More fraud

[braves121]

53 minutes ago, mspart said:

I was speaking of Biden and Obama.   Obama famously said he was putting coal fired power plants out of business.   You don't get more overt than that.  

Nobody here will explain the Walmart thing so I'm guessing there is no Walmart thing.  

mspart

Majority of Walmart workers are in food stamps and Medicaid while Walmart is a multi billion dollar company. They profit the most off of our welfare system . Thy are the ultimate welfare queen

[Offthemat]

Claiming Walmart operates off government subsidies is ludicrous.  Small retail stores don’t generally pay very well either.  Some small retailers, especially those who carried decent quality items, paid a minimal wage along with a decent commission for well performing salesmen.  Quite a few Walmart employees are very happy with their compensation, those who have been with them long enough to get promoted and qualify for the benefits that come from being a good employee.

 Walmart truck drivers are some of the highest paid on the road.  Signs on distribution centers announced $15 hour starting wage 10 years ago.  Inexperienced workers aren’t worth high wages in any position.  That they qualify, and get, government subsidies is by design of liberal policies, not the structure of a company.  

You may demean Walmart for the fact that some of their employees qualify for subsidies, but so do many others.  Fast food, retail, receptionists, lots of people who tend to not develop skills or show up, or work in a business that just doesn’t do much business.  There were discount stores before Walmart showed up.  If they raised their pay rates, they’d have to raise their prices, and they’d lose customers and business and have to eliminate workers.  A lot of customers would be unhappy.   Walmart isn’t the reason people are getting subsidies, it’s where people who are getting subsidies shop. 

[El Luchador]

7 minutes ago, braves121 said:

Majority of Walmart workers are in food stamps and Medicaid while Walmart is a multi billion dollar company. They profit the most off of our welfare system . Thy are the ultimate welfare queen

You don't know this. It's just more made up stuff. 

[mspart]

So the billions going to Walmart is the welfare state?   Is it safe to say that more than 50% of the jobs at Walmart are entry level jobs, not career level jobs?   Hence minimum wage jobs?  Minumum wage was never a wage to go out and buy a house with, or a very nice apartment all to yourself.  It is minimum wage for a reason.   It entices one to rise above that and get above minimum wage.   It's a great place for HS and college kids trying to make it through.   But as a serious career?  You need to lay off the sauce there.   

Is it also safe to say that one could leave walmart and work for someone else?   Why does anyone stay at walmart if they are treated so poorly?   The path for walmart employees is to become a manager, which would be a career path perhaps.   How many employees at Walmart have you seen that exude a management aura about them?  From what you are saying, the best way to help these poor employees is to not shop at Walmart and make your friends do likewise and see how that helps these people with loss of jobs etc.   You want to punish Walmart.   But I'm guessing you don't want to punish the employees.   Tell me, what would that look like?

mspart

[braves121]

2 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

You don't know this. It's just more made up stuff. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html

[braves121]

Pretty hilarious people are shilling and defending multi billion dollar corporations having a significant amount of their employees on government benefits while at the same time saying we have too many people on benefits 

[El Luchador]

2 minutes ago, braves121 said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html

The claim you make isn't supported by that old article. 

[Offthemat]

1 minute ago, braves121 said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html

Stupid.  I’d be surprised if McDonald’s has any employees collecting government subsidies.  Now, at their franchises, which are privately owned, the entry level jobs won’t pay a whole lot. 

