Subject: Re: A Conversation with our Yard Guy
"I really want to rec your post, but I can't. I make it a policy not to rec anything that calls someone an idiot (or similar), even if I agree with the rest of the post (or, occasionally, the ad-hom used)." - 1PG

Is calling Shaq "tall" an ad-hom? Not if it is true.

Here we have a poster who consistently uses sources of information that lie and deceive him. Over and over and over he comes to the board and posts false information or false narratives that was fed to him by these sources. He was given links clearly showing where his sources of information admitted to deceiving him. Internal memos saying they had to lie, or the consumers would just find other information sources that would lie to them. In a moment of clarity, he understood these things and admitted they were pretty damning.

Yet he then continued to use the same sources, and those sources continue to deceive him over and over again.

The infamous philosopher, Forrest Gump's mama said "Stupid is as stupid does" meaning a person should be judged by their actions and behavior rather than their appearance or perceived intelligence. Everyone does something stupid/idiotic/moronic on occasion. Intelligent people learn from the experience and therefore do better going forward. Unintelligent people keep doing the same stupid/idiotic/moronic thing over and over and over. They never learn. An intelligent person touches a hot stove once and learns. A stupid person never learns.

So I would never call a person stupid if they touch a hot stove once. However, if they do it over and over and over and never learn, at some point "Stupid is as stupid does" comes into play.

How many times does someone have to touch the hot stove before it is ok to call them stupid?

As you know, in science it is impossible to prove something true. There are an infinite number of alternative explanations that need to be tested and proven false. However science operates such that after an overwhelming amount of evidence builds up and is failed to be disproven, scientists start to generally accept certain theories as true (with the caveat that things can always change later if new evidence is presented). Right now there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that using certain sources of information is stupid if a person's goal is to be better informed. What do you call someone who continues to use those sources, over and over?

It ain't an Ad-hom to call Shaq "tall" if it is true.