Dude, your argument is ad hominem. The debate is dead on arrival. Jefferson and Jackson had some spicy opinions on race. I guess we should assay them from the fire of public discourse as well. Or we can think critically.
Yet it is not at all ad hominem, and you ought to be well aware of that. He keeps spamming quotations for them and promoting them to the extreme, despite for instance Murray N. Rothbard promoting the trading and seeming enslavement of children, which is not even a fringe part of his ideas, directly and detailed described and discussed in one of his books.
Of course it's ad hominem. It's practically an uno reverse card with "appeal to authority" scribbled on it. Your target is a person, not just his spicy opinions. You're not upset because they used the guy's quotes about the opinions you don't like, now are you? You're saying the good quotes are bad because of the bad quotes. By your flawed logic, your opponent could argue the target's right about child trade because he has some good opinions.
His behavior is irrelevant to the question when you begin your argument with ad hominem. Most people at least lapse into ad hominem after failing to muster higher criticism of their target, for God's sake. You flipping lead with it, presenting an argument flawed in form itself and rendering the entire debate invalid.
And now you are distracting, misrepresenting, attacking strawmen, lying, manipulating, etc. among other tactics and tricks, and you are fully aware of that.
Yet it is not at all ad hominem, and you ought to be well aware of that. He keeps spamming quotations for them and promoting them to the extreme, despite for instance Murray N. Rothbard promoting the trading and seeming enslavement of children, which is not even a fringe part of his ideas, directly and detailed described and discussed in one of his books.
Dude, your argument is ad hominem. The debate is dead on arrival. Jefferson and Jackson had some spicy opinions on race. I guess we should assay them from the fire of public discourse as well. Or we can think critically.
Yet it is not at all ad hominem, and you ought to be well aware of that. He keeps spamming quotations for them and promoting them to the extreme, despite for instance Murray N. Rothbard promoting the trading and seeming enslavement of children, which is not even a fringe part of his ideas, directly and detailed described and discussed in one of his books.
And I have engaged him elsewhere, and there he did not even attempt to engage sincerely in discussion. See for instance https://patriots.win/p/12hRj4ORRX/x/c/4Dx5uPLB4Fg and https://patriots.win/p/12hkmWIAZc/x/c/4DyMa7gJ9We . How can you consider that sincere debate from him at all whatsoever? Or his pretensions of debate in the comment section of this submission?
Of course it's ad hominem. It's practically an uno reverse card with "appeal to authority" scribbled on it. Your target is a person, not just his spicy opinions. You're not upset because they used the guy's quotes about the opinions you don't like, now are you? You're saying the good quotes are bad because of the bad quotes. By your flawed logic, your opponent could argue the target's right about child trade because he has some good opinions.
His behavior is irrelevant to the question when you begin your argument with ad hominem. Most people at least lapse into ad hominem after failing to muster higher criticism of their target, for God's sake. You flipping lead with it, presenting an argument flawed in form itself and rendering the entire debate invalid.
And now you are distracting, misrepresenting, attacking strawmen, lying, manipulating, etc. among other tactics and tricks, and you are fully aware of that.
Again, since it is still fully relevant and you know that well (from https://patriots.win/p/12hkmWIRko/x/c/4DyMaCJYvmE ):
Yet it is not at all ad hominem, and you ought to be well aware of that. He keeps spamming quotations for them and promoting them to the extreme, despite for instance Murray N. Rothbard promoting the trading and seeming enslavement of children, which is not even a fringe part of his ideas, directly and detailed described and discussed in one of his books.
And I have engaged him elsewhere, and there he did not even attempt to engage sincerely in discussion. See for instance https://patriots.win/p/12hRj4ORRX/x/c/4Dx5uPLB4Fg and https://patriots.win/p/12hkmWIAZc/x/c/4DyMa7gJ9We . How can you consider that sincere debate from him at all whatsoever? Or his pretensions of debate in the comment section of this submission?
Well, I tried. Fuck you, faggot.