• diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • BrooklynMan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • BrooklynMan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “I know you are but what am I” is not an effective form of debate. nor is:

          Ad hominem

          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”.