Into the Night
Contributor
^ One-liners. Q.E.D.![]()
One-liner. Inversion fallacy. Kettle logic.^ One-liners. Q.E.D.![]()
One-liner. Inversion fallacy. Kettle logic.You used it as one...so, yes.
I am assuming the conclusions drawn by it are not independent, and quite possibly false.
One-liner. Inversion fallacy. Kettle logic.
Your calling a comment a fallacy does not make it one.No, I think you are writing impaired.
Not a proof. An opinion. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems, not in political or medical opinions.The medical examiner says it's proof and I'll take their word for it, not yours.
Strawman fallacy."The Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office ruled Anderson's death a homicide-"sudden death in association with physical restraint in a prone position in association with ischemic heart disease and bipolar disorder with agitation". She asphyxiated while being restrained in a prone position. Obesity and other health factors also contributed to her death, the office said."
I'm assuming you question the conclusions drawn by it because you don't want to believe the cop was responsible for Floyd's death.
He was responding to your ad hominem, dumbass.Ad hominem.
Your calling a comment a fallacy does not make it one.
He was responding to your ad hominem, dumbass.
He was responding to your ad hominem, dumbass.
Believe what you want.
Never said it was.
Quite true.
Also true. There is no evidence, however, that Floyd has Covid-19. There IS evidence, however, that he had some kind of cardio problem.
You cannot use CNN as a source. Fake news. Rejected.
So?Floyd had tested positive for Covid-19 with a test on April 3rd and again tested positive with a nasal swab post mortem. It's in the autopsy report.
A fake transcript doesn't become an actual transcript because the fake media published it.A transcript of the 911 doesn't become fake because news media make it available.
You are making a lot of rash assumptions.Only a complete idiot would think it does.
The video image of Trump is real, but what CNN says that Trump said in the video is not. It is taken out of context and changed around. It is fiction.I'll bet you think video of Trump isn't real because CNN filmed him. You seem to that out of touch with reality.
So what? He's the one calling my responses logical fallacies, and then using them himself. What morons the two of you are.
So, your statement has proven to be factually incorrect. Now you want to blithely pass it off by responding, "so".
Since it is the one released by the police, it can only be fake if they faked it. It certainly didn't become fake when the media printed it word for word as released by the police. This would be an example of an ad hominem argument. You are calling it fake simply because the "fake" media published it. You did not research to see if it was fake or explain what is fake. Rather you simple attack the media as the messenger.A fake transcript doesn't become an actual transcript because the fake media published it.
Not really. You confirmed my argument when you made your ad hominem argument.You are making a lot of rash assumptions.
It is unclear to me how a live video feed can be taken out of context by the media that is broadcasting it.The video image of Trump is real, but what CNN says that Trump said in the video is not. It is taken out of context and changed around. It is fiction.
Whiner. There. I've used an ad hominem. It is because you keep using ad hominems. Get a clue, stupid. (there! I've used another one!).
Floyd may have had non-symptomatic Corona. If so. It did not contribute to his death. I think perfectly healthy people would die from having a cop cut off their oxygen for almost 9 minutes. That is what killed him.
I never said Floyd didn't have Covid. What the hell are YOU talking about??So, your statement has proven to be factually incorrect. Now you want to blithely pass it off by responding, "so".
The police do not release 911 transcripts.Since it is the one released by the police, it can only be fake if they faked it.
Fake news.It certainly didn't become fake when the media printed it word for word as released by the police.
Fallacy fallacy. No insult was made anywhere.This would be an example of an ad hominem argument.
No. I'm calling it fake because the source can't be trusted and it comes from a source known to write a lot of fiction and call it 'news'; and also that no known publication of any actual transcript from any 911 was ever made concerning this event.You are calling it fake simply because the "fake" media published it.
Attempt to force negative proof fallacy. I do not have to prove anything. YOU do. You are shifting the burden of proof, also a fallacy.You did not research to see if it was fake or explain what is fake.
No, I simply don't trust them.Rather you simple attack the media as the messenger.
Fallacy fallacy. Redirection fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (void proof<->insult fallacy).Not really. You confirmed my argument when you made your ad hominem argument.
Dude...you really ARE clueless, aren't you?It is unclear to me how a live video feed can be taken out of context by the media that is broadcasting it.
I never said Floyd didn't have Covid. What the hell are YOU talking about??
It depends on the jurisdiction. The Minneapolis Police released the 911 transcript as reported by Hubbard Broadcasting in Minneapolis and many other sources.The police do not release 911 transcripts.
Ad hominem since you don't address the argument but imply it being wrong by attacking the source as "fake".Fake news.
Ad hominem doesn't require an "insult." It is an attempt to attack the source as invalid because of who the source is while not showing how or why the source is wrong. You don't know much about fallacies, do you? The classic example of an ad hominem argument is, "I don't trust them therefore they are wrong."Fallacy fallacy. No insult was made anywhere.
Now you are using the argumentum ad ignoratiam fallacy. Because you don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Any google search of George Floyd 911 call reveals multiple sources of the transcript. Are you accusing Tucker Carlson of being fake news?No. I'm calling it fake because the source can't be trusted and it comes from a source known to write a lot of fiction and call it 'news'; and also that no known publication of any actual transcript from any 911 was ever made concerning this event.
Arugmentum ad ignoratiam on your part again. You don't show it to be non existent but simply claim you don't believe it to be true. Classic example.Attempt to force negative proof fallacy. I do not have to prove anything. YOU do. You are shifting the burden of proof, also a fallacy.
Ad hominem fallacy.No, I simply don't trust them.
Proof you don't understand fallacies.Fallacy fallacy. Redirection fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (void proof<->insult fallacy).
Since I know more about fallacies than you, what does that say about your abilities to buy a clue?Dude...you really ARE clueless, aren't you?