I explained the whole naming process. You gotta read it. The US was given the name as Aluminum and did not change it when the British changed it a third time.
‘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.’
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.
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.
I explained the whole naming process. You gotta read it. The US was given the name as Aluminum and did not change it when the British changed it a third time.
But aluminum is nit the original name and you explain that. It’s also not the correct way either.
Welcome to ignore. Everyone else understood the discussion … you are the outlier.
Dude, seriously — say the words in your head as you read them.
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.
‘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
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.
No, it isn’t. The best thing you could call it is ad hominem, and even then you’d be wrong.
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.
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.