I mean, at the limit, if they were clear in their rules that only radical leftists are allowed (which you would assume given it’s called ML - marxist leninism) it might be acceptable.
The genocide denial and masquerading as a neutral all purpose instance isn’t though.
Moving the goalpost fallacy. You wrote in your comment to which I replied that no argument can be made against pointing out that someone’s arguments contains fallacies, which is not true.
I wasn’t present as you got hurt arguing on the Internet so I couldn’t anticipate that you were up against someone who’s “entire identity was based on logical fallacies” (ad hominem).
If you think the world works like high School debate clubs, you need to head back to Ben Shapiro’s butt hit basement emporium and get back to circle jerking over pointless pedantry that never affects the meaning of a message or argument.
I was just making fun of you, since, you know, you’re just a generic right-winger using the same tactics and excuses.
Removed by mod
Okay, but debate pervert is really funny, though.
I laughed when I first read it. I still have no idea what it means.
I’ve seen people banned with “liberal” being the reason.
I mean, at the limit, if they were clear in their rules that only radical leftists are allowed (which you would assume given it’s called ML - marxist leninism) it might be acceptable.
The genocide denial and masquerading as a neutral all purpose instance isn’t though.
Removed by mod
Fallacy fallacy: only because it contains a fallacy (or a bunch) the argument isn’t necessarily void.
Still stacking fallacies isn’t usually a sign of a good and or valid argument.
It wasn’t a fallacy fallacy. Their entire argument, nay, their entire identity, was based on a foundation of logical fallacies.
And no, their argument was definitely not valid in any way.
Moving the goalpost fallacy. You wrote in your comment to which I replied that no argument can be made against pointing out that someone’s arguments contains fallacies, which is not true.
I wasn’t present as you got hurt arguing on the Internet so I couldn’t anticipate that you were up against someone who’s “entire identity was based on logical fallacies” (ad hominem).
Removed by mod
Would you be so kind as to point out the straw man in that?
And no I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, I think you apply your standards selectively.
Removed by mod
Nice set of logical fallacies in this comment, and I don’t see any citations supporting your anecdote.
I don’t see you actually countering his statement, just throwing random sentences out.
I just did what he did little buddy. There’s nothing to “counter” lil Shapiro, the world doesn’t work like that.
So, still just throwing out random sentences thinking you are making a point.
Got lots of that, too. It’s like speaking to a 4 year-old
If you think the world works like high School debate clubs, you need to head back to Ben Shapiro’s butt hit basement emporium and get back to circle jerking over pointless pedantry that never affects the meaning of a message or argument.
I was just making fun of you, since, you know, you’re just a generic right-winger using the same tactics and excuses.
Removed by mod
Child you literally complained about being called a debate pervert while being a debate pervert.
In ten years when you come back from Ben Shapiro’s sweaty ballsac, let me know
Your entire comment history reads like a cautionary tale of what happens when you deny a child the attention they crave.
This is the funniest thing I’ve ever read, lol
Stay mad, and keep fantasizing about Ben Shapiro’s sweaty ball sack