Well, we are not expecting you to go through all of the posts on the forum, but perhaps a sensible analysis of just the posts on the thread that you are choosing to comment on would be optimal. It seems unlikely that a time constraint would consistently lead to your sole selection of our posts only that need to be criticized especially where there are higher frequency and higher density of other users on those thread using ONLY ad hominem attacks that are not even mixed among/based upon valid and irrefutable points. It is not impossible that a time constraint could result in such selective or randomly allocated criticism ending on our doorstep alone, but each time that it does pass over everyone else and does land on our door step alone it becomes increasingly improbable that could be the sole explanation.
This paragraph was constructed due to a miscommunication.
If I had both the free time and the desire to go through all posts and extract only the non-ad-hominem fragments of the replies, then I would do so. The latter is the bigger factor in this.
Also I don't believe that our comment meets the threshold for not as bad fallacy in this instance.
Unless you want to twist meaningless semantics, there are no partial fallacies. The idea of a threshold should be no different than "is" or "isn't" - a binary state.
statements are not strictly ad hominem when you take the full context of the thread
Depending on how you define 'ad hominem' you could falsify this point by attacking a premise. Nevertheless, I shall state: you should not see a non-quoted statement that is a character attack, to then subsequently change your opinion and decide that it is in fact not a character attack, once you uncover preceding events.
How would context make the following remarks
not ad-hominem?
- chode
- mutated tourettes
- filthy dirty skanky scammers
- degenerate asskissing servile scummy scam supporters
- disgusting shit stain ass kissing scammer supporters
- scum bags
- observably low functioning plebs
- Turd world desperate scum bags
- Morons
- idiots
- filthy gambling sig spamming scammer supporting fucking loser
- public tman ass feltcher
- shit pumpers
- turd word scanks
- dregs
- Tourettes poet
- terrified little scamming bitch
- imbecile and useful idiot
- all that you splurge out here as if it is moronic spew
- lauda ass feltchers
- dirty little scumbag club
- Shut up scum bag
- dirt bags
- the rest of their useful idiots could still make it out
- smarmacist a sneaky snake like fool
- Get on with it scabby little exit scamming exchange pusher
- you and your scamming pals
- Got to love the defense here by these scumbags
- agent foxpoop
- agent foxpoop
- foxpooping
- foxpoop
- agent foxpoop
- foxpoop
- foxpoop
- foxpoop
- agent foxpoop
- agent foxpoop
- foxpoop
- agent foxpoop
- agent foxpoop
- agent foxpoop
- agent foxpoop
- foxpoop
- foxpoop
- foxpoop
- Foxpoop
- foxpooping
- agent foxpoop
- foxpooping
- agent foxpoop
- foxpooper
- foxpoop
- FOXPOOP
- foxpoop
- foxpoops
- agent foxpoop
- direwolf supports tmans tourettes syndrome [...] Direposting assfeltching burger flipping dreg that he is.
And then once you answer that...
Refer to my post's comment about "two wrongs don't make a right".
I'm not even sure that one can say that calling a skunk a skunk is an attack anyway, no more than calling an undeniable scammer and undeniable scammer
Refer to the above for examples of non-scammer insults and attacks.
especially when discussing skunks being present in places they have no business being and scammers being in places they have no business being.
s
nideonly that your points seems to lack the accuracy and indisputable relevance and strength [...] [t]herefore the impact can be seen to be reduced or even nulled in full.
A single point, an individual conclusion... it is either true or false.
So that is what we meant by not as bad, perhaps not as applicable, not as relevant, not as clear cut, not as indefensible etc.
These are justifications, are they not? If they were not justifications, it would be not
as bad. An objective statement as opposed to a subjective statement. This is simply downplaying severity, which is on a binary scale.
We appreciate ad hominem is ad hominem, we simply dispute that post is clear cut as adhominem in the full context.
Addressed above.
Certainly you would have less problem presenting your point as clearly and undeniably valid with many other posts here by other members.
That is true but this has already been addressed in the first post.
Or even just for a change to mix things up a bit with a view to being neutral and all of that kind of thing.
Neutrality does not necessarily mean addressing both sides equally.
I have no idea why you do not just join with the debate.
I have better things to do.
Or again it could be a time constraint or lack of interest. Those are certainly possibilities.
Yes.
As we say we have no direct issue with you actmyname, and are always willing to be cordial and fair. We ask the same.
I have always been fair. Blunt and fair.
Show Posts
