Romaq @Romaq@qoto.org

@saiv46

What of the facts as presented am I being biased against? You say that as if facts and logic are simply not relevant. Are they not relevant to you? If you can show where I am wrong as to my facts or as to my logic, does that not compel me to reconsider? Or are you just speaking out your bias against relevant facts and relevant logic?

@freemo @dalias

@saiv46

If a specific person from any of these were to speak to me directly concerning specific facts or error in my logic, I would have to address *THAT* first, would I not?

@PawelK @dalias @freemo

@saiv46

You mean like how you are framing your posts to insinuate qoto.org should be on that list you made based on misinformation, hate, and lies?

@PawelK @dalias @freemo

@saiv46

Perhaps it might be useful to focus on the facts at hand presented, such as @freemo not knowing anything about the tool used any more than you are guilty of genocide for using IBM based computers? Or perhaps accept that @freemo swiftly made an open change to policy after consulting his mods openly, rather than insisting it was "just put up to a democratic vote when he got around to it?"

Any possibility some focus on those facts could be made rather than, "I don't like the instance you are posting from?"

@PawelK @dalias

@saiv46

"... make the accusations worse." Because, of course, the facts of the case are entirely irrelevant to you as evidenced by this thread and you have no problem spreading your misinformation and deliberate ignorance of the facts presented to you even while you claim superiority.

How fash of you!

@PawelK @dalias @freemo

@PawelK

@saiv46 presumes, "You called my fallacy a fallacy. Rather than address how it is not, I'll just call your attempt to call my fallacy a fallacy itself, and then not have to address my expressed intent to ignore your facts and logic because I don't like the instance you are posting from more than I have any attention of accepting correction.

@dalias @freemo

@saiv46

https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

"There are only two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

That’s it. Simple! The dishonest list is much longer."

What of your carping about the instance someone is posting from is relative to the errors pointed out in your facts and the errors pointed out in your logic?

@PawelK @dalias @freemo

@saiv46

What is it I don't know other than the hate and misinformation you are spreading concerning qoto.org? What information is it I don't know other than the correction as to facts and logic you are clearly ignoring?

I'm not talking about what instance someone is coming from. I've already had conversations with others on noagendasocial.com and your assessment of them seems rather consistent. Using that as a basis to ignore evidence about this situation with Qoto is the issue at hand. On what basis is your problem with that instance reason to ignore what is being presented to you?

@PawelK @dalias @freemo

@saiv46

You refuse to consider if your facts are wrong or if your logic is wrong because ...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem "I don't like the instance you are posting from."

Your opinion is rejected because it stems from a clear logical fallacy.

@PawelK @dalias @freemo

@freemo

In other words, @dalias did the kinds of things he accuses MAGA people of doing and the reason they are, in his opinion, so gullible and stupid. But I guess stupid is as stupid does, regardless of politics. @saiv46

@saiv46

In other words, @freemo used the rules his server already had in place to communicate with his mods in a clear and open manner consistent with server policy to take swift action for all to see in plain view? And @dalias takes exception to this? How fash!