My fav part is the cholo 2 minutes in who starts seething and yelling at him for having a small pecker and acting a fool

bikini with bush and armpit hair and everything else waxed. feminine, yet tastefully primal. if women were smart they'd do this. they don't! sad!

disgusting

In seeking a lighter sentence, the defence lawyer said Balasubramanian had made "positive contributions" to society, noting that the Indian national had worked as a bank manager for a "reputable" bank in India.

saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar

!indianmoment !nooticers

SINGAPORE: A 73-year-old man who molested four air stewardesses during a Singapore Airlines flight from San Francisco to Singapore was sentenced to nine months' jail on Wednesday (Apr 2).

Balasubramanian Ramesh pleaded guilty to four counts of molestation. Another three counts of molestation were taken into consideration for his sentencing.

According to court documents, Balasubramanian molested one of the women four times and targeted the three others once each because he found the women "attractive".

The victims - who were all on duty at the time - cannot be named due to a gag order.

The offences took place on Nov 18, 2024, over a period of about 14 hours. The flight itself lasted approximately 17 hours.

According to court documents, Balasubramanian, who was a passenger onboard the aircraft, used his hand to stroke the first victim's buttocks twice over her clothing as she was pushing the meal cart past his seat at around 3.30am Singapore time.

Shocked, she quickly walked away but felt discomforted by his actions.

Five minutes later, the accused molested another victim as she was bending over to serve food to the passenger seated across the aisle from him. He used his left hand to stroke her buttocks twice over her clothing.

Between 3.20am and 6am, he molested her another three times.

The court heard that the victim felt "extremely annoyed" and harassed by his actions.

At 9.30am, Balasubramanian molested a third victim as she was assisting the passenger seated next to him with his in-flight entertainment system. He did so by placing his hand on the victim's right upper thigh over her clothing.

She quickly backed away but continued to feel shocked and overwhelmed nine hours later, the court heard.

At around 5.30pm, he molested a fourth victim while she was assisting the passenger seated next to him in adjusting their seat for landing. He placed his hand on her left upper thigh over her clothing.

However, as her colleagues had earlier advised her to be cautious around the accused, she stepped back immediately upon feeling physical contact.

When she later confronted him, he denied touching her.

The air stewardess and her supervisor then informed the accused that they were aware he had inappropriately touched several cabin crew members and that the matter would be reported to the police.

Upon arrival in Singapore, the victims' supervisor lodged a report at the SIA Control Centre, and the case was referred to the Airport Police Division. Balasubramanian was arrested on the same day.

On Wednesday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Ashley Chin sought a sentence of between 9.5 and 12.5 months' jail.

"The accused committed seven acts of molest on a single flight; he not only intentionally touched the buttocks and thighs of a total of four SIA air stewardesses, but also repeatedly and brazenly molested the first victim on a total of four occasions," said Ms Chin in her submission.

She added that the fact that the offences had been carried out on board an aircraft and on air transportation workers were aggravating factors.

In seeking a lighter sentence, the defence lawyer said Balasubramanian had made "positive contributions" to society, noting that the Indian national had worked as a bank manager for a "reputable" bank in India.

In delivering the sentencing, District Judge Toh Han Li said it reflected the gravity of the accused's conduct during a single flight, where he molested four victims who were air transportation workers.

He rejected the defence's argument that his offences were committed in the "spur of moment", pointing out that they took place over a 14-hour period.

continued from part 1

if there's a part 3, i'll edit the link into this text

https://www.hitmanforum.com/t/game-breaking-ancestral-pistol-splitter-smg-bug-s/23932/20

https://www.hitmanforum.com/t/ios-communication-with-the-community/21538/205

https://www.hitmanforum.com/t/season-of-awakening-roadmap-discussion-spring-25/23855/148

@Elias_Acorn also speculates he is using the site to send himself messages, which could be true as he has 200 posts there but only one follower

1000 marseycoin says these are all him sending questions to himself

now NOBODY use that site to anonymously tell him to come here that'd be BAD

confession time, tell me something wild about yourself, it's 100% anonymous! https://t.co/1sTB36krvl

— Samir | Combatglue (@Combatglue) March 29, 2025

and nobody like this tweet

mr glue u need to check hitman forum people have discovered a bug introduced in the new patch that has softlocked the game

— Kendi Dilworth (she/her) (@KenDillgames) April 1, 2025

more info here:

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/hitman-3-world-of-assassination-final-chapter-of-the-nu-hitman-trilogy.133439/page-32#post-9379844

HItman forum is shittalking him:

Look, our dude has important CoalaTV posts to re-tweet, don't you know? Samir has his hands full with the real bedrock of a Community Manager's work.

