HOME | DD
Bullter —
8.Tiger python_attack
[NSFW]
Published: 2008-07-14 16:40:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 29832; Favourites: 1029; Downloads: 230
Redirect to original
Description
Python molurus bivittatus and rattRelated content
Comments: 1833
"What? How is this even relevant?"
Go and read it til you see the message.
I am assuming that a snake's going to be fed, one way or another, which is a lot more pleasurable than starving. Another thing, you keep on going on about this rat fighting back. A shop bought rat is unlikely to be able to inflict any damage upon a snake, a creature which has evolved with rats and other rodents as a staple diet.
"Is that why you called me ignorant?"
I called you ignorant because you are being ignorant. I would not call you ignorant because I wasn't attacking you, that is illogical. Indeed, ignorant is not an insult, it's a description.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I am assuming that a snake's going to be fed, one way or another, which is a lot more pleasurable than starving."
I don't remember saying anything against feeding snakes pre-killed rats.
"A shop bought rat is unlikely to be able to inflict any damage upon a snake, a creature which has evolved with rats and other rodents as a staple diet."
Really? Tell that to all the snake owners who used to feed their snakes live rats, then had their snake either severely injured or killed then ended up switching to pre-killed rats for that very reason. If you don't think a rat will ever utilize its self-preservation instinct and fight back then you are sorely mistaken.
"I called you ignorant because you are being ignorant"
Again you have yet to prove this. You simply argued based on a bunch of philosophies I don't subscribe to, but you have not demonstrated in any way how I'm ignorant. If anything this makes you ignorant since you keep using this as an ad-hominem fallacy instead of addressing the actual argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
STOP!
Pause the argument here for a second while I explain the reason for your ignorance. Go to my first post in this conversation. Read only the letters in bold. There. A joke, which you did not notice, therefore making you ignorant.
Also, stop calling everything an ad-hominem fallacy when this is in no way a fallacy, it's an entirely separate fucking argument. It has not been linked to the actual argument once, and as such can not be held a fallacy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Great, thanks for pointing that out, I didn't really notice because I wasn't reading only your bold letters. I guess technically that means I was ignorant of what it said, though I'm not anymore since you were kind of enough to point it out. Of course, if you don't care, I wonder why you even bothered to reply to a comment that wasn't even addressing you in the first place.
So really, my point still stands: If you feel like actually addressing my point then feel free. But I'm not interested in whether or not you care or whether or not you think I'm ignorant. Thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't care to start with, and now I've been sucked in. -.-
I'm not sure if I even know what the original point was.
Since you're no longer ignorant, can we stop butchering the phrase ad-hominem?
I don't know if my attention span will allow me to continue tonight, but maybe tomorrow when it's not 1am.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I believe the original point was that you can't justify live feeding because it's "natural" due to the fact that you can't really call it natural as it's a totally human-controlled setting that is being discussed and not a wild one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm gonna leave this til the morning. Reply, so I know where to look, and then we shall talk again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
She called you ignorant because, well, it's true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have yet to demonstrate or prove this. In fact, your ad-hominem fallacy is only proving you to be ignorant, really. Attacking the person instead of the argument just means your argument is weak.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Your entire rant was full of ad-hominem fallacies. I'll wait a while while you look.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm wondering if you even know what it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is me wondering the same thing, for a word you throw around so much, you can't seem to be able to recognize them when you use them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How would you even know when you don't even read my post by your own admittance?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First of all, I didn't read one post because of your inability to handle your temper, prompting a 600 word rebuttal that nobody will read. I have read all of your other posts, however.
Once again you are taking things out of context. I suggest you step away from the computer, and take a fucking midol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My temper? Lol, I don't remember ever losing my temper. If writing several paragraphs means you have a big temper, then I guess anyone who's ever written a novel is a raging psychopath.
Same goes to you, really. I mean, you replied again to my post saying I gave up when I didn't reply for 30 MINUTES. I think that shows who really needs to step away from the computer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, if something I said pissed you off enough to try to refute everything I said sentence by sentence, then I succeeded in pissing you off.
Ha. You've been arguing with me while I'm at work. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmmm, nope, that's not really how it works.
Being pissed off is not the only emotion that it takes to trigger a desire to refute your arguments, honestly. Maybe I'm just bored. You don't know. It's the internet, lol. Neither of us knows anything about each others' emotions.
