Literally my whole point is you brought it up out of nowhere and you’re embarrassing behavior doubling down in hilarious. I have nothing to say about geo politics in this thread. I’m staying on topic here.
Are you afraid of weed or something? I don’t smoke much and some of the smartest engineers I know smoke a ton. That’s a really weird ad hominem that doesn’t even make sense
Good morning, sunshine. Weed wear off yet or did you already start up again?
I have no problem with weed any more than I do some light social alcohol versus someone who makes it their live or drives under the influence. Similarly arguing under the influence is a no no. Smartest engineers I know definitely aren’t coming to work stoned or drunk, but maybe you and I have different standards?
Now I know raising Trump really triggered you for some reason — as I said, most would either just ignore that remark or go, “Yeah Trump would’ve definitely botched the crisis” — but let’s get back to the point:
Yes or No — would Trump have botched the deescalation of the CMC relative to JFK? Who would you prefer in that moment of crisis? Try not to deviate too wildly now, buddy ;)
Yeah Trump would’ve definitely botched the crisis, but no one was talking about him. I don’t understand how you can be so embarrassing ignorant. Like, you’re devastating to have on your side in an argument. You brought him up out of nowhere as a strawman
Similarly arguing under the influence is a no no.
Look up the definition of ad hominem bud cause you clearly fundamentally don’t understand what you’re doing. You can’t discredit an argument by attacking the speaker no matter how hard you try, it’s a fallacy. You can absolutely argue in any state you want and if the argument has merit it has merit.
let’s get back to the point
Jesus Christ you are just too fucking stupid to know what’s going on. I’m having a hard time believing you’re real right now. Once again my entire point is that you brought Trump up out of nowhere. What isn’t subjective. And that being a straw man is also not subjective. The point is not subjective. You’re so fucking weird.
“No one” was? News to me that I wasn’t talking about him. We weren’t talking about JFK either until I brought him up as well but I don’t hear you bitching about that, do I? lol… Do you not understand how comment threads work?
Look up the definition of ad hominem bud cause you clearly fundamentally don’t understand what you’re doing. You can’t discredit an argument by attacking the speaker no matter how hard you try, it’s a fallacy. You can absolutely argue in any state you want and if the argument has merit it has merit.
Funny enough, I have a literal poster beside me with the definition. This is not it, buddy. You can definitely recognize someone in an altered mental state not thinking straight when rational thought is not yet possible. It’s like trying to get through to someone in an insane asylum. At some point, it becomes fair to wonder if someone is in the right state of mind before proceeding. Ever try to argue with a drunkard while sober? lol!
I can discredit the argument when I won on substance and now you move to deflection and irrational thought.
Jesus Christ you are just too fucking stupid to know what’s going on. I’m having a hard time believing you’re real right now. Once again my entire point is that you brought Trump up out of nowhere. What isn’t subjective. And that being a straw man is also not subjective. The point is not subjective. You’re so fucking weird.
Now that’s an Ad Hominem! I see you practice what you preach, is that right buddy?
Once again I raised JFK out of nowhere yet I don’t see you crying, moping, seething over that — funny how that is?
I’ll raise Trump a thousand more times if it pisses you off this much with glee. Ironically, you still couldn’t get back to the point LOL.
Anyways, this has been amusing. Bystander audience sees you lost so I rest my case.
I will graciously oblige you with the final response.
Ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Similarly arguing under the influence is a no no.
Funny enough, I have a literal poster beside me with the definition
I don’t doubt that for a second. You clearly don’t absorb information in front of you
Now that’s an Ad Hominem!
That’s me trying to reason how you can possibly be this consistently ignorant, it’s not my argument in the way you trying to say “you’re just stoned so you’re argument isn’t valid”. Read your poster.
Once again I raised JFK out of nowhere
You can’t be serious. Do you even know what a strawman is? You weren’t imposing that on someone’s argument when you did. How can you not see how fundamentally different that is?
