Reply With Quote
Are you making a formal argument? yes or no?
You're one of those liberals who has adopted secularized Christianity. You're such a "good person." DMC is kicking your ass fwiw.
Are you making a formal argument? yes or no?
Yes, since I haven't thrown the first stone, like you did.
No. I'm saying your formal argument is a re ed fallacy.
That's a stone.
"There were a number of additional people gathered at the dock who were not our guests who also expressed a desire to leave St. Thomas. We very much wanted to assist these other travelers to Puerto Rico, however, the Marriott team on-the-ground was told they had no authorization to board additional passengers who were not on the manifest. This was enforced by dock security," the company said.
But my argument isn't formal.
I didn't start the thread, ergo the "first stone".
You're a dumb mother er aren't ya?
But smarter than Boots.I didn't start the thread, ergo the "first stone".
You're a dumb mother er aren't ya?
Objectively, the LOLeftist team here is getting ing thumped the last week or so.
I didn't start the thread, ergo the "first stone".
You're a dumb mother er aren't ya?
what legal responsibility does Marriott have with their guests? unless it was a tour service they provided then they went out of their way to provide an extra service they didn't need to..
I like JW Marriott hotels. It's a nice compromise for when I don't want to spend Ritz-Carlton type money on a hotel. First world problems... I know.
K, it's not formal.
Doesn't take away from how it's a re ed fallacy.
I didn't say you threw "first stone" ergo my exclusion of the word "first".I didn't start the thread, ergo the "first stone".
You're a dumb mother er aren't ya?
It's still a stone.
You're an illiterate er aren't you.
Lol objectively
Team LOLeft took Ls all week. Y'all lost. Time to re-group, come back with new stereotypes, schticks and a new gameplan. Scour Google,MSM and social media for new names to call. Yuse guys are simple, but you all will be alright.
You don't understand the concept of fallacies in logic, arguments or rebuttals.
I didn't say "stone". I said "first stone".
More pedantic Chump style got retorts from you, trying to go pages basically saying nothing. Damn, I've gone only a few posts with you and I already want to someone else.
Lol objective
Sure I do. You're using the tu quoque method.
Classic fallacy tbh.
I didn't say "first stone". I said "stone".
You threw one. It horribly missed.
I currently don't give a about other stones. I'm laughing at yours.
Keep pretending you're winning here.
^triggered
Only if it's a debate and only if I used a logical debate in the process, which I did not. Where were my premises?
Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]
I never said that your actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of the claim of the OP. I said that those of you who do nothing about it aren't really that concerned about it, which is different than saying the OP's claim is false. I'm sure it's true, but it's based not on truth of falsehood of the claim, but the repercussions of it. Since the premise was implied that those stranded people were in serious need of evacuation and that Marriott was negligent or morally wrong for not evacuating them, all I needed to do was challenge the moral standards of the poster.
Last edited by DMC; 09-16-2017 at 02:13 PM.
^triggered^triggered
Person A: Marriott sucks for leaving people behind
DMC: what are you white knights doing about it.
Tu quoque.
Tu estupido.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions