Did you?
All you have are unsubstantiated claims, inability to substantiate them, and lack of integrity to admit you can’t.
Typical for people on here.
I don’t expect you to acknowledge when you are wrong. I don’t expect you to understand your statement is admission of your own guilt, I do not think you know why you say the things you say.
I don’t expect you to acknowledge when you are wrong.
No, that’s definitely you.
Your video has nothing to do with your particular claim that the star on the floor is a Star of David: digression fallacy.
We aren’t talking about antisemitism, we’re talking about your insistence on that claim despite failure to substantiate it, disclosure that the design belongs to an actual building unrelated to Judaism, the implausibility that its appearance in the film is due to an author who didn’t direct the film & whose book likely didn’t specify that detail.
It’s classic motivated reasoning & confirmation bias drawing hasty conclusions lacking adequate support.
We aren’t disputing your other claims.
We’re disputing this one & criticizing your poor reasoning & lack of integrity to admit it’s unsupported.
Like the typical discourse at lemmy.
What is the first thing you said to me? You do not know what you are saying, but it feels right to you well that is because you are accusing people of things you are guilty of. You’re basic and transparent, try logic.
Your poor reasoning skills are failing you. The antisemitic caricature goes hand in hand with set design. So you are trying to ague they went to another country to film in an active government building built with the exact styling as their home country and that set designers, directors and everyone else involved chose to feature the star among such depictions was an accident or coincidence?
Do you need it substantiated how detail oriented film makers are? You aren’t disputing the antisemitic character depictions, but you refuse to see the connection between the characters and their location? Claiming a movie isn’t very specific about details is a pretty bold claim you will need to backup with some evidence.
What is the first thing you said to me? You do not know what you are saying, but it feels right to you well that is because you are accusing people of things you are guilty of. You’re basic and transparent, try logic.
Buddy, you need to look up ad hominem fallacy because there’s nothing to debate there.
You’re just making a fool of yourself.
So you are trying to ague they went to another country
England is another country from England?
active government building
Filming permits?
how detail oriented film makers are
Do you need explained that different people aren’t the same person?
the connection between the characters and their location
A pre-existing building whose floor they used unmodified.
Did they search every building in existence until they found one with a star on the floor?
Implausible.
Unless you have credible evidence, your claim is unsubstantiated speculation that you only accept due to motivated reasoning & confirmation bias.
Furthermore, no link or references to shit to substantiate anything you wrote: ipse dixit fallacy.
You were rightly criticized for lacking a valid argument and this is no different.
Respect logic & argue better.
The characters go hand in hand with the set buddy I am not sure what is difficult about that to grasp for you. Anyways that’s some fancy mental gymnastics you got there. You know what I mean by basic and transparent? Someone told you that you were arguing with fallacies, it shut you up fast and now it’s your big thing that you feel the need to keep saying but it’s falling flat I am not going anywhere until you can substantiate your claim that the set wasn’t chosen along side the depictions, otherwise it is common sense that the set is as specific as the characters.
It’s truly baffling you opened with an personal attack on me and then proceeded to cry Ad hominem. Can you just cure yourself of mental issues like that how can I get as good as you at mental gymnastics??
Yep, the terminally misinformed (like you) are people. Too many of those on here.
Dumbass look around you
Abusive ad hominem fallacy.
Did you? All you have are unsubstantiated claims, inability to substantiate them, and lack of integrity to admit you can’t. Typical for people on here.
Knock it off fuckwit. You are either incredibly stupid or purposely trying to minimize the antisemitism.
Watch this you ignorant asshole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4df3aD8ZfVw
I don’t expect you to acknowledge when you are wrong. I don’t expect you to understand your statement is admission of your own guilt, I do not think you know why you say the things you say.
Again with the ad hominem fallacy: try logic.
No, that’s definitely you. Your video has nothing to do with your particular claim that the star on the floor is a Star of David: digression fallacy.
We aren’t talking about antisemitism, we’re talking about your insistence on that claim despite failure to substantiate it, disclosure that the design belongs to an actual building unrelated to Judaism, the implausibility that its appearance in the film is due to an author who didn’t direct the film & whose book likely didn’t specify that detail. It’s classic motivated reasoning & confirmation bias drawing hasty conclusions lacking adequate support.
We aren’t disputing your other claims. We’re disputing this one & criticizing your poor reasoning & lack of integrity to admit it’s unsupported. Like the typical discourse at lemmy.
What is the first thing you said to me? You do not know what you are saying, but it feels right to you well that is because you are accusing people of things you are guilty of. You’re basic and transparent, try logic.
Your poor reasoning skills are failing you. The antisemitic caricature goes hand in hand with set design. So you are trying to ague they went to another country to film in an active government building built with the exact styling as their home country and that set designers, directors and everyone else involved chose to feature the star among such depictions was an accident or coincidence?
Do you need it substantiated how detail oriented film makers are? You aren’t disputing the antisemitic character depictions, but you refuse to see the connection between the characters and their location? Claiming a movie isn’t very specific about details is a pretty bold claim you will need to backup with some evidence.
Buddy, you need to look up ad hominem fallacy because there’s nothing to debate there. You’re just making a fool of yourself.
England is another country from England?
Filming permits?
Do you need explained that different people aren’t the same person?
A pre-existing building whose floor they used unmodified. Did they search every building in existence until they found one with a star on the floor? Implausible. Unless you have credible evidence, your claim is unsubstantiated speculation that you only accept due to motivated reasoning & confirmation bias.
Furthermore, no link or references to shit to substantiate anything you wrote: ipse dixit fallacy. You were rightly criticized for lacking a valid argument and this is no different. Respect logic & argue better.
The characters go hand in hand with the set buddy I am not sure what is difficult about that to grasp for you. Anyways that’s some fancy mental gymnastics you got there. You know what I mean by basic and transparent? Someone told you that you were arguing with fallacies, it shut you up fast and now it’s your big thing that you feel the need to keep saying but it’s falling flat I am not going anywhere until you can substantiate your claim that the set wasn’t chosen along side the depictions, otherwise it is common sense that the set is as specific as the characters.
It’s truly baffling you opened with an personal attack on me and then proceeded to cry Ad hominem. Can you just cure yourself of mental issues like that how can I get as good as you at mental gymnastics??