10% blanket tariffs on all imports lmao

I'm curious how long Republicans in congress will take this, they have to be contemplating their life choices at this point.

Not offended if u don't want to celebrate.

I thought i had it all figured out

Sell strangles before earnings = easy money

It worked out for 3 month and even made 20% profit !

I've waited all week to sell calls and puts on RH, sold 5 167.5 puts and 3 160 puts both expiring friday

The stock tanked at open and i lost half my portfolio in minutes

I really thought i could make a living out of options selling but now im not so sure, anyone have any advice?

degenerate goombler is sad his plan to goomble for a living didn't work out lol

!indianmoment !antibharatiya Hating indians is a !nonchuds position 💁🏻‍♀️

Dial 988, text 988, or visit 988lifeline.org for online chat. 988 is a free, confidential service available 24/7 for anyone experiencing emotional distress, a mental health crisis, or thoughts of suicide. You can call, text, or chat with trained counselors who provide support and resources

I JUST HAD AN ENERGY DRINK AFTER A MIDNIGHT BATH ASK ME ABOUT ANYTHING

!animalposters !cats

Members of President Donald Trump's National Security Council, including White House national security adviser Michael Waltz, have conducted government business over personal Gmail accounts, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post and interviews with three U.S. officials.

The use of Gmail, a far less secure method of communication than the encrypted messaging app Signal, is the latest example of questionable data security practices by top national security officials already under fire for the mistaken inclusion of a journ*list in a group chat about high-level planning for military operations in Yemen.

A senior Waltz aide used the commercial email service for highly technical conversations with colleagues at other government agencies involving sensitive military positions and powerful weapons systems relating to an ongoing conflict, according to emails reviewed by The Post. While the NSC official used his Gmail account, his interagency colleagues used government-issued accounts, headers from the email correspondence show.

Waltz has had less sensitive, but potentially exploitable information sent to his Gmail, such as his schedule and other work documents, said officials, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe what they viewed as problematic handling of information. The officials said Waltz would sometimes copy and paste from his schedule into Signal to coordinate meetings and discussions.

The use of personal email, even for unclassified materials, is risky given the premium value foreign intelligence services place on the communications and schedules of senior government officials, such as the national security adviser, experts say.

NSC spokesman Brian Hughes said he has seen no evidence of Waltz using his personal email as described and said on occasions when "legacy contacts" have emailed him work-related materials, he makes sure to "cc" his government email to ensure compliance with federal records laws that require officials to archive official correspondence.

"Waltz didn't and wouldn't send classified information on an open account," said Hughes.

When asked about a Waltz staffer discussing sensitive military matters over Gmail, Hughes said NSC staff have guidance about using "only secure platforms for classified information."

Waltz has also created and hosted other Signal chats with Cabinet members on sensitive topics, including on Somalia and Russia's war in Ukraine, said a senior administration official. The existence of those groups was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Sunday.

Hughes said that Signal "is approved and in some cases is added automatically to government devices." He acknowledged that it is not supposed to be used for classified material and insisted Waltz never used it as such.

Waltz's creation of a Signal group chat that discussed sensitive information and included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic and a prominent critic of President Donald Trump, has rankled the president and frustrated other Cabinet members whose communications were exposed on the chat.

Publicly, Trump has strongly backed Waltz, but on Wednesday he met with Vice President JD Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and others to discuss whether to keep him on. A day later, he informed aides he was not firing Waltz, but it was largely out of a desire to avoid giving the "liberal media a scalp," said a senior administration official.

"This incident badly damaged Waltz," said the official, who noted that the national security adviser was told after the meeting that he needed to be more deferential to Wiles. The Wednesday meeting was first reported by the New York Times.

