Kreittis, for someone with an IQ of 172, you’re certainly making quite a few logical fallacies. Let me pull up a list from the Internet so that I can verbalize that which I, and hopefully others, already intuitively understand. People don’t need specific words phrases to understand concepts, but they certainly do help in the context of spoken or written communication.
Stupid!? You know what you’re looking at? Yeah, that’s right. Agnostic atheist with an IQ of 172 on the WAIS-IV scale.
This is a red herring. Zombojoe challenged your knowledge of memes. Instead of a direct answer to prove yourself, you changed the subject. This is also an argument from authority. Claiming to have an IQ of 172 does not validate your argument. Even those with vast intellects need valid arguments to prove themselves. In this snippet, there is also a reification fallacy. You’re presenting IQ tests as if they were actual physical measurements of intelligence.
You were probably gifted at one point, but you spend your entire day looking at dumb pictures of cats.
This is non-sequiter. Looking at pictures of cats for extended periods of time does not necessarily lead to lowered intelligence.
What’s worse is how you so confidently hide behind your veil of anonymity. It’s because when you are inevitably met with crushing failure or embarrassment in one form or another, you can simply keep on posting and no one will be any the wiser that it was you. This results in you no longer striving for perfection, and instead settling into not a pattern of experimentation, but one of mediocrity.
This is a slippery slope fallacy. If a person is granted anonymity, it’s not fair to assume that person will suddenly settle for mediocrity and no longer try new things. In my experience, I’ve found that people are inclined to experiment more because they have less fear of social repercussion. That is, again, in my experience. Your experience could be completely different.
I hate you, and I have no doubt that if I ever met you in a debate I could smash your intellect beneath mine like a sledgehammer to a g****.
This is argumentum ad baculum. It appears that you’re trying to scare him into agreeing with your authority. It seems so because you claim that you will “smash [his] intellect beneath [yours],” which connotes that after you are done debating with him, he will be embarrassed after having “lost” the debate by a significant margin.
Many of your thoughts contained multiple logical fallacies, but I have only picked the ones most readily apparent to me. This was only from your most recent reply. I do not want to spend the time to pick apart the others.