>>53825803Disingenuous yet again! The assertion that "Even men know how shit men are" only holds weight (ergo, is only worth claiming) under the implication that it stands as an assessment of the opinions of every/many man/men. If you wish to claim that this was NOT argumentum ad populum, you must therefore concede that all further arguments you made relying on this as a foundation are null and avoid, i.e. your assertion that men are "crippled" emotionally, given that these points no longer have even the pretext of a logical foundation to rely upon. Your example is also a case of the false analogy fallacy, in which a weak analogy is given with the intent of leading to a false conclusion. "Women wear hijabi," does not have the same implicative weight as the statement, "Even men know how shit men are," as it relies on a well-understood cultural discriminator (the hijabi) to make its point, rather than being a vague, open-ended statement meant to unfairly assess men as a collective.
Similarly, the entirety of you post describing said, "gay harmless cutesy act" is not only the most well-known and obvious fallacy (ad hominem), but your attempt to assassinate my character only holds under the belief that I am calling multiple women foids, which is an unfair assumption based on my conduct during this exchange.
