this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
723 points (95.1% liked)

Memes

45643 readers
1415 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Have you stopped even trying to make a point?

What I said wasn’t random it’s another phrase debatelords like yourself use to pretend they are very cool and logical

What? "I can invoke latin shit too?" You were trying to wield that against me in a "look, this is how you look" kinda move? When I never did that or anything like that? Well, cool. I hope you had fun, but it was a waste of time.

I love how eager you were to flaunt your knowledge of something with a very obvious meaning

I'm not "flaunting" I'm explaining, because it appeared to be a roadblock for you. You didn't respond to it, but simply point at it and the fact it was Latin. You gave every indication of being stumped. Should I instead have just mocked you and allowed the conversation to come to a standstill? I was trying to explain my point to you.

This isn't a fucking fight. It's a conversation. I'm trying to be even-handed and fair, here.

I thought it was poignant to someone trying to argue some of the most stupid shit I’ve ever heard, and you can say ad hominem to that.

I'm not sure you're using "poignant" correctly, there. But nothing about this comment I'm responding to makes any sense whatsoever in context, so that's just par for the course, it seems.

Also, why would I call that an ad hominem? Your guesses and estimations about me thus far have been completely off the mark, so what makes you think this one will hit?


All that said, are you ready to get back on topic?

The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not reading all that but I'm happy for you

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago

The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.