How do I not let people use my autism to invalidate everything I say?
If I have an opinion on most websites someone always looks through my post or comment history and acts like I'm crazy or my opinion doesn't count because I am autistic and talk about it in some other posts.
My family does this too when I say something they don't like or disagree with.
How do I openly admit my autism without people thinking it invalidates my thoughts?
My friend I have a disorder as well. Mine is invisible and you wouldnt know i had it unless i told you. To others i look fairly normal, my social life is fine, and i just appear strange at times and can lose my temper as far as others are concerned. As a direct result of my disorser some even say im extremely interesting because of the life its lead me to live though, underneath I have a tonne of difficulty with a lot of shit and many hidden troubles.
What youre experiencing is just reality, It is actually advised by professionals for people like me to hide their disorder at all costs for this reason. People have a really hard time shaking stigmas, and their perception of you will change according to many factors. If I tell people I have such and such, they change instantly. The nice ones start treating me like a 4 year old and stop valuing anything i say or do, and less cool people accuse me of faking, or making shit up, or they just plain think om retarded. No change in how i talk or act, i simply say "i have blank" and thats the instant reaction.
Basically you need to learn to live with the fact this will happen. Not everyone will do this to you and building a strong support network is really important, and stop seeijt yourself in the autism light or living in thag context. The label is for doctors. Its a medical term with medical implications. People do not understand or need to know what you have, and frankly, they will honest to god take you more seriously if they think youre kind of weird than if they know youre autistic.
Tl;dr keep it need to know basis.
I'm curious, what is it? I have an invisible disorder too. this is good advice though
It does invalidate your thoughts.
There are people with schizophrenia who also have altered perceptions of reality.
You act like we would let dogs have opinions if they learned how to talk instead of being like "well as a dog there is no way you could understand where we are coming from."
You have autism. You see the world different than people who don't have autism. Does that mean all your opinions are wrong? No. But you personally have no way of knowing because you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle when it comes to human interaction.
Adhd.
that's not fair, some great minds were definitely autistic and furthered our understanding of math and science.
In math and science.
Are you talking math and science to your friends and they invalidate that with your autism?
I assumed it was like politics or social commentary.
I've never heard of anyone not automatically thinking all autistic people are good at math and science unless they personally knew an autistic person.
This is why I keep my Aspergers diagnosis a secret whenever possible. I'm scared of people looking down on me if they knew I had it.
That said, I've learned, either through being told in confidence or through the grapevine, that some very respected associates of mine are aspies/autistic, and I never ever would have guessed. So it's not as bad as you might fear OP. I would advise not taking the internet so seriously. Your family, on the other hand, sound like total unsupportive assholes, so I would distance myself if I were you.
I have autism, albeit I am very high functioning. It's hard for people to discredit you when you're more knowledgeable than them on a subject. Its egotistical to think this way, but the logic is sound. If you're less educated/knowledgeable about the topic at hand, despite my autism, you cannot discredit what I have to say on the basis of how my brain is wired.
God damn is understanding how people socialize confusing. Also, when people are vague? Fuck 'em. Part of why I love my girlfriend so much is she stopped being vague once I told her about my autism.
I have a close friend with Asperger's and his opinions are incredibly inconsistent. He doesn't do well with abstract thought, analogies or seeing things from more than one angle in general. He will also pick something and stubbornly defend it without good explanation (but a few days later he won't hold the same position). Knowing all that it's hard to rely on his judgement.
>It does invalidate your thoughts
No it doesn't, you ablist dipshit.
>There are people with schizophrenia who also have altered perceptions of reality.
They have as much right to expression of opinion as you do.
>You act like we would let dogs have opinions if they learned how to talk instead of being like "well as a dog there is no way you could understand where we are coming from."
Highly bigoted comparison and analogy. I can make the same thing about blacks and apes.
>You see the world different than people who don't have autism.
You can say the same thing about people from different cultures, like Chinese or African.
>But you personally have no way of knowing because you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle when it comes to human interaction.
