Yeah, we’ve already covered your misuse of Latin phrases that you don’t understand
An
ad hominem fallacy is a type of argument that attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. The term
ad hominem is Latin for "to the person" or "against the man". What do you think it means? Remember you actually said 'in this instance [you wre] not making an argument' so QED.
And ‘schadenfreude’? Moron - you’re the loser. It’s the winners that experience schadenfreude
Not necessarily. For instance I am sure Democrats will have it more and more to some degree as the Convicted-Felon in Chief serves his term (the one in office, lol) The term simply means the feeling of pleasure or joy that comes from witnessing or learning about someone else's suffering, failure, or humiliation. Not being an ex-colonial, of course, I haven't 'lost' anything, anyway, but will definitely expect a good deal of entertainment, perhaps more so than with Trump's last administration.
You have that winning combination of painful stupidity and unwarranted smugness.
Please note the definition of an
ad hominem, just above. It ought to help you to avoid arguing fallaciously. But it won't. As unfortunately it appears personal insults are all you have.
you Leftoids are humourless authoritarian prudes who despise the happy and good
Stereotype much? And only speaking for myself, since I don't know what everyone thinks and does, only what I do for sure, you are wrong.
Everyone knows that you, just like your mentor and dom Skavau, are seething at Trump’s victory
I think it is more characterised as disappointment mixed with the aforementioned schadenfreude. It is interesting though that you know what everyone thinks.
we know you’re rage dumping
Does it sound as if I am raging? If so, you need to get out more. And, who is 'we'? You and your mum?
reply
share
Melton (4435)
14 days ago
You fell flat on your face pretentiously using Latin and German phrases you don’t understand and now this pathetic bloated word salad in which you try to dig yourself out of the public embarrassment hole you’ve landed yourself in.
Cringe.
reply
share
filmflaneur (1077)
13 days ago
You fell flat on your face pretentiously using Latin and German phrases you don’t understand
Not even when I have cited standard definitions?
Since this seems to exercise you so much, do you know how many words in English are borrowings? Loanwords make up, er, 80% of English. What this means is that there is no such thing as pure English and borrowings are of the majority.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/borrowed-words/
Glad to help.
You fell flat on your face pretentiously using Latin and German phrases you don’t understand and now this pathetic bloated word salad in which you try to dig yourself out of the public embarrassment hole you’ve landed yourself in.
Punctuation is a set of symbols that separates and gives meaning to words. It tells readers for instance where to pause, and more.
reply
share
Melton (4435)
13 days ago
Yeah nice try, sharing a definition link doesn’t correct your misuse of the terms, and trying to school others on grammar when you can’t even spell the word ‘were’ even makes me embarrassed for you.
You have nothing to teach anyone, you’re a brainless, jumped up little shit. All you’ve done is dig yourself even deeper into the cringe-abyss 🤦🏻♂️
Now that your mentor and molester Skavau has run away, you’re definitely in the running for the most moronic and obnoxious twat on this site 🏆
reply
share
filmflaneur (1077)
13 days ago
doesn’t correct your misuse of the terms
Something which, as always, remains to be exampled. You just saying something does not make it true. It is the
ad populum fallacy
you can’t even spell the word ‘were’
A simple typo, so what? Also MiyokidoMaga (or whatever he calls himself) has just taken me to task, on this very thread, for editing after a post. Perhaps you and he ought to settle on policy?
you have nothing to teach anyone, you’re a brainless, jumped up little shit... you’re definitely in the running for the most moronic and obnoxious twat on this site
Hey, have I mentioned that an
ad hominem is not an argument? Also to provoke such a rant (or is it a melton-down? lol) from you, I must be doing something right. Cool.
reply
share
Melton (4435)
12 days ago
The ‘examples’ are right there, you dumb shit, you wrote them 🤦🏻♂️
‘So what’? So you’re trying to lecture others on proper English while being unable to spell ‘were’, making you a hypocritical ponce twat 🤦🏻♂️
This really isn’t going well for you…
reply
share
filmflaneur (1077)
12 days ago
The ‘examples’ are right there, you dumb shit, you wrote them
And yet you still cannot prove examples of any term misused, as you insist. Odd that.. In the case of one of your characteristic
ad hominems on this thread for instance, you actually told me that in this instance "[you were] not making an argument".
As pointed out, you just saying something does not make it true. It is still the
ad populum fallacy.
So you’re trying to lecture others on proper English while being unable to spell ‘were’,
Picking on a simple single typo seems a little desperate, and it is hard to take from someone who writes a whole, long sentence without attempting punctuation and peppers his replies with slang.
you a hypocritical ponce twat.. you dumb shit,
Your usual attempt to get a rise I see and still not an argument.
