Comment by abduhl

Comment by abduhl 15 hours ago

I don’t think these are ad hominem attacks. The article seems to just state the (perhaps biased) facts: people are calling it a clown show, Prasad was ousted, Prasad did gain popularity on social media as a COVID-skeptic. It doesn’t become an ad hominem just because you don’t like the way the facts are stated or the inferences your own brain makes.

timr 12 hours ago

> people are calling it a clown show

Not "people" -- a single, unnamed, VC. It's right there in the article. Read it.

> Prasad was ousted

No, he wasn't. He voluntarily resigned pre-emptively after the WSJ editorials, then he was re-hired almost immediately. You are just misinformed. You'd know this if you read a better source.

Reply View 4 replies

abduhl 5 hours ago

So, again, you’re not showing how it’s an ad hominem, you’re just disagreeing with the biased reporting.

Reply View | 3 replies
- timr 4 hours ago
  
  Where did I say it was an ad hominem?
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  abduhl 4 hours ago
  
  >> Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  timr 4 hours ago
  
  Touché. I shouldn't have said "ad hominem attacks", because, while these arguments are certainly specious, and completely unrelated to the subject of the article, they're not strictly ad hominem.
  I agree with your comment that my criticism is (and was) biased reporting.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies