The College of Optometrists came out and said it was ambigious. It’s the point of the image dumbass. It’s not about good spatial awareness. All you’re demonstrating is lack of basic perception.
Ah yes, I lack perception because I can see more things than you do, and they lead me to correct conclusions about the state of the world. That makes complete sense.
And Usain Bolt runs so fast because he has weak legs, obviously.
Most insults aren’t the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy. An insult is only an ad hominem when it’s the entire substance of one’s argument. Like you’re doing right now, shit-for-brains.
Oh, I see what the problem is. I was using the word “because” in the sense of evidence. As in, “Jack is the murderer because he has a bloody knife”. You were using the word “because” in the sense of causation. As in, “Jack is the murderer because he hated the victim”. So, I questioned your evidence sarcastically, and you misunderstood and engaged in a non-sequitor, swivelling the conversation from an evidence-based dialogue to hurling insults for no reason. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were still talking evidence, when I shouldn’t have. I should have understood that you were no longer having a discussion based on evidence, you were just being pointlessly mean. That’s my fault for assuming you were a mature adult.
The College of Optometrists came out and said it was ambigious. It’s the point of the image dumbass. It’s not about good spatial awareness. All you’re demonstrating is lack of basic perception.
Ah yes, I lack perception because I can see more things than you do, and they lead me to correct conclusions about the state of the world. That makes complete sense.
And Usain Bolt runs so fast because he has weak legs, obviously.
You lack perception because your level of understanding is childish. I’d put you at 7/8. It’s really quite illuminating how thick some people can be.
Most insults aren’t the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy. An insult is only an ad hominem when it’s the entire substance of one’s argument. Like you’re doing right now, shit-for-brains.
It’s not though, read my comments again. Slowly if you’re struggling.
Oh, I see what the problem is. I was using the word “because” in the sense of evidence. As in, “Jack is the murderer because he has a bloody knife”. You were using the word “because” in the sense of causation. As in, “Jack is the murderer because he hated the victim”. So, I questioned your evidence sarcastically, and you misunderstood and engaged in a non-sequitor, swivelling the conversation from an evidence-based dialogue to hurling insults for no reason. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were still talking evidence, when I shouldn’t have. I should have understood that you were no longer having a discussion based on evidence, you were just being pointlessly mean. That’s my fault for assuming you were a mature adult.
Yikes, we’re gonna need a bigger spectrum.
You lack nuance. I started winding you up because ‘you’re wrong and I see good’ is a one dimensional smooth brained perspective.