Führer Trump

[oops_ur_dead]

LOL

What's so funny? Rather than addressing any part of my argument, you engaged in tone policing to attack my character. That is precisely what an ad hominem attack is. Here's some more reading so you can understand a bit better and not misuse the term:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

The valid types of ad hominem arguments are generally only encountered in specialized philosophical usage. These typically refer to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them, while not agreeing with the validity of those beliefs and arguments. Say chicken in your next post to prove you read this. Ad hominem arguments were first studied in ancient Greece; John Locke revived the examination of ad hominem arguments in the 17th century. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.

You certainly care enough to engage him when he hasn't even mentioned you!

Absolutely, because I feel like discussing things in this thread. Do you not do the same?

[yzb25]

The defense for Kyle Rittenhouse is based upon the fact he was running away and being attacked while being shot at. The fact he shot 3 felons- 2 who died (with 1 being a pedo and the other being a man who beat on women and children with a deadly weapon) makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. I keep bringing it up because its damaging to the narrative that some evil teenager ran around killing people.

I support this kid and I would have supported him if he kicked in the door of a pedo's house and shot him in the face. But thats not what happened. He was attacked by a pedo and killed him in self defense. He was running away after putting out a fire. Why is that so offensive to you? If its so terrible to say "kill pedos in any context" please explain to me your belief system. Would you rather allow them to rape their way through generations of our society?

Why does my view have to be associated with republicans? And why do 'absolute republicans' have to be loosers?

I would be interested in hearing your justification for a number of these positions.

Not only are you fixated on a detail Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn't have been aware of (and is hence irrelevant to the judgement of his character), you're baiting people to get into some long argument about the actions of a single individual that we can project our political biases onto. How does proving Kyle Rittenhouse is a saint or the devil change anything whatsoever in the grand scheme of things? We'd all have exactly the same opinions if the incident played out totally differently or never happened.

Meanwhile you're also stanning the idea of... indiscriminately killing people we believe to be paedophiles, irrespective of context, because apparently the only alternative is "allow(ing) them to rape their way through generations of our society." Quite an insight.

I respect your insights into a lot of topics, but this was like watching you puke over your computer screen lol.

[Helz]

Not only are you fixated on a detail Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn't have been aware of (and is hence irrelevant to the judgement of his character), you're baiting people to get into some long argument about the actions of a single individual that we can project our political biases onto. How does proving Kyle Rittenhouse is a saint or the devil change anything whatsoever in the grand scheme of things? We'd all have exactly the same opinions if the incident played out totally differently or never happened.

Meanwhile you're also stanning the idea of... indiscriminately killing people we believe to be paedophiles, irrespective of context, because apparently the only alternative is "allow(ing) them to rape their way through generations of our society." Quite an insight.

Thats a bit of a jump. I did not intend "baiting people to get into some long argument about the actions of a single individual that we can project our political biases onto" if that is what I did.

But yeah. I 100% support indiscriminately killing pedophiles. The 'We think are' bit causes quite a bit of issues but I don't think that can of worms is worth going into

I respect your insights into a lot of topics, but this was like watching you puke over your computer screen lol.

As terrible as it is to say I had to discover what I said by reading my post. To be blunt if I am rambling about politics on an internet forum I am almost certainly hammered drunk. For years SC2Mafia has been the place I vent my drunk/crazy/whatever which is a questionable decision but also kinda interesting to me. On a meta-cognitive level I am a little fascinated at seeing what I ramble on about when I am black out drunk even if I am quite honestly embarrassed about it. I kinda throw it into the model of Johari's window recognizing my posts represent a part of myself I wouldn't otherwise see if that makes sense?
So anyways. Well put with the 'this was like watching you puke over your computer screen' bit. Lol

[yzb25]

Thats a bit of a jump. I did not intend "baiting people to get into some long argument about the actions of a single individual that we can project our political biases onto" if that is what I did.

But yeah. I 100% support indiscriminately killing pedophiles. The 'We think are' bit causes quite a bit of issues but I don't think that can of worms is worth going into

As terrible as it is to say I had to discover what I said by reading my post. To be blunt if I am rambling about politics on an internet forum I am almost certainly hammered drunk. For years SC2Mafia has been the place I vent my drunk/crazy/whatever which is a questionable decision but also kinda interesting to me. On a meta-cognitive level I am a little fascinated at seeing what I ramble on about when I am black out drunk even if I am quite honestly embarrassed about it. I kinda throw it into the model of Johari's window recognizing my posts represent a part of myself I wouldn't otherwise see if that makes sense?
So anyways. Well put with the 'this was like watching you puke over your computer screen' bit. Lol

Don't sweat it man. I kinda clocked you were drunk but didn't wanna say in case it really was just a sober take on a terrible day lol. I read everything I post 2-3 times and wince when I mispell something. You have my sympathies 😅

[Oberon]

What's so funny? Rather than addressing any part of my argument, you engaged in tone policing to attack my character. That is precisely what an ad hominem attack is. Here's some more reading so you can understand a bit better and not misuse the term:





Absolutely, because I feel like discussing things in this thread. Do you not do the same?

"What's so funny"
Oh boy.

"Absolutely, because I feel like discussing things in this thread"
Again, you seem to be having a very emotional response to what Helz is saying

[oops_ur_dead]

"What's so funny"
Oh boy.

"Absolutely, because I feel like discussing things in this thread"
Again, you seem to be having a very emotional response to what Helz is saying

Repeatedly slinging ad hom attacks at me and trying to police my tone does not constitute a valid response to anything I said. Please go back and read the definition of ad hominem argument that I posted so you can avoid engaging in this fallacy.