See, you still show no evidence you have any clue what I’m saying, so how can I take you seriously? I never said it is “like droping hard Rs”. Seriously, get up to speed or get lost.
Here’s an actual, completely serious input for you: If you want people to take you seriously and actually engage, don’t start by comparing them to outspoken racists. People will prefer to roast you
I’m not. I didn’t realise people would be so confused by analogies.
I compared the rhetoric. That’s the point of such devices. You don’t have to be a racist to use similar logic to them.
This isn’t complicated whatsoever.
The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.
Explain how the comparison is “dumbass”, or admit you’re just wrong.
Anyone can just make claims without justifying them. I claim trees speak German. I will elaborate no further!
pretend I’m smart by invoking latin shit too:
Um, you think that’s all I was doing there? Just saying random Latin?
You do realise this is just… you admitting you don’t know what reductio ad absurdum is?
And you’re acting like that proves anything other than that you’re ill-equipped to discuss rhetoric?
I’ll explain: reductio ad absurdum is a common rhetorical device whereby you take someone’s logic, and apply it to the most extreme example, to show how the logic fails. It literally means “reduction to the absurd”.
Here’s an example:
What you just did now? Saying “I can invoke random Latin shit”? That’s like you, in court, objecting to a lawyer using the term “mens rea”, and saying they’re just “invoking latin shit”, because you don’t realise it is in fact a common term in that context, and instead think they’re just showing off.
Did you just describe what I did in a reductive way, without even attempting to explain your point? Why should I listen to you?
Try attacking the idea itself: “You’re just kicking the can down the road. It’s the exact same idea, phrased differently.”
“That’s reductive”, said the N-word comparer 💀💀
Attack the argument or accept that you’re wrong.
“Small dick energy” is just a way to say “small dick” without getting called out for it.
Begging people to debate you about how saying small dick energy is like dropping hard Rs is the most small dick energy thing I can think of, no thanks
See, you still show no evidence you have any clue what I’m saying, so how can I take you seriously? I never said it is “like droping hard Rs”. Seriously, get up to speed or get lost.
Here’s an actual, completely serious input for you: If you want people to take you seriously and actually engage, don’t start by comparing them to outspoken racists. People will prefer to roast you
I’m not. I didn’t realise people would be so confused by analogies.
I compared the rhetoric. That’s the point of such devices. You don’t have to be a racist to use similar logic to them.
This isn’t complicated whatsoever.
The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.
How deep are you willing to go before you admit you made a dumbass comparison?
Look, I can pretend I’m smart by invoking latin shit too: adversus solem ne loquitor
Explain how the comparison is “dumbass”, or admit you’re just wrong.
Anyone can just make claims without justifying them. I claim trees speak German. I will elaborate no further!
Um, you think that’s all I was doing there? Just saying random Latin?
You do realise this is just… you admitting you don’t know what reductio ad absurdum is?
And you’re acting like that proves anything other than that you’re ill-equipped to discuss rhetoric?
I’ll explain: reductio ad absurdum is a common rhetorical device whereby you take someone’s logic, and apply it to the most extreme example, to show how the logic fails. It literally means “reduction to the absurd”.
Here’s an example:
What you just did now? Saying “I can invoke random Latin shit”? That’s like you, in court, objecting to a lawyer using the term “mens rea”, and saying they’re just “invoking latin shit”, because you don’t realise it is in fact a common term in that context, and instead think they’re just showing off.
Ooh, name calling! Based on a willful misinterpretation of what they said, too. A sure sign of a solid argument!