Darryl George: Texas judge rules school district can restrict the length of male students’ natural hairRanvier@sopuli.xyz to News@lemmy.world – 569 points – 9 months agocnn.com195Post a CommentPreviewYou are viewing a single commentView all commentsShow the parent comment Now your argument is pretending there is an incorrect statement in my argument. No, not pretending. You are confusing fact with opinion. That's actually a fact. Ad hominem attacks against me aren’t compelling. And accusing me of "splitting hairs" instead of addressing my actual argument is also an ad hominem. You're basically undercutting your own position. No, not pretending. You are confusing fact with opinion. That’s actually a fact. Your argument is definitely the one pretending and the one confusing incorrect facts as an opinion. And accusing me of “splitting hairs” instead of addressing my actual argument is also an ad hominem. Your argument attempted to split hairs. I’m sure it’s true in some cases, but the blanket claim that it’s the only reason is an opinion (and almost certainly an incorrect one at that). Your argument attempted to split hairs unsuccessfully. My argument's statement was correct. You’re basically undercutting your own position. Your argument does this to itself.
Now your argument is pretending there is an incorrect statement in my argument. No, not pretending. You are confusing fact with opinion. That's actually a fact. Ad hominem attacks against me aren’t compelling. And accusing me of "splitting hairs" instead of addressing my actual argument is also an ad hominem. You're basically undercutting your own position. No, not pretending. You are confusing fact with opinion. That’s actually a fact. Your argument is definitely the one pretending and the one confusing incorrect facts as an opinion. And accusing me of “splitting hairs” instead of addressing my actual argument is also an ad hominem. Your argument attempted to split hairs. I’m sure it’s true in some cases, but the blanket claim that it’s the only reason is an opinion (and almost certainly an incorrect one at that). Your argument attempted to split hairs unsuccessfully. My argument's statement was correct. You’re basically undercutting your own position. Your argument does this to itself.
No, not pretending. You are confusing fact with opinion. That’s actually a fact. Your argument is definitely the one pretending and the one confusing incorrect facts as an opinion. And accusing me of “splitting hairs” instead of addressing my actual argument is also an ad hominem. Your argument attempted to split hairs. I’m sure it’s true in some cases, but the blanket claim that it’s the only reason is an opinion (and almost certainly an incorrect one at that). Your argument attempted to split hairs unsuccessfully. My argument's statement was correct. You’re basically undercutting your own position. Your argument does this to itself.
No, not pretending. You are confusing fact with opinion. That's actually a fact.
And accusing me of "splitting hairs" instead of addressing my actual argument is also an ad hominem. You're basically undercutting your own position.
Your argument is definitely the one pretending and the one confusing incorrect facts as an opinion.
Your argument attempted to split hairs.
Your argument attempted to split hairs unsuccessfully. My argument's statement was correct.
Your argument does this to itself.