[Offthemat]

4 minutes ago, braves121 said:

Pretty hilarious people are shilling and defending multi billion dollar corporations having a significant amount of their employees on government benefits while at the same time saying we have too many people on benefits 

They’re not drawing gov’t subsidies because of the business plan, they’re drawing gov’t subsidies because people vote for leftist politicians and gov’t bureaucrats see their job as giving away the house. 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, braves121 said:

Trump hasn’t fully nationalized a company yet, but his admin holds significant stakes in 5 companies so i mean this Admin is still picking winners and losers point sell stands  

Ummmm you said he nationalized companies which is a crock of shit lie.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

Claiming Walmart operates off government subsidies is ludicrous. It should be, because they do. But you don't seem concerned.  Small retail stores don’t generally pay very well either. False equivalency.  Some small retailers, especially those who carried decent quality items, paid a minimal wage along with a decent commission for well performing salesmen.  Quite a few Walmart employees are very happy with their compensation, those who have been with them long enough to get promoted and qualify for the benefits that come from being a good employee. So you agree any amount of government aid that is being used by ANY Walmart employee is too much. Considering the company makes north of $100B in profits per year. That you are trying to defend Walmart makes you look like a dolt. 

 Walmart truck drivers are some of the highest paid on the road. So you do agree $6.2B is too much. Great.  Signs on distribution centers announced $15 hour starting wage 10 years ago. No evidence, means its not true.  Inexperienced workers aren’t worth high wages in any position.  That they qualify, and get, government subsidies is by design of liberal policies, not the structure of a company.  No evidence offered means this is categorically not true. 

You may demean Walmart for the fact that some of their employees qualify for subsidies, (at this point if you haven't searched for the number, which you must have avoided on purpose to hold your position, and you are still defending it means you are being purposefully deceptive)but so do many others. So you are in favor of people being on government aid and working a bit. Great.  Fast food, retail, receptionists, lots of people who tend to not develop skills or show up, or work in a business that just doesn’t do much business. This sentence made no sense.  There were discount stores before Walmart showed up.  If they raised their pay rates, they’d have to raise their prices, (heaven forbid they not make $145B+ in profits) and they’d lose customers and business and have to eliminate workers. THIS is the STUPID FEVER DREAM OF CONSERVATIVES. And you will offer no evidence of this phenomenon. SO. IT. IS. NOT. TRUE. You are a liar. Nothing you say should be trusted or believed.  A lot of customers would be unhappy.  Fever dream. Walmart isn’t the reason people are getting subsidies, it’s where people who are getting subsidies shop. There it is,the bigotry that is behind the defense of this position. You are terrified to think capitalism can't fix this. Despite you not being able to admit that this IS a problem brought on by capitalism. 

MS

So the billions going to Walmart is the welfare state? The company is profiting by paying employees poverty wages. Any defense of that is immoral. That's it.  Is it safe to say that more than 50% of the jobs at Walmart are entry level jobs, not career level jobs? No. Do research and provide the numbers!  Hence minimum wage jobs? Poverty wage, yes.  Minumum wage was never a wage to go out and buy a house with, or a very nice apartment all to yourself. Why can't the company use more of their profits to pay the bare minimum pay for every employee to live on only one paycheck? Wouldn't you want to shop at a company that does that? I'd buy stock in that company. If stock price is the only motivating factor. Which is what those numbers tell me. That Walmart is more concerned with HOW MUCH THEY PROFIT rather than pay the employees that help create those profits. Your defense of this makes you a horrible person.   It is minimum wage for a reason.   It entices one to rise above that and get above minimum wage. This is a stupid opinion to have that is based in privilege that you refuse to see.   It's a great place for HS and college kids trying to make it through. Employees can't afford to feed themselves on one paycheck. You are trying to argue that a kid could pay for COLLEGE and food on a walmart paycheck. THAT is the stupidest idea I have heard in a long time.   But as a serious career?  You need to lay off the sauce there.  Who said that?  

