5mwJ

[Innerreach]

I'm sure that impresses the likes of you and your ilk.

Yeah.. Someone who’s gone on to become an asset to society.

What was I thinking.🙄

[AZZERAE]

There are bigger issues to discuss.

There sure are. Jack's a decoy.

[Innerreach]

ßUT most importantly, I'm not a slave to a paycheck...

No, your parents were.

[AZZERAE]

"A fallacy is reasoning that is logically invalid, or that undermines the logical validity of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies. This is a list of well-known fallacies.

Because of their variety, fallacies are challenging to classify. They can be classified by their structure (formal fallacies) or content (informal fallacies). Informal fallacies, the larger group, may then be subdivided into categories such as improper presumption, faulty generalization, and error in assigning causation and relevance, among others.

The use of fallacies is common when the speaker's goal of achieving common agreement is more important to them than utilizing sound reasoning. When fallacies are used, the premise should be recognized as not well-grounded, the conclusion as unproven (but not necessarily false), and the argument as unsound."

- Hornby, A.S., Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English

RED HERRING FALLACIES

"A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. This includes any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion."

- Gary Curtis, Logical Fallacy: Red Herring

"Red Herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying "If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?"). In jury trial, it is known as a Chewbacca defense. In political strategy, it is called a dead cat strategy. See also irrelevant conclusion.

Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. (Note that "ad hominem" can also refer to the dialectical strategy of arguing on the basis of the opponent's own commitments. This type of ad hominem is not a fallacy.)

Circumstantial ad hominem – stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong.

Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.

Appeal to motive – dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.

Tone policing – focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.

Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo, 'Therefore I leave') – a critic's perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Easily confused with the association fallacy ("guilt by association") below.

Appeal to authority (argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam) – an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

Appeal to accomplishment – an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. This may often also have elements of appeal to emotion (see below).

Courtier's reply – a criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.

Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.

Appeal to emotion – manipulating the emotions of the listener rather than using valid reasoning to obtain common agreement.

Appeal to fear – generating distress, anxiety, cynicism, or prejudice towards the opponent in an argument.

Appeal to flattery – using excessive or insincere praise to obtain common agreement.

Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – generating feelings of sympathy or mercy in the listener to obtain common agreement.

Appeal to ridicule (reductio ad ridiculum, reductio ad absurdum, ad absurdum) – mocking or stating that the opponent's position is laughable to deflect from the merits of the opponent's argument. (Note that "reductio ad absurdum" can also refer to the classic form of argument that establishes a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. This type of reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.)

Appeal to spite – generating bitterness or hostility in the listener toward an opponent in an argument.

Judgmental language – using insulting or pejorative language in an argument.

Pooh-pooh – stating that an opponent's argument is unworthy of consideration.

Style over substance – embellishing an argument with compelling language, exploiting a bias towards the esthetic qualities of an argument, e.g. the rhyme-as-reason effect

Wishful thinking – arguing for a course of action by the listener according to what might be pleasing to imagine rather than according to evidence or reason.

Appeal to nature – judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'. (Sometimes also called the "naturalistic fallacy", but is not to be confused with the other fallacies by that name.)

Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis, argumentum ad antiquitatis) – a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern (opposite of appeal to tradition)

Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)

Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.

Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor). (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)

Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so.

Association fallacy (guilt by association and honor by association) – arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same.

Logic chopping fallacy (nit-picking, trivial objections) – Focusing on trivial details of an argument, rather than the main point of the argumentation.

Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.

Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. The assumption that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.

Chronological snobbery – a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, known to be false, was also commonly held.

Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.

Genetic fallacy – a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."

- Damer, T. Edward (2009), Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments

[Starr Mountain]

"A fallacy is reasoning that is logically invalid, or that undermines the logical validity of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies. This is a list of well-known fallacies.

Because of their variety, fallacies are challenging to classify. They can be classified by their structure (formal fallacies) or content (informal fallacies). Informal fallacies, the larger group, may then be subdivided into categories such as improper presumption, faulty generalization, and error in assigning causation and relevance, among others.

The use of fallacies is common when the speaker's goal of achieving common agreement is more important to them than utilizing sound reasoning. When fallacies are used, the premise should be recognized as not well-grounded, the conclusion as unproven (but not necessarily false), and the argument as unsound."

- Hornby, A.S., Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English

RED HERRING FALLACIES

"A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. This includes any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion."

