Sign into an existing account

That is to say, foregoing direct logic and actual effort to research the issue, but avoiding blood-rape only because the jew media said to get yourself raped, therefore not doing so.

I still think that critical thinking has its place/time, but for the most part, just contradicting the jew is enough to stay safe. It takes such a massive burden off the mind, and saves so much thought power for enjoyable pursuits.

I would go so far as to say it isn't even an ad hominem fallacy. After all, it really is Every Single Time. The jew always lies deliberately. Even if speaking in some context where telling a lie would be totally senseless and not actually benefit the jew at all, it STILL has a chronic and unavoidable impulse to tell a lie. At that point, "jew, therefore wrong" follows logically.

I remember Scott Adams eventually conceded that vaxecution was occurring, although his comment was combative, demanding people not act as if somehow they knew or deduced it. Within the narrow scope of (((available information))) he was correct. The trick was to ignore it entirely and just don't do whatever a jew says to do.

I might combine that concept with a similar essay I have in mind regarding the whole slippery slope thing. The basic concept is that the so-called fallacy is beside the point. The point is that the slope could happen if not prevented at the start, the cost multiplied by the risk is too great, therefore by Slippery Slope Theory it should be prevented.

Empiricism is fun.