RE: Psychotherapist Doesn't Understand Self Awareness
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.
It' can both be legitimately disregarded as "nonsense nonsense nonsense" AND requiring scrutiny!
You are a dumb ass who cannot see the contradictory nature of that very thought!
No contradiction present, you provided all the justification in your comments.
It either can be disregarded, legitimately, OR requires scrutiny, you cannot disregard something that you scrutinize you dumb ass. It's a PERFORMATIVE CONTRADICTION.
What's opinion about JK is a sham, he got rich off peddling nonsense. If you have something that is counter to that, then it's not a fact, but it's not opinion based on his work and his hypocrisy and his cheating and lying.
You hardly defended the man, go ahead and defend the man again. Otherwise it's not debatable if he was indeed all those things is it? He hardly has to admit to any of those for these things to be true, it was apt to quote his nonsense that so clearly expresses his nonsense to any critical, thoughtful individual thought, you get credit for that. Too bad you cannot appreciate the nonsense.
You accuse me of
-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)
But have done no justice to substantiating your claims of fallacy with reason or rhetoric. You have not said why and how those things are true. Why haven't you substantiated your claims with why and how those things apply and render the conclusion false?
All the reasoning is provided in the comments, you have just chosen to "cherry pick" around them (another fallacy).
Ok, I guess you just couldn't be bothered to back up this claim with evidence, like the reasons which could so easily be copy pasted.
Too bad you have no substance to your claim, too bad you just lied and said you provided ALL the reasons, and made another claim to fallacy without demonstrating it, dumb ass.