[passing_by_and]

Are you disputing any claims or do you expect ad hominem attacks to be an effective persuasive tool?

[WalterGR]

I don't necessarily expect it to be an effective persuasive tool. It probably is, but I haven't seen the numbers.

Did you mean, "Are you aware of the ad hominem logical fallacy?" Yep, I'm aware. But since my comment doesn't go to claims, by definition it's not an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem attack: "The Epoch Times has lied many times in the past, therefore this article is all lies."

Not an ad hominem attack: "The Epoch Times has lied many times in the past, and it's good to keep that in mind."

[masonic]

>Not an ad hominem attack: "The Epoch Times has lied many times in the past, and it's good to keep that in mind.

If you can't name "many" such lies (let's start with, say, three?), then you are indeed doing an ad hominem attack.

[WalterGR]

As I quoted above:

“The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccine misinformation, and false claims of fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election."

[masonic]

Again, you fail to give a single specific example. ALL of their articles have permalinks and are unpaywalled... so point out a few examples that exhibit factual errors.

[WalterGR]

Yawn.

I pointed you to citations. I’m not investing anything further in this thread.

[Blackstrat]

Should we also keep in mind that Adam Schiff is a compulsive liar? The question of embeds is whether they are preventing incidents or inciting them, e.g. the Whitmer case.

[sha256sum]

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html