- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 82,052
- Reaction score
- 19,731
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
it's second hand because the superintendent isn't here telling you this that's what I meant you can say that's not what I meant but how would you knowYou used the wrong word a few times. It also isn't a second hand eyewitness account, it is a firsthand eyewitness account. The superintendent personally witnessed the failure of the subject to wear a mask, and also claims through firsthand knowledge they didn't see anyone else not wearing a mask.
actually I don't imply anything. The eyewitness account is what it is. Belief is irrelevant. I won't admit to ad hominem I will admit to being hyperbolic. I don't think that I implied that it was delusional to someone is giving accurate testimony. In fact I was told that I was delusional I never implied anybody else was delusional. Blind face is not a synonym with delusion. I do admit that it was hyperbolic and perhaps too much so. But then again I'm dealing with hostile people and I tend not to treat them with respect.I will gladly point them out in your post, and explain them for you. If you continue to attempt to claim logical superiority, maybe become more familiar with them so you don't keep making these errors.
Quoting you: "I'm not delusional because I lack blind Faith in some clown that isn't even here...
...You presented hearsay, hearsay isn't evidence"
The red is both a sweeping generalization, and an ad hominem. It is a sweeping generalization because you imply everyone who does accept the firsthand eyewitness account all believe the same wrong thing for no good reason, and it's an ad hominem because in so doing makes them delusional and relying on faith to hold their position. Both of those claims are attacks on the character of your opponent, not their argument. And then you go on to accidentally misuse hearsay 2 more times.
So I didn't attack anyone's character so I don't agree and I don't admit to ad hominem, and you haven't sold me on the generalization thing.
Is it whichever way you like. I'm not going to contest your opinions it doesn't matter to me.I don't see you holding feet to fire, more like just stomping yours while using the pseudointellectual equivalent to "nuh uh!"