Nope, an ad hominem would be if I said something like “you lied before why should anyone believe you now”. The conclusion of my logical analysis was that “you must be corrupt to believe that”. If you’re concerned with fallacies read up on “appeal to authority” because you’re a one trick pony
Begging the question
Removed by mod
Ad hominem
Don’t bother: this person self-identifies as a horseshoe theorist. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/thann
What else can one expect from an instance that explicitly bans “tankie shit”?
Nope, an ad hominem would be if I said something like “you lied before why should anyone believe you now”. The conclusion of my logical analysis was that “you must be corrupt to believe that”. If you’re concerned with fallacies read up on “appeal to authority” because you’re a one trick pony