>>1540741>Not ad hominem, because I didn’t attack YOU.Ad hominem arguments are not limited to the person you're talking to. Just because you use this faulty logic on another person, does not mean it isn't equally fallacious.
>I attacked the credibility of your source, which is valid.It isn't valid, it is an ad hominem argument, which did not address the source itself but the man behind it and rather than it even being about him, it is about hearsay, hearsay from tobacco executives. You used the conjecture of businessmen who had already conceded that tobacco was harmful with the promotion of "safe filters" and who were well aware that the popular perception was that it was that tobacco was harmful. They rejected Whitby's work as it would be hypocritical and a retreat in face of prior concessions as to the harm of tobacco, and feared backlash and reopening a vehement point of contention.
>Your whole argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority, which is itself a fallacyI never made an appeal to authority in the first place. You are putting words in my posts (reminder, by the way, had no words) and inventing easily defeated arguments, which coincidentally is the definition of a straw man.
>And finally you did not provide any substantive evidence for your claim, and as the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you, not me. I never made any claims. I posted a meme. You responded, with very poor reasoning and were called out. Now you're seething, over this. Your post reads like some high school student or undergrad on a debate team. The fact that you quote Hitchens is icing on the cake.
