I don't care how manly you think you are...

I don't care how manly you think you are, or how many dudes you beat up …any guy with a full-on chest tat is a flaming phaggot

Other urls found in this thread:

vimeo.com/7595682
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Hes fucking sexy as hell though, the cocky shithead.

what the fuck is your problem

say that to his face, internet tough guy

You should go challenge him to a fight. He'll show you how much of a faggot he really is

I like Brock Lesnar's chest cock tatoo

>you can't criticize famous people online if they could potentially beat you up if you harassed them in real life.

love this fallacy

pretty much gay, yup

It doesn't even need to be explained what a loser you are.

Name tattooed on his chest... Is he scared of forgetting his name?

>the sky is the limit
>people have been to the moon

He is a massive douchebag, so it makes sense.

So what's printed on your chest?

There are other, more charitable ways of interpreting what he is saying.

He is not necessarily committing a fallacy.

I can't think of one

would certainly psych out the opponent

fucking terrifying a large dude with a penis tat on chest gon rapyoass

Nothing you insecure faggot.

Irrelevant opinion. That is the basis of autism. Nobody cares about your over inflated ego, not to mention he would kick your ass.

>any guy with a full-on chest tat is a flaming phagg

And hipster hair. Dont forget the hipster hair

The most simple interpretation of his sentence is that he is ordering you to find this man and say these things to his face.

Or he could mean that given the aforementioned opportunity, you would not speak your mind out of fear of physical harm.

It is a stretch, if not a fallacy on your own part, to suggest that he is saying that you "can't criticize famous people" for a reason.

and the fucking beard

Why are you so angry dude?

Not sure if b8 or serious.. here's your (you), faggot.

That tattoo of his own fucking name is way more faggy.

I don't see how his argument becomes non-fallacious given any interpretation of mine or yours.

Wait. I don't understand. What's actually wrong with the way this guy looks? Like, what makes those decisions 'faggy'? Why are they any more or less faggy than how you look?

>ITT: He can beat you up so his stupid tattoo isn't a stupid fucking tattoo

99% of tattoos are "I'm a needy attention whore special snowflake, look at my art maaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnn"

but the moon is in the sky

I think they're just using faggy as a synonym for stupid.

Could beat the shit out of you and fuck women you could never hope to, but by golly OP you sure showed him with that hot opinion!

beards make you a fag? don't be mad just cause you can't grow one.

plus this guy is jacked doing what he dreamed of so he doesn't give a fuck what we think.

I'd knock him out in the first round you fuckin gay kek, just like that pussy Ronda Rousey .

It doesn't become non-fallacious. It simply isn't. You're attributing that to what he's saying.

He's not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't say, nor is telling anyone what they could or couldn't say. You even have to assume, based on context, that he is telling someone what he would or wouldn't say.

And even if he was saying any of that, none of it is held upon a condition at all, let alone one that is falsely correlated with his main point.

I don't understand where you're finding a fallacy. He basically hasn't made any logical claim at all unless you are assuming a bunch of things.

How the fuck can somebody tattoo such a generic phrase on their chest for life?
At least make it a personal statement or whatever.

>S-SAYING HE COULD BEAT ME UP IS A FALLACY

There isn't any fucking logic behind the arbitrary premise of "tattoos are gay I said so" in the first place.

your argument is fallacious.

I get that. I'm just trying to figure out what arbitrarily qualifies as stupid to them.

>believes moon landing

Everything he's saying is just going right over your head isn't it?

Feel the need to substantiate that claim, friend?

No, i do not.

Conor doesn't give a fuck, although he does love his fans. There are a million reasons not to like the guy, but who cares how he looks? He's a fighter, not a model. This is coming from someone who genuinely doesn't like him. Talk about how he's trying to imitate Mayweather or how he's ducking Khabib then you'll have my attention.

