poisoning the well.
argumentum ad absurdim
Meh, it was important enough for Jake Tapper to ask questions about it at the GOP debate.
poisoning the well.
argumentum ad absurdim
I'll have to take your word for it, but it was certainly a big social media story the day it happened (same day as the debate, if I recall) and CNN loves them some social media news stories.
argumentum di third world mudskindum
False attribution. Poisoning the well. Ad hominem.
denying the antecedent.
Argumentum ad nauseum re ed dom
Ignignokt = non compos mentis
sympathetus suckulus
argumentum ad cucktainium
Bomb threat
according to who
The school
I don't believe the school has commented on it at all.
Do you have a link of their saying it was about a bomb threat?
She said it out of her own mouth. Of course her story is that she was innocent and dindu nuffin those meanies just falsely accused her!
So you don't have a link of the school's commenting on it?
As a self-styled minister of information, you can't get even the most basic facts right.
Continuum Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
The continuum fallacy (also called the fallacy of the beard,[1] line drawing fallacy, bald man fallacy, fallacy of the heap, the sorites fallacy) is an informal fallacy closely related to the sorites paradox, or paradox of the heap. The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.
So are you saying breitbart made it up and the family, the school, nor anyone else are calling them down on it? You're dumb
What did the bomb sound like when Mookie dropped it on 4cc? Do u know the one to which I refer?
Is it like your pointing out a typo?
inductive fallacy, correlative fallacy.
off topic
but DAYYYYYUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! loloololololol
no that's just me pointing out a typo, just like i point out your fallacies.
Did you find yours?
too quoue fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[2] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[3] It is distinct from an argument condemning double standards, which argues against an opponent's moral standing to demand better conduct from others when guilty of similar misconduct themselves, without suggesting that the logic of their argument is compromised by that misconduct.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)