Again, the same can be said to those of different cultures.
>ablist
I agree with you but when you use buzzwords like that I wish I didn't
Every person alive sees the world differently. Theyre called paradigms.
OP in a more extreme way but you said yourself that doesnt even make him wrong all the time.
In a lot of ways he can even be more objective which is something neurotypical people can have a lot of trouble with.
You dont understand the extreme OP is talking about, people are ruthless. As i said in another post i have an invisible disorder. Im 30, i make a lot of money, married, have a house. Youd never think a thing. Im also an entrepreneur and make envious side money on my own projects.
If i say "I hated school, i just didnt give a fuck" i look like an independent thinking genius by people who know me and my accomplishments.
If i say "i had trouble in school because of untreated adhd" my accomplishments are meaingless. Im a lazy entitled whiner who makes excuses and wants to blame my problems on everyone else.. It actually doesnt matter how much ive done myself once someone knows what I have.
This.
About blacks? No because thats an arbitrary reason.
For low iq? Definitely and if more blacks tend to be low iq then thats just a secondary effect.
Except people from other cultures aren't born with mental defects like people with autism.
Can you admit that to yourself? That you (if you have autism) or anyone born with autism were born with a defect?
If I know water is poisoned then I'm going to call it that.
If you want to argue that saltwater isn't poisonous then that's your prerogative. It will still kill you if you drink too much of it.
>everyone sees the world differently
And some people see the world the wrong way because they were born with a defect.
Downs syndrome people, especially if they are uneducated know it alls with no college level research experience, are not the people you should be taking life advice from.
>About blacks? No because thats an arbitrary reason.
But it's just as bigoted and discriminatory to dismiss their opinions and views because "oh, you're xyz."
>Except people from other cultures aren't born with mental defects like people with autism.
Except relative cultural views effect worldviews in similar manners. Even your own.
>Can you admit that to yourself?
Tu quoque.
>That you (if you have autism) or anyone born with autism were born with a defect?
In the same as if I were born black or a woman, I'm born with a defect.
>If I know water is poisoned then I'm going to call it that.
Given context: "If I know a black is a nigger, then I'm going to call him that."
>And some people see the world the wrong way because they were born with a defect.
Again, the same can be said of other cultures and ethnicities.
>talking about your mental disorders
>trusting (((psychologists)))
>Taking drugs
Yikes
>If I know water is poisoned then I'm going to call it that
that's entitlement
This post just makes you look like a moron.
I deconstructed your entire argument and all you could reply was
>well maybe whites are superior
>I have done no research to confirm this and if I'm racist that means I'm agreeing with you but if I'm not racist then that means I disagree with my own argument because i think all races are equal.
Don't confuse my argument with your argument.
I never said races were born with low iq compared to others or all people from one race were born with a disorder like autism.
You did.
So back up your argument which will prove that I'm right or break down your own argument and prove that I'm right and race =/= mental disorders but if they did then that would be a reason to discredit everything they say.
But as someone with autism you probably didn't get as good of an education as you would have if you weren't born with autism.
If you have to work harder to just be on even playing field then you are behind everyone who worked harder because they enjoy learning or enjoy a subject and set their goals higher than everyone else.
>Autists can't learn properly
How would a social impediment impair learning?
>he doesn't know the book you have to read when you have an autistic child because they develop super slowly on their own
Autistic people fall behind on all checkpoints of childhood development.
That's why its so important to find out if your child has autism because you have to work twice as hard as someone who didn't have an autistic child and you still won't be able to get the same results because a child has to work with their parents to learn. Interpersonal connections are where autistic children don't do well at so things like going to school for the first time and increasing work loads as you get older.
They aren't just 13 with autism. They had autism their whole lives.
This is bullshit. I have a bad case of the autisms and I learned to speak at age 1 and read at age 2.
Everyone I know who has autism in my special needs program in school now has a graduate degree in STEM...
