zlacker

Well now you're making an ad hominem fallacy. Can you please read the actual pages I linked and tell me why you disagree with their arguments or why the arguments they are debunking don't apply to what you wrote?

>>ilyane+(OP)
An ad hominem is an attack on the messenger. The poster merely gave reasons why the credibility of said link shouldn't be taken at face value.

>>ilyane+(OP)
Ad hominem? Hardly. It's funny if you link to articles about "silencing tactics" and then falsely invoke an ad hominem fallacy.

Pointing out bad and illegitimate sources is not an ad hominem.

In any event, your first article isn't even relevant to the original poster.

The second doesn't even address any argument, it just moves the goalposts into an issue of patriarchal values and how all women are (ostensibly) inherently oppressed from conception.

>>stelon+I
"Credibility"? It's an argument. You either agree with it or you don't.

That was most certainly an ad hominem. It was an attempt to counter a point by attacking the messenger, not the argument. Textbook, really.