Quote (Malopox @ Feb 17 2024 10:16am)
It’s the definition of
ad hominem logic fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemInability to make a structured argument about a topic of the debate, makes weak participants go after the author of the argument in an attempt to undermine his credibility and not the credibility of his argument.
Two things, firstly, what you just did is a fallacy in itself, it's the argument from fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy . Please do not call other people out for fallacies when it is apparent you clearly do not understand them yourself. By invalidating somebodys argument by pointing to a fallacy, you are making a fallacious appeal. That brings me to my second point:
An ad hominem fallacy would be not discussing the argument at hand, i indeed
did discuss why Ritter is an untrustworthy source, and didn't just call him untrustworthy outright. Ritter is a state actor who has a vested interest in the conflict. Furthermore:
Quote (Djunior @ Feb 17 2024 10:34am)
Scott Ritter has extensive military background (intelligence officer in the United States Marine Corps and worked as weapons inspector in Iraq) which is why his opinion matters.
He's not a US govt shill so of course he needs to be cancelled / locked up, preferably in Ukraine just like the late Gonzalo Lira
Ritter is not an expert on eastern Europe and has never claimed to be. Ritter is a ballistics expert who is begrudged that his career ended because he got convicted of crimes against children. It's interesting that you say that Ritter is not a US government shill, but he was literally an employee of the US government and the UN, and you yourself bring that up as a good thing, i quote "his extensive military background".