Data security experts have expressed alarm that U.S. national security professionals are not more readily using the government's suite of secure encrypted systems for work communications such as JWICS, the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System.

Most concerning, however, is the use of personal email, which is widely acknowledged to be susceptible to hacking, spearfishing and other types of digital compromise.

"Unless you are using GPG, email is not end-to-end encrypted, and the contents of a message can be intercepted and read at many points, including on Google's email servers," said Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

National security experts have expressed alarm over the administration's denial that the leaked Signal chat contained classified information.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's comments in the Signal chat detailed the sequencing, timing and weapons systems in advance of the Trump administration's March attack on Houthi militants in Yemen, potentially jeopardizing U.S. airmen headed into harm's way.

In the chat, Waltz offered a brief but highly specific after-action report of the strikes, revealing that the military had "positive ID" of a senior Houthi leader "walking into his girlfriend's building" — pointing to what intelligence sources would later confirm was Israeli surveillance capabilities shared with the United States. Israeli officials expressed frustration that their capabilities were made public.

U.S. officials say Trump is much more upset about the inclusion of a liberal journ*list on a confidential group chat than he is about exposing secrets to foreign adversaries. But White House officials have found Waltz's denials increasingly hard to believe.

Waltz, who added Goldberg to the chat, told Fox News: "I take full responsibility. I built the group." But he has subsequently said Goldberg's contact information was "sucked into" his phone somehow and that he's never met or talked to the journ*list despite a newly circulated photo of the two men near each other at an event at the French ambassador's residence in Washington.

"He's telling everyone that he's never met me or spoken to me. That's simply not true," Goldberg told "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

"This isn't 'The Matrix.' Phone numbers don't just get sucked into other phones," he added.

Waltz, the first Green Beret elected to Congress and an adviser to former vice president Peepee Cheney, has long pontificated about the importance of classified information and harshly criticized the Justice Department for not pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton for using a private email server as secretary of state.

"What did DOJ do about it? Not a darn thing," Waltz wrote on social media in June 2023. The FBI investigated Clinton's use of the private server and concluded no criminal charges were warranted. FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi have given no indication that Trump officials' use of Signal for sensitive information will be investigated, with Bondi saying the material shared was not classified.

While most Trump administration officials have downplayed the Signal breach publicly, some have acknowledged it was a significant mishap.

"Obviously, someone made a mistake. Someone made a big mistake," Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters during a trip last week to Jamaica.

Rubio and his staff, who have years of experience with classified intelligence from his former role as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, are known for taking operational security seriously, said a senior U.S. official.

Rubio noted that his contributions in the Signal chat were minimal.

"Just speaking for my role, I contributed to it twice," Rubio told reporters. "I identified my point of contact, which is my chief of staff, and then later on … I congratulated the members of the team."

On Sunday, Trump dismissed the controversy as a politically motivated attack. "I don't fire people because of fake news and because of witch hunts," he said.

Hughes, the NSC spokesman, said that "Mike serves at the pleasure of President Trump and the President has voiced his support for the National Security Advisor multiple times this week."

While Democrats have seized on the incident as evidence of incompetence, some in the MAGA wing of the Republican Party have assailed Waltz as a George W. Bush-aligned neoconservative, circulating a video from 2016 in which he condemned Trump as a draft-dodger, saying "Stop Trump now."

"The chattering of unnamed sources should be treated with the skepticism of gossip from people lacking the integrity to attach their names," Hughes said.

When asked about the senior aide's use of Gmail for highly sensitive topics, Hughes said it is "unreasonable to ask for comment on an email you refuse to provide for my review." The Post accepted the emails on the condition that it would not disclose the materials in full.

A key mark in Waltz's favor is that the breach was discovered by a left-of-center media outlet and not conservative media, officials said.

"The one thing saving his job is that Trump doesn't want to give Jeff Goldberg a scalp," said a second administration official. "Despite all of Trump's attacks on the 'fake news,' he still reads the papers, and he doesn't like seeing this stuff."