- Gary Curtis, Logical Fallacy: Red Herring

"Red Herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying "If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?"). In jury trial, it is known as a Chewbacca defense. In political strategy, it is called a dead cat strategy. See also irrelevant conclusion.

Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. (Note that "ad hominem" can also refer to the dialectical strategy of arguing on the basis of the opponent's own commitments. This type of ad hominem is not a fallacy.)

Circumstantial ad hominem – stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong.

Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.

Appeal to motive – dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.

Tone policing – focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.

Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo, 'Therefore I leave') – a critic's perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Easily confused with the association fallacy ("guilt by association") below.

Appeal to authority (argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam) – an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

Appeal to accomplishment – an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. This may often also have elements of appeal to emotion (see below).

Courtier's reply – a criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.

Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.

Appeal to emotion – manipulating the emotions of the listener rather than using valid reasoning to obtain common agreement.

Appeal to fear – generating distress, anxiety, cynicism, or prejudice towards the opponent in an argument.

Appeal to flattery – using excessive or insincere praise to obtain common agreement.

Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – generating feelings of sympathy or mercy in the listener to obtain common agreement.

Appeal to ridicule (reductio ad ridiculum, reductio ad absurdum, ad absurdum) – mocking or stating that the opponent's position is laughable to deflect from the merits of the opponent's argument. (Note that "reductio ad absurdum" can also refer to the classic form of argument that establishes a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. This type of reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.)

Appeal to spite – generating bitterness or hostility in the listener toward an opponent in an argument.

Judgmental language – using insulting or pejorative language in an argument.

Pooh-pooh – stating that an opponent's argument is unworthy of consideration.

Style over substance – embellishing an argument with compelling language, exploiting a bias towards the esthetic qualities of an argument, e.g. the rhyme-as-reason effect

Wishful thinking – arguing for a course of action by the listener according to what might be pleasing to imagine rather than according to evidence or reason.

Appeal to nature – judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'. (Sometimes also called the "naturalistic fallacy", but is not to be confused with the other fallacies by that name.)

Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis, argumentum ad antiquitatis) – a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern (opposite of appeal to tradition)

Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)

Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.

Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor). (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)

Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so.

Association fallacy (guilt by association and honor by association) – arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same.

Logic chopping fallacy (nit-picking, trivial objections) – Focusing on trivial details of an argument, rather than the main point of the argumentation.

Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.

Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. The assumption that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.

Chronological snobbery – a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, known to be false, was also commonly held.

Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.

Genetic fallacy – a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."

- Damer, T. Edward (2009), Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments

Interesting. 

[Jackstar]

https://www.youtube.com/live/UBrZATTmKoM?si=2IHF9Q3It32Q0iVY

No, your parents were.

My parents were born before The Great Depression, lived through it and more, and would have seen through your bullshit faster than I did — and undoubtedly would not have been as tolerant to your shenanigans as I have been.

How you explain yourself, to yourself, is an absolute mystery to me. You carry yourself as if you have important affairs that matter. Demonstrations of such, remain hazy.

I have the perfect gift idea for you: a ten-pound gummy bear wrapped in a burlap sack and labeled with old Post-It Notes.

Interesting. 

Carl! I thought you were in Hong Kong‽

Jack's a decoy.

Quack.

[AZZERAE]

If you will indulge me for a moment - which shouldn't be too much to ask, being that the majority of the audience trundles through the mountains of dreck Jack hammers out daily - I have a theorem to present. It deepens the plunge into some of the flimsy magic tricks Jack the Fallen Star plays on his unsuspecting victims. Psychology 101 is too good an analysis. Armchair psychiatry too charitable a time. No, he deserves 2 Tylenol and the empty promise of a telephonic exchange tomorrow. But I'm about to give him a Mulligan. A do-over as it were. Jack, I'm figuring you out. And you're shitting your incontinent, meth-addled ass.

Let's start with Jewel. If I quote from Damer, T. Edward's 2009 book, 'Attacking Faulty Reasoning...', we find he makes mention of the original switcheroo, WHAT YOU ARE, inherently, the decoy as I mentioned earlier, or THE RED HERRING, which Edward goes on to define eloquently, as when one:

"...introduc[es] a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic...In political strategy, it is called a dead cat strategy..."