Maybe your friend is just a troll. Some people are like that compulsively, they like picking a fight by saying controversial things.
Why would you go on the internet and just lie?
I'm a marathon runner and I bang super models every day and I was born with no sense of balance.
Anything is possible the world is magical.
>This post just makes you look like a moron.
Ad hominem.
>Don't confuse my argument with your argument.
But that IS what your argument is. That's literally what it says. Because of a person's a characteristic, it immediately dismisses their entire character worldview, and invalidates. That is still the same argument you see people dismissing others based on race, culture, ethnicity, or gender. Pure, and simple.
>I never said races were born with low iq compared to others or all people from one race were born with a disorder like autism.
>You did.
Based on your argument that what and who a person is, dismisses their views and invalidates them. That IS saying that someone who has a certain trait, like a race or mindset, is invalid.
>So back up your argument which will prove that I'm right or break down your own argument and prove that I'm right and race =/= mental disorders but if they did then that would be a reason to discredit everything they say.
Simple: "you have/are , so it does invalidate your worldviews." That's prejudice and bigotry in the same veins as racism, sexism, etc.
>But as someone with autism you probably didn't get as good of an education as you would have if you weren't born with autism.
Ad hominem based on prejudice.
>If you have to work harder to just be on even playing field then you are behind everyone who worked harder
Again, another bigoted statement.
Enjoying trolling?
That's not hard.
That's achievable by people who don't do well at science or math and just work harder than others.
You can get a graduate degree with a 2.0 which means you only did 70% of the work or just couldn't keep up.
Also autism doesn't mean you can't be born with high IQ.
Genius level intellect being held back by autistic development would still be genius level intellect at some point in their lives so they will always be autistic but they might do well with abstract thoughts like what's required for physics or maybe they are like rainman with math.
Like said earlier you can't just base all autistic people off of Einstein.
How many autistic people did you know and keep track of to learn what degree they were getting?
Out of how many autistic people is that?
that's not autism. autism doesn't have an agreed upon definition, has it's a broad disorder with no specific qualifiers, differences in communications and development being a common theme. hfa's specifically function to the point you will almost never know they have it, or confuse it with something (ocd being a common confusion).
>They had autism their whole lives.
>Although there is no known cure, there have been cases of children who have recovered from the condition.
en.wikipedia.org
>ad hominem
Not everything I say is an argument for how you are wrong.
If you didn't have autism maybe you would understand what its like to talk to another human being.
Also being a vegetable in a coma is not just a characteristic.
Thats like saying having engine problems is the same thing as having low gas mileage.
If you think that someone with short hair and someone with long hair are the same as someone being born with no legs then you are just dumb. Like you don't understand simple concepts.
If autism was the same as not having autism then we wouldn't have a name for it.
Stop trying to pretend like you don't have a mental disorder that severely hinders mental growth.
There is also a reason why people say "high functioning" autism.
Because everyone knows they aren't on the same par as someone without autism but they are high functioning compared to their counterparts.
6 people
2 ended up at Berkeley, 1 at Stanford, 3 at State uni
You are a coping idiot
>Because everyone knows they aren't on the same par as someone without autism but they are high functioning compared to their counterparts.
Everyone who trolls about autism here uses this exact same line. It's getting old and boring.
>Not everything I say is an argument for how you are wrong.
>If you didn't have autism maybe you would understand what its like to talk to another human being.
Ad hominem.
>Also being a vegetable in a coma is not just a characteristic.
That's a physiological issue more comparable to spinal-induced paralysis than mental functioning. And is a physiological that many doctors would consider medically brain dead, and little more than a breathing corpse.
>Thats like saying having engine problems is the same thing as having low gas mileage.
And that's the same type of human-to-inanimate object, or human-to-animal, analogies found in arguments deigned to denigrate, and render null, certain types, certain groups.
>If you think that someone with short hair and someone with long hair are the same as someone being born with no legs then you are just dumb.
Straw man and non-sequitur.
>Like you don't understand simple concepts.