I’ll raise Trump a thousand more times if it pisses you off this much with glee
Go for it, I’ll agree with it if when it fits the context. I hate Trump. I hate strawman arguments even more and I’m disappointed in this echo chamber that enables you
I will graciously oblige you with the final response. You’ll need it.
God damn school must have been rough on you edge lord
Oh you little flippant stoner anarchist, you ;)
Still triggered about the mention of Trump, I see. Is he like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named to you or something? Hahahah
How about you just step aside from the geopolitics for a few more years and just enjoy your bong a little bit longer, buddy?
Literally my whole point is you brought it up out of nowhere and you’re embarrassing behavior doubling down in hilarious. I have nothing to say about geo politics in this thread. I’m staying on topic here.
Are you afraid of weed or something? I don’t smoke much and some of the smartest engineers I know smoke a ton. That’s a really weird ad hominem that doesn’t even make sense
Good morning, sunshine. Weed wear off yet or did you already start up again?
I have no problem with weed any more than I do some light social alcohol versus someone who makes it their live or drives under the influence. Similarly arguing under the influence is a no no. Smartest engineers I know definitely aren’t coming to work stoned or drunk, but maybe you and I have different standards?
Now I know raising Trump really triggered you for some reason — as I said, most would either just ignore that remark or go, “Yeah Trump would’ve definitely botched the crisis” — but let’s get back to the point:
Yes or No — would Trump have botched the deescalation of the CMC relative to JFK? Who would you prefer in that moment of crisis? Try not to deviate too wildly now, buddy ;)
Yeah Trump would’ve definitely botched the crisis, but no one was talking about him. I don’t understand how you can be so embarrassing ignorant. Like, you’re devastating to have on your side in an argument. You brought him up out of nowhere as a strawman
Look up the definition of ad hominem bud cause you clearly fundamentally don’t understand what you’re doing. You can’t discredit an argument by attacking the speaker no matter how hard you try, it’s a fallacy. You can absolutely argue in any state you want and if the argument has merit it has merit.
Jesus Christ you are just too fucking stupid to know what’s going on. I’m having a hard time believing you’re real right now. Once again my entire point is that you brought Trump up out of nowhere. What isn’t subjective. And that being a straw man is also not subjective. The point is not subjective. You’re so fucking weird.
“No one” was? News to me that I wasn’t talking about him. We weren’t talking about JFK either until I brought him up as well but I don’t hear you bitching about that, do I? lol… Do you not understand how comment threads work?
Funny enough, I have a literal poster beside me with the definition. This is not it, buddy. You can definitely recognize someone in an altered mental state not thinking straight when rational thought is not yet possible. It’s like trying to get through to someone in an insane asylum. At some point, it becomes fair to wonder if someone is in the right state of mind before proceeding. Ever try to argue with a drunkard while sober? lol!
I can discredit the argument when I won on substance and now you move to deflection and irrational thought.
Now that’s an Ad Hominem! I see you practice what you preach, is that right buddy?
Once again I raised JFK out of nowhere yet I don’t see you crying, moping, seething over that — funny how that is?
I’ll raise Trump a thousand more times if it pisses you off this much with glee. Ironically, you still couldn’t get back to the point LOL.
Anyways, this has been amusing. Bystander audience sees you lost so I rest my case.
I will graciously oblige you with the final response.
You’ll need it.
Ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
I don’t doubt that for a second. You clearly don’t absorb information in front of you
That’s me trying to reason how you can possibly be this consistently ignorant, it’s not my argument in the way you trying to say “you’re just stoned so you’re argument isn’t valid”. Read your poster.
You can’t be serious. Do you even know what a strawman is? You weren’t imposing that on someone’s argument when you did. How can you not see how fundamentally different that is?
Go for it, I’ll agree with it if when it fits the context. I hate Trump. I hate strawman arguments even more and I’m disappointed in this echo chamber that enables you
God damn school must have been rough on you edge lord