You're right, I am a bit of a dumb ass, I'll give you that.
It is in our culture to call each other names like that down here in a friendly way e.g. hey cunt, or bloody wanker. I don't believe this is in your culture to do this, so I doubt that you are extending me the same respect I have shown you. If you are doing so, you are appropriating my Australian culture lol;)
So far you have used:
-a lie/misrepresentation of the description of an ad hominem to claim it legitimate.
-an ad hominem fallacy
-a strawman fallacy
-argumentum ad infinitum (repeated both the strawman and ad hominem)
-Tu quoque (or you too fallacy)
You have inadvertantly made:
-argument from ignorance (no one can prove it so therefore not true)
-shifting the burden of proof
You have done this on a personal platform of truth and logic, and a claim of fact and not a question of opinion. For this reason, anything else you say on that matter can be legitimately disregarded as illogical nonsense (and requiring scrutiny), on the basis of your historical use of logical fallacies. In other words, you have tried to use logical fallacies to demonstrate how logical you are.
No because your question indicates that you didnt read the thread. I don't know what you're talkin about in the above comment.
If you had read it you wouldn't need to ask this:
The above is a strawman; I argued that their "roles" can be determined on a case by case basis, as the example given was regarding their occupations.
You're right, I am a bit of a dumb ass, I'll give you that.
It is in our culture to call each other names like that down here in a friendly way e.g. hey cunt, or bloody wanker. I don't believe this is in your culture to do this, so I doubt that you are extending me the same respect I have shown you. If you are doing so, you are appropriating my Australian culture lol;)
So far you have used:
-a lie/misrepresentation of the description of an ad hominem to claim it legitimate.
-an ad hominem fallacy
-a strawman fallacy
-argumentum ad infinitum (repeated both the strawman and ad hominem)
-Tu quoque (or you too fallacy)
You have inadvertantly made:
-argument from ignorance (no one can prove it so therefore not true)
-shifting the burden of proof
You have done this on a personal platform of truth and logic, and a claim of fact and not a question of opinion. For this reason, anything else you say on that matter can be legitimately disregarded as illogical nonsense (and requiring scrutiny), on the basis of your historical use of logical fallacies. In other words, you have tried to use logical fallacies to demonstrate how logical you are.
That's how you legitimately use an ad hominem.
