MSNBC host compares Annoying Orange's disdain for MSM to strange Russian journalist deaths

[Corderlain]

Yeah, especially when you single them out and call them a circlejerk. Are you two handicapped or something?

Ad hominem immediately? Hit a nerve?

[Ad Bot]

[IkeTheGeneric]

Ad hominem immediately?

So I take that as a yes.

[Corderlain]

So I take that as a yes.

He did poke a hornets nest but it's basically unavoidable when the main contenders in these threads don't agree with you.

[IkeTheGeneric]

it's basically unavoidable

What's the fallacy called for being completely wrong about something? Was somebody holding matty by gunpoint forcing him to call out the people that dared to disagree with him once?

He's trying to start stuff because that's what his kind does. The mental gymnastics you're pulling to try and justify this is a feat in itself

[Corderlain]

What's the fallacy called for being completely wrong about something?

I'm unsure but you're just proving my point right now. I'm at work so I can't continue. Good talk, chap.

[Poliwhirl]

Gold talk, chap.

i'm going to bite your spine in twain like a nerds rope

[IkeTheGeneric]

I'm unsure but you're just proving my point right now. I'm at work so I can't continue. Good talk, chap.

Go ahead and retreat back to your safe space, dorkicus. You'll know I'm right when the apocalypse comes and Matthew kills us all

[Ipquarx]

What's the fallacy called for being completely wrong about something?

What he did doesn't really qualify as a logical fallacy as he didn't really make any sort of argument; all he did was make a blatantly wrong statement without anything to back it up. You can easily have a political debate without throwing a hissyfit at the opposing side, but Matthew (and many others on the forums on both sides) consciously chooses not to.

[McZealot]

Ad hominem immediately? Hit a nerve?

That wasn't an ad-hominem and it turns out you actually are handicapped. An ad hominem is like this:

"You're obviously false. After all, why would we believe a handicap?"

An ad-hominem is where you attack the person and claim it an attack on the argument, not attacking the argument and the person, but if you defuse their argument and then call them a handicap, that's just an insult. handicap.

[IkeTheGeneric]

That wasn't an ad-hominem and it turns out you actually are handicapped. An ad hominem is like this:

"You're obviously false. After all, why would we believe a handicap?"

But if you defuse their argument and then call them a handicap, that's just an insult. handicap.

Oh I thought I did do a fallacy. I was afraid I was wrong in an argument :(

[Corderlain]

An ad hominem is a personal attack. Calling me handicapped in the second sentence is an ad hominem. Using weasel words around it doesn't change anything.

[SlayerZ99]

An ad hominem is a personal attack. Calling me handicapped in the second sentence is an ad hominem. Using weasel words around it doesn't change anything.

fallacy fallacy

[beachbum111111]

An ad hominem is a personal attack. Calling me handicapped in the second sentence is an ad hominem. Using weasel words around it doesn't change anything.

No ad hominem is using a personal attack in place of an argument.

[LeisureSuit912]

An ad hominem is a personal attack. Calling me handicapped in the second sentence is an ad hominem. Using weasel words around it doesn't change anything.

Got em

[otto-san]

An ad hominem is a personal attack. Calling me handicapped in the second sentence is an ad hominem. Using weasel words around it doesn't change anything.

Tengen Topp McFrinkin Kekkeroni and Chease Pizza, truly you have made a fool of yourself in this place today, knave