Ad hominem + tu quoque.
>If autism was the same as not having autism then we wouldn't have a name for it.
Straw man, and non-sequitur.
>Stop trying to pretend like you don't have a mental disorder that severely hinders mental growth.
You might as well make similar arguments about my skin colour.
>Because everyone knows they aren't on the same par as someone without autism but they are high functioning compared to their counterparts.
But to dismiss someone as invalid over characters they have, be that race or functionality, is still the argument, and mindset of a bigot.
please stop, your general inclination is kinda correct but you can't just say "logical fallacy" as an argument and think you've won.
fallacy fallacy
I'm not going to deconstruct this one but I just want to say you really don't understand what a lot of these fallacies even mean.
Like there were better ones to use if you were just trying to force it but instead you went with the ones you heard before and got the rest completely wrong.
Like tu quoque. Even if I had literally said "you do not understand simple concepts." If you said tu quoque then that means in the past you have shown that you don't understand simple concepts ie in this very thread but since then you have changed so the argument is invalid because you changed during the course of this thread to start understanding simple concepts.
>please stop
khyui tebye
>say "logical fallacy" as an argument and think you've won.
that's not how fallacies work.
>fallacy fallacy
recursion
>but I just want to say you really don't understand what a lot of these fallacies even mean.
Ad hominem, plus tu quoque.
>Like there were better ones to use if you were just trying to force it but instead you went with the ones you heard before and got the rest completely wrong.
Ad hominem, and tu quoque.
>Even if I had literally said "you do not understand simple concepts."
Which is chiefly, ad hominem, and carefully, tu quoque.
>If you said tu quoque then that means in the past you have shown that you don't understand simple concepts ie in this very thread but since then you have changed so the argument is invalid because you changed during the course of this thread to start understanding simple concepts.
Ad hominem, and tu quoque.
Alright you win.
I'm done with my charity in educating you in a setting you feel comfortable in.
If none of your opinions have changed at this point then you are just proving me right that people with autism aren't on equal footing and if you pretend you didn't have to revert to autistic screeching to win an argument like so many already believed about you.
>If none of your opinions have changed at this point then you are just proving me right that people with autism aren't on equal footing and if you pretend you didn't have to revert to autistic screeching to win an argument like so many already believed about you.
And you've done well enough to out yourself as a bigot who will dismiss people on characters they deem as invalid, be it race or mentality. Doubly so, as the apparent quest to change another's mind shows.
In my experience autism was an excuse for teachers to do shit like punch you in the head for no reason and then lie about it to your parents
I'll never forget the school shrink who dry humped me when I was 7 and then lied about me crying and being scared to his co workers and teachers, saying I was just "acting out" because I was autistic
>that's not how fallacies work.
exactly so stop
Tu quoque.
>bigot
You are 100% right on that one.
Everyone is a bigot.
If you don't agree with pedophiles then you would be bigoted to their ideas.
You don't have to validate people who are wrong even if that is the "nice" thing to do.
But don't worry because you won the argument.
>Everyone is a bigot.
And everyone has committed some crime in their life, however small. And everyone has been a perpetrator of something awful, while also being the victim of other awful acts. How others act isn't a model for your behaviour.
>If you don't agree with pedophiles then you would be bigoted to their ideas.
Contextually.
>You don't have to validate people who are wrong even if that is the "nice" thing to do.
It's not about kindness or nil, it's about being pointed out for bigoted, and discriminatory behaviour towards groups and types you think are wrong or invalid. That's wrong across the board, and no better than dropping them for racially, sexually, or orientated-based, etc. reasons.
That's a very negative way to look at it.
I've told plenty of friends I've gotten comfortable with that I'm an aspie and none of them treat me differently. They still hold conversations with me about what they did the night before, they make the same edgy jokes and they still go out to bars with me and almost just forget I have a very slight problem. And I wouldn't expect anything else because they're my friends and I'm comfortable letting them know.
