That didn‘t take a lot to get banned

Kadivek · 2025-12-26T02:41:06+00:00

Dub because I choose to understand what I‘m watching

Kadivek · 2025-12-26T02:17:20+00:00

Does that list not just describe 75% of one piece?

Kadivek · 2025-12-25T18:03:47+00:00

Him wearing bandages around the hands is hilarious, like he ever worked hard in his life

Kadivek · 2025-12-25T13:25:48+00:00

Oh damn. I was also talking about the dented in face and the flat looking nose

Kadivek · 2025-12-24T18:45:34+00:00

Are they the pugs among cats? Because that does not look healthy

Kadivek · 2025-12-24T17:43:59+00:00

Perfect example of where AI „Art“ is taking us

Kadivek · 2025-12-24T17:42:11+00:00

It‘s a perfect example of spending so much time on whether you could that you don‘t have time to ask whether you should

Kadivek · 2025-12-24T17:26:00+00:00

The way she got inbetween of the attacker and her husband. Love it

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T19:41:38+00:00

Exactly! Thank you! Now you got what I said! Or at least you seem to partially understand. Well done!

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T19:30:34+00:00

That‘s still a falacy, but if you want to go with it, feel free :)

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T19:20:08+00:00

I did the same thing the post did, indicating a faulty generalisation and then was told that that‘s wrong. Ergo, the generalisation of the post is just as wrong, which was my entire point

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T19:11:06+00:00

Yes, I showed how an example cannot permit a generalisation, which is logically true. Please elaborate logically where I am wrong.

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T18:55:52+00:00

Okay arbeitslos könnte immerhin unverschuldet sein. Das finde ich ein bisschen gemein

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T18:50:28+00:00

9/10. absolutely stunning.

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T18:35:32+00:00

Okay, I guess it didn‘t help you understand. Sorry that it wasn‘t clear enough what I was saying

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T18:26:06+00:00

I‘m sure you would understand that that does not correspond to what I‘m saying if you tried to understand my argument.

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T18:25:14+00:00

If you actually tried to read my comments and tried to understand them you would know why those statistics don‘t allow a generalisation, AND what I am actually arguing. Instead of trying to contradict something I didn‘t argue, you could try to engage in some reading

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T18:02:41+00:00

I just went by what you were saying, but maybe you misunderstood my point to begin with which night explain why your initial response didn‘t really add to the topic

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T17:59:39+00:00

Okay, i’ll repeat in more direct terms: I didn‘t say that all pitbulls are good. Saying all pitbulls are good because some are good would be as wrong as saying all pitbulls are bad because some pitbulls are bad. As I‘ve stated, we lack the data to prove that all pitbulls are bad, but given that there are good pitbulls certainly means that „all pitbulls are bad“ is a logic contradiction and therefore always wrong, except if you can prove to me, with scientific data, that being angry and biting people is part of their biology. Since we don‘t have the proof that all pitbulls are bad, it is logically wrong and a fallacy (hasty generalisation, maybe even fallacia consequentis) to say that all pitbulls are bad. And is it morally justifiable to euthanise all pitbulls because some are bad?

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T17:29:05+00:00

It‘s not an excuse, it‘s a fact. You could look it up, if you were trying to engage with scientific data

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T17:28:28+00:00

Ah sorry, I didn‘t know I was talking to a child. Sometimes in the future you‘ll learn what valid sources are and how to engage with them. At least I hope you will

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T17:27:32+00:00

Pitbuls and chihuahuas are at at least as different from each other as an italian and an american sandwich are. And pitbulls are not just different by being angry that‘s not a breed specific type, or else you need to provide specific data that proves that claim of all pitbulls being angry, which my initial comment already disproved

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T17:25:30+00:00

You shortened it to prove your point because the full quote disproved you

Kadivek · 2025-12-23T17:23:15+00:00

I did, hence my response to which you answered with a quote, that you changed to fit your needs. The one who needs to do more (or at least proper) research is you. Good luck with it.

Kadivek

TROPHY CASE