"An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy employed when one cannot or will not discuss the issue at hand; they can be seen in a majority of social media debates regarding politics or religion. When asked about these tactics, most people will decry them, and claim that sticking to facts and reason is the way in which they engage in debate" Burn Loot Murder caused over $2 billion in damages to mostly black communities, yet wearing a BLM mask will not get you kicked off a plane as being patently offensive. You refused to accept that no passengers complained. The stewardess was personally politically offended.
Your deflection attempt is fatally flawed because it doesn't fit the description. I'm not refusing to discuss the issue at hand. I'm making the observation that you refuse to accept the facts of the matter and that your behavior is comparable to how juveniles behave when they are caught in the act, which is also a fact. You so far have been unable to dispute any of the facts. Instead, you insist that your speculation and assumptions carry more logical and legal weight than actual facts.
At this point we're just having fun with the fact that you can't stand not to have the last word, so you can be controlled like a remote controlled robot. As long as I post you will continue to respond on cue.
Ad-Hominem attacks are the last gasp of a liberal failing an argument. I never once attack you personally. The basis of the discussion is the definition of "patently offensive". There is a valid case and I hope he files and seeks punitive damages.
Ad-Hominem attacks are the last gasp of a liberal failing an argument.
Indeed they are.
I never once attack you personally.
Nor have I you. You are mistaking feeling offended for a personal attack. It's ok. It's a common point of confusion for Millenials. You committed early on to the proposition that this is a breach of contract. When presented with facts to the contrary you refuse to accept them. That is like the kid caught with cookie crumbs on his face and still denying he hate the cookies. He's sticking to his story despite the ridiculousness of it. That's not a personal attack It's literally a description of what you are doing. A personal attack is "you're a moron."
The basis of the discussion is the definition of "patently offensive"
The contract sets the definition. Again, the definition applied by courts to statutory interpretation does not apply to private contracts. Legal definitions have a finite scope, just like variables in a programming language. You can't call a definition from outside of its scope. The law doesn't work like that.
For example, 7 USC § 1a(20) defines a "financial institution." That doesn't mean that every contract written in the United States where the words "financial institution" appear must use that definition. That's just not how it works.
(post is archived)