German comes along to explain why being anti-genocide makes you bad. German thinks your human rights don’t matter if you’re the wrong kind of person. Pretty typical.
I think context as always matters when looking at things. Generalising things at seeking easy truths is when we leave out the nuances and these matter.
Let’s focus for example on what I said vs what I didn’t say. I didn’t say a person exercising free speech is a problem, I said the person had ties with Russian state propaganda. Which I even explained with sources. Here are some more:
Your next point, after indicating generalizing all Germans are the same, was that I said this person(and all persons) doesn’t deserve human rights, vs what I actually said, they should have an indictment, where they would have a chance to appeal against.
If they said you’re a dipshit therefore you’re wrong, that’s ad hominem, that’s not what they said. You are wrong and don’t know what an ad hominem is, you dipshit.
No, you are assigning a moral value to complexity. Things are not more materially or morally correct by being more complex. That is the thinking of someone who thinks they are smart by really isn’t. Simple truths exist. One of which is that genocide is bad. Adding any “context” to that is pro-genocide. Which Germans have a long history of being.
You all are very high and mighty about the apparent lessons you learned from committing the most complex genocide in history (I can tell you are one of those). But the lesson you all learned is that you need to hire other people to do it. It allows you to maintain your smugness and innocence to anyone who doesn’t pay attention to anything.
They did not use an ad hominem fallacy, they said you explained why being anti-genocide is wrong, and then said that that’s typical of Germans. They did not say you were wrong because you were German.
German comes along to explain why being anti-genocide makes you bad. German thinks your human rights don’t matter if you’re the wrong kind of person. Pretty typical.
I think context as always matters when looking at things. Generalising things at seeking easy truths is when we leave out the nuances and these matter. Let’s focus for example on what I said vs what I didn’t say. I didn’t say a person exercising free speech is a problem, I said the person had ties with Russian state propaganda. Which I even explained with sources. Here are some more:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(Fernsehsender)#Ukraine_und_Syrien
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_(Plattform)
Your next point, after indicating generalizing all Germans are the same, was that I said this person(and all persons) doesn’t deserve human rights, vs what I actually said, they should have an indictment, where they would have a chance to appeal against.
Your ad hominem fallacy tactics are childish.
If they said you’re a dipshit therefore you’re wrong, that’s ad hominem, that’s not what they said. You are wrong and don’t know what an ad hominem is, you dipshit.
No, you are assigning a moral value to complexity. Things are not more materially or morally correct by being more complex. That is the thinking of someone who thinks they are smart by really isn’t. Simple truths exist. One of which is that genocide is bad. Adding any “context” to that is pro-genocide. Which Germans have a long history of being.
You all are very high and mighty about the apparent lessons you learned from committing the most complex genocide in history (I can tell you are one of those). But the lesson you all learned is that you need to hire other people to do it. It allows you to maintain your smugness and innocence to anyone who doesn’t pay attention to anything.
Not an ad hominem, an accurate observation
They did not use an ad hominem fallacy, they said you explained why being anti-genocide is wrong, and then said that that’s typical of Germans. They did not say you were wrong because you were German.