Dead cat strategy, eh? Sounds an awful lot like Jack's little delusion he tries pushing onto other people-- About how "they" killed his cat, Jewel. Mind you, he never seems all that cut up about it. But "someone" "murdered" his cat. Something's fishy about the whole thing (Red Herring). And the Dead Cat Strategy is a Synchronicity that just can't be ignored. Not by a Schizo, anyway (me).

But if you think it ends there, you're sorely mistaken, readers. Sore as a throat in need of a lozenge. What's with the whole "well" story? Well, er, excuse the pun. Mel's Hole, anyone? A tall tale, mayhaps? Everyone knows Mel was a troll, bro. And Jack has shot himself in the foot like a motherfucker at this point. I'm surprised he can walk, or has any feet left. But I digress. Jack likes to argue. He argues all day long. Fuck, he'd argue with a firefighter who was tryna rescue him from a burning building, and irritate the guy so Goddamn much they'd be ready to pump slugs in their own mug by the time they got him halfway down the ladder. Isn't it interesting that Edward includes "Poisoning the Well," as one of his honourable mentions in his 'Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments'?

While the subtype ad hominem is described as:

"...presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says."

It is true of how Jack behaves. These are mere microcosms of a larger picture, of a larger man, with a larger stomach than mine. A larger-than-life, bigger than Jesus bonkers blow-hard with an axe to grind against those who do nothing but attempt to placate his brittle-as-porcelain ego. My cautioning has always been to NOT FEED THIS BEAST, yet those who think they know better will do what they will do. Just know, like a spoilt child, you'll have it grow into a monster. And you'll have shat in your own nest.

We're all targets to Jack. Fish in a fuckin' barrel. He doesn't care one way or another whether any of us live or die. I've been told, 'But he's still a human being, he has feelings.', etc. I'm downright numb to his imagined plight. I say to those who look in from the outside, you don't know my story. You haven't seen the intricate, delicately woven fabrics of hatred, the saboteur that lurks behind his screens; watching, waiting. And I hope you never do.

P.S. But who's to say the whole "Jack's well slash water is poisoned" story is not just B.S.? He's literally living these metaphors in a way that is not figurative but like I said, literal in every sense of the word. The story of the poisoned well is a parable to the self-professed reverse Christ. Jack is the opposite of a saviour. Instead of saving us, he comes to deceive. And not with a sword-- He's a PACIFIST, remember? Like a thief in the night? NO. He insists on "the truth." Gets so mad at "lies." He's a liar, and its all about control. Not altruism. In short, your water ain't poisoned, buddy. You're just pulling our collective legs. *Bah humbug!*

[Lazarus]

Jack's a decoy.

He has been accused of being a government troll before.

Not so far-fetched.

https://www.straight.com/news/482846/government-trolls-use-psychology-based-influence-techniques-social-media

[Innerreach]

My parents were born before The Great Depression, lived through it and more.

Before the great depression? Were your parents, your grandparents?

You're only five years my senior, and the great depression was almost a century ago, Jack. 🤣

Your parents lived most of their lives, especially in their twilight years, in a booming economy. Had any of your folks been around during the great depression, they would have most assuredly been children.

Maybe “they lived through it,” but sifting through their toy box for their favorite toy doesn't exactly leave me with the harsh impression they were standing in a soup line while holding your annoying ass.

[Laser]

Before the great depression? Were your parents, your grandparents?

You're only five years my senior, and the great depression was almost a century ago, Jack. 🤣

Your parents lived most of their lives, especially in their twilight years, in a booming economy. Had any of your folks been around during the great depression, they would have most assuredly been children.

Maybe “they lived through it,” but sifting through their toy box for their favorite toy doesn't exactly leave me with the harsh impression they were standing in a soup line while holding your annoying ass.

Both his parents were born in 1934.

[Innerreach]

Both his parents were born in 1934.

Bwahahaha 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Innerreach]

How you explain yourself, to yourself, is an absolute mystery to me. You carry yourself as if you have important affairs that matter. Demonstrations of such, remain hazy.

Most people here know me as a moderately intelligent, blue-collar junior high school dropout who allocates some of his time off to producing silly podcasts and music.

I lead a very mundane life, Jacko, and I've never attempted to project as otherwise.

As for 🫵 and your grandiosity….

[AZZERAE]

[Jackstar]

Most people here know me

Most people here know me

... as Yorkshire pud. Settle down, Cleatis & Methhead. Have another chewable.

[Jackstar]

Your parents lived most of their lives, especially in their twilight years, in a booming economy.