Granted Asperger's syndrome isn't seen nowadays as anything to even be considered in someone's adult life so I'm sure if you have a disability that's a lot worse and you tell people about it they'll treat you differently
> autism is as bad as schizophrenia
Neck yourself
Not contextually. Literally. Bigoted means you won't change your opinion. People use it as an insult when they won't change their minds no matter what. Its a more severe form of stubborn.
The problem wasn't that people were bigoted it was that they were bigoted about racism.
>discriminatory
So are gun laws that ban people with mental problems from getting guns which I also support.
So are laws that give money to people who have disabilities even though supposedly there is nothing wrong with them and they are all on the same playing field as everyone else.
So is giving people with learning disorders their own special class where they get personalized rules.
Life is full of discrimination. Some just and some unjust.
That was a bait.
If you think schizoids aren't the same as autists then it validates the opinion that autists aren't the same as people without disabilities.
No, when the truly high functioning ones aren't coddled we tend to be superior because we don't get as bogged down in the bullshit neurotypicals do.
No shit they're not the same. What a worthless fucking statement. Is an apple also not the same as an orange? How about fire and water? Are those also not the same? You have to prove that having autism automatically proves that you aren't a functional human being for your statement to actually say something. I repeat, neck yourself
>Bigoted means you won't change your opinion.
Bigotry means an intolerance of some sort, not refusal to change point of views. The latter can be an example of intolerance, but bigotry just means that: intolerance.
>People use it as an insult when they won't change their minds no matter what.
It's also used to call people out for their intolerance, like some would to anyone who's seemingly racist.
>The problem wasn't that people were bigoted it was that they were bigoted about racism.
Racial bigotry is its own thing.
>So are gun laws that ban people with mental problems from getting guns which I also support.
For insincere and presumed discriminatory, prejudiced reasons.
>So are laws that give money to people who have disabilities even though supposedly there is nothing wrong with them and they are all on the same playing field as everyone else.
For dysfunctions and personal debilitations, which aren't exclusive to either mentality or physicality. But that's an equality/equity thing.
>So is giving people with learning disorders their own special class where they get personalized rules.
Equality/equity.
>Life is full of discrimination. Some just and some unjust.
Life is also full of murder and rape, that some will argue as either just and unjust. Still wrong things to do.
>not the same
> autism is as bad as schizophrenia
If you think schizophrenia is not as bad as autism then recognize that mental disorders do prevent people from being functional.
If all mental disorders should not be treated differently from "neurotypicals" then one would never be worse than the other.
If one is worse then the other then autism can be worse than "neurotypicals" because its no longer ableist to say that people with mental disorders should not be treated the same as people without them.
I'm autistic. Have friends, a job that doesn't know I'm autistic and I'm about to get a promotion, am saving for a new car, am at the point where I can flirt successfully, and live on my own with no support. Government or otherwise. I'm only 21 so don't say some bullshit about how long it took for me to get like this. Saying something can be worse doesn't mean it is. Try yet again.
Besides I don't even know what you're fucking arguing against. You have imagined me to have an argument that I obviously don't. Yes, some people with disorders aren't functional. Also true is that some people without mental disorders aren't functional. Your point is that some people aren't functional? I can't imagine what else it can be
>intolerance doesn't mean refusal to change
Okay.
So you mean its not bigoted to stereotype?
What is stereotyping?
Believing something about someone without any evidence and refusing to change that point of view.
>racial bigotry is its own thing
Thanks for telling me you can read because that's what I said. Do you have to call people racial bigots? Because you assumed that I'm racist based on me being bigoted. Because being ableist is the same thing as being racist in your opinion because you think all other races are born with disabilities and low iq.
The trap was about him calling me ableist.
In his opinion you are ableist for thinking people with schizophrenia are worse than people with autism.
You haven't called me ableist but if you want to at this point I would just call you ableist for your opinions which are similar to mine.
I personally don't care about your success story. I think people are over diagnosed as autistic in the same way people are over diagnosed as having ADD/ADHD. However, that doesn't mean that neither of these disorders exist. You can create an "autistic" child by completely isolating him from other people so they are behind in social development. Were they behind because they were autistic or were they behind because of their environment? The only way to check would be to follow up every few years and even then how would you tell them apart from "high functioning"?
>Okay.
>So you mean its not bigoted to stereotype?
>What is stereotyping?
>Believing something about someone without any evidence and refusing to change that point of view.
Non-sequitur.
>Do you have to call people racial bigots?
It comes with the territory as one would in terms of sexual and orientative bigotry.
>Because you assumed that I'm racist based on me being bigoted.
For exhibitions of bigotry/prejudice similar to racism. Comparisons to sexism and homophobia, for example, would be just as valid.
>Because being ableist is the same thing as being racist
It's a type of bigotry/prejudice like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That's correct.
>because you think all other races are born with disabilities and low iq.
Non-sequitur.
>The trap was about him calling me ableist.
For being ablist.
>In his opinion you are ableist for thinking people with schizophrenia are worse than people with autism.
Another non-sequitur.
>You haven't called me ableist but if you want to at this point I would just call you ableist for your opinions which are similar to mine.
Your positions aren't similar to each other at all.
>I think people are over diagnosed as autistic in the same way people are over diagnosed as having ADD/ADHD.
Another prejudiced attitude commonly found towards mental functionalities.
If it wasn't clear because of your autism. I'm not going to mention that fallacy thing that you are doing because you only do it when you absolutely have no rebuttal.
>your positions aren't similar to each other at all
As he said in > autism is as bad as schizophrenia
If autism isn't as bad as schizophrenia then that means schizophrenia is worse than neurotypicals.
If that doesn't make him an ableist then it doesn't make me one as we establish that there is a line in mental disability where one mental condition is worse than another so they can't all be equal to neurotypicals.
If a = b = c then b can't be different from c.
That's downright cruel user. Honestly even schizophrenic people should be given fair say for all we know satan really did possess their brians. The main thing is if what they say makes a lot of sense then it is fine if it doesn't it is bad. So if they say Satan is in their head and are totally normal besides that I think we should maybe consider the possibility Satan could be in their head.
I think I am like this but not autistic. And if you think it is annoying to you trust me it is annoying to me because my mind is constantly arguing with myself. I can't ever be happy with anything there is always a voice telling me I'm wrong.
>If it wasn't clear because of your autism
Ad hominem.
>I'm not going to mention that fallacy thing that you are doing because you only do it when you absolutely have no rebuttal.
Ad hominem and tu quoque.
>If that doesn't make him an ableist then it doesn't make me one as we establish that there is a line in mental disability where one mental condition is worse than another so they can't all be equal to neurotypicals.
Ablism is based on whether or not you exhibit either contempt, prejudice, or anything of the sort to any functionalities, mental or general, in the first place. Not whether if one's better or worse, or whatever myopic standard like that, just that any functionalities, and lackthereof, to begin with. And whether or not he does the same, doesn't mean you suddenly get out of doing the same.
>If a = b = c then b can't be different from c.
Terrible syllogism.
>I'm not going to mention that fallacy thing that you are doing because you only do it when you absolutely have no rebuttal.
but he's right. a lot of your arguments are fallacious, and end up shooting themselves in the foot enough to discredit them without him having to do that. as most of your arguments are basically just personal attack towards who doesn't share your views, and you originally claim to be invalids.
That last one was your opinion.
>"you have/are , so it does invalidate your worldviews." That's prejudice and bigotry in the same veins as racism, sexism, etc.
Schizophrenia is an xyz right?
His falacies are used incorrectly.
Like syllogism.
That's a = b b = c so a = c.
Where you make arbitrary connections between 3 things to say they are equal.
However, he personally said that mental disability isn't something you can discriminate someone over.
Meaning all mental disabilities.
So his statement was a=b=c and I was proving his syllogism wrong by proving that if b=/=c then this "rule" is a fallacy.
