• gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    But aluminum is nit the original name and you explain that. It’s also not the correct way either.

    • Wilco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Welcome to ignore. Everyone else understood the discussion … you are the outlier.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Alumium is the original name. You can’t explicity say that and then also argue that Aluminum is the original. It’s a direct contradiction.

        • Jax@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          ‘This just in, new evidence suggests that Tolkien’s working title for ‘The Lord of the Rings’ was ‘Guy With Rings Wants to Conquer the World’. According to gmtom - this is what we should call ‘The Lord of the Rings’ from now on, because it’s the original name.’

          Edit: stop

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Strawman argument. I’m litterally just saying that you can’t argue in favour of aluminum by saying its the original name, when aluminum is the original. It’s not even about which name is “”“correct”“” it’s just about using factually information.

            • Jax@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              No, it isn’t. The best thing you could call it is ad hominem, and even then you’d be wrong.

              • gmtom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Yes it is, you’re constructing an argument that im not making and then arguing against that instead of what im actually saying. It’s actually textbook strawman.

                • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  No, actually, but you clearly have very poor reading comprehension so it doesn’t seem like I’ll be getting through to you.

                  Just know, when you use terms like strawman incorrectly you look fucking stupid.

                  • gmtom@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Okay, whatever you need to tell yourself little buddy.

                    If ‘winning’ internet arguments is that important to you can go ahead and chalk this one up as a win if that makes you feel better about yourself. 😉