Is it also safe to say that one could leave walmart and work for someone else? Where else? We've already heard that other small businesses don't pay much more(of course this was without evidence). Also the strategy of Walmart is to undercut small businesses in an area to drive them out and become the ONLY option in town. Again, this is a stupid idea based in privilege.   Why does anyone stay at walmart if they are treated so poorly? A privilege question to even consider. Some people can't leave. Poor people can't just up and leave a place. Again you are WAY more privileged than you will ever admit to and expect everyone else to think and act the way you would or could despite your overwhelming privilege. Cue the music for you to sing the Aria of 'I'm not privileged because of x,y,z' Which actually IS privilege but you just can't admit to it.   The path for walmart employees is to become a manager, which would be a career path perhaps.   How many employees at Walmart have you seen that exude a management aura about them? Bigoted question.  From what you are saying, the best way to help these poor employees is to not shop at Walmart and make your friends do likewise and see how that helps these people with loss of jobs etc.  So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. So don't bother trying to make a difference. Great option. You're an idiot.  You want to punish Walmart. Yes.   But I'm guessing you don't want to punish the employees.  You want to punish the employees because you're a horrible person. Not the huge conglomerate that forces them into this situation.  Tell me, what would that look like? Do you really have no idea? Is that on purpose because you haven't thought about it at all? Why haven't you thought about it at all? That's a question you definitely won't answer because that would betray your motivation for holding these opinions. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

 

They’re not drawing gov’t subsidies because of the business plan, they’re drawing gov’t subsidies because people vote for leftist politicians and gov’t bureaucrats see their job as giving away the house. 

You're a pitiful conspiracy theorist that doesn't back up anything you say with evidence. So all your blather is just that. You have no reason to hold your opinion except your feelings and your bigotry. And I doubt you have the tools available to move past those to make a factual statement. 

 

 

[El Luchador]

31 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

 

They’re not drawing gov’t subsidies because of the business plan, they’re drawing gov’t subsidies because people vote for leftist politicians and gov’t bureaucrats see their job as giving away the house. 

You're a pitiful conspiracy theorist that doesn't back up anything you say with evidence. So all your blather is just that. You have no reason to hold your opinion except your feelings and your bigotry. And I doubt you have the tools available to move past those to make a factual statement. 

 

 

Do you have any evidence to support this? 

[mspart]

52 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

 

They’re not drawing gov’t subsidies because of the business plan, they’re drawing gov’t subsidies because people vote for leftist politicians and gov’t bureaucrats see their job as giving away the house. 

You're a pitiful conspiracy theorist that doesn't back up anything you say with evidence. So all your blather is just that. You have no reason to hold your opinion except your feelings and your bigotry. And I doubt you have the tools available to move past those to make a factual statement. 

 

 

Resorting to ad hominem attacks is not how you persuade.   Perhaps it was acceptable in HS Debate club, although I doubt it.   Again I refer you to the book "How to win friends and influence people".   You can get it here  for $0.99 for kindle.         

 https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034/ref=sr_1_1?crid=27RVZXF7BWQSZ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.EaX04KFI1Nc_7_-oH8VP-wptMoXDcx8TDGMmvIZWpnLBW4zrodzYpWczigNBf-_aEamuPxW0JaoQIva7M-BymDFNwwYDv7OfE4JBChBiw5WC2O_z5vbR92MVjTSVmINo6S8OQ4PF50vOXYTcn8i8tGbUdeSc3JtlBN8VSwSinsF5NQrIVp--XDVrOrHF9Pl2bXKKZQTASi_AFLqUBOlS8_A1rB6LdNVz6n42EDugqmo.2RBgaovm5EAaTvbOMlj_MvwmSkCVFEP9Q-1WWdrajaE&dib_tag=se&keywords=how+to+win+friends+and+influence+people&qid=1766519335&sprefix=how+to+win+%2Caps%2C167&sr=8-1

How is government subsidies that are championed by the left a conspiracy theory anyway?   This whole thread is based on fraud, most notably in MN, but in general as well.   Government, when they hand out money are very susceptible to fraud unless there is good accounting and auditing.   Medicare and medicaid are very good examples.   Is that a conspiracy theory as well?   Not really, it happens all the time.   

mspart

[ThreePointTakedown]

50 minutes ago, mspart said:

Resorting to ad hominem attacks is not how you persuade.   Perhaps it was acceptable in HS Debate club, although I doubt it.   Again I refer you to the book "How to win friends and influence people".   You can get it here  for $0.99 for kindle.         