The OP says:

>all men with full chest tattoos are faggy
>conor mcirishnigger has a full chest tattoo
>conor mcirishnigger is faggy

Fallacious counter-argument A says:

>say that to his face, internet tough guy

There is no level of reasonable charity to be given to this statement such that it addresses the argument made by OP, and is therefore invalid.

The best interpretation I can come up with for it is this:

>If you said that to mcirishnigger's face, he would beat you up
>therefore men with full chest tattoos are not faggy

It's a fallacy dude.

>If you said that to mcirishnigger's face, he would beat you up
>therefore men with full chest tattoos are not faggy
why are you adding the second bit, that's why this isn't working
the dude basically said
>If you said that to mcirishnigger's face, he would beat you up
not as a point in an argument or anything, just that

Having your own named tattooed onto you looks stupid, as do all tribal tats.

Simple as that

so what about women with chest tattoos? are they faggots

>doesn't believe in moon landing

>2016
>Not believing the moon is a hologram to convince you the earth is spherical

kek

That's the charity applying a reasonable implicit conclusion to demonstrate that saying

>If you said that to mcirishnigger's face, he would beat you up

is fucking stupid.

Now if you think that the post has no implicit conclusion then what do you think it was written for?

If you think it has a different implicit conclusion please share it.

I challenge your assertion that:

>say that to his face, internet tough guy

is necessarily a counter-argument, if an argument at all. In either case, it seems to have no logical foundation except that which you two are, arbitrarily, attributing to it.

There's no fallacy to be had here. I'm sorry. If you'd like to argue further, you should come back here with the precise type or nature of fallacy that you think it is.

Formal? Informal? Give me something.

>what do you think it was written for?
shits and giggles, you dense bastard

Khabib is a killer man. Straight up murked Michael Johnson and wrestled bears as a kid. How you think Tony Ferguson vs. Conor would go?

PrideFC >>>> KidFC
>tfw new faggs will never experience PrideFC
vimeo.com/7595682

I don't consider it unreasonable to view every post on a given topic (here being: full chest tattoos are faggy) to be an argument. If it's not an argument, then it can't be challenged and it might as well be spam.

I think it's fallacious because it's logically invalid when given maximum charity. It is at the very least inductively weak.

If you don't accept that it's fallacious because it's not an argument, then fair enough, but I don't see the point in addressing my 'assertion' at all since your objection assumes a totally different reading of the contents of this stupid thread.

I've never understood this. Like no shit? He's a professional fighter that competes at the highest level, obviously he could kick the shit out of just about anybody. Doesn't mean he isn't an asshole with stupid tattoos.

> Gov could barely make computers in the 60s
> Believes they could make holograms

Video evidence of you fighting McGregor and winning. Otherwise, you're the flaming faggot

women with chest tats are just plain dumb. tats are only fashionable within a short season and they fuck themselves over for life

>any guy with a full-on chest tat is a flaming phaggot
Kek bet you're afraid of getting tats.

I totally disagree. What part of assuming that 'every contribution to Sup Forums thread is an argument' is actually reasonable?

In what reasonable case would you just indiscriminately decide all these things must be fundamentally the same instead of examining them individually? Especially when they have such potential for contextual variation?

Only a real faggot would complain about someone having a tattoo.

Hate to tell you this user, but America's nuclear arsenal is still tracked and controlled by computers made in the 1960s.

Because an argument is just something that makes a point. Even a shitpost like has a point to make.

What 'contextual variation' am I missing out on by doing some rudimentary deconstruction of the various sentiments in this thread. There are only really a few.

>he could beat you up so you're wrong
>tattoos are cool
>only faggots care about tattoos

If I want to address the first one how do I do it if not by considering it an argument? What am I missing?

>that theme music dem drums
>the animu openings
>dem fighters entrance
>that stack cards
>head stomps
>the no pussy rules
>that crowd never booing and respecting everyone
>that atmosphere
>the Bushido events
man PrideFc had his own spirit and soul it was truly the golden age for a fan to watch mma

I agree