I mean, at the limit, if they were clear in their rules that only radical leftists are allowed (which you would assume given it’s called ML - marxist leninism) it might be acceptable.
The genocide denial and masquerading as a neutral all purpose instance isn’t though.
Moving the goalpost fallacy. You wrote in your comment to which I replied that no argument can be made against pointing out that someone’s arguments contains fallacies, which is not true.
I wasn’t present as you got hurt arguing on the Internet so I couldn’t anticipate that you were up against someone who’s “entire identity was based on logical fallacies” (ad hominem).
Also, pointing out that someone bases their entire identity around something isn’t an ad hominem. Even if it were, by your own logic, it wouldn’t make me wrong.
Removed by mod
Okay, but debate pervert is really funny, though.
I laughed when I first read it. I still have no idea what it means.
I’ve seen people banned with “liberal” being the reason.
I mean, at the limit, if they were clear in their rules that only radical leftists are allowed (which you would assume given it’s called ML - marxist leninism) it might be acceptable.
The genocide denial and masquerading as a neutral all purpose instance isn’t though.
Removed by mod
Fallacy fallacy: only because it contains a fallacy (or a bunch) the argument isn’t necessarily void.
Still stacking fallacies isn’t usually a sign of a good and or valid argument.
It wasn’t a fallacy fallacy. Their entire argument, nay, their entire identity, was based on a foundation of logical fallacies.
And no, their argument was definitely not valid in any way.
Moving the goalpost fallacy. You wrote in your comment to which I replied that no argument can be made against pointing out that someone’s arguments contains fallacies, which is not true.
I wasn’t present as you got hurt arguing on the Internet so I couldn’t anticipate that you were up against someone who’s “entire identity was based on logical fallacies” (ad hominem).
Wow, nice straw man you got there, lol
Also, pointing out that someone bases their entire identity around something isn’t an ad hominem. Even if it were, by your own logic, it wouldn’t make me wrong.
Nice try though
Would you be so kind as to point out the straw man in that?
And no I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, I think you apply your standards selectively.
Removed by mod
Nice set of logical fallacies in this comment, and I don’t see any citations supporting your anecdote.
I don’t see you actually countering his statement, just throwing random sentences out.
Removed by mod
So, still just throwing out random sentences thinking you are making a point.
Got lots of that, too. It’s like speaking to a 4 year-old
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Your entire comment history reads like a cautionary tale of what happens when you deny a child the attention they crave.
This is the funniest thing I’ve ever read, lol
Stay mad, and keep fantasizing about Ben Shapiro’s sweaty ball sack