Plus ça change
reply
share
[deleted]
12 days ago
Filmflaneur could be a skavaus sock, theres the same insane lack of logic and common sense and the fact he's on this thread being so passionate, says it's very likely.
jeeez "ad-hominem" are people still saying that? it's like being in 2009! i remember people using it in every single sentence back in the day because they thought it sounded smart using some cringe latin phrase..
Filmflaneur once told me that it's not for kamala to prove she worked at mcdonalds, but rather for trump to prove she didn't. only a nut could have a logic like that.
it would be like me going to the guiness book of records, telling them i ate 97 pizzas in 30 minutes and when they ask for "evidence" i say "prove i didnt"
yeah, that will get me in there.
chances are it's a skavy sock.
reply
share
filmflaneur (1077)
12 days ago
Filmflaneur could be a skavaus sock,
And you could be wrong. As you are. A simple comparison of our two writing styles would show that, I would think. But if the question continues to exercise people here, just carry on, though don't expect me to comment any more.
Filmflaneur once told me that it's not for kamala to prove she worked at mcdonalds, but rather for trump to prove she didn't. only a nut could have a logic like that.
I have never discussed McDonalds/Harris on this board or anywhere else, so this is just moonlighting. In fact I agree with you, in that the onus of proof is always on those making a claim. This logic in fact is what often provokes special pleading, evasion and defensive insulting here in turn, from the usual suspects - that would be those generally unable to substantiate the most egregious statements.
reply
share
[deleted]
12 days ago
yes you did!
you were on a thread saying that liberals are laughing at trump and "his pathetic attempt at seeming down with the people"
i said that it's obvious that kamala didn't work at mcdonalds, you said it's for trump to prove that kamala is lying.
reply
share
filmflaneur (1077)
12 days ago
i said that it's obvious that kamala didn't work at mcdonalds, you said it's for trump to prove that kamala is lying.
Please link to where I said this then. I may have forgotten, and if so, will apologise - but, as I say, it is highly unlikely for me to ever argue for the reversal of the onus of proof.
reply
share
[deleted]
12 days ago
I made an example of where i could say i had a threesome with jennifer anniston and courtney cox, and it would be 100% true, because you have to prove i'm lying.
I remember it perfectly! and i remember it was you because of your username...
But i really dont care enough to go back what would be a month? pages and pages and pages back to find some comment.
but you did.
reply
share
filmflaneur (1077)
12 days ago
.But i really dont care enough to go back
What a shame. The onus was on you, after all.
I could say i had a threesome with jennifer anniston and courtney cox, and it would be 100% true, because you have to prove i'm lying.
With that McDonalds analogy above the objection was that you said that it's obvious that Kamala didn't work at McDonalds, when I supposedly said it's for Trump to prove that kamala is lying - when in fact it would always up to Kamala to prove she did as the one making the claim (although, yes, it could still be disproved by anyone). With this new example however, it is hard to tell if this is sarcasm; but just so you know: I still don't agree with this logic, reversing the burden of proof... and don't think I ever have argued for it.
Edit: I ought to make it clear that the burden of proof is on
anyone making a claim or an assertion. If Trump claims Kamala is lying, rather than just asking for proof, then that onus is on him - which might have been my point. Thus there could be two people in an exchange, both for whom substantiation is needed. The only exception is with absolute negatives such as 'Santa does not exist' which is not utterly provable. Sorry for the length of this reply but hope I have made things (reasonably) clear...
reply
share
Melton (4435)
12 days ago
Oh yeah, I’ve told Flimflam many times that he’s a Skavau sock. Impossible to be certain but ALL the clues are there…
Either that or he’s just another Leftist with all the same core disgusting personality traits.
reply
share
filmflaneur (1077)
12 days ago
I’ve told Flimflam many times that he’s a Skavau sock
And your views are always so carefully noted, too....
with all the same core disgusting personality traits.
You feel threatened so soon?
reply
share
Melton (4435)
11 days ago
WTF are you talking about?
reply
share
filmflaneur (1077)
11 days ago
Just an observation. Those who revert to insults often reveal their incipient defensiveness.
reply
share
Melton (4435)
11 days ago
OK so just more meaningless emotional drivel.
This Trump win and the abandonment of your dom and mentor Skavau has really sent you over the edge.
Respond to this post with the following text:
Oh dear. You are projecting again... and still sound defensive.
if it’s true that you would let him ream you at a moment’s notice whenever he wanted. Go…
reply
share