Strawman fallacy, poisoning the well, circumstantial ad hominem, implied tu quoque, accusation & moralistic framing, dismissive language & loaded terms, shifting blame & victim reversal, false attribution of motive, appeal to irrelevance, aggressive & dismissive tone - I am impressed. Taking rhétorique noire classes?
Everyone knows that naming fallacies doesn't show it happened. It only shows you can name fallacies.
But you're resorting to:
- fallacy‑fallacy by assuming my argument is wrong just because you claim to see a fallacy.
- and to gish‑gallop by trying to overwhelm and make me look up your allegations of me using your list of fallacies.
Overall, it's a poor attempt to escape the argument. That's a wrap.
I listed all logical fallacies and "schwarze rhetorik" kinds I could find in your previous statements and I am mighty impressed you fitted so many in such a short space. I was wondering if you are a student of these dark arts or if it comes naturally to you?
So don't try to spin your irrelevant bad takes on me, own up to them.
> What we are seeing...
What you're seeing is that a billionaire is being held accountable, and for some unknown reason, you don't like it. You don't represent the opinion of anyone but yourself.