Originally posted by @dj2becker Rather than deal with the argument, just attack the person and say that don't understand what they are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"just attack the person and say that don't understand."
Again, no attack, just an assertion that you don't understand the terminology you are using, evidenced by how you are using it.
If you claimed apples grew underground, would it be an ad_hominem attack to question your understanding of how apples actually grew? (Or questioning your erroneous understanding of the Immaculate conception?)
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke "just attack the person and say that don't understand."
Again, no attack, just an assertion that you don't understand the terminology you are using, evidenced by how you are using it.
If you claimed apples grew underground, would it be an ad_hominem attack to question your understanding of how apples actually grew? (Or questioning your erroneous understanding of the Immaculate conception?)
You just can't help yourself can you? Now you are using another strawman, comparing my first argument to me saying apples grow underground. 😀
Can't you just deal with my original argument of person A and person B? 😉
Originally posted by @dj2becker You just can't help yourself can you? Now you are using another strawman, comparing my first argument to me saying apples grow underground. 😀
Can't you just deal with my original argument of person A and person B? 😉
Bearing in mind his intellectual fortitude, person A is probably an Aubergine and person B a Brussels sprout.
Rather telling sir that you remember the aubergine one and forget:
"I have no idea if one person loves another person. I'm simply asserting that if they are 'enemies' then there is no genuine love there. I can't say it any simpler than that."
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke Rather telling sir that you remember the aubergine one and forget:
"I have no idea if one person loves another person. I'm simply asserting that if they are 'enemies' then there is no genuine love there. I can't say it any simpler than that."
The aubergine one followed this one:
If you could tell me whether random person A loved random person B, then you would have a set of criteria by which you could tell whether person A loves enemy B, but you can't so you don't.
Originally posted by @dj2becker The aubergine one followed this one:
If you could tell me whether random person A loved random person B, then you would have a set of criteria by which you could tell whether person A loves enemy B, but you can't so you don't.
My response made clear that your question was meaningless in regards to whether one can love one's enemy. Bringing in random people, who are not enemies, gets us nowhere. (And makes you sound like a twat). Here it is again:
"I have no idea if one person loves another person. I'm simply asserting that if they are 'enemies' then there is no genuine love there. I can't say it any simpler than that."
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke My response made clear that your question was meaningless in regards to whether one can love one's enemy. Bringing in random people, who are not enemies, gets us nowhere. (And makes you sound like a twat). Here it is again:
"I have no idea if one person loves another person. I'm simply asserting that if they are 'enemies' then there is no genuine love there. I can't say it any simpler than that."
So you think that because you cannot love your enemy no one can? 🙄
25 Sep '17 17:56
what is love
Back to Top