 https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034/ref=sr_1_1?crid=27RVZXF7BWQSZ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.EaX04KFI1Nc_7_-oH8VP-wptMoXDcx8TDGMmvIZWpnLBW4zrodzYpWczigNBf-_aEamuPxW0JaoQIva7M-BymDFNwwYDv7OfE4JBChBiw5WC2O_z5vbR92MVjTSVmINo6S8OQ4PF50vOXYTcn8i8tGbUdeSc3JtlBN8VSwSinsF5NQrIVp--XDVrOrHF9Pl2bXKKZQTASi_AFLqUBOlS8_A1rB6LdNVz6n42EDugqmo.2RBgaovm5EAaTvbOMlj_MvwmSkCVFEP9Q-1WWdrajaE&dib_tag=se&keywords=how+to+win+friends+and+influence+people&qid=1766519335&sprefix=how+to+win+%2Caps%2C167&sr=8-1

How is government subsidies that are championed by the left a conspiracy theory anyway?   This whole thread is based on fraud, most notably in MN, but in general as well.   Government, when they hand out money are very susceptible to fraud unless there is good accounting and auditing.   Medicare and medicaid are very good examples.   Is that a conspiracy theory as well?   Not really, it happens all the time.   

mspart

Not ad hom. Just a regular insult. That you don’t know the difference is more EVIDENCE that you are not equipped to have any of these conversations. 
 

but nice try. 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Not ad hom. Just a regular insult. That you don’t know the difference is more EVIDENCE that you are not equipped to have any of these conversations. 
 

but nice try. 

Yes — that is an ad hominem attack.

Here’s why:

What an ad hominem attack is

An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of addressing their argument or evidence. Instead of engaging with the actual claims, the response focuses on the character, motives, or attributes of the person making the argument.

Your provided text

“You're a pitiful conspiracy theorist that doesn't back up anything you say with evidence. So all your blather is just that. You have no reason to hold your opinion except your feelings and your bigotry. And I doubt you have the tools available to move past those to make a factual statement.”

Why this counts as ad hominem

The speaker:

• Labels the other person as “pitiful” and a “conspiracy theorist,”

• Says they don’t back up what they say,

• Claims their opinion is based on feelings and bigotry,

• Doubts their capacity to make a factual statement.

None of these respond to an actual argument or evidence — they attack the person’s character, credibility, and motivesinstead of addressing any specific claim. That’s exactly what an ad hominem fallacy does.

Key features of the attack in your example

• Personal insults (“pitiful,” “blather”)

• Dismissal of credibility (“doesn’t back up anything…,” “no tools available…”)

• Attributing motives (bigotry, feelings)

These are all signs of ad hominem rather than substantive engagement.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

Resorting to ad hominem attacks is not how you persuade.   Perhaps it was acceptable in HS Debate club, although I doubt it.   Again I refer you to the book "How to win friends and influence people".   You can get it here  for $0.99 for kindle.         

 https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034/ref=sr_1_1?crid=27RVZXF7BWQSZ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.EaX04KFI1Nc_7_-oH8VP-wptMoXDcx8TDGMmvIZWpnLBW4zrodzYpWczigNBf-_aEamuPxW0JaoQIva7M-BymDFNwwYDv7OfE4JBChBiw5WC2O_z5vbR92MVjTSVmINo6S8OQ4PF50vOXYTcn8i8tGbUdeSc3JtlBN8VSwSinsF5NQrIVp--XDVrOrHF9Pl2bXKKZQTASi_AFLqUBOlS8_A1rB6LdNVz6n42EDugqmo.2RBgaovm5EAaTvbOMlj_MvwmSkCVFEP9Q-1WWdrajaE&dib_tag=se&keywords=how+to+win+friends+and+influence+people&qid=1766519335&sprefix=how+to+win+%2Caps%2C167&sr=8-1

How is government subsidies that are championed by the left a conspiracy theory anyway?   This whole thread is based on fraud, most notably in MN, but in general as well.   Government, when they hand out money are very susceptible to fraud unless there is good accounting and auditing.   Medicare and medicaid are very good examples.   Is that a conspiracy theory as well?   Not really, it happens all the time.   

