>>115040324>followed by unironically comparing the other anon to an unpopular personFalse. Literally did the opposite. I compared MY DECISION, not anon's one, to still rely on math despite teh fact Hitler believeed 2+2=4 (and also build the autobhan).
But here you did something that you thought was sneaky. First you used the godwin's law as its usual interpretation ("what you think is wrong because Nazi thought the same"),which is indeed an Ad Hominem falacy, whereas I precisely took a stance in opposition to this kind of argumentation. then, when I pointed that out you actually said you were using the textbook and more morally neutral definition of Godwin's law (the longer a conversation last, the longer Nazi and/or Hitler will be mentioned), which, yes, indeed, fit, but if we solely fit to that defintion, doesn't detract my point that an Ad Hominem fallacy was comitted and saying that I'll agree with a Nazi if he say 2+2=4. And in this case, that it i a Godwin's law DOES NOT MAKE it an ad Hominem fallacy.
BUT THEN, you once again fall back on the more common use of the Godswin law (pointing out an ad hominem), pretending that if it fit one definition it means it de facto fit the other one. It doesn't.
Did you really thought you would fool anyone?