Conservatism is not popular. People don’t want conservative content they want to be able to talk, debate, and not spread 1 of 2 ridiculous narrow and controlled positions
Here's how: You evaluate arguments on their merits, not on the personalities that deliver them. Your question itself implies an example of an argument, and that argument fails because it stands on what's called the "ad hominem fallacy." You're arguing that this woman's argument is invalid, regardless of its content, because she has represented Google's interests in the past.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 79 | คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs อาเมียร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WfPSA1A0NHc/mqdefault.jpg)
![[FULL EP.16] เซียนพาลุย "เผือก-ฟรอยด์" กรี๊ดลั่น จนปูหนี | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FsqUvwS3b-Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Hug
Conservatism is not popular. People don’t want conservative content they want to be able to talk, debate, and not spread 1 of 2 ridiculous narrow and controlled positions
>Former Associate Counsel at Google
>Opposes regulation on Google
Really? How am I supposed to take any of this seriously?
Here's how: You evaluate arguments on their merits, not on the personalities that deliver them. Your question itself implies an example of an argument, and that argument fails because it stands on what's called the "ad hominem fallacy." You're arguing that this woman's argument is invalid, regardless of its content, because she has represented Google's interests in the past.
Great, you identified something you dont like about the messenger but claimed nothing of the message.