!nonchuds !khive

OnlyFans creator who joined NDP campaign trail dropped over disrespectful Holocaust video https://t.co/IZLWSP9b8T pic.twitter.com/BTzeUpofBA

— National Post (@nationalpost) April 3, 2025

https://allmylinks.com/jessicawetzstein

Bottom text

Can’t even watch a damn hockey game without them ramming their culture down our throats. pic.twitter.com/m2pXdphUju

— ℕ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕟 ℂ𝕠𝕠𝕜𝕖 (@NathanCookeX) April 3, 2025

Is there anything more cucked than being Canadian?

!fitness has someone been doing these threads while I was gone or are y'all lazy??????? @Aevann can you pin this this board desperately needs it.

I thought it was mainly Chuds and the occasional noticer who hated that guy. It seems like a bunch of Christian Ameriboomer women also hate his guts.

So, anyway, what would you throw to save George Soros?

1. "a new mindset of love for the American people"

2. "a concrete block!"

3. "a bible!"

4. "an anchor, he needs to go"

5. "a bucket of chum, sit back and watch the sharks do their thing"

6. "his son" "best one yet"

7. simp posts for Trump

8.

Redditor kicks the YSK wasp nest and stirs up some ultimately tedious shenanigans.

Wow. Did you just learn about fallacies mister 16 year old at a 7th grade level?

No, but we are all tripped up by them sometimes and it's good to be reminded of them.

And there may be younger people on reddit learning this for the first time.

Try to relax a little, dude

Woah, are you attacking his frustration? Way to ad hominem there

The difference here is that I addressed his argument first, before also suggesting he takes a chill pill.

I didn't say something like, "Wow. You're overreacting. Go get your hysteria under control, and maybe you'll see that I'm right." Which is another example of an ad hominem that uses someone's emotional state as the reason for denying their point.

And you should know that often times just spewing "thats [insert logical fallacy we learned in 10th grade]" isnt going to help you win an argument.

100% correct. Avoiding potholes doesn't get you from point A to point B. You still have to drive the car.

You should still try to avoid potholes while driving though.

Ok, but in a real-life scenario, if you're debating with someone, you're not just trying to get from Point A to Point B. You're trying to bring this other person along with you to Point B as well.

And if they're running into potholes and your response is just, "You're running into potholes," you're never going to get them to where you want them to be.

There's a reason the person keeps hitting potholes (emotions, misunderstanding your argument, etc.), and if your goal is actually to convince them of something, then you have to figure out what's causing them to hit the potholes, not just dismissively telling them they're hitting potholes, which is probably just going to cause them to hit even more potholes.

That being said, everything I just said goes out the window if you're arguing with some rando on the internet. Then, it's a waste of time trying to get any sort of collaboration.

Knowing about what an Ad Hominem is doesn't mean you can "Gotcha" your opponent. The reason why remembering logical fallacies helps you is that it lets you avoid being dragged down or distracted by them.

You're not going to point and say "That is a pothole" while driving, but knowing what they look like and keeping an eye out for them lets you avoid them.

And this is useful so you can be the turd that points out logical fallacies in the middle of an argument

You seem angry, so I'll ignore that.

im guessing you're trying to be clever here but this isnt ad hominem either

Oh? What is it then?

there's no one term to describe somebody who has no interest in faithfully having an argument. it's not an ad hominem "fallacy" unless you are trying to use it to support your side in an argument. if you're just calling somebody an idiot because you've had enough trying to argue with them, it IS NOT AD HOMINEM.

for example: you are an idiot - this is an insult i'm using to express how exhausting and poor your rhetoric is, but isnt an argument, therefore is not ad hominem. i have insulted you, but have not engaged in the ad hominem fallacy.

and for your consideration, you don't need to have a reason to not continue having an argument with dishonest people. if someone dismisses you or insults you, they are not interested in the outcome of your discussion and pointing to a universal umbrella 'fallacy' that you can 'prove' they used to allow you to 'win' doesnt actually change the fact that you're arguing with a brick wall. you didn't 'win' the argument because somebody insulted you or engaged in dishonest tactics, you just wasted your time.

You have poor manners and lack emotional control, so your arguments must be wrong; whoever lacks emotional control must also lack logic. If you're angry and rude, you must be blinded by rage, and your argument isn't reliable.

