back
1 comments
Isn’t this basically an ad hominem attack? I don’t know the guy, but you’re attacking him and not his argument. Isn’t the rule here to take the strongest part of an argument and go off that?

Edit: Downvoted on a site for pointing out the rules of the site. Maybes it’s just me, but since the Great Quarantine, some websites have been a little extra smug and “hide the wrong think” prone.

Are we actually under obligation to listen to everything a crank says and then evaluate each statement? Once I find out someone believes in "reptoids", I don't see a lot of value in wasting my time with them, and it's exhausting to make that effort when they clearly aren't.
No, I believe you have the option of not watching his content, not replying to it, and generally allowing others to be as wrong as they would like to be. Unless someone is forcing your to interact with him... are they?

That isn’t the topic of an ad hominem however. Saying “he’s been kicked in the head too many times” is.

No. Icke has serious mental health issues and promotes ridiculous conspiracies like all government leaders are reptile aliens. I'm not making this up, this is what he actually believes and promotes.
Does that hurt you? Does it hurt anyone?

Do you think it should be illegal to think lizard people exist?

Do you think there is any degree of comprise in a best case argument you could make to how some actions are made with people’s “reptilian brain”?

Should it be the responsibility of someone else to make sure you aren’t “assaulted” with other people’s wrong ideas? Or should you take responsibility for your own intake and just ignore the guy?

I wonder how much credit do you give to your own “has serious mental issues” justification? Isn’t that the exact argument that transphobic people use? That this person has a serious mental illness so they shouldn’t be afforded like-protections? Seems like a bad argument on either use because it’s all opinion based on disagreement.

I was raised to respect people’s right to express their ideas even if... especially if I disagree.

I'll ignore Gish gallop of questions and respond the the last sentence.

> I was raised to respect people’s right to express their ideas even if... especially if I disagree.

No one is threatening or infringing on his rights. YouTube is not a government entity and has no obligation to host his content. If he wants to put up his own website, which I believe he has, and host the video there then he can do so.

It is kinda tricky. While i could see it as a possible instance of ad hominem in some cases, would it really count as a personal attack to say that someone who talks a lot of zany ideas might be doing that due to a lot of documented brain damage (concussions) in their past?

I dont think this specifically would count as an ad hominem, given the “personal attack” (lots of concussions in the past) is directly relevant to the current criticism and is a very probable source of their crazy illogical statements and opinions.

EDIT: just fyi, I didn’t downvote your comment. I think your question is very relevant and is in good faith. It is a shame that some people ganged up on your comment, because it seems genuine.

I would agree more if the specific context wasn’t “this guy was hit in the head too many times so he’s insane”... does the number of times he was hit in the head have any bearing on 5G issues real or not?

An ad hominem is “he is a lunatic with head trauma, so take his platform away!”.

A real argument would be that Iran has no 5G and has been hit hard with covid19 so his correlation and his causation seem disproven easily.