Quote:
Originally Posted by Isendor
It is also funny how you can call people fat if they're skinny as Black.
And no need to respond to ad hominem, I didn't even mean it as one (hard to even see where you ripped it off from) and I am not waiting for you to answer to an "effect" (couldn't make up a better word that I know.)
|
MISINTERPRETATION GALORE. I urge you to read my first ever post, come back to this one and change it. Or better yet, let me do that for you since you seem to have a whole lot of problems understanding what I've said.
Quote:
She still insists on spending as much time as possible showering us with her face, which incidentally, got fatter after Friday so her 25 degree angle doesn't work anymore.
Quote:
|
showering us with her face, which incidentally, got fatter after Friday
|
Quote:
|
her face, which incidentally, got fatter
|
|
HER FACE GOT FATTER. Caps lock for better reasoning.
Face =/= not a person. Holy crap.
So basically you have no argument against me, since I didn't actually call anyone fat at all. Glad to have that done and over with.
Also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isendor
Can I call you a language noobie and a pissed off kid just because your linguistic choices make you sound very rude and you show some lack of reading skills?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nikzor.org
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
|
Better? Or do you not see yet where I "ripped" the fallacy from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isendor
Woah, didn't expect you to admit such a thing, I didn't even want you to call yourself a bitch. O.o But I got what I wanted, you admitted that you were rude and you admitted that it's not right to call people by names.
|
Aw, cute. I didn't call myself a bitch. I didn't admit I was rude either. I said "I don't give a rat's ass if it was rude.", which is not actually admitting that I was rude, because I wasn't. Stating a fact =/= rudeness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isendor
Oh yeah, and your comment about us being on the Internet (oh really? :D Said that to myself) made me think of the Internets limits. I've studied these already in mediapsychology but I haven't really thought of this from the celebrities' (or anyone who's in tv) aspect: one cannot mock a neighbor in Internet, but celebs can be mocked all the time. What is it in them? The aspect of them being in spotlight?
|
Yes. It comes with the fame, so they have to deal with it. So does every celeb ass kisser.