Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 6:15 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Arising posted this ad hom: …

When will 'Yanks' like you learn to stop using "ad hominem" until you understand what it means?


An ad hominem would have been "PhilEx is mental so his argument is invalid". What I said is more towards an insult "You are mental because your argument is a complete misunderstanding of the facts of Physics" but in fact I was asking a question "Are you mental? As your argument is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the facts of Physics."

You don't know what you're talking about. I was shopping by a mall when a thunderstorm struck (I stayed inside). The storm struck a McDonalds across the street, which was near taller office buildings, setting it on fire. Those lightning rods did McDonalds a world of good, didn't they Arising? …

Thanks for proving you are mental, as you have actually proved my point that lightning would hit buildings and not shoppers.

Oh, and those women allegedly having more sense than the men shows how desperate you are in trying to win an argument and how prejudiced you are towards men as you can't find a study to support your pathetic argument. …

You prove the old adage "A sense of humour in Britain is obligatory, in the US its optional."

You lost this argument Arising.

PhilX

There is no argument numbnuts!! There's just you not understanding statistics and how they apply to the world.

You're a birdbrain as you like to twist words.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 6:19 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 1:10 pm Here's a good question for you all. It's been advised not to stand under a tree during a thunderstorm so how far should you be from a tree? Because if you're standing far enough, wouldn't that make you a new target of lightning?

PhilX

I thought you said lightning conductors don't work, so what difference would it make in your pea-brain opinion?

I'm beginning to believe the poster who suggested that you are one who visits websites named "100 interesting questions to ask people".

Didn't say that at all birdbrain word-twister.

PhilX

Being that Arising can't take valid criticism explains his name calling, his ad homs, his rudeness and his word-twisting in his futile attempts to win arguments. And calling me a yank shows his prejudice towards the US. No wonder few on here can stand him.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You're a birdbrain as you like to twist words.

PhilX

Aw! Boo Hoo!

Where is the twist is this discussion? You stated a statistic that said US men were five times more likely to be hit by lighting than US women and you goggled an answer which said it was due to recreational pursuits. You then said you didn't accept this explanation because there are loads more women in the stands when the big butch US men play field sports without nary a thought that maybe 'recreational pursuits' did not mean your twee little idyllic vision and could refer to pursuits that involved being outdoors in thunderstorms. When this was pointed-out to you you then floundered with a shopping analogy(not really worth continuing there due your lack of basic Physics with respect to buildings and humans attracting lightning) but to top it off you actually appeared to believe that the statistic of men being hit five times more than women actually meant that if a man and a women stood together the man would be five times more likely to be hit than the women thereby demonstrating that you didn't actually understand the statistic in the first place and completely explaining why posted the OP and kept on digging a great big hole despite your error being pointed-out to you. The statistic would have been based upon actual lighting strikes meaning five time more men are hit than women in the US you moron, not an experiment where they stuck a men and women into a Van de Graff generator and tested who was hit the most!

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Didn't say that at all birdbrain word-twister.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:… Those lightning rods did McDonalds a world of good, didn't they Arising?

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 6:42 pm Being that Arising can't take valid criticism explains his name calling, his ad homs, his rudeness and his word-twisting in his futile attempts to win arguments. …

Show me one valid criticism you've made so far in this discussion.

And calling me a yank shows his prejudice towards the US. …

I didn't call you a yank, I called you a 'Yank' and by this I mean an over-opinionated, under-educated, self-important, puffed-up buffoon.

No wonder few on here can stand him.

PhilX

I'm crushed.

It's a Philosophy forum not a popularity contest but I'd be interested how you come to this conclusion? Don't tell me you actually use the PM system to have cliquey little chats!?

For Birdbrain's last three posts:

I'm not going to respond to your posts as my previous responses serves that purpose. Btw you can't spell
("goggled" when it's googled ).

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: I'm not going to respond to your posts as my previous respinses serves that purpose. Btw you can't spell
("goggled" when it's googled ).

PhilX

What a maroon, goggled I said and goggled I meant.

By-the-by you really shouldn't grammar check others before checking yourself as it makes you look like an idiot hence your respinses

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 7:57 pm I'm not going to respond to your posts as my previous respinses serves that purpose. ...

PhilX

Of course you're not because you'd just look more of an idiot than you have been so far.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 8:14 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: I'm not going to respond to your posts as my previous respinses serves that purpose. Btw you can't spell
("goggled" when it's googled ).

PhilX

What a maroon, goggled I said and goggled I meant.

By-the-by you really shouldn't grammer check others before checking youself as it makes you look like an idiot hence your respinses

You're so full of shit it's coming out of your rear.

"grammer", "respinses". And you claim it makes me look like an idiot birdbrain?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: "grammer", "respinses". And you claim it makes me look like an idiot birdbrain?

PhilX

And yet I correct my grammar mistakes when I see them and don't use them as an insult against others, yet you cannot even see it in your own post that tries to slag me.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:'m not going to respond to your posts as my previous respinses serves that purpose. Btw you can't spell

LMFAO! What a maroon.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 8:23 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: "grammer", "respinses". And you claim it makes me look like an idiot birdbrain?

PhilX

And yet I correct my grammar mistakes when I see them and don't use them as an insult against others, yet you cannot even see it in your own post that tries to slag me.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:'m not going to respond to your posts as my previous respinses serves that purpose. Btw you can't spell

LMFAO! What a maroon.

I spotted it and corrected it putting in an o for an i. Yes you are a maroon and a moron.

PhilX

Arising said:

"I didn't call you a yank, I called you a 'Yank' and by this I mean an over-opinionated, under-educated, self-important, puffed-up buffoon." Who gives a rat's ass if you use a capital y, besides you. So for your lesson, it's American, not Yank nor yank. On this side of the pond, we don't refer to you as Brits, you over-opinionated dodo bird.

PhilX

Arising said:

"It's a Philosophy forum not a popularity contest but I'd be interested how you come to this conclusion? Don't tell me you actually use the PM system to have cliquey little chats!? "

I bet you would come in first in an unpopularity contest.

PhilX

Just like to add that since Arising isn't from the US (the UK right?), then I can forgive him for knowing next to nothing about the US.

PhilX