Comment

ad hominem fallacy What is the first thing you said to me? You do not know what you are saying, but it feels right to you well that is because you are accusing people of things you are guilty of. You’re basic and transparent, try logic.

Your poor reasoning skills are failing you. The antisemitic caricature goes hand in hand with set design. So you are trying to ague they went to another country to film in an active government building built with the exact styling as their home country and that set designers, directors and everyone else involved chose to feature the star among such depictions was an accident or coincidence?

Do you need it substantiated how detail oriented film makers are? You aren’t disputing the antisemitic character depictions, but you refuse to see the connection between the characters and their location? Claiming a movie isn’t very specific about details is a pretty bold claim you will need to backup with some evidence.

source

Sort:hotnew top

lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

What is the first thing you said to me? You do not know what you are saying, but it feels right to you well that is because you are accusing people of things you are guilty of. You’re basic and transparent, try logic.

Buddy, you need to look up ad hominem fallacy because there’s nothing to debate there. You’re just making a fool of yourself.

So you are trying to ague they went to another country

England is another country from England?

active government building

Filming permits?

how detail oriented film makers are

Do you need explained that different people aren’t the same person?

the connection between the characters and their location

A pre-existing building whose floor they used unmodified. Did they search every building in existence until they found one with a star on the floor? Implausible. Unless you have credible evidence, your claim is unsubstantiated speculation. This is classic motivated reasoning & confirmation bias.

Furthermore, no link or references to shit to substantiate anything you wrote: ipse dixit fallacy. You were rightly criticized for lacking a valid argument and this is no different. Respect logic & argue better.

source
- CovfefeKills@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  The characters go hand in hand with the set buddy I am not sure what is difficult about that to grasp for you. Anyways that’s some fancy mental gymnastics you got there. You know what I mean by basic and transparent? Someone told you that you were arguing with fallacies, it shut you up fast and now it’s your big thing that you feel the need to keep saying but it’s falling flat I am not going anywhere until you can substantiate your claim that the set wasn’t chosen along side the depictions, otherwise it is common sense that the set is as specific as the characters.
  
  It’s truly baffling you opened with an personal attack on me and then proceeded to cry Ad hominem. Can you just cure yourself of mental issues like that how can I get as good as you at mental gymnastics??
  
  source
- CovfefeKills@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Maybe it’s a weekend and I had a beer too many and shouldn’t be trying to restart shit but I was curious and then very satisfied to notice the distinct lack of mentioning fallacies in your comments recently. Has something been brought to your attention? What changed??
  
  source
- CovfefeKills@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Gotta say that I am disappointed you haven’t responded. You were either a learning opportunity or dirt under my fingers I couldn’t lose… I don’t want you to give up so easily… Try dissociate the set from the characters or something stupid so I can feel better about myself. Hey quick question, what did you think you were going to do?
  
  source