You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Psychotherapist Doesn't Understand Self Awareness
Give us some roles that are outside the context of gender that are determined on a case by case basis.
The role of being an engineer can be held by either gender, lol. If you don't know what the patients role is, you can ask and they will tell you, "oh I'm an engineer".haha
Burned again
And those roles are important to doctors because? Why would a doctor need to determine if someone is an engineer? Clearly you don't understand that removing the word gender from gender roles, breaks the concept, you're a dumbass and think that you hit some nail on the head with "gender roles don't need to be determined, they [gender roles] should be determined on a case by case basis".
Clearly, you don't know or have any relation to the issue you're writing about, this is akin to the sex talk topic which you thought blaming the progressives for was so astute, too bad you hardly recognize the impotence of a statement centered around progressives as a jab at specific people, but this isn't for your benefit, this is simply so a sensible human being can rejoice in truth.
you didn't read the thread.
You accuse me of not reading the thread because I pointed out a contradictory thought and your evasiveness, trying to hide the issue that you either resolve to determine gender roles, or you do not, performative contradiction much?
No because your question indicates that you didnt read the thread. I don't know what you're talkin about in the above comment.
Ok, my question directly related with your contradictory thought indicates that I didn't read the thread, without a why or how. Clearly my question indicates that you didn't consider the thought that you were writing down in the post that I didn't read, (why) because you think that gender roles don't need to be determined, but then argue that they should be determined, dumb ass.
If you had read it you wouldn't need to ask this:
The above is a strawman; I argued that their "roles" can be determined on a case by case basis, as the example given was regarding their occupations.
You argued that they don't need to be determined, then argued that they should be determined on a case by case basis.
It's not an attack dumb ass, I'm extending the same respect you've shown me.
You're right, I am a bit of a dumb ass, I'll give you that.
It is in our culture to call each other names like that down here in a friendly way e.g. hey cunt, or bloody wanker. I don't believe this is in your culture to do this, so I doubt that you are extending me the same respect I have shown you. If you are doing so, you are appropriating my Australian culture lol;)
So far you have used:
-a lie/misrepresentation of the description of an ad hominem to claim it legitimate.
-an ad hominem fallacy
-a strawman fallacy
-argumentum ad infinitum (repeated both the strawman and ad hominem)
-Tu quoque (or you too fallacy)
You have inadvertantly made:
-argument from ignorance (no one can prove it so therefore not true)
-shifting the burden of proof
You have done this on a personal platform of truth and logic, and a claim of fact and not a question of opinion. For this reason, anything else you say on that matter can be legitimately disregarded as illogical nonsense (and requiring scrutiny), on the basis of your historical use of logical fallacies. In other words, you have tried to use logical fallacies to demonstrate how logical you are.
That's how you legitimately use an ad hominem.
