Comment on Grandma is on her own
deranger@sh.itjust.works 17 hours agoI’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.
You’re correct I’m not qualified to speak on inheritance law because I’m not a lawyer. Neither are you.
Who said anything about ad hominem? Once again, you resort to insults, because you have no grounds for your claims.
Dasus@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Yeah keep chanting this, as if Wikipedia and Investopedia don’t have sources. 2005 called and wants it’s “wikipedia is bullshit” rhetoric back.
You don’t have sources. You keep constantly being wrong, but then not admitting that you’ve made a single mistake. Just like I called it a dozen comments ago, you’re just simply one of those people who can not accept when they’re wrong.
You’ll just keep ignoring all the times you’re wrong, and then you’re pathetically going to try to make it personal, while I’ll keep repeating the actual arguments, which you didn’t know jack shit about from the start, while I do.
That’s ad hominem. It’s not “insults” unlike people assume it is. It’s when you’re pathetically trying to drag an argument to be about something on a personal level, instead of the facts, because you’re wrong and would like to ignore the facts. Such as:
Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?
Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?
And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. But you are going to just ignore that, because it would prove you wrong, and you’re simply not capable of admitting to something like that.
deranger@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
Still waiting on those multitude of legitimate stories that you cited earlier.
Also, what you just mentioned does not constitute an ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem would be “you’re a Finn, therefore your point is incorrect”
Shit man, you’re failing to comprehend the things you said I wouldn’t comprehend. You don’t even know what ad hominem constitutes. Ad hominem is “your argument is wrong because of <issue> with your character”
Medical debt is dissolved in probate insolvency, except in rare cases. If my mother had a pacemaker implanted, owed $250k, died the next day in a car crash, that’s not subject to filial responsibility. Once again, you’re wrong.
Dasus@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
I said that I’ve read credible similarly fucked up stories. I meant that I’ve read them over the years. You know that the US is fucked up and crazy shit happens there and I’ve just shown you a personal clip of a person saying that it’s a 100% true story what happened to them, then I’ve shown you how that is plausible through the legislation that the US has.
You’ve constantly been shown wrong, yet you won’t admit to a single mistake and you’re just shifting goalposts further and further and further.
Oh god, this is hilarious. Remember how I said that you keep proving yourself wrong? Self-humiliating? This is one those times. You literally implied this, very strongly, SEVERAL TIMES.
As in “your opinion on these facts doesn’t matter because of a personal property.”
That’s literally a textbook ad hominem. Once again, I prove you wrong, based on things you’ve said, yet you can’t accept it. You say in your last comment that “I don’t have arguments”, but you keep literally ignoring the ones I’m saying in each and every single comment:
Why are you talking about medical debt? We’ve already established that it’s an exception to this. We’re now pointing out that you argued that filial responsibility laws have “nothing” to do with inheriting debt, which is wrong, you then claimed that filial responsibility SOLELY concerns medical debt, which is also wrong. And you’re simply going to ignore having been wrong, because you’re not a big enough person to do that, just like I said from the very start.
Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?
Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?
And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?
You simply can’t argue, you don’t know the subject, and you should’ve taken the gracious option I offered earlier. ;)
deranger@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
Medical debt is dissolved in probate, genius. Just not the kind related to say, nursing homes. That’s when filial responsibility comes into play. I’m not responsible for my parents medical debt; I am responsible for their care, in some backwards states, and medical debt can be a part of that, but not necessarily, as in the pacemaker example I used earlier.
There’s no ad hominem in my comments. Quote me. Implications are neither here nor there. Me saying your opinion doesn’t matter to me is not an ad hominem. I’m saying you’re wrong because the facts don’t support your points, not because of any personal characteristics you have.