• Sybil@lemmy.world
      1·
      5 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
              1·
              5 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
                1·
                5 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
                  1·
                  5 months ago

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

                  • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
                    1·
                    5 months ago

                    Let me help you out:

                    Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation.[1] The proposition can sometimes be repeated until any challenges or opposition cease, letting the proponent assert it as fact, and solely due to a lack of challengers (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.[3]