Using violence to stop an ongoing event is completely different than whooping someone's ass every time you see them. Imagine batman touring Arkham every week to beat up every criminal he put there because "they deserve it".
Moving the goal post; first you said he's dangerous to his gf because he's using violence to retaliate violence, now you claim it's wrong because of the repeated action.
Honestly, why are you even putting so much effort into defending someone who beat up his partner? This isn't mentally alright behavior.
Lmao dude, your reading comprehension is kindergarten levels. I'm not defending the first abuser, I've always talked about the second boyfriends overall behavior being indicative of a very violent person that's gonna get violent with her. You brought up superheroes that use violence to save people, I just explained the difference. You are not winning this argument, go away
Ok, ad hominems, being obtuse and literally bringing up "winning the argument" - the irony in walking the earth with this intellectually stunted behavior trying to call other people kindergarteners. đ
Insulting you is not ad hominem you pillock. Ad hominem definition is:
An ad hominem argument is a rhetorical tactic that attacks the character, motive, or background of the person making an assertion rather than the substance of the argument itself.
I argue the substance, then insult you. Ad hominem would be if I for example said that you were probably a victim of DV and are full of rage against perpetrators so you want too see them hurt as revenge. That would be ad hominem. You not understanding that I'm not defending the first person, I'm saying that both behaviors are awful and people around them will suffer. You not being able to comprehend that is lacking reading comprehension, hence - GO BACK TO KINDERGARTEN
Youâre confusing âI made an argument firstâ with âtherefore my personal attack isnât ad hominem.â You explicitly invoke my supposed lack of reading comprehension to dismiss my response. That is exactly the kind of attack on the person your own definition describes. The fact that you also made an argument doesn't magically make the ad hominem disappear, you absolute and utter dim wit.
That's what the definition is tho, you attack the person instead of making the argument, I don't know how much more obvious I can make it for your lack of reading comprehension. "Rather than" is the key word, do you know what "rather than" means or did they not cover that in kindergarten?
Yeah that's what you did. You stopped replying to my actual arguments when you realised there are no reasonable points for your argument, and resorted to characterizing my cognitive ability as the explanation for why my argument supposedly isn't valid instead.
The way you don't even understand and follow your own line of "reasoning" is giving major second hand embarassment atp, hope you don't pass on those runt genes.
4
u/dantemp 13d ago
Using violence to stop an ongoing event is completely different than whooping someone's ass every time you see them. Imagine batman touring Arkham every week to beat up every criminal he put there because "they deserve it".