Ad hominem includes many types attacks on a person that aren’t about the person but how they presented the argument. Ie mocking how slow someone spoke, or in this case how many words they used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
This is the crux of it, and lines up with what I was saying:
> Nowadays, except within specialized philosophical usages, the usage of the term ad hominem signifies a straight attack at the character and ethos of a person, in an attempt to refute their argument.
That doesn’t make the correct usage in this context wrong, or more importantly prevent what you said from both being a logical fallacy and simply rude.
I personally would have apologized a while ago, but you do you.
> That doesn’t make the correct usage in this context wrong
Well, it does if I'm being a bit snarky, and not using that snark as a way of dismissing a claim. I'm saying there is no justification for the claim, and that it's taken far more words to claim the thing than it would be to supply a simple disproving example.
> or more importantly prevent what you said from both being a logical fallacy
No, something being not ad hominem doesn't prevent it from being a logical fallacy, but that's not how reason works. You disprove. You don't say, "Well this criticism failed but that doesn't prove it's valid!"
> I personally would have apologized a while ago, but you do you.
But... this is also rude. More so than a little bit of snark.
No, being snarky in no way changes what’s going on.
> a simple disproving example
Which I provided an hour ago and you haven’t responded, thus disproving your argument here with an example.
> is also rude.
If you acknowledge you’ve been rude then apology is appropriate. Simply ignoring rudeness is poor manors as otherwise people can’t improve. Instead proper manors is to bring up the mistake and offer a minor correction. In person subtle body language is useful, but in text the only option is to be more explicit though still indirect. Thus what I said was quite literally the opposite of being rude.
I'm not ignoring what you said; I just didn't see it. This is an internet forum, not a live conversation. If you assume that proves something...I don't know. Not much point interacting with someone whose imagination exceeds their grasp on reality.
I thoroughly disliked every moment spent interacting with you. You’ve admitted above that you were being snarky. That’s what you put into the world. I want you to understand that when you use your time to be snarky to people it is hurtful and wrong. Please do better.
You saying sarcastically how I could be so silly as to claim only two options, rather than simply saying "hang on, what about option X" and us having a conversation is where this went wrong. A tiny bit of snark is much less rude than that, and particularly when it's in response to the initial unpleasant sarcasm.
