• Zoolander
    link
    English
    -121 year ago

    Ahh yes… the tried and true ad-hominem. No actual argument against the point, just childish name-calling and insults. Grow the fuck up.

      • Zoolander
        link
        English
        -61 year ago

        You did not address the point at all. Nothing has been debunked. It cannot be debunked because it’s true - you are stealing something someone created, which they made in order to get paid and make a living, because you are ingesting it and not paying them.

        Stop being dishonest.

          • Zoolander
            link
            English
            -21 year ago

            I don’t need to provide you with shit. Look at you, expecting to get someone else’s effort and time for free again. Thanks for proving you’re dishonest.

              • Zoolander
                link
                English
                -11 year ago

                I’m not angry. I haven’t even thought about what you said before, even after you just mentioned it.

                I’m not doing anything you ask me to because I know what a false premise is, I know what ad hominem is, and I know what a straw man is. You haven’t actually provided any kind of argument against what I said so I know you’re not being honest. Since you’re not willing to be honest, there is no point in continuing discussion with you.

                  • Zoolander
                    link
                    English
                    -21 year ago

                    Again, I don’t care. You’re still starving.

                  • Zoolander
                    link
                    English
                    -11 year ago

                    I am not a troll. I am a creator that thinks your mental gymnastics attempting to justify theft is bullshit.

    • @Psychodelic
      link
      81 year ago

      Saying your argument is stupid isn’t attacking you, dude.

      • Zoolander
        link
        English
        -71 year ago

        That’s not what ad-hominem is, “dude”. It’s still a superficial attack rather than an attack of the argument if there’s no substance to it to actually dispute the argument.

        • @Psychodelic
          link
          21 year ago

          ad-hominem (adj.): (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

          Why did I have to look this up for you?

          Think of it this way, saying your argument is stupid is similar to saying your argument is not valid, not sound, etc. Your response should be “why is it stupid?” or what’s wrong with my way of thinking?", not “stop attacking me, I’m under attack!” At the very least, don’t misappropriate a logical fallacy that doesn’t apply.

          • Zoolander
            link
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            He clearly directed the attack at me since he wants to come into my house and smash my keyboard or whatever the fuck he said. Introducing pedantry to the mix isn’t useful or helpful.

            The point is that he didn’t provide any counter to the argument. He’s done nothing to address the actual argument and has simply made an attack. I don’t need to argue the semantics of it unless they care to actually address the points I’m making.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Introducing pedantry to the mix isn’t useful or helpful.

              I agree.

              You should also take your own advice and address the actual argument and points made.

              • Zoolander
                link
                English
                -11 year ago

                I did and I have. Several times.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  True, if you count each and every time you stopped typing…

                  No, that is a bit mean and untrue. You have replied to many points, some of them even without calling the person “dishonest” or saying their point is “irreverent”