Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Thermal said:
You really need to elevate your understanding of the fallacies if you are going to invoke them so often.

First off, ad hom isn't remotely relevant. Genetic/origin fallacy is where you should have gone. Ad hom is for when the reason is irrelevant to the argument.

Second, you are wrong on the structure (again). Fallacious reasoning would mean the argument was wrong because the source is not credible. My argument is the source is biased, and here's an example.

I get that you like to throw the Latin around to sound brilliant, but when you flub it this badly, you give the opposite impression.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about. You have claimed that the source is biassed therefore you reject its reporting. You do this all the time.

In the example you gave the source appears to have been correct, but take that to another thread.
 
Matthew Best said:
Yes, Rolfe. Do better. That's like asking for a statement from the Scottish police about an incident that happened in London!
Click to expand...
You really, genuinely don't get that, do you? Even though I said (to you) that I worried that I was sledgehammering it too hard, then kept it up, you really, honestly have no idea what was going on, do you?
 
Matthew Best said:
Yes, Rolfe. Do better. That's like asking for a statement from the Scottish police about an incident that happened in London!
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad hominem is when an argument is rejected not on its intrinsic merits or deficiencies, but by smearing the source. That's exactly what Thermal is doing here, and does all the time.
 
Thermal said:
You really, genuinely don't get that, do you? Even though I said (to you) that I worried that I was sledgehammering it too hard, then kept it up, you really, honestly have no idea what was going on, do you?
Click to expand...

Are you still claiming that your mistaken reading of a report and subsequent embarrassing digging yourself into a hole was some sort of five-dimensional chess play?
 
Rolfe said:
You don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about. You have claimed that the source is biassed therefore you reject its reporting. You do this all the time.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. You're on a roll. I observed, as external reality does, that the source is of low credibility and pushes biased propaganda. Therefore, we should not take their unevidenced claims as factual. There is no indication thet three protesters were arrested, nor that they were trans activists 'bringing the violence, as usual'. If the Seig Heil source evidences their claims, the claims can be considered credible, no matter what their track record is.
Rolfe said:
In the example you gave the source appears to have been correct, but take that to another thread.
Click to expand...
Describing a panorama sequence of a well-reported, years old event as 'doctored footage' is pretty dense, so 'correct' is a bit of a stretch.
 
Last edited:
What is with you half-wits and this 'five-dimensional chess' thing? I was making my point in my usual oblique delivery that I've been doing here for nearly a decade.

Hey Rolfe! Do you think you can identify the fallacy you guys are using here? Bonus points if you can describe the technique of repeating the same phrase being used.
 
Last edited:
"I will only accept information if it is reported by outlets that share my biases" is not the moral high ground you think it is.

There was indeed an error in the GB News reporting of the London event. Their reporting was that there had been a clash between women's rights demonstrators and pro-trans counter-protestors, which had led to the arrest of a couple of trans activists. This is not what happened. The police set up a cordon and kept the (mainly) masked, black clad screaming mob of TRAs well away from the women's event, and the women (dressed in normal clothes and not masked) were able to hold their event and listen to the speeches without interference. At some point the TRAs (at least some of them) became so enraged by this that they attacked the police line and tried to break through it. It was during this occurrence that the arrests were made. It was a clash between TRAs and the police, not between TRAs and the women's rights demonstrators.

I know this from speaking to people who were actually there.
 
Rolfe said:
"I will only accept information if it is reported by outlets that share my biases" is not the moral high ground you think it is.
Click to expand...
Good thing that's not what I said. I said, repeatedly, that low credibility sources need to be evidenced. So do high credibility sources, who tend to do so as a matter of course.

This was clarified for you I think three times. You do not have the luxury of continuing to claim to be befuddled.
Rolfe said:
There was indeed an error in the GB News reporting of the London event.
Click to expand...
I am assured this is not true. Remember?
Rolfe said:
I know this from speaking to people who were actually there.
Click to expand...
How do you think your invisible sources rate on ye olde evidentiary meter?

I actually do not doubt that clashes between the trans crew and police occured (despite the assertions from those in this thread that the police are 'ideologically captured' and on the side of the TRAs). What I argue is the assertion that the trans advocates 'brought the violence, as usual'. No evidence has been presented about who started what, and under what circumstances. One lone tranny basher can start a scuffle that blows up to a full blown riot, with police arresting who they can get their hands on.
 
Matthew Best said:
What? The ones where you kept on getting it wrong over and over again? Or some other posts?
Click to expand...
The one where I specifically and clearly referred to sledgehammering the delivery.

Serious question: what did you take that to mean? I mean, it's a given that you have no input here but to troll me personally, but seriously: what did you think that meant? Other people can read this, and they aren't fooled by you guys playing dumb like it wasn't obvious.
 
Thermal said:
You couldn't make my point clearer if you were trying.
Click to expand...
If none of your numerous interlocutors seem to be getting your (perfectly clear) point, consider the possibility that your sledgehammer delivery isn't hitting the nail on the head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom