401–410 of 414 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
SirSavary's comment covered the military deployments so I will just say that there are numerous cases of the Trump administration deporting people without due process outside the country to places like CECOT where they are tortured. I don't think even the Trump administration denies these things. Here's one source you can read about it: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/men-deported... Here's a source o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is a more respected conservative publication in Canada?
Interesting choice of words - hasn't it been shown, repeatedly, time and time again, that conservative-leaning publications are generally not respectable? You want a neutral publication, not one with a lean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SirSavary's comment covered the military deployments so I will just say that there are numerous cases of the Trump administration deporting people without due process outside the country to places like CECOT where they are tortured. I don't think even the Trump administration denies these things. Here's one source you can read about it: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/men-deported... Here's a source o…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s literally the definition of an ad hominem. adjective - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
A “Right” bias (whether real or perceived) would naturally be expected to be related to many positions they maintained. And they were given the benefit of a doubt and vindicated (in the commenter’s own opinion). Meaning their position was judged on its own merits. So not really ad hominem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A “Right” bias (whether real or perceived) would naturally be expected to be related to many positions they maintained. And they were given the benefit of a doubt and vindicated (in the commenter’s own opinion). Meaning their position was judged on its own merits. So not really ad hominem.
That's not how logical arguments work. Either the argument is correct or it's not. Every other criticism (such as "bias") is an ad hominem.
Ad hominem is a much more specific kind of non-rational argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A “Right” bias (whether real or perceived) would naturally be expected to be related to many positions they maintained. And they were given the benefit of a doubt and vindicated (in the commenter’s own opinion). Meaning their position was judged on its own merits. So not really ad hominem.
That's not how logical arguments work. Either the argument is correct or it's not. Every other criticism (such as "bias") is an ad hominem.
Bust most real-world news stories and other interesting claims of material fact (and even moreso, claims of things being good or bad) are not syllogisms where the major and minor premise are trivially verifiable and the conclusion either follows of logical necessity or not, but are, to the extent they can be framed as arguments, inductive arguments.
You are also wrong about what ad hominem is (there are plenty of counterarguments to a logical argument that are neither on point not ad honinem), but the bigger issue is that the subject here is mot a logical argument in th sense that would make your claim correct insofar as rejecting all counterarguments that do not falsify the argument by logical necessity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Islamic fundamentalism is right-wing, not sure why you're making it its own category
Islamic fundamentalists support the Republican Party in the USA, the AfD in Germany, Reform UK in the UK, etc? Please. They definitely do not exist on the same one dimensional political spectrum constantly harped on about in the West. Furthermore, I will put it to you that there are a great many people in the "center" who are tired of hearing about the "left" and the "right", have varying opinions on hot topic issues…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how logical arguments work. Either the argument is correct or it's not. Every other criticism (such as "bias") is an ad hominem.
You are conflating ad hominem with bias? Ad hominem is a much more specific kind of non-rational argument.
All other arguments, directed at the source of the argument, that don't address the argument itself, are ad hominems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The universal push for expanded security trumping all is concerning. At this point authoritarian pushes are the best case scenario - I’m fearing it’s preparation for wartime.
We’re definitely in the pre-war era. It’s like when Britain was trying to negotiate with Hitler while rearming in the background. China is going to attack pearl harbour in the hopes that a sudden unexpected attack will cripple the pacific fleet and knock America out of the war. It won’t work, we’ll go through hell again. But every time these places think it will work, and they don’t factor in the fact that they are c…
And you conveniently forgot that Hitler was from Germany - Europe. And he was the one who invaded USSR - Russia. Not the other way around. As well as he, indirectly, invaded China - by the help of Japan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are conflating ad hominem with bias? Ad hominem is a much more specific kind of non-rational argument.
I will refine. All other arguments, directed at the source of the argument , that don't address the argument itself, are ad hominems.
Their expectation even had a reasonable explanation: their previous encounters with the source (as they saw them).
Then their actual judgment was on the merits.
And even their credibility expectations were based on actual experience (as they interpreted those) with the target, not something irrelevant to credibility.
It is a good example of someone whose experiences might have prompted them to make an ad hominem attack, but who didn't. The opposite of making such an attack if there is one.