>>2867>Lets say for the moment that all of what you posted is consistent with the evidence
Oh boy. This.
Did you not see the threads they openly raided and shat up? Did you not notice their shit, even when I rubbed your face in it and told you to wake up?>"the squeaky wheel gets the kick?"
You're going to blame-shift, aren't you. You're going to claim that because I don't like this board's insect infestation, I should pay for the exterminator. You know what? At this point, if I was made an admin or moderator, I'd be willing to do the clicking.>I find it curious that you object to strawman-ing, and are vehement about buzzwords,… except when composing your entire argument.
I find it curious that you never seem to realize "U hate buzzwords, but u hate words, and u use words too!" is a bad argument. You can use a "Buzzword" as a buzzword, or as a real word. Life isn't black and white, and while I'm not pure white, you're black. You're black, and that's a genuine problem. You are supporting a bad group of stupid people, and this group of stupid people share incorrect beliefs, whether "Ironically" or not. You are attacking me because you want to protect yourself and your group from me, but you aren't intelligent enough or honest enough to debate me, as you have demonstrated. Just look at all the weasel-words here!>At no point have you even considered the volume of legitimate criticisms that effectively counter and defeat your arguments, you instead resort to the very ad hominems which you have/can also be seen liberally employing.
Objectively false, and at this point, that's all you deserve. But I'm feeling generous, so I'll elaborate.
Look in the "Objective Glimmer discussion thread". I bring up good points and arguments against Glimmer. Others do the same. We wait. Glimmerniggers show up and start whinging, just like you, right now.
You can't argue against my reasons for not liking Glimmer, because I'm right, and you know it. You can't argue against my reasons for not liking Muslims, because I'm right, and you know it. You can't argue against my reasons for not liking Glimmerniggers, because I'm right, and you know it. You're attacking me as hard as you can, but all you're doing is getting more mud on your face.
If I was wrong about Glimmer, you would be able to argue against my arguments without needing to resort to ad hominems, lies, and dishonesty. If I was wrong about Glimmerniggers, you would be able to argue against my arguments without needing to resort to ad hominems, lies, and dishonesty.>This statement is so fallacious in so many ways that I have to highlight it. Strawmen much? Ad hominem much? Authoritarian with no authority much?
No. Calling shit shit isn't a strawman. A strawman is when you turn someone's argument into a parody of itself, then defeat it.
Like you, right now, claiming I want rules against shitposting, and that what I hate is really only just shitposting. Yes, that's a strawman. You're strawmanning me. And calling shit shit isn't an ad hominem when I've given it chance after chance to prove itself to be more than shit. Finally, "Authoritarian with no authority" sounds like something the communists that call themselves libertarian to feel enlightened say to each other to mock people with the dreaded authoritarian beliefs and unironic thoughts for not having enough power to send you to the gas chambers. If you really consider your own insults against people you can't argue against an argument... You don't belong here.
P.S. That isn't how you highlight the flaws in someone's argument. You don't just >lememetext a line and then spout the names of logical fallacies like they're buzzwords, and you don't just bitch about everything someone said and hope you annoy the opponent into submission. Want to know how to do highlight the flaws in someone's argument? Read my posts and learn from them, since I'm clearly pretty good at breaking down fallacious arguments like yours. Step one: Actually elaborate, and explain why your opponent is wrong.
You clearly just want this to go on, and on, and on until Admins get as tired of reading our posts as the general userbase is of you. So, how about this? Either your next post contains FOUR(4) rational and well-thought-out arguments, or I refuse to reply to it.