If one’s response to opposition is to contemplate suicide, rather than to attempt to circumvent the opposition, it would seem this is in itself evidence of psychopathology.
You make an ad hominem attack, in which one directs their criticism at the source making the argument rather than at the substance of the argument itself. This fails to actually address the validity of the claims and arguments being made.
Some examples of ad hominem fallacies:
"Don't listen to Dr. Smith's economic analysis. He has a history of financial problems in his personal life." (Attacks the source's character rather than evaluating his economic claims.)
"Politician A's proposal for improving education can't be any good since he sends his own kids to private school." (Attacks the source's circumstances rather than directly engaging with the proposal.)
"We should dismiss those poll results showing public support for the new policy. That polling firm is known to be biased." (Attacks the source rather than the data itself.)
The ad hominem fallacy distracts from the actual evidence and arguments being presented. A proper rebuttal would be to analyze the quality of the data, assumptions, reasoning, etc. behind the claims rather than just attacking person or the personal traits of the source. The merits of an argument stand independent of who is making that argument.
Brilliant . Yet the medical community is pushing this propaganda on children . All about money . Sickening.
If one’s response to opposition is to contemplate suicide, rather than to attempt to circumvent the opposition, it would seem this is in itself evidence of psychopathology.
This has been fact checked and found to have some major flaws:
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-checked-new-problematic-finnish?lli=1&utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
The end result? The study falls short of evidence against trans care. Regardless of its flaws, it still shows that trans care saves lives
Sorry, but "Erin" is not a credible source.
well I claim she is
See? I can make unsubstantiated claims too.
You make an ad hominem attack, in which one directs their criticism at the source making the argument rather than at the substance of the argument itself. This fails to actually address the validity of the claims and arguments being made.
Some examples of ad hominem fallacies:
"Don't listen to Dr. Smith's economic analysis. He has a history of financial problems in his personal life." (Attacks the source's character rather than evaluating his economic claims.)
"Politician A's proposal for improving education can't be any good since he sends his own kids to private school." (Attacks the source's circumstances rather than directly engaging with the proposal.)
"We should dismiss those poll results showing public support for the new policy. That polling firm is known to be biased." (Attacks the source rather than the data itself.)
The ad hominem fallacy distracts from the actual evidence and arguments being presented. A proper rebuttal would be to analyze the quality of the data, assumptions, reasoning, etc. behind the claims rather than just attacking person or the personal traits of the source. The merits of an argument stand independent of who is making that argument.
> well I claim she is
And you're wrong.
You are free to believe what you like, it does not change the facts any.
I don't need to change the facts, since I'm already aligned with them.
If that is what makes you feel better about yourself, then you go right on ahead believing it my friend. More power to you!
thank you!