And you know more? Where am I right now? Do you have a camera hidden somewhere on me? Are you psychic? O.o
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
mhhm. And you've been arguing with me for what then?
Actually, even if I had a hidden camera or was a psychic, I wouldn't care.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Good. I don't have to care either then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Alright. Go away then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is not an ad-hominem fallacy. An ad-hominem fallacy would be to say your claim was incorrect because I have said you are being ignorant, which is not the case. Your claim is a separate entity from yourself, and your ignorance has not been linked to your claim yet. While it would be correct to use your ignorance to belittle your claim under most circumstances, in this case your ignorance is of an entirely different topic.
Hence, this is not an ad-hominem fallacy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
An ad-hominem fallacy is when you attack the person instead of the argument. Which is what you did. You weren't addressing the argument at all.
Of what topic does my ignorance pertain to? If you're going to insult people, at least be clear about what you are insulting them over.
Reply again when you're willing to address the actual points I've made, instead of telling me that I'm ignorant over and over again without demonstrating an actual reason. Until then I have no interest in just listening to someone call me names for no reason. Thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This has gotten too far spread out, this needs to be contained in one place... Otherwise it could spread and endanger millions!
Correct, to an extent. Rather, an ad-hominem fallacy is where you attack an argument, through the person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I didn't know at the time what you were calling me ignorant about, I assumed it had something to do with the subject I was actually discussing because of the comment you replied to. I assumed your comment had something to do with my comment since you replied to it and all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It did have something to do with your comment. I didn't care. And now I might. And I'm unhappy about this state of affairs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you didn't care then why did you even reply to it at all? 
That doesn't really make any sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it may have been to mock you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Great. But again I'm not interested in discussing these things with people who have no interest in actually discussing their points of view and instead opt to mock anyone who has a different opinion than them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not just mocking anyone who has a different opinion to myself. I'm also mocking people with the same opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, well, at least you aren't biased.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you had mocked me in a way that actually had a point, I would have accepted it, but nothing in that post said anything other than you don't care, so I really have nothing to argue against here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Who says you need to argue at all? You could just chill the hell out and enjoy a civilized conversation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When I say "argue" I don't mean that it's uncivilized or angry, though I know the word may imply that, it's not what I mean.
I am chilled out, I'm not angry. I only get angry about a few things, and somebody mocking me isn't one of them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then stop being so damn argumentative, it's annoying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If it annoys you so much, then you're perfectly free to not argue with me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You don't seem to understand the issue. It's that you are at fault. Are you perhaps autistic? My cousin is, and he doesn't do accepting blame or responsibility either.
I rather like talking to you, but it is you arguing that annoys me, not me arguing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What am I not understanding about the issue? And uh, no, I'm not autistic.
You replied to several comments that I made to OTHER people, not you, so if you find me annoying, you can stop the conversation or simply cease starting more conversations with me. It's kind of silly to start an argument with somebody and then complain about them being too argumentative.
So really, if you enjoy talking to me like you say, you have a choice between continuing to argue and being annoyed, or contact me elsewhere outside of this deviation to strike up a pleasant non-aruging or non-mocking conversation. Or you can simply stop talking to me. Really, it's not my problem if you continue to argue with me when you started this whole thing by mocking me in the first place.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're saying it's me who is continuing the argument, despite the fact I've offered to stop in the name of talking pleasantly. Your reply could be summarized as "WHY DON'T YOU STOP ARGUING?!?! HERP DERP"
I don't see why we have to move location for a pleasant conversation, as opposed to having one now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have? When? Sorry if I missed it
I dunno, if we just started talking about random unrelated things here, it'd seem kind of silly to me, not that I really care if you keep it here or not, I guess it'd just be easier.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Silly is the way forward. I'm of the opinion that the whole of World War 1 could have been averted if a little silliness were encouraged.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't really know a whole lot about WW1. I didn't really pay much attention during that unit in history. >.>
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't take history. But still. It could've. So could most world wars.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wonder if hitler god laid often. I think that might have helped a little.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, it's documented that he liked his niece to piss on him.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So he was like...
what's that singer's name again, you know the one who got accused of pissing on some 14 year old? I forget
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... Yes, I imagine he was exactly like anyone who like being pissed on in that respect.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I still can't remember his name
some R&B guy, I know his name but for some reason I just can't remember right now
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>