3 ms·
Don't bother. You already mentioned an statistic and he dismissed it on the exclusive basis of his arbitrary perspective and then provided less relevant alterna
by julianmarq 9y ago
Don't bother. You already mentioned an statistic and he dismissed it on the exclusive basis of his arbitrary perspective and then provided less relevant alternatives as a show of his confirmation bias (not actual confirmation).
What this says is that this person is not interested in having a discussion, he just wants people to agree with him and will move the goalpost against any rebuttal of his view provided.
- notacoward 9y agoThanks for the ad hominem. You might want to note that the person you're supporting just made a claim that is contrary to their own evidence. Next time, contribute.
- julianmarq 9y agoMentioning that you moved the goalpost is not an ad hominem; it's literally an evaluation of your argument, not of you. Specially given that I didn't address you at all. Is it mentioning that someone used a fallacy itself a fallacy now? Of course not. Next time, provide actual arguments.
- notacoward 9y agoAre you seriously trying to claim that "What this says is that this person" is not an ad hominem? That's simply untrue, and obviously so to any reader. Also, I didn't move the goalposts. I asked for proof, and got back a non sequitur. The numbers didn't show what my interlocutor claimed they did, and I'm still waiting for piece #1 of the proof I originally asked for. You're awfully aggressive for someone who has engaged entirely in meta-argument without providing a single fact relevant to the topic at hand.