• SomeLemmyUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Its not an as hominem attack kid ^^ Ad hominem would be: you are an idiot and therefore wrong. What he says is “you write wrong stuff and are therfore an idiot”

      Huge difference

      • yiliu@informis.land
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, you’re saying that the Global South (either Africa or South America) has made major, concerted attempts at creating effective capitalist states?

        There’s a few examples. Australia, of course, though Leftists will obviously discount it.

        Chile very deliberately adopted capitalism, though it was under an oppressive dictator. Even so, it’s #3 on the list of South American countries for per-capita GDP these days, and is topping the list for political freedoms.

        Uruguay, with it’s famously beige recent politics, is #1.

        Of course, you have Indonesia, which has been doing pretty well recently. I wonder why? (/s)

        Malaysia and Singapore are technically in the northern hemisphere, so they don’t count I guess…

        Most of South America has historically swung radically back and forth between left and right (yes, in part due to US pressure). There’s a leftward swing again. Let’s see how it goes this time! Good news is that if it fails, they can just blame external forces yet again.

        • SomeLemmyUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          and now your making a strawman argument. do you try to play some sort of bogus-argument-bingo?

          What is said was: “what a did was not an ad hominem atack”

          now your comment starts with: “So, you’re saying that the Global South (either Africa or South America) has made major, concerted attempts at creating effective capitalist states?”

          and you even dare to start with: "so what your saying is … "

          no thats not at all what i said, i didnt mention the globale south, i didnt metion capitalism, i didnt even agree with OP on his meme.

          but thats what you argue against. Do you really not see this or are you a troll?

          • yiliu@informis.land
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well this is a blast from the past. I can’t even load the context anymore.

            I was engaged in an argument, and staying focused on the argument instead of getting sidetracked by semantics. But anyway, you claimed “it’s not ad hominem, he said you were wrong therefore you are stupid!” That rests on the assumption that I was wrong, so I was assuming that was your assertion.

            I think. This was, after all, months ago, and apparently the account I was arguing with got deleted or something?

            • SomeLemmyUser@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, just saw i had unread messages and replied.

              My point was that you are using ad hominem wrong.

              It would be an ad hominem Argument if he would take your personality/looks/person as an argument against your talking point/what you say.

              This is not the case here. He argues against your talking point/what you say and uses that as an argument against your person.

              It doesn’t matter what side of you both is right content wise, its not ad hominem either way, as you botth argue about the information itself. (Plus making [unnessesary] assumptions about each others personality based on the opinion they have in the information)

              As homin is ONLY if you use the person saying the opinion against the opinion.

              If you use the opinion the person says as an argument against the person, that something totally different and quite logic frankly.

              For example: If trump says: poc are violent

              Ad hominem would be: this is wrong BECAUSE trump said it.

              Normal arguing is: trump is saying this, therefore he is a racist/dumb/wrong.

              Two very different things.

              And atacking others for caring two much about semantics when you make false (semantic) allegations is another sign of bad discussion style IMHO

              I have no hard feelings about this thread, but it bothers me when people are discussing in awaty that is bound to fail, so I wanted to clarify this

      • yiliu@informis.land
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You called me clueless based on a single sentence in an attempt to dismiss what I said. I didn’t use ‘ad hominem’ wrong, lol.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah you did, ad hominem would be me saying you’re wrong because of a personal character trait. I just stated a simple observation about you. Like I said, clueless.

          • yiliu@informis.land
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh, huh! I didn’t know it worked like that! If I had, I could’ve just pointed out that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and have a cartoonish worldview, and I could have avoided all the trouble of making actual arguments. That’s so much easier!

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Alternatively you could’ve spent the time to educate yourself instead of making vapid comments on a public forum exposing yourself as an ignoramus.

              • yiliu@informis.land
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ve been reading and studying for decades, and yet somehow your worldview remains inconsistent and incoherent to me.

                I’m sure it’s my fault.