mspart

How is government subsidies that are championed by the left a conspiracy theory anyway? You are trying to defend $6.2b that walmart employees need to live. That walmart should be responsible to pay for in salary. And against a poor family that gets a pittance of gov't aid so as to not starve. This makes you a horrible person. You'll say, 'but how many families out there need this much aid?' To which I'll say, how many employees do walmart employ? To which you'll change the topic because you know how to connect the dots which destroys your argument. Or, again, you aren't smart enough or google literate enough to have this conversation.  This whole thread is based on fraud, most notably in MN, but in general as well.   Government, when they hand out money are very susceptible to fraud unless there is good accounting and auditing.   Medicare and medicaid are very good examples.   Is that a conspiracy theory as well? Again, you purposefully twisting the facts of an issue to suit your narrative is dishonest. Which is bigger $1B or $6.2B one of them you are upset about and rightfully so. The other you could careless but at the same time you use it to further demonize people that need gov't aid to not die.   Not really, it happens all the time.   Do you even know how much? I'll bet you don't. Because you don't research anything. Because that would challenge your opinions as full of $-hit and you can't have that. As a defense mechanism you'll say something like, 'well then why don't YOU tell me?' because you don't have the tools to find out or you're terrified that once you DO find out you'll have to come to grips with the fact that only a horrible person could possible have and type into a thread, the opinions and thoughts that you've espoused. 

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

How is government subsidies that are championed by the left a conspiracy theory anyway? You are trying to defend $6.2b that walmart employees need to live. That walmart should be responsible to pay for in salary. And against a poor family that gets a pittance of gov't aid so as to not starve. This makes you a horrible person. You'll say, 'but how many families out there need this much aid?' To which I'll say, how many employees do walmart employ? To which you'll change the topic because you know how to connect the dots which destroys your argument. Or, again, you aren't smart enough or google literate enough to have this conversation.  This whole thread is based on fraud, most notably in MN, but in general as well.   Government, when they hand out money are very susceptible to fraud unless there is good accounting and auditing.   Medicare and medicaid are very good examples.   Is that a conspiracy theory as well? Again, you purposefully twisting the facts of an issue to suit your narrative is dishonest. Which is bigger $1B or $6.2B one of them you are upset about and rightfully so. The other you could careless but at the same time you use it to further demonize people that need gov't aid to not die.   Not really, it happens all the time.   Do you even know how much? I'll bet you don't. Because you don't research anything. Because that would challenge your opinions as full of $-hit and you can't have that. As a defense mechanism you'll say something like, 'well then why don't YOU tell me?' because you don't have the tools to find out or you're terrified that once you DO find out you'll have to come to grips with the fact that only a horrible person could possible have and type into a thread, the opinions and thoughts that you've espoused. 

Yes — this is also an ad hominem attack.

Let’s break it down.

What ad hominem means

An ad hominem fallacy is when someone attacks the person rather than the argument or evidence they presented.

Your example

“Do you even know how much? I'll bet you don't. Because you don't research anything. Because that would challenge your opinions as full of $-hit and you can't have that. As a defense mechanism you'll say something like, 'well then why don't YOU tell me?' because you don't have the tools to find out or you're terrified that once you DO find out you'll have to come to grips with the fact that only a horrible person could possible have and type into a thread, the opinions and thoughts that you've espoused.”

Why this is ad hominem

The speaker:

• Assumes lack of research and ignorance rather than responding to any specific claim.

• Attributes motives and psychological defense mechanisms instead of addressing substance.

• Calls someone’s opinions "full of $-hit" and suggests they’re a horrible person.

None of this engages with actual evidence or argument — it’s an attack on ability, character, and motives.

Key markers of ad hominem in this text

✔ Questioning the person’s knowledge and research ability
✔ Saying the person is defensive
✔ Suggesting emotional or psychological flaws
✔ Insulting the person rather than countering claims

[ThreePointTakedown]

9 minutes ago, Caveira said:

 

Yes — that is an ad hominem attack.

