ah, okay - so you don't know what an ad hominem is...
In which case, fair enough, we've all got things we don't know.
This might help, though I'm afraid I can't find an FT piece on ad hominems
View attachment 23303
Shock jock is not a personal attack, it’s a style of radio jockeys.

It’s like saying Ben Earl is not a traditional hard carrying 8, he’s more finesse and uses his explosiveness to get over the gain line.

All number 8s don’t play the same, not all radio commentators are the same.

Maybe shock jock doesn’t translate but it has a very specific connotation here.
 
I'm

You posted a Substack from a former radio personality that is known as a shock jock.

Again, another day, another weak analysis and hyperbolic nonsense.

Boring.
He made a lot of sense, I'd already heard of the Japanese sell off elsewhere.

As I said above,but won't be publicly checkable for another 2-3 months.
 
Shock jock is not a personal attack, it's a style of radio jockeys.

It's like saying Ben Earl is not a traditional hard carrying 8, he's more finesse and uses his explosiveness to get over the gain line.

All number 8s don't play the same, not all radio commentators are the same.

Maybe shock jock doesn't translate but it has a very specific connotation here.
That's not what an ad hominem is. What you're talking about there would be is I'd said you were defaming him - about which, I really wouldn't know, or particularly care.

You dismissed the opinion because of the person who wrote it. Which is an ad hominem.

ETA: And I apologise for being facetious earlier - I thought you DID know what an ad hominem was, and were just pretending not to - that's my bad for making an assumption (and wanting to post an amusing pic).
 
I'm

You posted a Substack from a former radio personality that is known as a shock jock.

Again, another day, another weak analysis and hyperbolic nonsense.

Boring.

Wasn't it you who complained that all the

"All the interesting voices have migrated to Substack, yet I never seen a Substack post linked here. There are like 10 new independent voices that have emerged in the last 5 years, and I have never seen them posted a single time."

A bit contradictory aren't we?

 
That's not what an ad hominem is. What you're talking about there would be is I'd said you were defaming him - about which, I really wouldn't know, or particularly care.

You dismissed the opinion because of the person who wrote it. Which is an ad hominem.

ETA: And I apologise for being facetious earlier - I thought you DID know what an ad hominem was, and were just pretending not to - that's my bad for making an assumption (and wanting to post an amusing pic).
I dismissed him because 1.) he's free and 2.) because he is a shock jock. By definition, he is trying to say controversial things that he does not believe to get a rise and increase ratings. That is not attacking his character. That is not an ad hominem attack. That is calling a spade a spade.

Again, I've said it over and over again, I will engage with interesting content and admit when I am wrong. You are too lazy to find any. Stop being lazy. Being lazy is boring. Being lazy won't convince anyone to listen to you.
 

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top