scarabic comments on House committee advances bill to ban chemtrails

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

You have remarkable audacity for continuing to argue the point while also boasting about how you’ll ignore any information that isn’t spoon fed to you in your format of choice. Sooner or later, you’re going to miss something that way and make an ass of yourself, if that didn’t already just happen in front of our eyes.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

God forbid I actually read sources, and prefer reading to taking heads on a video platform that is designed to waste people's time in endless content crawls.

You call me audacious yet here you are stepping into a discussion to try your best to belittle and chastise an internet stranger with a different opinion.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

I went to college for English Lit so please don’t lecture me on the virtues of reading. God forbid you stoop to get all the information you can. You are acting like an ass and I’m letting you know. I didn’t get up this morning to chastise you.

If there’s any doubt in your mind what you did:

1: “this video says you’re wrong” 2: “well I don’t watch videos dahling.” (flips hair, draws on cigarette)

See we’re not strangers anymore. You’re that fucking guy who did that fucking thing.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

I gave MY preferences for reading, note the use of the phrase "I prefer". I did not extoll the virtues of reading. It's a shame your English Lit exposure in college didn't extend to education on logical fallacies, because you use them a lot.

1: “this video says you’re wrong” 2: “well I don’t watch videos dahling.” (flips hair, draws on cigarette)

1: User actually said "contrails are completely avoidable". 2: I said that's factually untrue. My disdain for a youtube link on a comment thread discussion was literally my post scriptum.

You have a massive chip on your shoulder about people who don't want to watch videos for science news, that's clear - but I don't care to hear any more about it. Maybe take a breath and reflect on context. We're in the comments section on a 'nottheonion' news post about goddamn JFK banning chemtrails because he thinks DARPA is secretly impregnating them with experimetnal chemicals. Y'know.. wackadoo shit.

Have a great weekend & life, I will no longer respond.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

note the use of the phrase "I prefer"

Nah. Let’s note what you actually said, not this attempt at softening it. Someone posted a video link, and you said:

I'm not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it'll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.

You haughtily and wrongly dismissed it. It was short. It was highly informational. It did not drag on or exhort you to smash the like button. You made an assumption, you were confidently wrong, and thanks to me you now know it.

You tell me to educate myself about logical fallacies while misusing “ad hominem.” I didn’t try to discredit your argument about contrails by attacking its source. I’ve really not engaged you at all about contrails. I said you were acting like an ass. That your behavior, right here, right in front of me, was haughty and foolish. It was. A rebuke is not by necessity an ad hominem logical fallacy.

School’s out. Thank god you’ve promised not to post more haughty, foolish, confidently wrong nonsense.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent