• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months 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.

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      An ad hominem would be if i avoided your point and instead attacked you as a person. I attacked the point itself as frivolous and years-debunked. Please… Listen… Your keyboard is suffering under the weight of false premise. Free it, please

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months 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.

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Provide to me a copy/paste definition of “false premise” so i know you know more fallacies than “strawman” and “ad hominem”. If i feel you learned something today ill call our little tete a tete a win.

          (That was ad-hominem)

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months 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.

            • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Youre getting angry now i think. Whatever fruit this may have borne has withered. Last salvo and ill be finished:

              I honestly want you to read about false premise, and i (selfishly) want proof that you have bettered yourself. If you don’t want to (and frankly, i don’t blame you) then would you at least pinky swear you’ll read it later?

              (Spoiler: ‘false premises’ don’t necessarily invalidate an argument, just make the ground is on shakier. ) There’s a lot to read, and a lot to learn. Here, i’ll link it. It’s real. Go check it out.

              Believe it or not, reading thru the definition will make you better at defending this point in the future. Youre gonna all the tools available if youre going with this stance, and that’s what you want, right? You’re not just coming on this forum to run your mouth, right? Your comments have purpose, yes? You will need tools to convince, and you are in dire need of a toolbox

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months 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.