Anyone who spends as much time in front of a camera, with as many people looking to discredit them for political reasons, is bound to have some clip that can be twisted or interpreted in a negative light.
Most people have, at some point in their life, snapped at someone when they shouldn’t have. Most people do not spend a significant portion of their waking hours in front of a camera with a ton of people actively trying to discredit them for political reasons.
Now, having answered that, you answer me. Why are you more preoccupied with this idea that some streamer may have (definitely didn’t) shocked a dog, than you are about all the animals that you pay to have tortured and killed?
I can tell you why. Because you know that a dog makes for worse PR. There is no moral component to it for you whatsoever, it’s shamelessly bad faith.
And I’m allowed to point out facts about you that prove you’re speaking in bad faith. Why would I not be allowed to point out your hypocrisy? What, are you going to call it ad hominem? Kinda difficult when that’s the whole point of your false accusation about Hasan, but then again, we both know how shamelessly hypocritical you are.
No you talked about me. You created something between a straw man and an ad hominem.
Lmao! You actually did call it ad hominem! That’s hilarious. If ad hominems aren’t allowed, then drop this entire ad hominem against Hasan.
At least my “ad hominem” is actually true. Yours is pure slander.
Answer what her his knee jerk reaction was to insult his dog and not check on it?
Pretty clear question.
I did, twice:
Anyone who spends as much time in front of a camera, with as many people looking to discredit them for political reasons, is bound to have some clip that can be twisted or interpreted in a negative light.
Most people have, at some point in their life, snapped at someone when they shouldn’t have. Most people do not spend a significant portion of their waking hours in front of a camera with a ton of people actively trying to discredit them for political reasons.
Pretty clear answer.
Now answer mine. Why do you care more about this dog than all the animals you have killed for you?
Again, you are talking about ME. I’m over this. There’s nothing I can say to get it through to know that you are admitting you have an indefensible position, by you refusing to defend it. Until you learn how to answer a question without first trying to discredit your opponent, a huge debate fallacy btw, then there’s nothing I wish too continue arguing with you about.
I’m allowed to talk about you for the same reason you’re allowed to talk about Hasan. You’re trying to attack his character to discredit him, and I’m just pointing out the inconsistencies of your stated beliefs.
Even ignoring all the blatant lying and bad faith you’re doing, fundamentally you’re more guilty of ad hominem, because I’m attacking your ideas while you’re only attacking character.
I already did:
Most people have, at some point in their life, snapped at someone when they shouldn’t have. Most people do not spend a significant portion of their waking hours in front of a camera with a ton of people actively trying to discredit them for political reasons.
Now, having answered that, you answer me. Why are you more preoccupied with this idea that some streamer may have (definitely didn’t) shocked a dog, than you are about all the animals that you pay to have tortured and killed?
I can tell you why. Because you know that a dog makes for worse PR. There is no moral component to it for you whatsoever, it’s shamelessly bad faith.
And I’m allowed to point out facts about you that prove you’re speaking in bad faith. Why would I not be allowed to point out your hypocrisy? What, are you going to call it ad hominem? Kinda difficult when that’s the whole point of your false accusation about Hasan, but then again, we both know how shamelessly hypocritical you are.
No you talked about me. You created something between a straw man and an ad hominem.
Answer what her his knee jerk reaction was to insult his dog and not check on it?
Pretty clear question.
Lmao! You actually did call it ad hominem! That’s hilarious. If ad hominems aren’t allowed, then drop this entire ad hominem against Hasan.
At least my “ad hominem” is actually true. Yours is pure slander.
I did, twice:
Pretty clear answer.
Now answer mine. Why do you care more about this dog than all the animals you have killed for you?
Again, you are talking about ME. I’m over this. There’s nothing I can say to get it through to know that you are admitting you have an indefensible position, by you refusing to defend it. Until you learn how to answer a question without first trying to discredit your opponent, a huge debate fallacy btw, then there’s nothing I wish too continue arguing with you about.
I’m allowed to talk about you for the same reason you’re allowed to talk about Hasan. You’re trying to attack his character to discredit him, and I’m just pointing out the inconsistencies of your stated beliefs.
Even ignoring all the blatant lying and bad faith you’re doing, fundamentally you’re more guilty of ad hominem, because I’m attacking your ideas while you’re only attacking character.
You’re losing and you know it
At least I didn’t shock my dog. I’m cool with the downvotes from you braincels, at least I can look myself in the mirror and sleep at night.