Here’s why:

What an ad hominem attack is

An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of addressing their argument or evidence. Instead of engaging with the actual claims, the response focuses on the character, motives, or attributes of the person making the argument.

Your provided text

“You're a pitiful conspiracy theorist that doesn't back up anything you say with evidence. So all your blather is just that. You have no reason to hold your opinion except your feelings and your bigotry. And I doubt you have the tools available to move past those to make a factual statement.”

Why this counts as ad hominem

The speaker:

• Labels the other person as “pitiful” and a “conspiracy theorist,”

• Says they don’t back up what they say,

• Claims their opinion is based on feelings and bigotry,

• Doubts their capacity to make a factual statement.

None of these respond to an actual argument or evidence — they attack the person’s character, credibility, and motivesinstead of addressing any specific claim. That’s exactly what an ad hominem fallacy does.

Key features of the attack in your example

• Personal insults (“pitiful,” “blather”)

• Dismissal of credibility (“doesn’t back up anything…,” “no tools available…”)

• Attributing motives (bigotry, feelings)

These are all signs of ad hominem rather than substantive engagement.

Again, you moron, I addressed all the points. Not that there were any facts to contest. So that your LLM search assumes there was an actual argument or evidence is more proof of your dishonesty. Neither of those were presented. So you’re wrong on a few levels. 
That you’re coming to someone else’s defense about this and think you have a dunk, is laughable. 
Great google search though. So you can search things so you have no reason to be as ignorant and stupid as you are. I guess the bigotry has a stronger hold on you. 
Tale as old as time. 
 

You’re all pitiful. But fun to insult. 

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Again, you moron, I addressed all the points. Not that there were any facts to contest. So that your LLM search assumes there was an actual argument or evidence is more proof of your dishonesty. Neither of those were presented. So you’re wrong on a few levels. 
That you’re coming to someone else’s defense about this and think you have a dunk, is laughable. 
Great google search though. So you can search things so you have no reason to be as ignorant and stupid as you are. I guess the bigotry has a stronger hold on you. 
Tale as old as time. 
 

You’re all pitiful. But fun to insult. 

Yes — this is also an ad hominem attack.

Let’s break down why:

What an ad hominem fallacy is

An ad hominem attack targets the person’s character, intelligence, motives, or attributes instead of engaging with the actual argument or evidence they presented.

The text you provided

“Again, you moron, I addressed all the points. Not that there were any facts to contest. So that your LLM search assumes there was an actual argument or evidence is more proof of your dishonesty. Neither of those were presented. So you’re wrong on a few levels. That you’re coming to someone else’s defense about this and think you have a dunk, is laughable. Great google search though. So you can search things so you have no reason to be as ignorant and stupid as you are. I guess the bigotry has a stronger hold on you. Tale as old as time.”

Why this counts as ad hominem

Instead of addressing any specific argument or evidence, this response:

• Insults the person’s intelligence (“moron,” “ignorant and stupid”)

• Challenges their honesty (“proof of your dishonesty”)

• Attacks motives and character (“bigotry has a stronger hold on you”)

• Mocks their actions rather than evaluating actual claims

These are all characteristics of an ad hominem attack — the focus is on who the person is and negative traits rather than what they argued or why their argument might be incorrect.

[El Luchador]

Government is the absolute worst way to deliver anything to the market place. There is absolutely nothing they do well, efficiently or competently. 

[Offthemat]

Walmart is the cruel oppressive demon, huh?  Colleges hire lots of students in work study programs.  Minimum wage, no benefits.  Who’s the culprit there?

[mspart]

49 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Not ad hom. Just a regular insult. That you don’t know the difference is more EVIDENCE that you are not equipped to have any of these conversations. 
 

but nice try. 

 

45 minutes ago, Caveira said:

 

Yes — that is an ad hominem attack.

