12 Dec 2019 5:15 pm
Huey » 12 Dec 2019 5:14 pm » wrote:
I am fine. I am patiently waiting for you to explain where I can get a REAL assault rifle in 30 minutes or less.
I never threatened to shoot anyone. And I had no clue you were a Jew and really don’t care.
But I can say law enforcement is going to have a real good laugh at your expense and hopefully charge you with a false report.
And I hope you can afford the counter lawsuit, you name being published on the forum once it becomes public record from the lawsuit, and the settlement I will win.
So carry on.
Ps. Why you still posting to me? The first thing law enforcement is going to tell is not to inform me nor continue contact.
Argumentum ad dictionarium is the act of pulling out a dictionary to support your assertions. More broadly speaking it can refer to any argument about definitions, semantics, or what label to apply to a person or idea — an actual dictionary may not be involved, sometimes the definition is purely personal, sometimes it can be a case of picking and choosing definitions raised by other sources,[2] but the end use is the same. For the most part, "dictionary" is used as a short-cut to refer to any source of these definitions, including statement such as "well, if I define X like this…", which is possibly the most asinine form of the fallacy. See, we've had to head off one use of this fallacy already in case someone says, "It's not this fallacy because I'm not using a dictionary!"
It is a form of argument from authority combining attributes of a red herring argument and, frequently, special pleading. It's very closely related to equivocation and doublespeak. About 91.3% of arguments on the internet tend to boil down to this.
so you shove that red herring right up your *** ***