If anything, your argument is an ad hominem. Why is verbally abusing and degrading his wife, an insult towards his character, relevant to what he said? He is a piece of shit. So? If you're saying we should use Calvin because Crowder is piece of shit, you're just proving @BeefDaddySupreme@lemmy.world 's point.

P.S. I'm sure I'm gonna get mega downvoted. Arguing with logic is apparently not a thing on the internet.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He is purposefully misrepresenting the argument being made and dismissing it. He is trivializing the actual point which is that Crowder is problematic beyond "I don't like him". He is dismissing a facile version of the actual problem, which is indeed a strawman. The subject is Crowder's bad behavior (to put it mildly), which is manifested in his actions toward others as well as his other unsavory views.

"Piece of shit" is surely ad hominem -- if I was addressing Crowder's arguments and responding to him. But I am not. So, no, in this context, it is really not ad hominem.

My one and only point is that Crowder is a PoS (or shall we say "problematic" if that is more your speed) for many reasons, and I like the Calvin version better.

[–] Grumpy@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dismissing claims based on a counter logic is how a proper arguments are formed. Once again, that is not a strawman. Strawman is a fallacy where they attack a different claim. He is not attacking a different claim in any way. Underselling and dismissing is not a strawman.

Misrepresenting it is, but if anything, you keep proving him right. You're putting your feelings of Crowder, as a person, as the reasoning. In other words, someone you don't like is a meme format. There is no misrepresentation here.

My only point here is that you have your fallacies wrong.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I appreciate the pedantry on this. Where is the logic? I'll grant the meme didn't make a specific claim, but I definitely did. If my claim is that Crowder has serious ethical violations and another dismisses my argument saying "You just don't like him," have they addressed my point? IMO they have taken an easier path by conflating my "feelings" with the more serious, actual point.

Take the example from Wiki:

Alice: Taking a shower is beneficial.
Bob: But hot water may damage your skin.
Bob attacked a non-existing argument: "Taking a hot shower is beneficial."

Note that the claim addressed is indeed related but is nonetheless a strawman.

While it is true I don't personally like Crowder, that is not my point. I am saying that Crowder has said and done things that broach beyond a simple distaste. Perhaps that is debatable or one can disagree, but that isn't what the other commenter is doing. They have painted my argument as purely emotional and trivial while not addressing the actual point.

Anyway, if that doesn't convince you then I don't think we'll agree on this, which is fair enough.

Cheers