301
Anon reaps what he sows
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
301 points (100.0% liked)
Greentext
4743 readers
1401 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Your change in verbiage from polyamory to polygamy demonstrates you have no interest in critical inquiry, you just want to argue.
And your complete dismissal over a simple typographic error demonstrates that you never intended to have an actual discussion. I had actually edited my post to polygamy because I had, inaccurately, recalled you using that word. At the end of the day, polyamory and polygamy, yes they're distinct. It doesn't change my statement regardless of which is used, however.
A typographical error would be like saying rihgt instead of right. Polyamory and polygamy are completely different words. You were poisoning the well. Go argue with teenagers who don't know what a fallacy is.
Poisoning the well implies an intent. Go reread my statement, replace "polygamy" with "polyamory" and then interface with it. Or keep showing you don't intend to have a good faith discussion because someone used a slightly incorrect word.
Again, I know there's a difference. It does not matter to the statement I made. You're relying on a silly gotcha instead of attacking the argument. And, even if I WAS poisoning the well, it doesn't somehow make you right because you saw a logical fallacy.