Dean of Students Brags About Bringing in LGBTQ+ to Teach "Queer Sex" to minors
- Thread starter ziggy
- Start date
Personally?
The day I take ANYTHING on a chat forum 'personally'?
Let alone from a mentally-disturbed person like Dutch Uncle or an emotional, light weight like you?
Is the day I hope I put a bullet in my brain.
And 'no'.
Those are not 'ad hominem's' because:
a) you brought it up.
And b) I sincerely, believe them.
I come to chat forum's for the following: kill time, teach, learn, pick on trolls (in no order).
Now...back to my question that you are clearly avoiding:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ueer-Sex-quot-to-minors&p=5402660#post5402660
Last edited:
Let's try again:
Dutch Uncle typed the following:
'I doubt you and any five Trumpers on JPP could afford to put a single student through 12 years of schooling there even if you pooled all of your lunch money.'
'ad hominem
1 of 2
adjective
ad ho·mi·nem (ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem -nəm
1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
an ad hominem argument
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem
You inferred the sentence was NOT an ad hominem.
Now...prove it...if you can?
Okay.
There are few obvious points:
1. Ziggy is a "bot" that does hit and run posts with no participation at all.
2. His threads always contain nothing but tweets as evidenced in the OP.
3. The ad hominem (literally "to the person") was not directed at you but to the JPP "Trumpers" in general.
4. It is very likely that Dutch Uncle is correct in his assessment. I doubt there is any JPP "Trumper" who can afford sending their children to that elite school.
5. Ziggy rarely ever responds to anyone in "his" (that is if he is even a person) threads.
So therefore it is not an ad hominem.
Personally?
The day I take ANYTHING on a chat forum 'personally'?
Is the day I hope I put a bullet in my brain.
Now...back to my question that you keeping avoiding.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ueer-Sex-quot-to-minors&p=5402660#post5402660
Yes you made it a point to call it ad hominem when it wasn't even directed at you. I thought you despite both parties?
And why are you trying to rush me? It takes time to formulate a reply even if you have the time.
Personally?
The day I take ANYTHING on a chat forum 'personally'?
Is the day I hope I put a bullet in my brain.
Now...back to my question that you keeping avoiding.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ueer-Sex-quot-to-minors&p=5402660#post5402660
Better lock and load, kid, since it's clear you are personally upset with your "ad hominem" posts.
That's a possibility. He keep saying he hates both parties. Go figure.
He lied. He's a little Trumper upset that I made a joke about other little Trumpers...and Ziggy:
No...therefore you apparently do not know what an 'ad hominem' even is.
Despite the fact the definition is staring you in the face.
Dutch Uncle typed the following:
'I doubt you and any five Trumpers on JPP could afford to put a single student through 12 years of schooling there even if you pooled all of your lunch money.'
True or False?
Dutch Uncle's sentence in question was: 'marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.'
True or False?
One - the word is 'despise'. Not 'despite'.
I 'despise' both parties.
Two - Because I don't like seeing people attack others without cause.
Whether I respect the person they are attacking or not.
Three - Rush you?
You made the statement that I did not know what an 'ad hominem' was (inferring the Dutch Uncle's sentence was not an 'ad hominem').
You MUST have already decided why Dutch Uncle's statement was not an ad hominem (unless you were just trolling).
How can you need time to formulate an answer when you were the one who made the statement in the first place?
Apparently you overlooked my points. I doubt Ziggy is even a real person.
True.
In order for it to be true, it would have to be a false statement or the poster would have to be a real person. And he did not direct it to any particular poster.
Correct. You do not know what it means. It literally means "to the person". It means DIRECTLY TO YOU.
And yes you said I was avoiding your question. So that is an ad hominem.
Nope I do not admit that. And I still see that you are avoiding addressing the points.
In order for it to be an ad hominem attack, you have to show that Ziggy is a real person and not a bot and that Dutch Uncle's statement was directed at any particular poster. Also show that it is a false accusation.
That is your pathetic way of wriggling out of the obvious, mistake you made?
That is in Latin.
The English definition is the one we (and you) - who use the English language - use.
And yes you said I was avoiding your question. So that is an ad hominem.
Nope.
I posted the question.
You quoted my post - yet COMPLETELY ignored the question.
Though hardly a factual statement, I agree - it was logical to assume that you were avoiding the question.
Not an 'ad hominem'.
Oh...and I would find another hobby besides 'living on chat forums'...were I you.
It looks pretty pathetic, imo.
Try exercise?
Or 'making friends'.
And no - that was not an 'ad hominem'.
It was a sincere observation.
Along with advice.
Now...we are done here (in this thread).
Have a nice day.
See? That's an ad hominem attack. I have already answered your question and you still doubled down on your attack.
My mistake - I was busy and misread your post.
Sorry.
I deleted the post in question.
So...you have conclusively proven that you do not know the ENGISH LANGUAGE definition of the word 'ad hominem'.
Despite the fact I posted it for you.
So noted.
BTW - an ad hominem does not need to include a 'false statement'.
Semi-amazing that with the definition...staring you in the face?
You STILL don't seem to know what an 'ad hominem' is.
Rather amazing.
Sad...but still, rather amazing.
BTW - in all seriousness?
When I saw you first replied to my post?
I debated reading it - as I was about to go and do other things - assuming that it would contain some blather that you would use to drag a conversation out of.
To try and fill the (obvious) emptiness of your life.
But...I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt (as sometimes, you do make good points).
And give it a whirl.
And...it was clearly NOT the latter.
You know what?
Again in all seriousness.
You (seem to) pretend to have good morals.
But, what you really are (imo) is just weak.
And the above IS an ad hominem.
But I mean it as advice...not as an attack.
Though you obviously will see it the latter way.
Now we are done here (in this thread).
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
You have not addressed my points, not even a single point.
Is it an ad hominem attack if the post does not come from a real person?
Oh...I added to the post.
Didn't want you to miss the good bits:
'BTW - in all seriousness?
When I saw you first replied to my post?
I debated reading it - as I was about to go and do other things - assuming that it would contain some blather that you would use to drag a conversation out of.
To try and fill the (obvious) emptiness of your life.
But...I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt (as sometimes, you do make good points).
And give it a whirl.
And...it was clearly NOT the latter.
It was (almost) a complete, waste of time.
You know what?
Again in all seriousness.
You (seem to) pretend to have decent morals.
But, what you really are (imo), is just weak.'
And the above IS an ad hominem.
But I mean it as advice...not as an attack.
Though you obviously will see it the latter way.
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
Yup...because u always have to stand with the perverts