Trans people & sports

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol, you mean the one where you couldn't even correctly say what a strawman was?

No... I meant the one where you couldn't get any of the fallacies right, said your logic is "perfect" and embarassed yourself with your poor logic, poor knowledge of logical fallacies, your high regard for the Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies (certainly not the best source...) and the fact you were making a thread about how super butthurt you were whenever other people point out your logical fallacies.

And how you didn't understand that logical fallacies ARE important to formal debates.

Every argument you get into is a bunch of logical fallacies and ignoring of points.

You can't even define or recognize logical fallacies so it's no surprise you think 'every argument' I get into is a 'bunch of logical fallacies' when actually my logic is very good and I am usually the one pointing out the fallacies and when someone does accuse me of a fallacy it tends to result in me correcting them and explaining to them why it's a misapplication (most commonly the NTS fallacy which is very commonly understood... or people assuming you're making an argument from ignorance even when you're not... and people conflating biases with logical fallacies when they're not the same thing).

And I can ignore as many points as I want. I tend to ignore the illogical stupid shit when I'm tired of it sometimes. I only focus on it when it's fun to do so... because otherwise pointing out the stupid shit would get kind of boring if it wasn't fun.

When you can't address a point, like the obvious advantage of being trans is a combat sport, where people's health and safety is at risk, you just start insulting.

I can't address a point? You're the one who ignored me when I actually DID make an argument and when I told you about the thread where you embarassed yourself with your poor logical fallacies you responded by asking me if I meant the one when I misdefined a strawman fallacy... which I didn't do but even if I did it's still a case of you not denying your embarassing yourself with your terrible understanding of logical fallacies all over that thread.

I would tell you to read up on logical fallacies but you already have done... but you're clearly not smart enough to understand logical validity properly.

I am not calling you a moron because I can't deal with your argument. I don't have to deal with an argument that doesn't exist. You didn't make an argument you asserted bigotry... I made an argument as to why it was bigoted and you ignored it.

Saying that you can ignore my points because of so and so insult is the very definition of a Ad-hominem.

1. I didn't say that.

2. That's not the definition of an Ad-Hom. I'd have to say that your argument was false because you're an idiot. Saying I can ignore your points because you're an idiot is not an Ad-Hom. Whether I can choose to ignore your points or not is not relevant.

So good job on doing it a second time. I thought that you said you liked to have your shitty logic pointed out to you because it helps you become a better person. Really you just seem super butthurt.

But either way, you are welcome.

You ignored the one time I actually used logic. You don't even understand what logical argumentation is. What logic of mine are your criticising? All you seem to be doing is saying I'm making a fallacy I never made... and ignoring the argument I actually did make.