• Sybil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        don’t be intellectually dishonest, and i won’t call out your intellectual dishonesty. it’s not debate bro shit.

              • Sybil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                i have been expressing my earnest feelings and doing my best to convey them to you. explaining your equivocation was no more debate bro than explaining the definition of communism is. please look back through here, and you’ll find that i’m quite happy to admit i don’t really know everything, i don’t have a perfect plan for every thing, and i don’t care to argue about any of it. i don’t mind discussing, but your accusation of debate bro-ing seems, to me, like projection.

                • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  it is. since you seem opposed to learning anywhere but Lemmy, I’ll help you out. equivocation is an informal fallacy where you use one word in a certain context with a particular meaning, and then you use the same word in a different context with a different meaning, and then you claim that they’re the same thing.

                  Yeah ok, totally not a debate bro

                  If that’s how you want to do it, I’m happy to come to your level and just copy paste the Wikipedia definition of proof by assertion and fallacy fallacy while dropping smug lines like “I’ll help you out”

                  • Sybil@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    i didn’t paste anything. i’ve been conversing with you. you have been highly hostile with me, though.