As gpt would put it:
"De facto presumed damage" is not a standard legal term or phrase that has a widely accepted definition. However, by breaking down the individual components of the phrase, we can make some interpretations:
- De facto: This Latin term translates to "in fact" or "in reality." It refers to a situation that exists in practice or effect, even if it may not be officially or legally recognized.
- Presumed: This term suggests that something is assumed or considered to be true or factual without definitive proof or evidence.
- Damage: Damage typically refers to harm, injury, loss, or negative consequences caused by an action, event, or situation.
Based on these definitions, we can infer that "de facto presumed damage" may imply a situation where harm or negative consequences are considered to exist or are assumed to have occurred in reality, even if there is no concrete proof or evidence to support this claim. It suggests a notion of damage that is accepted or treated as valid, despite the lack of established facts or verifiable evidence.
It is important to note that the interpretation of this phrase may vary depending on the context in which it is used, as it does not have a fixed and universally recognized definition in legal or general usage.
Which is quite certainly not 'a nonsense'
and then:
what does 'ad hominem' mean?
"Ad hominem" is a Latin term that translates to "to the person." It is a logical fallacy commonly used in argumentation or debate where someone attacks the character, personal traits, or circumstances of an individual making an argument instead of addressing the merits of their argument itself.
Rather than engaging with the substance of the argument or providing counterpoints, an ad hominem attack attempts to discredit the person presenting the argument in order to undermine their credibility or dismiss their viewpoint. It involves attacking their character, personal history, appearance, affiliations, or any other unrelated aspect.
Ad hominem fallacies are considered fallacious because they divert attention away from the actual argument being made and instead focus on attacking the person making the argument. They do not address the validity or strength of the argument itself.
It's important to note that legitimate criticism of a person's credibility or relevant aspects of their character or history can be valid in some cases. However, ad hominem attacks refer specifically to irrelevant personal attacks used as a substitute for addressing the argument being presented.
and then:
is there a term for those who never respond with useful information to questions but rather prefer to waste time in ad hominem remarks and apparently feel very self satisfied?
While there isn't a specific term that encompasses all aspects of behavior you described, a person who consistently responds to questions with irrelevant or personal attacks instead of providing useful information can be generally characterized as being argumentative, unhelpful, or engaging in trolling behavior.
Trolling refers to deliberately provoking or irritating others online by making inflammatory, off-topic, or disruptive remarks with the intention of derailing conversations or eliciting emotional responses. Trolls often derive satisfaction from creating conflict and wasting others' time.
It's important to recognize that such behavior is generally unproductive and goes against the principles of constructive communication and respectful discourse. Engaging with trolls or individuals who consistently resort to ad hominem attacks is often futile and can lead to further frustration. In such cases, it is often better to disengage and seek more constructive interactions elsewhere.
And finally: I am done with you.