But since I understand where his misunderstandings come from I'm not going to call them out or acknowledge them since even adults get fallacies incorrect.
>His falacies are used incorrectly.
no, they weren't. a lot of your arguments were personal attacks and focuses on motivation of the argument, instead of the argument. which are ad hominems.
>However, he personally said that mental disability isn't something you can discriminate someone over.
you can't and shouldn't.
>Meaning all mental disabilities.
differences between generally and "all." but again, he's right. you shouldn't discriminate against any disabilities.
>So his statement was a=b=c and I was proving his syllogism wrong by proving that if b=/=c then this "rule" is a fallacy. But since I understand where his misunderstandings come from I'm not going to call them out or acknowledge them since even adults get fallacies incorrect.
at this point, your syntaxes are becoming incoherent, and spiralling off to something different.
You're going to have to point out where he misused any fallacy, because all I'm seeing are repeated claims of ad hominems, which weren't inaccurate.
>Schizophrenia is an xyz right?
Dangerously ignoratio elenchi.
A lot of my personal attacks were personal attacks.
They were said and meant as personal attacks.
If I call someone stupid I want them to take it as an insult on their intellect.
If you want to call me rude thats fine but saying an insult is a logical fallacy is retarded. < Is that a logical fallacy even though there isn't even an argument there. Its just me stating my opinion in an insulting way.
Do you believe that insulting schizos is bigoted? Yes/no explain your opinion if you want to.
A question isn't an argument.
>A lot of my personal attacks were personal attacks. They were said and meant as personal attacks. If I call someone stupid I want them to take it as an insult on their intellect.
then that would be an adhom fallacy.
>If you want to call me rude thats fine but saying an insult is a logical fallacy is retarded.
personal attacks and insults are common forms of fallacy.
>Is that a logical fallacy even though there isn't even an argument there.
that's not how fallacies work.
>Its just me stating my opinion in an insulting way.
that is an argument. and one that's fallacy.
>Do you believe that insulting schizos is bigoted?
About as bigoted as insulting a black person.
>A question isn't an argument.
Questions can be arguments, and revealing.
You basically just admitted to those fallacies he claimed, and misconstrued what fallacious, arguments, hell, even what logic is.
Yes because you're in your own reality that probably doesn't reflects what's actually going on.
>adhom fallacy
What position of yours am I convincing you is incorrect by insulting you?
That's what ad hom means.
Fallacies only apply to arguments.
Whats the argument then?
Who am I convincing and of what and explain what you think I meant by that specific fallacy you want to call out.
The argument was "they were said and meant as a personal attack"
You would fail 9th grade english at this point.
They actually require you to find the argument and explain how it was based on a fallacy
Its retarded that I have to explain english to people who probably only recently got out of high school though it would make more sense if its been decades since the last time you studied.
>What position of yours am I convincing you is incorrect by insulting you?
by resorting to personal attacks to shoot it down.
>That's what ad hom means.
adhoms are just personal attacks (ex.: insults) directed at the character, not the statement. really all there is to it.
>Whats the argument then?
to shoot down theirs in a manner akin to playground tactics.
>Who am I convincing and of what and explain what you think I meant by that specific fallacy you want to call out.
not their domain.
>The argument was "they were said and meant as a personal attack"
which there are multiple instances of itt.
>You would fail 9th grade english at this point.
funny we're talking about adhoms.
>They actually require you to find the argument and explain how it was based on a fallacy
and several have itt.
>Its retarded that I have to explain english to people who probably only recently got out of high school though it would make more sense if its been decades since the last time you studied.
i guess another adhom. plus this stringent, rather narrow dedication to the formality of your, er, definitions is usually a sign of a lack of understanding over them.
those are two of the same thing. you don't really outright say an argument is wrong, nor do you ever throw insults at any point (that will always be an ad hominem regardless of context). you have to argue that it's wrong, and keep defending that position for as is necessary, without resorting to anything fallacious.
