>>43205228>ad hominemAnon, I'm going to point out that Ad Hominem is when you try to deface someone's argument by making a counter-argument based on the person (or some aspect of them, typically an unflattering one) rather than any actual evidence.
Let's take the argument in this case as being "I'm not narcissistic". When the other guy pointed out the humor in how in the very same post saying that, you also claimed you were funny and likable and just chose not to demonstrate it, your counter-argument was asking if you should have felt compelled to make yourself seem likable (and funny, but the former of the two is more important here) and if he was important enough to warrant that, before claiming that no, he wasn't.
So in this case:
>"I'm not a narcissist and although I do think I'm funny and likable. I haven't demonstrated any of those traits here. Why would I? I'm just answering people's questions.">Anon points out that, due to your phrasing, you unintentionally said "I'm funny and likable but I've made no effort to show any part of that side of myself here, and why should I?">You respond by saying that you should feel no obligation to make yourself seem likable (which is true, this is the internet), and that he is unimportant, which implies that the argument is invalid because the one saying it is insignificantEssentially, you deflected him pointing out that you contradicted your own statements about your narcissism and likability by saying he wasn't important.
You literally deflected his argument with a fucking Ad Hominem.
Regardless of whether it is worth the effort to make yourself seem likable to people online, there's a reason he was pointing it out. You have not made yourself seem likable. And it shows. The only reason this thread is still up is because people are enjoying tearing into you.
Know what isn't an Ad Hominem? Pointing out that the majority of your last response can be summed up as "I had a good counterargument, but I lost it."
