Which logical fallacy is this?

Anons, I need confirmation.
appeal to current year = chronological snobbery?
Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide a citation.

Attached: Current Year.png (1259x930, 745K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>i want to do shit that got proven wrong decades ago
>therefore anyone who disagrees with me is probably being fallacious
why not just accept that you're wrong

It's not even an argument.

ad hoc
to this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché

alternatively
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

Never said I wanted to do anything. It's fallacious argumentation, just like yours.

Hopefully someone can produce a higher-quality post.

You do understand the historical curve towards a more moral world, right? As the time goes on, we get closer to equilibrium. Reminding people that it's the ucrrent year proves their outdated theories wrong because time will errode bigotry.
Especiallay when all the old white men are dead

Thanks, but not quite what I was looking for.

>Commit a crime 30 years ago
>evade anything that would implicate you for your arrest for 20 years
>shit is well documented
>change the laws so they can't tag you for your crimes anymore
>"I can't believe I'm being tried for this crime I didn't commit (in 2018). How dare you, sir!"
We have laws in place so that shit like above doesn't realistically happen, right?

Imagine being this delusional

>believing in grand narratives

We're only good because we have a robust society. If shit really hits the fan we will be back to skinning each other in a weekend.

Whig history fallacy.

Statute of limitations exist to prevent the barratry of ancient and unprovable charges. If you have engaged in a pattern or criminality or committed a series of crimes then that obviates the statute.

If you robbed a store 50 years ago you're in the clear. If you robbed a store every year for the past 50 years you'll be charged with all of them.

Begging the question
"The fallacy of 'begging the question' is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a false or shaky key premise..."
>It is the year 2018
>Imagine having to defend (insert liberal position here) today!
What is it about the current year that supposes their premises are beyond reproach? This is never explained in these quips by them, and it is possible this is where the shaky premise of their argument is.

2nd poster in this thread is very clearly a straw man, not giving that faggot a (you) though.

Imagine being this much of a loser
Guess what, the racists LOST.
The Nazis LOST
The segregationists, the moralists, the puritans, hetero normatives, transphobes, and white supremacists have all LOST.
Yours is an ideology of being a loser.
Evidently, we have approach a more moral world of inclusiveness and acceptance meanwhile your mode of thought vanishes
Cope with that, incel

Why'd you ignore me fucko?

>weak shall fear the strong
Wow, such argument, very moral ground

I ignored the meme flagger who responded right away. here is your (you) though

A thin layer of civility over a cancer-ridden ulcer filled with pus, human nature never changes you're just increasing the height of the fall.

winning =/= correct
losing =/= wrong

Gr8 b8 m8

The game is still completely open retard, it's too early to tell. Everything that happened since the enlightenment is not even 10% of recorded history, of course a nation younger than my shoes can't place things into perspective. Fukuyama's 'end of history' is a resilient but retarded meme.

Solid argument

?

"ad annum", I'd say, or "ad annum Domini" if you're going really oldschool

COPE
Thats all you can do because clearly you arent winning

It's too much winning, Mr. President