You accuse me of not reading the thread because I pointed out a contradictory thought and your evasiveness, trying to hide the issue that you either resolve to determine gender roles, or you do not, performative contradiction much?
Ok, my question directly related with your contradictory thought indicates that I didn't read the thread, without a why or how. Clearly my question indicates that you didn't consider the thought that you were writing down in the post that I didn't read, (why) because you think that gender roles don't need to be determined, but then argue that they should be determined, dumb ass.
You're right, I am a bit of a dumb ass, I'll give you that.
It is in our culture to call each other names like that down here in a friendly way e.g. hey cunt, or bloody wanker. I don't believe this is in your culture to do this, so I doubt that you are extending me the same respect I have shown you. If you are doing so, you are appropriating my Australian culture lol;)
So far you have used:
-a lie/misrepresentation of the description of an ad hominem to claim it legitimate.
-an ad hominem fallacy
-a strawman fallacy
-argumentum ad infinitum (repeated both the strawman and ad hominem)
-Tu quoque (or you too fallacy)
You have inadvertantly made:
-argument from ignorance (no one can prove it so therefore not true)
-shifting the burden of proof
You have done this on a personal platform of truth and logic, and a claim of fact and not a question of opinion. For this reason, anything else you say on that matter can be legitimately disregarded as illogical nonsense (and requiring scrutiny), on the basis of your historical use of logical fallacies. In other words, you have tried to use logical fallacies to demonstrate how logical you are.
You have done this on a personal platform of truth and logic, and a claim of fact and not a question of opinion
What's opinion about JK is a sham, he got rich off peddling nonsense. If you have something that is counter to that, then it's not a fact, but it's not opinion based on his work and his hypocrisy and his cheating and lying.
You hardly defended the man, go ahead and defend the man again. Otherwise it's not debatable if he was indeed all those things is it? He hardly has to admit to any of those for these things to be true, it was apt to quote his nonsense that so clearly expresses his nonsense to any critical, thoughtful individual thought, you get credit for that. Too bad you cannot appreciate the nonsense.
You accuse me of
-a lie/misrepresentation of the description of an ad hominem to claim it legitimate.
-an ad hominem fallacy
-a strawman fallacy
-argumentum ad infinitum (repeated both the strawman and ad hominem)
-Tu quoque (or you too fallacy)
But have done no justice to substantiating your claims of fallacy with reason or rhetoric. You have not said why and how those things are true. Why haven't you substantiated your claims with why and how those things apply and render the conclusion false?
You accuse me of not reading the thread because I pointed out a contradictory thought and your evasiveness, trying to hide the issue that you either resolve to determine gender roles, or you do not, performative contradiction much?
No because your question indicates that you didnt read the thread. I don't know what you're talkin about in the above comment.
Ok, my question directly related with your contradictory thought indicates that I didn't read the thread, without a why or how. Clearly my question indicates that you didn't consider the thought that you were writing down in the post that I didn't read, (why) because you think that gender roles don't need to be determined, but then argue that they should be determined, dumb ass.
If you had read it you wouldn't need to ask this:
The above is a strawman; I argued that their "roles" can be determined on a case by case basis, as the example given was regarding their occupations.
You argued that they don't need to be determined, then argued that they should be determined on a case by case basis.
It's not an attack dumb ass, I'm extending the same respect you've shown me.
You're right, I am a bit of a dumb ass, I'll give you that.
It is in our culture to call each other names like that down here in a friendly way e.g. hey cunt, or bloody wanker. I don't believe this is in your culture to do this, so I doubt that you are extending me the same respect I have shown you. If you are doing so, you are appropriating my Australian culture lol;)
So far you have used:
-a lie/misrepresentation of the description of an ad hominem to claim it legitimate.
-an ad hominem fallacy
-a strawman fallacy
-argumentum ad infinitum (repeated both the strawman and ad hominem)
-Tu quoque (or you too fallacy)
You have inadvertantly made:
-argument from ignorance (no one can prove it so therefore not true)
-shifting the burden of proof
You have done this on a personal platform of truth and logic, and a claim of fact and not a question of opinion. For this reason, anything else you say on that matter can be legitimately disregarded as illogical nonsense (and requiring scrutiny), on the basis of your historical use of logical fallacies. In other words, you have tried to use logical fallacies to demonstrate how logical you are.
That's how you legitimately use an ad hominem.
It' can both be legitimately disregarded as "nonsense nonsense nonsense" AND requiring scrutiny!
You are a dumb ass who cannot see the contradictory nature of that very thought!
No contradiction present, you provided all the justification in your comments.
What's opinion about JK is a sham, he got rich off peddling nonsense. If you have something that is counter to that, then it's not a fact, but it's not opinion based on his work and his hypocrisy and his cheating and lying.
You hardly defended the man, go ahead and defend the man again. Otherwise it's not debatable if he was indeed all those things is it? He hardly has to admit to any of those for these things to be true, it was apt to quote his nonsense that so clearly expresses his nonsense to any critical, thoughtful individual thought, you get credit for that. Too bad you cannot appreciate the nonsense.
You accuse me of
-a lie/misrepresentation of the description of an ad hominem to claim it legitimate.
-an ad hominem fallacy
-a strawman fallacy
-argumentum ad infinitum (repeated both the strawman and ad hominem)
-Tu quoque (or you too fallacy)
But have done no justice to substantiating your claims of fallacy with reason or rhetoric. You have not said why and how those things are true. Why haven't you substantiated your claims with why and how those things apply and render the conclusion false?
All the reasoning is provided in the comments, you have just chosen to "cherry pick" around them (another fallacy).