Here’s why:

What an ad hominem attack is

An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of addressing their argument or evidence. Instead of engaging with the actual claims, the response focuses on the character, motives, or attributes of the person making the argument.

Your provided text

“You're a pitiful conspiracy theorist that doesn't back up anything you say with evidence. So all your blather is just that. You have no reason to hold your opinion except your feelings and your bigotry. And I doubt you have the tools available to move past those to make a factual statement.”

Why this counts as ad hominem

The speaker:

• Labels the other person as “pitiful” and a “conspiracy theorist,”

• Says they don’t back up what they say,

• Claims their opinion is based on feelings and bigotry,

• Doubts their capacity to make a factual statement.

None of these respond to an actual argument or evidence — they attack the person’s character, credibility, and motivesinstead of addressing any specific claim. That’s exactly what an ad hominem fallacy does.

Key features of the attack in your example

• Personal insults (“pitiful,” “blather”)

• Dismissal of credibility (“doesn’t back up anything…,” “no tools available…”)

• Attributing motives (bigotry, feelings)

These are all signs of ad hominem rather than substantive engagement.

 

37 minutes ago, Caveira said:

 

Yes — this is also an ad hominem attack.

Let’s break it down.

What ad hominem means

An ad hominem fallacy is when someone attacks the person rather than the argument or evidence they presented.

Your example

“Do you even know how much? I'll bet you don't. Because you don't research anything. Because that would challenge your opinions as full of $-hit and you can't have that. As a defense mechanism you'll say something like, 'well then why don't YOU tell me?' because you don't have the tools to find out or you're terrified that once you DO find out you'll have to come to grips with the fact that only a horrible person could possible have and type into a thread, the opinions and thoughts that you've espoused.”

Why this is ad hominem

The speaker:

• Assumes lack of research and ignorance rather than responding to any specific claim.

• Attributes motives and psychological defense mechanisms instead of addressing substance.

• Calls someone’s opinions "full of $-hit" and suggests they’re a horrible person.

None of this engages with actual evidence or argument — it’s an attack on ability, character, and motives.

Key markers of ad hominem in this text

✔ Questioning the person’s knowledge and research ability
✔ Saying the person is defensive
✔ Suggesting emotional or psychological flaws
✔ Insulting the person rather than countering claims

 

25 minutes ago, Caveira said:

 

Yes — this is also an ad hominem attack.

Let’s break down why:

What an ad hominem fallacy is

An ad hominem attack targets the person’s character, intelligence, motives, or attributes instead of engaging with the actual argument or evidence they presented.

The text you provided

“Again, you moron, I addressed all the points. Not that there were any facts to contest. So that your LLM search assumes there was an actual argument or evidence is more proof of your dishonesty. Neither of those were presented. So you’re wrong on a few levels. That you’re coming to someone else’s defense about this and think you have a dunk, is laughable. Great google search though. So you can search things so you have no reason to be as ignorant and stupid as you are. I guess the bigotry has a stronger hold on you. Tale as old as time.”

Why this counts as ad hominem

Instead of addressing any specific argument or evidence, this response:

• Insults the person’s intelligence (“moron,” “ignorant and stupid”)

• Challenges their honesty (“proof of your dishonesty”)

• Attacks motives and character (“bigotry has a stronger hold on you”)

• Mocks their actions rather than evaluating actual claims

These are all characteristics of an ad hominem attack — the focus is on who the person is and negative traits rather than what they argued or why their argument might be incorrect.

 

Safe, but mightily embarrassed.   You might try that book I provided you TPTPTPTPT.    Perhaps it is you who should not be here if you don't know what ad hominem is.   Too bad this backfired on you.  

mspart

[El Luchador]

[El Luchador]

455 homes have been identified as "group homes" getting subsidies from the government and are vacant.  Minnesota prohibits verification of these businesses. Literally a policy enacted to protect the fraud. I wonder why intelligent people would create such a policy?  Only 2 possibilities they are too stupid, or they are in on the corruption.