You need to learn what a fallacy is, then learn about the various common varieties, of which the above is one of them.
You really need to go find some children to argue with. Perhaps they wouldn't notice your malfunctioning logic and reliance on fallacy arguments.
‘You really need to go find some children to argue with. Perhaps they wouldn’t notice your malfunctioning logic and reliance on fallacy arguments.’
He told me once that the ‘proof’ that Stanley Ann was in HI during her pregnancy is that ‘her husband, Barack Obama I, would have seen her.’ I.e.: he said Obama Sr. was an eye-witness to her presence, case closed.
Yes, he really said that.
He has no comprehension of the term, ‘logical fallacy,’ and it doesn’t appear that anyone can explain it to him.
Liberalism rots the rational part of the brain. That’s why, as Churchill said, you either give liberalism up by a certain age or you lose your thinking faculties.
“You really need to go find some children to argue with. Perhaps they wouldn’t notice your malfunctioning logic and reliance on fallacy arguments.”
Like a variant of the no-true-scottsman fallacy where if they were a true scottsman, they would agree with your point? Anyone who doesn’t comprehend your “brilliance” must be a child?
You have been given the answer that is established precident by the courts. The fact you don’t agree with that precident... is simply not relevant.