That is to say, your argument is invalid because you have a vested interest in redacting or subverting the rules. Furthermore,
even if it was a fallacy, that doesn't mean my initial post was logically incorrect.
He called the concept of sanctionlancer cancerous. Your entire response to him is predicated on an attack on his character in order to invalidate his argument, which, does not fall under the "fallacy fallacy." Attacking his character, for being sanctioned several times - therefore supposedly invalidating his argument - is an ad hominem, and forms the backbone of your response to him. This is what we like to call a "non-argument." It is also very poorly thought out, given the fact that pretty much every user in this thread has been sanctioned at one point or another, barring a few select examples.
Try demonstrating why simply moving bases is not preferable to creating a greater sanction-load than there already is, if you are actually trying to convince people of something, instead of arguing against people you don't like for the sake of not liking them.
If you cannot take having something you say be called nonviable, regardless of syntax, then you might want to consider not "contributing" in an open forum.
User was banned for: They will know.
Time left: (Permanent)
