It might explain the incoherent, self-contradictory worldview and inability to construct logical arguments that don't end up purporting that 2 + 2=5 for some values of 2. Not that you ever realize it, even when it's specifically pointed out to you. Oh well. Really, I do hope your main job is tennis coach, and secondary function is study hall bull session monitor.
Silly twit. What's ad hominem got to do with anything? Not only am I not attempting to refute anything you said, I'm agreeing with you that you may have far too many tabs open in your little mind to actually understand much, like a hyper-active, crack-addled weasel. And what's tu quoque got to do with anything? Was the point of this post to attack something or someone, and am I defending them by saying "You (or your side) do it, too"? Please also explain how this is a genetic fallacy? I'm agreeing with you! Oh wait. Maybe that's it.
Your using alleged personal characteristics to supposedly prove that I don't know what I am talking about. It's the fall back position when you don't like the evidence presented on a particular issue.
BTW, your link is used by Stephanie Miller all the time. Surprised that you are ripping off a liberal gag.
What was the issue here? What was the evidence presented here by you that you think I'm dismissing? Or are you now claiming not to be woman? Shirley, you jest!
Why should I care who else uses a link? If I did care, wouldn't that be the genetic fallacy in action? I'd never even heard of her before now. Oh, I see, 44 stations nationwide. No wonder.
6 comments:
It might explain the incoherent, self-contradictory worldview and inability to construct logical arguments that don't end up purporting that 2 + 2=5 for some values of 2. Not that you ever realize it, even when it's specifically pointed out to you. Oh well. Really, I do hope your main job is tennis coach, and secondary function is study hall bull session monitor.
Well, lets see...ad hom, ad hom tu quoque, straw man, genetic fallacy...Impressive, Larry.
For your next trick, I'd like to see you make an argument without resorting to a genetic fallacy.
Silly twit. What's ad hominem got to do with anything? Not only am I not attempting to refute anything you said, I'm agreeing with you that you may have far too many tabs open in your little mind to actually understand much, like a hyper-active, crack-addled weasel. And what's tu quoque got to do with anything? Was the point of this post to attack something or someone, and am I defending them by saying "You (or your side) do it, too"? Please also explain how this is a genetic fallacy? I'm agreeing with you! Oh wait. Maybe that's it.
You fail. Again.
Your using alleged personal characteristics to supposedly prove that I don't know what I am talking about. It's the fall back position when you don't like the evidence presented on a particular issue.
BTW, your link is used by Stephanie Miller all the time. Surprised that you are ripping off a liberal gag.
What was the issue here? What was the evidence presented here by you that you think I'm dismissing? Or are you now claiming not to be woman? Shirley, you jest!
Why should I care who else uses a link? If I did care, wouldn't that be the genetic fallacy in action? I'd never even heard of her before now. Oh, I see, 44 stations nationwide. No wonder.
Your using alleged personal characteristics to supposedly prove that I don't know what I am talking about.
I think you meant "observed" where you put "alleged".
You provide all the proof that you don't know what you are talking about - it doesn't require anything from anyone else.
Post a Comment