My father watched as the Soviet Red Army raped and pillaged their way through his peasant village when he was 14. They killed his father, raped his mother, abducted his sister (who he never saw again), and conscripted him into military service for three years. He came home with a bloodstained rifle that he never cleaned the sights of, nor ever fired again, that I knew of, nor have I ever fired it myself—it was one of the five (5) long guns that your stupid, imbecilic, sleazebag thug team stole from The High Ground while I was fraudulently and feloniously prevented from returning home after being ambushed and framed on Christmas Eve 2021—an event that you not only openly conspired with others on the public Web to make happen, you have routinely laughed and mocked me over and about ever since.

The Soviets also killed his cat. A kitten, really. He never talked about this part of his past much, but one night while drinking, he told me why he didn't let me have a cat—although he did expect me to silently and obediently go out to pick up the shit of his two (2) hunting dogs. Like, sure I was his son, honor and obey one's parents, right?

Let me guess: you're operating under the false Jesuit shitbag belief that as a careless and irresponsible and immature brat, you have been “teaching me a lesson” over these last few years... and you're totally the right Dude for the job. Have I got that right?

You're a fucking child who knows nothing, and you've not only made jokes about raping toddlers, you've actually done that to a moron cheerleader brat with brain damage who started with the mind of a toddler to begin with.

So it's hard to justify arranging to have you killed since you're a squalling idiot brat yourself, but if ß.Bestie ever gets tired of your Texas Totes Toast totesbullshit and tells me that she wants you fucking iced, I will make that shit happen. Believe it.

My father told me I was stupid for using cannabis, and died while trapped in a residential care facility, addicted to fentanyl and poisoned by overuse of antibiotics that lead to him succumbing to pneumonia from complications stemming from a methicillin-resistant staph infection on his skin.

Flesh-eating bacteria and medical malpractice, in other words. Meanwhile, fast-forward to now, and you have been in full support of traumatically re-enacting the same experience I had with my father's death, with a certain unnamed other person. And you have no idea just how fucking stupid —as well as actionable— your behavior has been here on this site with The Oompa-Loompa.

And you both just go right on keeping on, keeping on, relentlessly defaming my character after stealing my guns, my friends, and my future plans. Constantly harping on how I am allegedly “a drug addict.”

My nigga: please. Here's why I haven't reported anything to the authorities, nor retained counsel in order to have your Punyling racist-thug bitchass sued into the goddam ground: my father was a big believer in the educational power of public humiliation.


(Vengeance for Mike “Ivan” Kuçzi.) He couldn't spell his own name either, Moron.

And when people I don't even know are done shredding your entire thuggy-piggy empire to bits, like a box of clue clucks clan-branded clean necks left alone in a hot room with an electrified floor and a syphilitic lioness, your G-d damned name won't even be worth mud.

It certainly won't be worth *polite spit* SPIT & BEN TOVER +†‡†± _CRY_, either, Jedi Jesuit scum.

blue-collar

Shut up Fed.

As for 🫵 and your grandiosity….

I am white-collar, legit ordained, and completely outrank you any six (6) ways from Sunday you can count. It's too late to STAND DOWN, Chumpstar.


I am taking all your wimmins now *snap* and, just like that:
I HAVE SET THEM FREE. Now, would you kindly: go rape Kirsten now. Thanks? Go down on her too, I bet she’d love getting The Ludovico Allegra w/Grapefruit JUICE.

Chop-chop, thuggy-britches. (Hi Jane. What, not brutal enough? I saved you the big piece of jugular. #Respect.) Go make the MAJIK K. AMAK happen. Go on, shoo. What are you waiting for, her armpit hair to come in so you can floss after?

That was Level Two on the Jack Richter-Reacher scale. You don't want to know how many fngers get broken at Level Three, but I will tell you this: Grapefuit scalps you while you're immobilzed with curare at Level Five, and it doesn't ever get that good for you again, because at Level Five Point Five, she wears your skin-rug like a Hannibal Lecter mask and repeatedly rapes your mother to death with your own dick, while I set comfy several states away, instantly resurrecting the clown who squirted you out her dull-ass Dallas slit and giggle at the 70mm dailies of you from the future crying it all.

Stay mad bro. Keyser Soze was a made-up story about a criminal, heathen pussyfaghot, and I am the real goddam hung angry man deal. And I outrank her bitchass too.