You people always have an issue with any source that differs from the narrative you want to listen. If it’s Chinese news, it’s because it’s Chinese; if it’s Russian news it’s because it’s Russian; if it’s some African news it’s because Africa doesn’t like Europe; if it’s some Latinamerican news it’s because we’re poor and we don’t know better; if it’s some Usonian news it’s because they’re right wing or too moderate or the writer something. So basically the only not-biased-source™ is a very niche set of articles written by the Usonian/European center-left/left-wing neoliberals.
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.
Y’know, your insufferability, and your willful ignorance-- it reminds me of a certain DNC-paid twitter shill. BrooklynDadDefiant, is that you? I don’t acknowledge wikipedia link-dumping. Show the cold, hard, evidence of what you speak, or for the love of whatever settler-colonial god you worship, quit inconveniencing the electrons.
Or y’know what, don’t. I’m not wasting my time ‘debating’ some redditor pissant.
of course they’re from wikipedia-- I even link there. it’s no secret, nor are you some great detective for pointing that out, lmao
and, obviously, I’m not going to engage in an argument that’s fallacious, giving it legitimacy. what’s amusing is that you - or anyone - takes offense to this.
It’s really disappointing that you’ve chosen to double down on the toxic engagement and immaturity. This kind of formulaic interaction is what made Reddit such a pathetic place to be.
I hope this article can give you something to think about while you work on yourself.
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”.
You people always have an issue with any source that differs from the narrative you want to listen. If it’s Chinese news, it’s because it’s Chinese; if it’s Russian news it’s because it’s Russian; if it’s some African news it’s because Africa doesn’t like Europe; if it’s some Latinamerican news it’s because we’re poor and we don’t know better; if it’s some Usonian news it’s because they’re right wing or too moderate or the writer something. So basically the only not-biased-source™ is a very niche set of articles written by the Usonian/European center-left/left-wing neoliberals.
that which is demonstrably false is just that, your personal offense notwithstanding. the facts do not care about your feelings.
Then demonstrate it, with evidence, not with third-party opinion columns. Or are you just going off your feelings about WSJ to back up your hot air?
Moving the Goalposts
Y’know, your insufferability, and your willful ignorance-- it reminds me of a certain DNC-paid twitter shill. BrooklynDadDefiant, is that you? I don’t acknowledge wikipedia link-dumping. Show the cold, hard, evidence of what you speak, or for the love of whatever settler-colonial god you worship, quit inconveniencing the electrons.
Or y’know what, don’t. I’m not wasting my time ‘debating’ some redditor pissant.
Brooklyndad turned out to be a paid shill. I wonder if there is a connection?
and yet you keep coming back.
It’s very clear to everyone here that you’re just copy/pasting wikipedia and ducking the actual arguments.
I know it feels nice to do, but this isn’t Reddit and that kind of cheap, toxic, engagement is really formulaic and boring.
You can do better. Right?
of course they’re from wikipedia-- I even link there. it’s no secret, nor are you some great detective for pointing that out, lmao
and, obviously, I’m not going to engage in an argument that’s fallacious, giving it legitimacy. what’s amusing is that you - or anyone - takes offense to this.
do better.
It’s really disappointing that you’ve chosen to double down on the toxic engagement and immaturity. This kind of formulaic interaction is what made Reddit such a pathetic place to be.
I hope this article can give you something to think about while you work on yourself.
“I know you are but what am I” is not an effective form of debate. nor is:
Ad hominem
Did you mean to reply to my comment? This doesn’t seem relevant to our discussion of how obviously toxic your behavior is.
I think you’d benefit by taking a look at this article with some introspection.