|
|
|
|
|
|
by wutbrodo
1460 days ago
|
|
|
> no, an ad hominem need not be literal What on earth do you mean by "literal" here? Ad hominem refers to a specific fallacious style of argumentation. Being ignorant of the definition and then too stubborn to admit it is not pushing back against "overliteralism". Especially because the rest of your comment (dismissing the rest of the argument due to "ad hominem") only makes sense if one assumes the correct definition! |
|
|