21 Jul 16
Originally posted by Zahlanzi" I'd rather live by American standards than Romanian."
" I'd rather live by American standards than Romanian."
which is another way of saying that "as long as american standards are better than romania, there is no need to fix anything"
not to mention that was never the question. you just tried to insult me like a child
which is another way of saying that "as long as american standards are better than romania, there is no need to fix anything"
Wow. Are you being obtuse on purpose?
I'd also rather live in Romania than in North-Korea. Do you think that from now on I no longer consider the Romanian human rights violations a problem?
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by Great King Ratthat's not what you did. you RESPONDED to my random news story with a non-random wiki page about Romanian police brutality as if something bad happening someplace else (that happens to be the country of the one you responded it) has any relevance to the original story.
So when you post a random news story about police brutality it's alright, but when I do it, it isn't?
it was an ad hominem, and a clumsy one at that.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziBoth posts deal with Police Brutality. The relevance is obvious.
that's not what you did. you RESPONDED to my random news story with a non-random wiki page about Romanian police brutality as if something bad happening someplace else (that happens to be the country of the one you responded it) has any relevance to the original story.
it was an ad hominem, and a clumsy one at that.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by Great King Ratyou are indeed confused. it happens when you don't know the meaning of certain terms.
So, is this also an Ad Hominem, or not? I'm confused.
i advise looking it up on wikipedia for a quick definition. that should be enough to explain why it is not an ad hominem.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziKindly explain, pls.
you are indeed confused. it happens when you don't know the meaning of certain terms.
i advise looking it up on wikipedia for a quick definition. that should be enough to explain why it is not an ad hominem.
- Person X implies something is wrong with American police brutality... not an Ad Hominem.
- Person Y responds by implying something is wrong with Romanian police brutality... an Ad Hominem.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by Great King RatActually you did imply it whether intentionally or not.
No, it isn't. I directly responded to Zahlanzi's "romania is the example to live by. no need to set the bar any higher" by saying I'd rather live by American standards than Romanian. I didn't imply that American standards were therefore good (enough).
21 Jul 16
"Fascist political forces such as the Iron Guard rose in popularity and power, urging an alliance with Nazi Germany and its allies. As the military fortunes of Romania's two main guarantors of territorial integrity — France and Britain — crumbled in the Fall of France, the government of Romania turned to Germany in hopes of a similar guarantee"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_in_World_War_II
Ugh!!! Gross!! Romania sided with the Nazis!
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by Great King Ratsure, i'll be happy to oblige. i much rather be talking about your ignorance and inability to grasp simple logic than another horrible event that again would have been ignored.
Kindly explain, pls.
- Person X implies something is wrong with American police brutality... not an Ad Hominem.
- Person Y responds by implying something is wrong with Romanian police brutality... an Ad Hominem.
person X implies something is wrong with american police brutality, giving yet another example of a trigger happy police officer. X isn't attacking anyone on anything not related to american police brutality
person Y comes along and posts something about Romanian police brutality just because person X is Romanian. romanian police brutality has nothing to do with american police brutality, solving one won't affect the other. each has different causes so understanding one won't affect the other.
the only reason person Y mentioned romanian police brutality was to attack the person X and not the argument that X was making. therefore, Ad Hominem.
if anything i said still doesn't get through to you, make sure you read the definition of ad hominem, to actually know what the hell you are talking about before saying more stupid crap.
21 Jul 16
Originally posted by Great King Rat"yet another example of police brutality, of a man shot by a scared little coward with insufficient training"
Lucky for me, X was not making any kind of argument though. Just a random news story.
argument: american police needs to undergo reforms so that this kind of "random news story" (please be more of an insensitive douche, you are too subtle) happen less.
also, the nonexistence of an argument still doesn't mean you didn't commit Ad hominem in yours. you still attacked the person rather than the "random news story"