You’re double talking. My OP was in reference to El-Sayed and his idiotic commie principles which the brand ambassador of ARC chose to support who referred to regulated capitalism SO excuse me if you were referring to something different
You have a habit of calling others "idiotic," and donning an air of intellectual superiority. Here's an AI analysis of the logical fallacies in your original post. There are many of them, though I'm sure AI got a few wrong. NB: these fallacies appear in many of your subsequent posts.
Ad Hominem (Attacking the person instead of the argument)
Quotes:
“has the hubris and lack of circumspection…”
“this ignoramus and ‘brand ambassador’…”
“I won't go into too much detail regarding my perspective of just how stupid his post is…”
“to use this imbecile as the voice of Medicare for all…”
“which Gordon OBVIOUSLY LACKS.”
Why this is fallacious:
The writer repeatedly attacks Dave Gordon’s character and intelligence instead of engaging with the content of his political views or arguments. Calling him an “ignoramus,” “imbecile,” or declaring he “obviously lacks” rational thought is presented as a reason to reject what he says. That’s ad hominem: discrediting a person in order to dismiss their position, rather than attacking the position itself with reasons and evidence.
Guilt by Association
Quotes:
“supports some white-washed socialist/commie who has those who buy Gordon's products in his crosshairs.”
“support for a phony socialist, who campaigns with antisemites that have claimed America deserved 9/11, supporter of Hamas, etc.”
“He has a problem with the ‘oligarchs’ and their influence, but the biggest oligarchs with the biggest influence are those in DC, like EL-Sayed hopes to become…”
Why this is fallacious:
The writer tries to discredit Gordon by linking him to a politician (El-Sayed) and then to that politician’s alleged associates (“antisemites,” “supporter of Hamas”) without showing any direct endorsement of those extreme views by Gordon. The implication is: Gordon supports X; X is associated with Y (bad people); therefore Gordon and his views are bad. That’s guilt by association, not an argument about the actual content of Gordon’s position.
Straw Man
Quotes:
“So, Dave Gordon wants the government to be the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable and what should be ‘regulated’.”
“He supports government regulation to mitigate the excesses of capitalism; Dave Gordon represents the company that defines the excesses of capitalism.”
Why this is fallacious:
The writer appears to exaggerate or distort Gordon’s presumed position. Wanting “Medicare for all” or “government regulation to mitigate the excesses of capitalism” is reform-oriented, but it is recast as if Gordon “wants the government to be the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable” in a sweeping, totalitarian sense. That’s a straw man: attacking a more extreme, simplified version of the views rather than the actual, more moderate policy position.
Tu Quoque (Appeal to Hypocrisy)
Quotes:
“when EL- Sayed's OWN MD WIFE doesn't take Medicaid or Medicare or any other insurance for that matter is hilarious.”
“He supports government regulation to mitigate the excesses of capitalism; Dave Gordon represents the company that defines the excesses of capitalism.”
“And where does Gordon post his inane post? On Facebook one of those so called evil oligarchal companies with too much influence.”
Why this is fallacious:
The writer’s central move is: El-Sayed/Gordon advocate certain political-economic reforms, but their personal or professional situations are allegedly inconsistent with those ideals, so their positions are wrong. That’s tu quoque: pointing out real or perceived hypocrisy as if it refutes the advocated policy. Hypocrisy (if present) may speak to character but does not logically disprove the merits of “Medicare for all” or regulation of capitalism.
Slippery Slope
Quotes:
“So, Dave Gordon wants the government to be the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable and what should be ‘regulated’. Talk about slippery slopes. How about let's start with HIM and his company. I say Reference 330M monoblocks for all at 50 bucks.”
Why this is fallacious:
The writer implies that any support for regulation or Medicare-for-all inevitably leads to extreme, absurd outcomes such as the government dictating luxury amplifier prices (“monoblocks for all at 50 bucks”). No intermediate reasoning is provided to show that one policy logically leads to the other; it’s a dramatized “if we allow this, we must allow that” chain. That’s a slippery slope argument without justification.
Hasty Generalization / Overgeneralization
Quotes:
“most socialists/commies would use [high-end audio] as THE ICON to illustrate the excesses of capitalism”
“I guess in today's polarized political world, one's political views just take precedence over all other rational thought, which Gordon OBVIOUSLY LACKS.”
Why this is fallacious:
The claim about “most socialists/commies” is a broad stereotype about an entire ideological group with no evidence offered.
The statement that in today’s world “one’s political views just take precedence over all other rational thought” generalizes from one example (Gordon) and a vague sense of polarization to a sweeping claim about people’s reasoning, again without support. Both are hasty generalizations: broad conclusions about groups drawn from inadequate evidence.
Appeal to Ridicule
Quotes:
“what may be one of the most absurd posts that any ‘brand ambassador’ can and has ever posted.”
“You literally can't make this up.”
“is hilarious.”
Why this is fallacious:
Rather than arguing against the substance of Gordon’s political stance, the writer portrays it as laughable or absurd to make it seem unworthy of serious consideration. Mockery and expressions of incredulity are used as substitutes for argument, inviting the reader to dismiss the position because it is “hilarious” or “absurd,” which is an appeal to ridicule.
Appeal to Popularity / Bandwagon (mild form)
Quotes:
“Based on prior posts, I am sure many of you will agree with Dave and his support for a phony socialist…”
“Look, I am sure much of my perspective is not shared by at least 50% of you…”
Why this is fallacious:
While more implicit, the writer leans on what they expect the audience already believes (“many of you will agree…”; “50% of you”) as part of the rhetorical support. Suggesting that a view is right or safe because “many of you will agree” is an appeal to popularity: using presumed majority opinion as a substitute for argument.
Appeal to Emotion (especially Fear and Indignation)
Quotes:
“who has those who buy Gordon's products in his crosshairs.”
“campaigns with antisemites that have claimed America deserved 9/11, supporter of Hamas, etc.”
Why this is fallacious:
The writer ties Gordon’s stance to terrorism, antisemitism, and the idea that buyers are in someone’s “crosshairs,” which are emotionally loaded images likely to provoke fear and anger. These associations are presented in a way that encourages the reader to reject Gordon’s views because of emotional reaction rather than because of a reasoned refutation of his policy positions.
