That's a strawman. And a bad one. There isn't a single person angry that Louis doesn't have a job, but plenty are criticizing him for putting zero effort towards getting one in the middle of leeching money off of others without a modicum of shame.
Technically an ad hominem fallacy, I know there's a specific term for it but I cannot remember. Either way, the fact a person does not like something does not invalidate the evidence they have presented.
There's no fallacy in this, but this is still stupid. If Twitter is Louis's only avenue of social interaction, then he should treat it with more care rather than recklessly and destructively as he does
daily.
Actually, maybe that's an appeal to emotion fallacy, now that I'm talking about it.
False equivalency. It is clear this individual is trying to stop Louis from scamming others. Regardless, Louis being isolated is his own doing and a consequence of his actions, not the express intent.
Another appeal to emotion. Personal issues does not excuse abhorrent behavior, especially actions which are not even directly tied to said personal issues. Being diabetic does not cause you to laugh at dead cancer patients and trick people with paraplegia out of their money.
This isn't even a fallacy, it's just wrong. Louis just posted a picture of his shopping cart filled only with food solely for himself, so the person you're defending is
actively contradicting you.
Another false equivalency. Stopping a scammer is not dictating their life, unless you intend to imply their life is scamming.
This is just wrong again. Louis has
never said he intends to use his laptop for work. He
always claims he needs iPads and tablets to do work. This is such willful ignorance, I'm inclined to call this an outright lie.
Deflection, misdirection. Like textbook.
Unidirectional logic. Ignoring that there's irrefutable evidence proving these claims against Louis, if we are to believe nothing is known for certain regarding Louis
negatively, we cannot assume the same
positively. This is a meaningless statement, in other words.
Poisoning the well, my favorite.
There was an old article I recall where a burglar invaded a person's home and found out they were in possession of child pornography. The fact they were a burglar does not take away the legitimacy of their discovery, which is why the man he robbed was arrested for his crime regardless. To throw out the evidence on the basis of how it was discovered and provided is sheer stupidity of the highest caliber.
Oh, and that's a fantastic play at dodging the question, since they proceeded to completely ignore the request for
them to provide proof of
their own claims.
Ableist, you say?
You mean like this?
And to cap it all off, there Louis goes giving out his full dox again.