Who would listen to someone so angry, who must be wrong all the time? I'd rather listen to someone calm who can form logical arguments. Have a nice day! :)

you're more obsessed with 'winning' and being right than learning anything or discovering the world or expanding your perspective, which is why you're an idiot.

Listen dude, it's useful to know logical fallacies and cognitive biases outside of a debate room floor, because not only do our opponents make them, which can trip us up, but we make them ourselves all the time.

Knowing common logical pitfalls isn't about saying "gatcha" to other people, but about communicating well. Being the best that we can be.

I really don't get where all this hostility is coming from.

Here is an example-free reiteration of my OP:

By definition, an Ad Hominem fallacy is an attack on the attributes or traits of a person instead of their argument. An emotional state is a personal trait.

You can insult me all you like, but I'm working off of citable sources. If you have a problem with that, wikipedia has an edit request feature; so take it up with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate.

everything that opposes you has to rise to hostility when you're this stubborn and short-sighted. you made a 'you should know' on a topic you clearly misunderstand and are disagreeing with the dozens of people who are trying to correct you. you spent 5 seconds learning something and immediately jumped onto social media to pat yourself on the back for knowing something that others don't, and are in denial that you actually don't know what you're talking about.

Take it up with wikipedia, dude.

"Smoking feels good, so I'm putting my baby inside a cocktail smoking chamber."

this isn't something that can be proven true or false.

op ironically demonstrates a misunderstanding of ad hominem while attempting to clarify ad hominem.

"Smoking feels good, so I'm putting my baby inside a cocktail smoking chamber [because that will make the baby feel good]."

Sorry I wasn't more clear with the implications, dude. Does it make more sense now!

not really. feeling good is subjective, it's an opinion. saying "no, it's bad for you," doesn't even refute that it feels good. you've tangled your example from the start. it's not a logical proof.

Telling someone not to put a baby in a smoking chamber implies that any good feelings the tobacco smoke may induce would be vastly outweighed by the baby being harmed by the smoke.

There is a ton of evidence showing the negative effects of tobacco smoke. If you think that someone saying "Don't put the baby in a smoking chamber, that is terrible for its health." Is not a logical way to refute "This will make the baby feel good," you're being pedantic in the extreme, or are suffering from some sort of tunnel vision, trying to troll, or all three.

I'm going to step away from your disingenuous pedantry.

Actually, thank you for the excellent example of a Straw Man fallacy. I'll use it to respond to other comments in this thread.

Telling someone not to put a baby in a smoking chamber implies that any good feelings the tobacco smoke may induce would be vastly outweighed by the baby being harmed by the smoke.

my dude, that's not how a logical argument works. that's still an option because it cannot be proven true or false. it's certainly a reasonable opinion, but there's no study that feeling good is objectively better than a longer life expectancy.

you're being pedantic in the extreme, or are suffering from some sort of tunnel vision, trying to troll, or all three.

false dichotomy, i could be right and you have merely mistaken how logical arguments are constructed for "pedantry."

Actually, thank you for the excellent example of a Straw Man fallacy.

you are a clown. you are not wrong because you are a clown. you are just both wrong and a clown. 🤡

Okay, I'm blocking you now. Try to pay attention in class tomorrow.

Attacks your frustration? Not sure if English is your primary language but an ad hominem is when someone attacks you in a personal way unrelated to the argument at hand.

For example if Trump and Biden are arguing politically about the recent tariffs and their effects on the economy. Biden, being against these tariffs says it's a terrible idea because Trump is a racist sexist nazi.

That did not address any information about the tariffs and the economy. It was an attack on his character and is considered an ad hominem fallacy.

You sound angry. I don't have to listen to angry people. Learn to control your emotions, and maybe you'll see sense.

lol I'm not angry at all. I gave a very relevant example of an ad hominem fallacy I see commonly on Reddit. Nothing I said shows a loss of control over my emotions. You're reaching and making assumptions

Person A hasn't taken any action yet presumably. The example was worded poorly. We're talking about logical reasoning in arguments not reacting to real world scenarios.

Point is I can just say "are you insane?" to anything. Asking "are you insane" doesn't refute a point using logical reasoning. When you say it you are making a point to question the soundness of mind of the person you are debating to devalue their argument not on its merits (or lacketherof) but rather the quality of their character or personhood. Ad hominem, Latin for "against the man."

