Ever have someone block you to get the last word in an argument?

Name the fallacy I used. You can't! You're spewing.

Marxist Liberals can't produce facts! They can only spew accusation like you did above, fallacies, and personal attacks.

...you just did it. Right there. The fallacy you used is "ad hominem," so I just refuted your

You can't!

Again, I'm not a Marxist Liberal. -_- Just because I don't agree with your views doesn't make me one. But it seems you seem quite keen when it comes to reaction formation, though.

An Ad Hominem fallacies is a type of fallacy. It is not a name of a particular fallacy.

Below are some of the name of Ad Hominem fallacies

Shooting the Messenger
Tu Quoque
Circumstantial
Guilt by association
Appeal to Authority

You don't have a clue do you?

lrn2subjectverbagreement

So then by extension using an umbrella term is still right in the sense that the criterion for it (attacking someone's character in an attempt to refute their argument) exists. So yes, "ad hominem" does work.

lrn2logic and lrn2sets

You didn't name the fallacy. Anyone can claim an Ad Homenem fallacy. You need to produce facts (name, definition, and reference).

If you call me an idiot which is a personal attack, it is not necessary a fallacy. Whether it is a fallacy depends on a break down in logic rather then a simple statement.

You don't have a clue.

*hominem. Get it right.

If I personally attacked you, with no argument presented beforehand, it wouldn't be a fallacy as there would be nothing to refute. What you are saying is that I'm wrong because I'm apparently a "Marxist Liberal" (which incidentally is also a non-sequitur.

The fallacy itself is considered an ad hominem because, once again, it's an attack on the opponent's character and has no bearing on the argument unless it is somehow connected to what is being said. "Tu quoque" is an element, a more specific example. However, the set itself still works.

lrn2trollharderplz

You need to take Logic 101. All fallacies have names. You don't have a clue. If you said to me "You're an idiot," that is not a fallacy.

A fallacy is a breakdown in logic.

You need to learn to read. If I called you an idiot solely for the purpose of calling you an idiot, it's not a fallacy. If I called you an idiot because of an argument you made, that's a fallacy.

And yes, fallacies have names. I'm quite aware of that, so keep saying I don't have a clue.

trollharderplz

It could be depending on how it is used. If you ignore my argument and attack me that would be "shooting the messenger," which is one of the Ad Hominem type fallacies.

*depend

What is your problem? I could care less. My degrees are in math spelling is totally immaterial.

Btw, you used the fallacy of shooting the messenger.

M-m-missing a semicolon or period~

It is amazing during our conversation on fallacies, you use fallacies.

When a Liberal can't argue with my facts, they spew the fallacy of "shooting the messenger." In otherwords, they make a personal attack on me and, cut and run on my facts.

Let me slam the Liberal with facts about your fallacy.

"Killing the Messenger (Argumentum ad Hominem)

“This fallacy disagrees with an argument by attacking the person who makes the argument.”

http://depts.washington.edu/m...

If I was worried about spelling, I would hire a secretary like you to do the lite work. What is the minimum wage?

*light

What is with you and this supposed correlation between Liberals and inability to debate? Seriously?

You’re third shooting the messenger fallacy in a row. You learn quickly, don’t you. With knowledge you also need mental where-with-all to apply it.

Spelling mistakes have never cost me any money but fallacies have. That is why I pay attention to them while ignoring spelling.

In other words fallacies are very material, spelling is immaterial.

Liberals can’t produce facts to support the party line because Marxism doesn’t work.

Spelling, while having a lesser impact than logic, still matters.

Again, how does being Liberal mean unable to produce facts? Anyone can pull a random fact off the intertubes, just so you know.

lrn2causality

Congratulations, you didn’t have a breakdown in logic. You broke your streak of three of the same fallacy in a row.

If I cared about spelling, I would develop it in word which would correct spelling mistakes. However, how are you going to correct your breakdowns in logic?

Spelling is not important because a spelling checker can fix any of your mistakes. I don’t take the time to put it in a spell checker because it is immaterial. If you counted the words I spelled versus the mistakes, I would get an “A” in spelling. When I used “lite” instead of “light,” there was a reason.

However, to fix your breakdowns in logic you need an education. There are many fallacies that car dealers use that cost you money. Fallacies cost you money everyday. Spelling mistakes cost you nothing. The entire advertising campaigns of companies is built on fallacies because it is emotional rather then logical.

Liberals can’t produce facts to support the party line because Marxism doesn’t work!

I think you went to spelling mistakes because you can’t argue with me in logic.

"Then" vs. "than." Spellcheck that plz~

I can see where your last sentence is going, but while your conclusion is possibly true, it isn't. For reasons please see the general mood of the intertubes.

lrn2troll :)

Well, four out of five of your replies were using the fallacy of shooting the messenger.

My question is how you going to stop your breakdowns in logic. My solution is simple either hire a secretary or use a spell checker. I don’t care to do either because spelling mistakes are immaterial. Now that it is getting dark, I will probably have a lot more.

Your poblem is only solved by getting an education in logic.

*you're
*[missing colon]
*problem

Education in logic? Hmm. *cough* Bit of a bullet there, eh? Again, you still don't know my intentions. :)

Five out of six of your last replies were using the fallacy of shooting the messenger.

I don't care what your intentions are? They are immaterial to me? Like spelling not worth the attention.

I didn't bit any bullet; I slammed your breakdowns in logic with facts! Let me quote the reference again because you appear to be a very slow learner.

"Killing the Messenger (Argumentum ad Hominem)

“This fallacy disagrees with an argument by attacking the person who makes the argument.”

http://depts.washington.edu/m...

Shooting the messenger is a name of a fallacy which is in the type of Ad hominem fallacies just like there is a type of fallacy called logical fallacies. I know this information is advanced. You would probably learn it in the third class of logic 101.

Only if I went there. Thankfully, I don't.

That last one was a bullet? Really? Dang, I wasn't calling names or anything, let alone insulting your intelligence. Don't you think you're overreacting?

It's probably better that you not phrase your indifference to my intentions with a question mark: makes you sound intrigued. :)

I am bored and am moving on. You might try to write in complete sentences. Obviously, the below examples aren't complete sentences.

Also, you're using the fallacy of ambiguity. Who knows what the below means.

*you're
*[missing colon]
*problem

It's hardly ambiguous if you knew grammar. :)

Nice try associating a group with a flaw illogically, though. It was amusing. :D

Yes it happened to me 2 times yesterday I don't understand it .. It just lets me know how stupid some people are

Every time they've had nothing but feel-good rhetoric to respond with. It makes me laugh.

It happens, and frankly I don't really care.

Just one less idiot who thinks they know everything to argue with.

IMO, actual 'bravery' is defined by what one does in the real 3D world; courage is being afraid and STILL doing what needs to be done anyway.

There's no 'courage' in arguing on the internet endlessly.

amen

Yes, many times. I just consider the source and move onto something more interesting. It's their loss not mine.

but i'm willing to bet you were winning ;)

I think I was, haha :)

Cowards! So grade school. Good riddance!

I know! I had the right of way too. She was harassing me because she wouldn't leave me alone, even when I asked her to multiple times. When I told her that I'd report her if she didn't let up, she replied to me (rudely) and proceeded to block me. Coward, indeed!

That sounds like a typical SH bully. Good riddance! She did you a favor, because you likely would have had to do it anyway. LOL I recommend back blocking, because these types tend to unblock later to start all over again. Not worth it.

Yeah, exactly. :) Thank you for the advice.

Numerous times, means you won

What's the prize?

An all expenses paid trip to Hawaii?

No, an intimate evening with yours truly.......lol

Now that's:

LMAO