yet more poisoning of the well, a form of ad hominem.
You're going to need to explain that.
I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary, and that means picking the downballot that has the most chances along with ones that aligns with ones' view the best. You weren't the person I responded to. And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead. And the subject matter of the alternative wasn't really anything to do with the upballot, and you're not able to give a sastisfactory answer as to how they're relevant to this proposal.
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone's arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it's prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.
The argument you provided weren't arguments because they didn't align with the subject proposal at hand which is downballot choices. You came with the upballot. That's not an argument to begin with. And I was making a observation of your responses.
anyone can see exactly what happened and that you are just trying to imply that i was involved in some conversation that i never was.
>I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary,
and i said "no".
>And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead.
i never talked about the downballot at all. anyone can see exactly what i quoted, and what i said, and that i'm not getting dragged along into voting for even more democrats.
Of course you didn't. But you responded with upballot instead when the subject matter of the proposal of alternative was to look for downballot. Do I have to repeat that until you get it?
repeat it all you want. anyone can see what happened.
And you're getting downvoted. That tells me maybe, maybe you're on the wrong here?
people just don't like to hear the truth when it contradicts the lies they've chosen to believe
yet more poisoning of the well, a form of ad hominem.
You're going to need to explain that.
I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary, and that means picking the downballot that has the most chances along with ones that aligns with ones' view the best. You weren't the person I responded to. And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead. And the subject matter of the alternative wasn't really anything to do with the upballot, and you're not able to give a sastisfactory answer as to how they're relevant to this proposal.
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone's arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it's prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.
The argument you provided weren't arguments because they didn't align with the subject proposal at hand which is downballot choices. You came with the upballot. That's not an argument to begin with. And I was making a observation of your responses.
anyone can see exactly what happened and that you are just trying to imply that i was involved in some conversation that i never was.
>I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary,
and i said "no".
>And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead.
i never talked about the downballot at all. anyone can see exactly what i quoted, and what i said, and that i'm not getting dragged along into voting for even more democrats.
Of course you didn't. But you responded with upballot instead when the subject matter of the proposal of alternative was to look for downballot. Do I have to repeat that until you get it?
repeat it all you want. anyone can see what happened.
And you're getting downvoted. That tells me maybe, maybe you're on the wrong here?
people just don't like to hear the truth when it contradicts the lies they've chosen to believe
aha..appeal to popularity