Kamala’s Lies

submitted by [deleted] from americanthinker.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

It was shilling behavior. I stand by my description. You simply disagree with it. That doesn't make it a fallacy.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

You provided no proof and you cherry picked for a guilty verdict.

[–][deleted]  (12 children)

[deleted]

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

    What else quacks? Not much. Your analogy is terrible.

    What else sounds like a shill? People on the other side of your political bias who also buy into the divisive tribalist left-right paradigm and have picked a team over which they have zero influence, with or without votes - or people who might be be short on time, keystrokes, or brains. I've already told you.

    I'm starting to think you don't even know what a shill is because you're misusing it so badly.

    You're taking a pretty hard line on this. Maybe you're a shill? Well that would be pretty stupid of me to call you that when I have no evidence of shillery. Clearly you're passionate about your political sports team. Yet that does NOT provably make for a shill.

    (Unless you are one. You can tell me.)

    [–]Yin 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

    My analogy was fair. We've covered this. Shilling behavior is different than definite shill. I've already explained that if you want to take issue with my calling the person a shill because you don't think it's for certain they're a shill, then you've done so.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

    " Says the shill. "

    Now you're moving the goal post from shill to variations on a shill theme. You definitely called them a shill.

    I don't call you an idiot because you've said idiotic things. Clearly you're not.

    Words matter - especially inflammatory words.

    I don't take issue with you disagreeing with them. I take issue with you labeling them something akin to a villain around here.

    I proved your fallacies and you can't admit it. That's on you.

    Here's another: Your duck fetish is another flawed strawman. I said your analogy is terrible. Yet you continue on like it's valid, build it up as if I'm arguing about ducks. At present I'm not arguing about fucks I'm restating your analogy is terrible.

    This is not a stand off and has never been. You've been wrong from the beginning.

    [–]Yin 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

    Yes, I called them a shill. I think they're a shill.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    /u/Jesus, Here's the same thing you were just talking about. I guess just as we're all we all promoted until incompetent, everyone has their cognitive limit too.

    /u/Yin, I have no more time for you here. You're fantastic on other things. Not so much regarding the tribalist Trump shit. And terrible understanding with logical fallacies. You're still in my friends list, but on this I'll agree to disagree and speak on this no further. If you're lucky Jesus might give you his honest two cents. I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong on this.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      I read the red-highlighted friends comments sometimes first in a long discussion, if at all. I tend to avoid the long ones. The colour coding is very practical. I'd rather see an "unfriend" option added and have SaidIt remove "blocked" so we can avoid reading/replying to their green (opposite of red) names, instead of responding to them like unheard ghosts not knowing we've been blocked. It's a problem and M7D3 won't budge on it after they took the time to build it - without asking first. That's another problem.

      Also, /s/friends is very handy.

      [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      The fallacy is calling someone a "shill" with no evidence other than that user posting an ad hominem, which you'll find that everyone uses ad hominems everyday.

      Shill def., n.,:

      One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

      To act (covertly/or overtly) as a spokesperson or promoter or sales person for a person or enterprise.

      Do you have proof that this person is a shill?

      Of course, we can prove that he did not follow the pyramid of debate, and neither did you when you used an ad hominem.

      [–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      I think they're a shill. At the very least, I think their behavior is shilling behavior, so I don't mind considering them a shill.

      [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Now provide evidence why you think so. But at least you explained yourself better.

      [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      It was Fallacious behavior. No evidence he IS a shill. I think many humans think fallacious rhetoric is critical thinking anyway. Doesn't mean they are a shill.

      [–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Correct. It doesn't mean they're a shill.