I don’t think this is an argument. OP has a personal vendetta with a high pfofile figure and telling him to “calm down we need him” doesn’t remove that betrayal. He wasn’t even disagreeing with the reply. Just asserting what we all already know in that Jeffries does not have the people’s priorities in mind.
Him not being as bad as a literal nazi isn’t a high bar to meet.
Research into rhetoric disagrees if the person is using themselves as part of the argument. If they bring in their credibility then an ad hominem is rhetorically the correct response.
With that fun fact of the way, in this instance I think you are right.
You know, if you have a strong argument you don’t need to resort to aggression and name calling.
I don’t think this is an argument. OP has a personal vendetta with a high pfofile figure and telling him to “calm down we need him” doesn’t remove that betrayal. He wasn’t even disagreeing with the reply. Just asserting what we all already know in that Jeffries does not have the people’s priorities in mind.
Him not being as bad as a literal nazi isn’t a high bar to meet.
When I have a weak argument, I like to go with the “God told me I’m right in a vision, unbeliever” option. Works every time.
Research into rhetoric disagrees if the person is using themselves as part of the argument. If they bring in their credibility then an ad hominem is rhetorically the correct response.
With that fun fact of the way, in this instance I think you are right.