That kind of fallacy is called Argumentum ad Hominem. It means the argument is addressed to the person; attacking that person instead the issue. There is an irrelevance because the argument is against to the person making a claim, rather against to the claim itself. An example is judging a person's social status or attitude, like calling his strategies aren't effective to finish a certain task because of his untidiness and laziness.
<span>The answer is that "It punishes people for their beliefs, not just their actions".
<span>Critics of hate crimes legislation contend that it is superbly suitable to criminalize demonstrations of brutality, however not fitting to include extra disciplines for a man's thoughts or discourse. Another issue related with hate crime recommendations is the trouble of figuring out which bunches are to be "ensured.</span>
</span>
Answer:
He believed that slavery would either become completely legal, or completely illegal, as the nation couldn't survive divided as it was. So, the second option.
Answer:
Tun rock is a rock music by mr otos. ......
Explanation:
Fundamental rights and duties are two sides of the same coin... because anybody who wants their Fundamental right has to do his Fundamental duties ...
Like if anyone who wants Right of nationality has to do patriotism to his country..
Mark me as brainliest ❤️