I don't really see a difference here. Any attack on the arguer, instead of the argument, is still an ad hominem, no matter how you construct it.
>those two are the same thing
>literally the most common example to show morons the difference between a fallacy and an attack on you personally.
A logical fallacy only has to do with convincing someone that the opponent is wrong because they are xyz. However, in my book like posts you could delete all the attacks and the arguments would not have lost anything because I keep my arguments and insults separately.
If you can't separate the arguments from the insults then that says more about you than it does about me.
I mean the whole phrase is literally argumentum ad hominem.
When it comes insulting someone while debating them its just called "name calling".
And the point isn't to prove your argument but to keep the opponent off balance.
Personally I just like insulting people.
imagine googling logical fallacies and spouting them on a filipino oil painting board without knowing their meaning
>A logical fallacy only has to do with convincing someone that the opponent is wrong because they are xyz.
a fallacy is simply just a bad argument, or statement that isn't conclusive. that's it.
>because I keep my arguments and insults separately.
clearly haven't.
>When it comes insulting someone while debating them its just called "name calling".
name calling pretty much what an adhom is.
>And the point isn't to prove your argument but to keep the opponent off balance.
the point is to default to a catchall hissyfitting without actually debating.
>Personally I just like insulting people.
a). more revealing of character; and b). in consideration to original claims that certain people are valid to hold opinions
That's fine.
Are you going to cry because someone online insulted you?
What a bitch.
Imagine believing the world was flat because the the round earth guy called you a dumbass.
>bbbbut he used a logical fallacy so his whole argument fell apart
>Are you going to cry because someone online insulted you?
going to continue adhoming?
and that's a recursion
holy fuck, you couldn't even rub two brain cells together let alone make a cohesive rebuttal.
and that is an actual adhom you can take to the bank
>since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false
Funny, since fallacies aren't inherently right or wrong, but arguments that are just terrible and don't have any weight to support themselves. Even anecdotal fallacies are true sometimes, but don't support themselves, or are valid arguments to use. Plus, anyone who claims fallacy fallacy is guilty of the same thing.
I mean I have a whole thread of my arguments and if you aren't going to read those why would I continue that path?
You aren't even the original guy I was talking to so what opinions of yours would I even debate?
Trying to explain what a fallacy is to you? Already have posts that do that.
I mean you are the type of guy who tries to convince people that PEMDAS means that multiplication gets done before division and addition gets done before subtraction.
When someone is fundamentally wrong you just insult them and laugh so they live their whole life thinking that way.
>I mean I have a whole thread of my arguments and if you aren't going to read those why would I continue that path?
and theyre still fallacious, and stem from being called out for prejudice.
>Already have posts that do that.
and they were wrong and skewed.
>When someone is fundamentally wrong you just insult them and laugh so they live their whole life thinking that way.
that's abusive.
>Trying to explain what a fallacy is to you? Already have posts that do that.
Except those explanations were myopic and inaccurately formal.
>didn't even read them
>claim they are wrong and skewed because someone else used a shit ton of fallacies incorrectly
>don't even know what fallacy means and can't even bother to google to fact check himself before spouting incorrect information
>its your fault that I'm wrong because you didn't provide the correct information to me
>can't even bother to google to fact check himself before spouting incorrect information
funny, since google keeps confirming my said information
Google so far doesn't seem all that different than whatever she's claiming.
>google keeps confirming
That says more about your googling skills.
Post some of those websites for all of us at home.
Maybe start working with a case manager, do you live on your own? That should be your goal (if you are not independent right now) and they could help you with that. Good luck user.
>all these sources
>ad hominem is literally argumentum ad hominem
>says its an argument strategy like I said
>literally calls it a genetic fallacy but you don't know what that means either
Show me where ad hom can be used without an argument please.
Any instance of insulting the person. Really all there is to it. Fallacies aren't limited to formal debating styles. Just any arguments or statements that aren't really good.
Show me where you saw that online.
Show me all those google results that says ad hom is any instance of insulting the person.
