You know that “the other person” can be used in a general sense, right?
Aside, why would I engage in an ernest discussion with someone who doesn’t appear willing to accept that the other person in the discussion holds any stance different than the one they are perceived as having.
It would be a waste of my time to take this seriously, and I’m already having fun playing fallacy bingo.
I think you might need to look up what a Gish gallop is, because you will almost certainly find you have applied it to a situation in which it doesn’t belong.
You know that “the other person” can be used in a general sense, right?
Aside, why would I engage in an ernest discussion with someone who doesn’t appear willing to accept that the other person in the discussion holds any stance different than the one they are perceived as having.
It would be a waste of my time to take this seriously, and I’m already having fun playing fallacy bingo.
You commonly refer to yourself as “the other person”? Weird, but okay. I will take that at face value.
It only makes logical sense to be against the killing done by others if you yourself have no involvement in killing.
We wouldn’t want you to be the pot who called the kettle black.
This is called gish galloping and it’s very obnoxious
TIL. Thank you
I think you might need to look up what a Gish gallop is, because you will almost certainly find you have applied it to a situation in which it doesn’t belong.