DDD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2012
- Messages
- 12,351
- Reaction score
- 1,918
- Location
- Republic of Dardania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So any post that "diverts attention from the post" is an 'ad hominem'? Well that can't be right.
Straying off topic a bit, perhaps, but still well within the rules as I've experienced them on this forum.
There are plenty of logical fallacies, and you are right that not all could be Ad Hominem.
Any post that diverts attention from the position is not Ad Hominem. Should one divert from position to authority, to the unknown, to bogus samples, then they are appealing to authority, unknown, and "No Scotsman" logical fallacies for instance. But if the nature of diversion shifts from the position to the person themselves then it is Ad Hominem logical fallacy.
What you may have experienced does not changes the nature of logical fallacies.
So back to the point.
You are welcome though?
I wasn't calling Hillary corrupt because she's a woman,
(that's a weak argument / position to make / take, as how can you possibly hope to prove or disprove that?)
I was calling Hillary corrupt for her continued inability to perform her 'public' service (more like self-service if you ask me), without glaring and ever present conflict of interest situations, which she invariably shrugs off as if those laws and rules don't apply to her.
If you look at her history, it's little more than a hit parade of one scandal after another, all punctuated with this consistent and continuous conflict of interest situations.
People are actively trying to demonize her history, while this poor lady is trying to work for the best of the American interest. They tried to do that with Benghazi, she pushed back, now they are trying with every other instance they can think of, just not to let a woman be POTUS.