You admit I've never used appeal to authority fallacy,

No, I said you did. And you did.

but still insist I've done some other, unnamed, fallacies

Nope, I was referring to Appeal to Authority there. I was pointing out the fact that just because you think you aren't making fallacies, doesn't mean you aren't actually making fallacies. Even though I was speaking in general terms it should have been obvious WHICH fallacy I was specifically referring to considering the context clues of the conversation.

THIS is what I said: Just because you're too stupid and uneducated to name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making any logical fallacies you fucking retard.

Any. And big surprise, "any" includes Appeal to Authority, which I was SPECIFICALLY referring to this whole conversation and even more specifically directly in the quoted sentence.

But here I fixed it since it was too difficult for you to parse:

Just because you're too stupid and uneducated to name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making the logical fallacy you claim to not be making you fucking retard.

Just because you didn't name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making an appeal to authority fallacy.

all while using ad hominems. Classy, and about what I expect from religious people.

Honestly after trying THIS long to explain why you're wrong and you STILL not getting it, to the point that you have LITERALLY devolved to actually arguing semantics, I don't really care if you call me classy.

I mean, you read a one sentence description of a fallacy and then tried to pass that off to someone who has actually taken courses in the subject as if it was good enough. You probably thought "got 'em! It has to refer to a SPECIFIC person!" No, it doesn't.

So yeah, you sound like a Iiberal who thinks they're much smarter than others. And apparently simply claiming to follow "science and logic" is enough to delude yourself into thinking you actually DO follow science and logic, but in actuality have no fucking clue what it is you are actually "following".

*Edited to be less of a dick. Believe it or not.

You admit I've never used appeal to authority fallacy,

No, I said you did. And you did.

but still insist I've done some other, unnamed, fallacies

Nope, I was referring to Appeal to Authority there. I was pointing out the fact that just because you think you aren't making fallacies, doesn't mean you aren't actually making fallacies. Even though I was speaking in general terms it should have been obvious WHICH fallacy I was specifically referring to considering the context clues of the conversation.

THIS is what I said: Just because you're too stupid and uneducated to name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making any logical fallacies you fucking retard.

Any. And big surprise, "any" includes Appeal to Authority, which I was SPECIFICALLY referring to this whole conversation and even more specifically directly in the sentence you quoted.

But here I fixed it since it was too difficult for you to parse:

Just because you're too stupid and uneducated to name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making the logical fallacy you claim to not be making you fucking retard.

Just because you didn't name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making an appeal to authority fallacy.

all while using ad hominems. Classy, and about what I expect from religious people.

Honestly after trying THIS long to explain why you're wrong and you STILL not getting it, to the point that you have LITERALLY devolved to actually arguing semantics, I don't really care if you call me classy.

I mean, you read a one sentence description of a fallacy and then tried to pass that off to someone who has actually taken courses in the subject as if it was good enough. You probably thought "got 'em! It has to refer to a SPECIFIC person!" No, it doesn't.

So yeah, you sound like a Iiberal who thinks they're much smarter than others. And apparently simply claiming to follow "science and logic" is enough to delude yourself into thinking you actually DO follow science and logic, but in actuality have no fucking clue what it is you are actually "following".

*Edited to be less of a dick. Believe it or not.

You admit I've never used appeal to authority fallacy,

No, I said you did. And you did.

but still insist I've done some other, unnamed, fallacies

Nope, I was referring to Appeal to Authority there. I was pointing out the fact that just because you think you aren't making fallacies, doesn't mean you aren't actually making fallacies. Even though I was speaking in general terms it should have been obvious WHICH fallacy I was specifically referring to considering the context clues of the conversation.

THIS is what I said: Just because you're too stupid and uneducated to name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making any logical fallacies you fucking retard.

Any. And big surprise, "any" includes Appeal to Authority, which I was SPECIFICALLY referring to this whole conversation and even more specifically directly in the sentence you quoted, and should have been picked up on by anyone who isn't either an actual retard, a sociopath, or arguing in bad faith (i.e. they know you're wrong but argue anyway), based on the context clues.

But here I fixed it since it was too difficult for you to parse:

Just because you're too stupid and uneducated to name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making the logical fallacy you claim to not be making you fucking retard.

Just because you didn't name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making an appeal to authority fallacy.

all while using ad hominems. Classy, and about what I expect from religious people.

Honestly after trying THIS long to explain why you're wrong and you STILL not getting it, to the point that you have LITERALLY devolved to actually arguing semantics, I don't really care if you call me classy.

I mean, you read a one sentence description of a fallacy and then tried to pass that off to someone who has actually taken courses in the subject as if it was good enough. You probably thought "got 'em! It has to refer to a SPECIFIC person!" No, it doesn't.

So yeah, you sound like a Iiberal who thinks they're much smarter than others. And apparently simply claiming to follow "science and logic" is enough to delude yourself into thinking you actually DO follow science and logic, but in actuality have no fucking clue what it is you are actually "following".

*Edited to be less of a dick. Believe it or not.

You admit I've never used appeal to authority fallacy,

No, I said you did. And you did. You are actually just too stupid to read and understand that I said you did.

but still insist I've done some other, unnamed, fallacies

Nope, I was referring to Appeal to Authority there. I was pointing out the fact that just because you think you aren't making fallacies, doesn't mean you aren't actually making fallacies. Even though I was speaking in general terms it should have been obvious WHICH fallacy I was specifically referring to considering the context clues of the conversation. Not being able to follow along in a simple conversation is a strong indication that you might actually be stupid.

THIS is what I said: Just because you're too stupid and uneducated to name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making any logical fallacies you fucking retard.

Any. And big surprise, "any" includes Appeal to Authority, which I was SPECIFICALLY referring to this whole conversation and even more specifically directly in the sentence you quoted, and should have been picked up on by anyone who isn't either an actual retard, a sociopath, or arguing in bad faith (i.e. they know you're wrong but argue anyway), based on the context clues.

But here I fixed it since it was too difficult for your smooth brain to parse:

Just because you're too stupid and uneducated to name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making the logical fallacy you claim to not be making you fucking retard.

Just because you're too stupid to name any prominent scientists doesn't mean you aren't making an appeal to authority fallacy. But then, that concept is likely too difficult for you to understand, being a complete retard and all.

all while using ad hominems. Classy, and about what I expect from religious people.

Moronic. About what I'd expect from a liberal with no real-world experience. Honestly after trying THIS long to explain why you're wrong and you STILL not getting it, to the point that you have LITERALLY devolved to actually arguing semantics, I am going to call you an idiot and I understand if you are too stupid to understand why.

I mean, you read a one sentence description of a fallacy and then tried to pass that off to someone who has actually taken courses in the subject as if it was good enough. You probably thought "got 'em! It has to refer to a SPECIFIC person!" No, you dumb fuck, it doesn't.

Kinda just have to accept that you're not smart as you think you are considering you think theoretical physicists are a good enough reason to not believe in God. 😂

So yeah, you sound like a dumb Iiberal who thinks they're much smarter than others, and apparently simply claiming to follow "science and logic" is enough to delude yourself into thinking you actually DO follow science and logic, but in actuality have no fucking clue what it is you are actually "following".