That above ^^^ is also an ad hominem insult. What will the mods say?
False Prophets
- Thread starter Radioactive
- Start date
That above ^^^ is also an ad hominem insult. What will the mods say?
Whateverman
Well-known member
No, it's not. It's sardonicism. It literally contains no insult.
There are some here who think that pointing out their errors are personal insults.
Whateverman
Well-known member
True. I think those same people feel insulted by the existence of logical fallacies themselves...
Worse, they accuse others of making logical fallacies without a clue to how to show a potential logical fallacy. They think that their personal authori-tie makes their mere accusation an absolute proof. Like every word from their keyboard should be equal to "It is written...".
Of course, if one comments on their error, so my previous post...
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
So, as of 2/9/21 it's obvious that the PROPHETS weren't "Prophets" at all. just religious fools CLAIMING to speak for God, when they never actually had anything from Him to share at all. Nothing but "Superheated FLESH" without an iota of truth.
That is not a word; you just made it up., and it also fails the definition test:
disdainfully or skeptically humorous : derisively mocking
None of those adjectives apply
By definition, you are attacking and insulting another poster. So if you do not like what I post, complain to a mod.
Whateverman
Well-known member
Definition of SARDONICISM
sardonic quality or humor… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
Oops
By pointing out that you don't understand what sardonicism means? Not hardly
Definition of SARDONICISM
sardonic quality or humor… See the full definition
Oops
By pointing out that you don't understand what sardonicism means? Not hardly
I provided the definition from Merriam Webster. You simply created a non-existent word, therefore, your accusation fails. What you do not understand is that any form of the word "sardonic" (and your creation is NOT a form of the word) is an insult, BY DEFINITION.
Our Lord's God
Well-known member
The entire "church system" is jam packed full of false prophets.
Our Lord's God
Well-known member
baptism?Is English your native tongue? Do you know what a "belief system" is, because it's not merely a word with the "-ism" suffix.
-ism/izəm/suffixsuffix: -ism
- 1.
forming nouns denoting an action or its result.
"baptism"
- forming nouns denoting a state or quality.
"barbarism"- 2.
forming nouns denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement.
"Anglicanism"
- forming nouns denoting a basis for prejudice or discrimination.
"racism"- 3.
forming nouns denoting a peculiarity in language.
"colloquialism"
- 4.
forming nouns denoting a pathological condition.
"alcoholism"You're way out in left field; I'll leave you to it
Whateverman
Well-known member
That's one example in the reference I've posted, sure. I don't think calling it a "belief system" is accurate at all, because it's part of one, but isn't one by itself.
But since that one might be debatable, the other quoted examples make my point: alcoholism isn't a belief system; neither is a colloquialism.
I'm going to leave this thread, because the one troll I've interacted with here (NOT you) is taking the thread off-topic with this stuff, and that's something the mods frown upon.
Well since your posted definition didn't match the LINKED ONE from Merriam Webster, I fail to see how you are speaking truthfully in that claim.
Also, your claim that the other poster created a "made up word" when THE ACTUAL LINK shows that word defined by Merriam Webster's dictionary, it calls into doubt your veracity on this subject. It might possibly your honest ignorance of the English language, which is not a negative thing unless one refuses to learn when confronted by contrary facts. To call that a "personal insult" would be to define one's idea of "personal insult" to be that which disagrees with that person.
Instead you chose to post the definition for the word "sardonic", which may or may not be considered personally insulting, but usually isn't. Unless, of course, a certain person believes that contradiction of their false claims to be personally insulting. That certain type of person shows themselves to be vain, arrogant and have trouble with the truth at all times. Otherwise, one would have to show that it is not just disdain or skeptical, but that is actually derisive humor, not only of the silly idea that prompted it, but of the person promoting the silly idea personally.
Snowflakes who are so thin skinned as to be the princess from "The Princess and The Pea" story should not be allowed to create the standards for adult discourse.
That type of person, speaking in general, would be the type who attempts to moderate other posters by shaming in rude posts on forums where moderation is to be left to the moderators. A rather childish action by this type of person.
Now, where have I seen that kind of shaming attempts in modern culture...
civic
Well-known member
yes all the unitarian cults as well.