You sound angry, like someone who can't control their emotions. I don't need to listen to you.

lol

You're not conveying any substantive new information here. You're just designating the behaviour under a provocative term. Such a midwit post.

Hey, that's okay. As you can see in this thread, a lot of people seem not to know about ad hominem attacks, especially if said fallacies are based on attacking an opponents emotional state.

Try not to fall into the Curse of Knowledge cognitive bias (believing everyone else should already know information that you know).

https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/management/curse-of-knowledge

Uh, no. More like "You don't know what you're talking about because you're a ladygarden."

Here is an example-free reiteration of my claim:

By definition, an Ad Hominem fallacy is an attack on the attributes or traits of a person instead of their argument.

An emotional state is a personal trait.

Here is the easiest-to-access source I used (out of several). I understand that wikipedia is easily refuted, so feel free to dive into the sources the article sites, or to submit an edit request to wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate.

this is the most redditor post I've ever seen

That makes sense, since we are both on Reddit.

Sorry if this offends you, but you're a Redditor too.

Redditors don't know what an ad hominem or tu quoque fallacy are, and refuse to take the ten seconds to look up what they are. Why are you contributing to this misunderstanding OP.

why

Bro, I went off of the definition. Send a source my way, because the multiple ones I found said that an ad hominem attacks a person or an attribute of a person. Emotional state is an attribute.

I see a lot of left wingers use these types of ad hominem attacks on reddit

Maybe you argue with a lot of liberal people?

Be careful not to fall into the "Fallacy fallacy." Just because someone makes a logical fallacy by mistake doesn't mean their core argument is wrong.

Well a few misconceptions. I don't go around trying to argue with liberals on Reddit. This is more something I've observed.

Secondly, I know full well what the "fallacy fallacy" is. No need to explain it to me. But simply observing a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that the core argument is wrong nor that the fallacy fallacy was made. If I assume the argument is wrong (which I don't) because of a fallacy they made, then it's a fallacy (on me).

simply observing a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that the core argument is wrong

... Yes. That is the definition of the Fallacy Fallacy. I'm glad you are on the ball.

What I'm getting at is that if you are seeing a lot of "left-wingers" make a certain mistake in their arguments, maybe you aren't seeing a lot of "non-left-wingers" arguing. Do you often see conservatives argue, or do you avoid that through circumstances of shared viewpoints?

In short, from the way you talk, it makes me think you may have a bit of a confirmation bias. There aren't many non-conservatives who use the term "left-winger".

Thanks! Next time I'm fighting with my wife I will show them this reddit post, it's irrefutable. Checkmate, b-word!

Well, if your wife tries to refocus the subject onto how you are feeling instead of what you are trying to say, then she is wrong.

That is, as long as your emotion isn't driving you to do or say anything harmful. If you're just frustrated, she shouldn't use that as an excuse to do bad things.

This is perhaps the worst explanation of ad hominem I have ever read

He's not explaining ad hominem in general, he's saying that attacking the anger of your opponent is an example of ad hominem. You're looking at a guy say "a cat is an animal" and telling him that's the worst definition of animal you've ever seen. That wasn't really the goal to begin with.

I'm not saying I thought the goal was to define the term. It's a poor explanation because it reads like someone who's never written in the English language before. What the frick is a "cocktail smoking chamber?" It would also be helpful to use an actual example that someone might encounter in real life.

Hi. Please provide a different example. Or are you just the kind of person who can only criticize but not create?

And just use Google for learning what a cocktail smoking chamber is. While you're at it, maybe Google the word "Hyperbole".

Hyperbole is not a useful rhetorical device when providing an example of a phenomenon you think people should know about.

And I think you also need to look up cocktail smoking, since you appear to think it has something to do with smoking cigarettes. Or at least for some reason you have made your fictional character believe that.

... bro. None of that matters. My core argument remains the same. I was going off of definitions and providing a passable enough example to understand.

I'm SORRY you're not satisfied with the example. Next time, make your own post about it and stop nitpicking things for no good reason. Saying "Hey, this isn't good enough for me." Without providing an example of what IS good enough for you is just being a PITA.

