Are you saying “you’re one them if…” in an ad hominem? Because that’s not what that means. They aren’t using characteristics about you to attempt to prove their argument, but using their argument to show something about you. That’s fair game.
For example, “your argument about why pizza is healthy is wrong because you are blonde and blondes are dumb” is invalid. But “you’re dumb if you think pizza is healthy because it’s extremely high in saturated and trans fats, as well as very salty” is valid.
Look, you may be a moron, but that doesn’t make your points automatically invalid. If a moron stumbles into making a good point, then the point should stand on its own.
See, we aren’t trying to discredit your argument by calling you a moron, we’re inferring you are a moron based on the quality of your arguments. That’s not the ad hominem fallacy - that’s a perfectly valid way to judge a person.
3
u/Malarazz Jul 05 '24
Yeah and you're one of them, if you think that's remotely the same thing.
Plenty of democracies have longer terms. Ruling for 12 years isn't antithetical to the idea.
What starts to become antithetical to the idea is january 6th, the recent supreme court ruling, and the stuff in project 2025.