Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) panned Democrats who are upping their criticisms of President Biden ahead of the November election, saying they might as well don a “MAGA hat.” Fetterman not…
And this person talks about the upballot when the subject matter was downballot. He wasn’t able to answer how is Cornell West or Jill Stein relevant when it comes to downballot choices of people who refuses to vote for Biden.
I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary, and that means picking the downballot that has the most chances along with ones that aligns with ones’ view the best. You weren’t the person I responded to. And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead. And the subject matter of the alternative wasn’t really anything to do with the upballot, and you’re not able to give a sastisfactory answer as to how they’re relevant to this proposal.
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone’s arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it’s prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.
The argument you provided weren’t arguments because they didn’t align with the subject proposal at hand which is downballot choices. You came with the upballot. That’s not an argument to begin with. And I was making a observation of your responses.
>And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead.
i never talked about the downballot at all. anyone can see exactly what i quoted, and what i said, and that i’m not getting dragged along into voting for even more democrats.
Of course you didn’t. But you responded with upballot instead when the subject matter of the proposal of alternative was to look for downballot. Do I have to repeat that until you get it?
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone’s arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it’s prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.
This is one of the people who has been trying to convince me that Cornel West has a decent chance of being president. Take from that what you will.
And this person talks about the upballot when the subject matter was downballot. He wasn’t able to answer how is Cornell West or Jill Stein relevant when it comes to downballot choices of people who refuses to vote for Biden.
prolly just ignoring the irrelevancy of the downballot in the face of losing democracy altogether.
yet more poisoning of the well, a form of ad hominem.
You’re going to need to explain that.
I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary, and that means picking the downballot that has the most chances along with ones that aligns with ones’ view the best. You weren’t the person I responded to. And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead. And the subject matter of the alternative wasn’t really anything to do with the upballot, and you’re not able to give a sastisfactory answer as to how they’re relevant to this proposal.
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone’s arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it’s prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.
The argument you provided weren’t arguments because they didn’t align with the subject proposal at hand which is downballot choices. You came with the upballot. That’s not an argument to begin with. And I was making a observation of your responses.
anyone can see exactly what happened and that you are just trying to imply that i was involved in some conversation that i never was.
>I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary,
and i said “no”.
>And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead.
i never talked about the downballot at all. anyone can see exactly what i quoted, and what i said, and that i’m not getting dragged along into voting for even more democrats.
Of course you didn’t. But you responded with upballot instead when the subject matter of the proposal of alternative was to look for downballot. Do I have to repeat that until you get it?
repeat it all you want. anyone can see what happened.
And you’re getting downvoted. That tells me maybe, maybe you’re on the wrong here?
aha…appeal to popularity
people just don’t like to hear the truth when it contradicts the lies they’ve chosen to believe
this is classic poisoning the well, a form of ad hominem.
You to me one half hour ago:
https://lemmy.world/comment/7788120
This is not the way to get me to do that.
do you need help finding the block button?
https://lemmy.world/u/bigmouthcommie@kolektiva.social
it’s in the upper right
Let me get this straight, you want me to ignore you, so you expect me to block you?
I think you’re going to be very disappointed if that’s what you expect.
If you want me to ignore you, I will only be forced to if you block me.
Of course, I sincerely doubt you’ll block me because then you won’t be able to do things like tell me how I support genocide.
But go for it: Prove me wrong.
>Let me get this straight, you want me to ignore you, so you expect me to block you?
oh, that would be lovely. i can’t click the button for you though.
>If you want me to ignore you, I will only be forced to if you block me.
thats not how blocking works on lemmy
Prove it. Block me.
i don’t need to prove to you how blocking works. you can try it yourself.
Oh well, guess I won’t be ignoring you then.
Not my problem.
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone’s arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it’s prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.