Disclaimer: when it comes to logical fallacies like these, they are best applied to debates and discussions where both parties are invested in coming to a legitimate exchange of ideas, and maybe even a resolution to a complicated issue. Trying to apply these logical fallacies in day-to-day interactions with your friends and coworkers is kind of silly, and may not be appropriate.

Ad hominem attacks are a bit more general than what OP has described. An ad hominem is any statement that attacks a person's conduct, character, physical attributes, motives, etc, rather than the argument that person is making. For example:

A) "I believe that society should do X"

B) "Of course you'd think that, you degenerate."

Person B has made an ad hominem statement.

They aren't addressing the point that person A made. They're just claiming that they don't have to listen to person A because they are "a degenerate" (and swap "degenerate" with pretty much anything - doesn't even have to be an "insult"). As if person A being a degenerate somehow makes the entire point they're making invalid.

Ad hominem attacks are usually fallacious, but not always. If they are offered as a means to simply end discussion, then yeah, it's probably fallacious. But there are also plenty of times when pointing out someone's character/motives/conduct can be crucial in developing a counterpoint.

A) "We should tax poor people, and not tax people who make over $1mil a year."

B) "You're just saying that because you don't want to be taxed, and you're greedy."

Person B made two ad hominem statements ("you don't want to be taxed" is attacking A's motives, and "you're greedy" is attacking A's character/conduct). Instead of addressing A's argument ("millionaires shouldn't be taxed"), they went directly to A's motives, and are attempting to discredit their whole argument based off of that single person's motive. B may be correct, but it's not a logical reason on its own to oppose A's statement, and making such a statement doesn't foster more discussion. All B's statement does is tell A that B is already biased against them, and there's likely very little that A can say to change that. And if that's the case, why are we spending time debating at all?

That's what I said, dude. If someone is addressing your emotions, ala "You're triggered so I'm going to ignore you", that is shifting focus onto the person's emotional state instead of their argument. An ad hominem.

I appreciate that, but also, as I said, it's not just pointing out someone's emotional state during an argument.

Also, if someone points out your frustrated state during an argument, it isn't an ad hominem attack unless the person is using it to end the discussion/discredit your points. It's one thing to say, "Hey, you are getting really animated about this, let's calm down so we can have a productive discussion. Now, can you please repeat what you said?" but it's another to say "You got angry, so I don't have to listen to someone who can't control their temper."

All I'm saying is that there's more nuance to it than simply, "If someone points out you got mad during an argument, that's an ad hominem."

EDIT: In a higher comment, you explicitly asked someone for better examples of ad hominem, so I feel like my original comment works. Also, just Google "ad hominem attacks" and I'm sure you'll find even better examples than mine.

Cool.

Ad hominem is a Latin phrase meaning "to the man" or "against the man".

It describes a fallacious argument strategy that attacks the person making an argument instead of their argument itself.

🤔

That's right. So unless you think that a person and their emotional state (or them being "triggered") is separate from their personhood, attacking someone's emotions instead of their argument is an ad hominem.

um...not really. It's an aside.

Ad hominem is something like, "you're stupid for thinking that" or "you're a woke libtard" or "what a bunch of sheeples". Knocking the character of the person, not the reasoning of the argument.

You seem angry, so your arguments can be ignored.

Thank you for this wonderful information. Because of this useful information now, my life is more peaceful, and I got a 7-figure job. My business got successful, and now I'm multimillionaire and planning for 5 kids with my wife. I will retire next month peacefully, and then I will do world travel. All credit goes to you. Without your information, it would not have ben possible.

When others were out partying, I studied logical fallacies.

When they were out having premarital s*x, I mastered cognitive biases.

While they wasted their days at the gym in pursuit of vanity, I cultivated logos and ethos.

And now that the world is on fire and the barbarians are at the gate they have the audacity to come to me for help.

.@realDonaldTrump should reverse the tariffs on @Israel because Israel eliminated their own tariffs prior to the today’s tariff announcement. Trump should incentivize the behavior he wants, not punish it. https://t.co/P1K9ivDR9Z

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 3, 2025