An ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) is a type of informal logical fallacy. Instead of arguing against a person’s position, an ad hominem argument attacks the person’s character or actions in an effort to discredit them.
Not an ad hominem but a colloquialism of calling out the appearance of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You appear to be implying the assertion that transphobes like Rowling are NOT claiming that trans people do not have a right to exist and attempting to shift the burden of proof to me. In context of Musk and Rowling, the heap of evidence is significant and your apparent assertion is the extraordinary one requiring extraordinary evidence.
This logical fallacy is also most frequently the territory of bad faith actors.
Now, if there was miscommunication, please do clarify as I do not wish to unfairly characterize your comments.
IDK that sounds a lot like an opinion to me.
Who is claiming someone doesn’t have a right to exist? Please cite specific examples.
Nah. I don’t need to indulge your JAQing off. Go practice your bad faith elsewhere.
Rule 1: Attack the argument, not the person
An ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) is a type of informal logical fallacy. Instead of arguing against a person’s position, an ad hominem argument attacks the person’s character or actions in an effort to discredit them.
Not an ad hominem but a colloquialism of calling out the appearance of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You appear to be implying the assertion that transphobes like Rowling are NOT claiming that trans people do not have a right to exist and attempting to shift the burden of proof to me. In context of Musk and Rowling, the heap of evidence is significant and your apparent assertion is the extraordinary one requiring extraordinary evidence.
This logical fallacy is also most frequently the territory of bad faith actors.
Now, if there was miscommunication, please do clarify as I do not wish to unfairly characterize your comments.