Your aggressive ad-hominem, and moved goal posts, is uncompelling. Sorry I’ve failed to help elucidate the epistemics here for you, past your apparent identity attachment with this that’s causing such a social-dominance limbic-reaction occluding critical thinking, but given that reaction, I’m losing confidence in my abilities to cut through the emotion to get this correspondence back to the simple logic, and shan’t even try. Hoping you find the way to feel better.
lol good job failing to understand the most basic facts of reality, let alone anything about biology, but nice attempt to sound smart. You’re the biggest fool I’ve seen on here all week.
lol good job failing to understand the most basic facts of reality, let alone anything about biology, but nice attempt to sound smart. You’re the biggest fool I’ve seen on here all week.
Fun testing my fallacy detector on your responses. We’ve gone from the earlier hasty-generalization (& over-generalising, & stereotype-based generalization), false-dilemma (& black and white thinking), ad-hominem, appeal to emotion, overconfidence, moving goal posts, hyperbole, weasel words, strawman, false equivalence, begging the question, non-sequitur, cherry-picking, and whatever else I missed, ~~ to now also add another ad-hominem, name-calling, appeal to ridicule, false authority, more hyperbole, red-herring, argument from ignorance, and whatever else I didn’t pick up on or neglected to note.
Always quite the spectacle, such rhetorical sauce, so reduced, so concentrated, to pack in so many punches in so few words. Makes it a bit of an exercise in Brandolini’s Law too. Much psychological analysis fun to be had in this too.
Still, beyond these increasing derailments, it would be good to get back to the original substance, and find sound criteria.
Oh, and, that’s also fun… that I’m “failing to understand the most basic facts of reality” and am “the biggest fool” you’ve “seen on here all week”, given ^. Like I say, fun psychological analysis to be had in this… Like, maybe, could that be… projecting?
Heh. That’s funny. I considered pasting it back in to the conversation last comment, to try pick it up from there again. XD Seems we’ve not made any progress. I still think showing that shows the fail (that was refuted by others too, not just me), and you, it seems safe to presume, think showing that makes some valid point not refuted.
But yeah, there it is again, for what little worth apparent it’ll do us now… :
“God I wish we had a femboy president and cabinet… I’m not even attracted to them. I just know they’d be infinitely better than the fucking fascist cheeto et. al…”
Or were you referring to the image in the comment you replied to, or the original post… either way, whatever you think is obvious and not refuted, is not communicated successfully yet. Anyways…
started this argument over a joke
Fun interpretation. Hah.
Grow up
Ageist diminutivisation ad-hominem to deflect and self-aggrandise to put others down. Mhmm. Interesting in the context of the thread at large.
If you like jokes, try read this with levity and in a deadpan comedy way, maybe even in the voice of Richard Ayoade if you like. Then you might manage to be in less emotional turmoil, as your current approach seems to get you into.
I’m absolutely positive there are fewer femboy fascists than Republican fascists.
My comment is not about the most ideal government, nor about power structures, but a direct comparison of two specific things.
So your “know” is just a gamble.
A gamble with better odds than the 100% chance we currently have… How fucking dense can you be?
It shouldn’t be fucking difficult to understand that a gamble is better than a guarantee.
Your aggressive ad-hominem, and moved goal posts, is uncompelling. Sorry I’ve failed to help elucidate the epistemics here for you, past your apparent identity attachment with this that’s causing such a social-dominance limbic-reaction occluding critical thinking, but given that reaction, I’m losing confidence in my abilities to cut through the emotion to get this correspondence back to the simple logic, and shan’t even try. Hoping you find the way to feel better.
lol good job failing to understand the most basic facts of reality, let alone anything about biology, but nice attempt to sound smart. You’re the biggest fool I’ve seen on here all week.
Fun testing my fallacy detector on your responses. We’ve gone from the earlier hasty-generalization (& over-generalising, & stereotype-based generalization), false-dilemma (& black and white thinking), ad-hominem, appeal to emotion, overconfidence, moving goal posts, hyperbole, weasel words, strawman, false equivalence, begging the question, non-sequitur, cherry-picking, and whatever else I missed, ~~ to now also add another ad-hominem, name-calling, appeal to ridicule, false authority, more hyperbole, red-herring, argument from ignorance, and whatever else I didn’t pick up on or neglected to note.
Always quite the spectacle, such rhetorical sauce, so reduced, so concentrated, to pack in so many punches in so few words. Makes it a bit of an exercise in Brandolini’s Law too. Much psychological analysis fun to be had in this too.
Still, beyond these increasing derailments, it would be good to get back to the original substance, and find sound criteria.
Oh, and, that’s also fun… that I’m “failing to understand the most basic facts of reality” and am “the biggest fool” you’ve “seen on here all week”, given ^. Like I say, fun psychological analysis to be had in this… Like, maybe, could that be… projecting?
Let’s read the first comment in the chain and remember why YOU started this argument over a joke. Grow up.
Heh. That’s funny. I considered pasting it back in to the conversation last comment, to try pick it up from there again. XD Seems we’ve not made any progress. I still think showing that shows the fail (that was refuted by others too, not just me), and you, it seems safe to presume, think showing that makes some valid point not refuted.
But yeah, there it is again, for what little worth apparent it’ll do us now… :
Or were you referring to the image in the comment you replied to, or the original post… either way, whatever you think is obvious and not refuted, is not communicated successfully yet. Anyways…
Fun interpretation. Hah.
Ageist diminutivisation ad-hominem to deflect and self-aggrandise to put others down. Mhmm. Interesting in the context of the thread at large.
If you like jokes, try read this with levity and in a deadpan comedy way, maybe even in the voice of Richard Ayoade if you like. Then you might manage to be in less emotional turmoil, as your current approach seems to get you into.
[playlist in the background here happens to be playing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoUtT21LLTI … fun sync, accidental relevance.]
Thanks for proving me right.