What is exactly "personal incredulity fallacy"?

[teo123]

-

Sorry, I don't understand what that meme is supposed to mean, yet alone what it is supposed to mean in this context.

[Red]

-

Sorry, I don't understand what that meme is supposed to mean, yet alone what it is supposed to mean in this context.

Because you're Italian idiot, therefore you aren't to be trusted.

[teo123]

-

Sorry, I don't understand what that meme is supposed to mean, yet alone what it is supposed to mean in this context.

Because you're Italian idiot, therefore you aren't to be trusted.

I still don't understand it. Is there some stereotype of Italians being idiots? I know of a stereotype (and a relatively justified one) that Americans are idiots.

[Red]

Sorry, I don't understand what that meme is supposed to mean, yet alone what it is supposed to mean in this context.

Because you're Italian idiot, therefore you aren't to be trusted.

I still don't understand it. Is there some stereotype of Italians being idiots? I know of a stereotype (and a relatively justified one) that Americans are idiots.

See, THIS is a personal incredulity fallacy Teo; You don't understand it therefore it must be false! You're living proof of it FFS.

[teo123]

Because you're Italian idiot, therefore you aren't to be trusted.

I still don't understand it. Is there some stereotype of Italians being idiots? I know of a stereotype (and a relatively justified one) that Americans are idiots.

See, THIS is a personal incredulity fallacy Teo; You don't understand it therefore it must be false! You're living proof of it FFS.

I am not saying it must be false. It can also be that you are presenting some valid idea very badly.

[MittensTheCat3]

Teo!!! You are the smartest person I have ever seen!!! Red is just being facetious, don't listen to him!!!

[teo123]

Teo!!! You are the smartest person I have ever seen!!! Red is just being facetious, don't listen to him!!!

Maybe dial down a bit on trolling, too obvious. I don't understand how come people like you and @Not The Real JREG don't get banned, but I have got banned multiple times for expressing honest opinions.

[Red]

Teo!!! You are the smartest person I have ever seen!!! Red is just being facetious, don't listen to him!!!

Maybe dial down a bit on trolling, too obvious. I don't understand how come people like you and @Not The Real JREG don't get banned,

Don't think it's fair to assume they're trolling.

but I have got banned multiple times for expressing honest opinions.

You've been banned for repeating the same mistakes over and over again, and never learning anything. You always derail threads, ignore arguments made to you, and when you do respond to them, you always use fallacious reasoning, and all in all you don't change.

Are you:
A) Willfully ignorant
B) Mentally incompotent
C) Delibrately dishonest
D) All of the above

I'm going with D.

[MittensTheCat3]

No!!!! Teo!!! I am not trolling!!! You are the smartest person not only in Croatia but in all of Europe!!!

[PhilRisk]

Ignoring all the debate, I will put you to the test: @teo123 and attempt to answer part of your question:

2) Bombs appear to contradict the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a body can't convert its internal energy into mechanical work. That's what bombs are supposed to do. They receive very little energy that triggers them, and they turn their own internal energy into loads of mechanical work. Therefore, bombs probably don't exist.
This is wrong, but is it personal incredulity fallacy? When I was saying that, I thought it wasn't because "bombs contradict the second law of thermodynamics" is an objective claim, it doesn't talk about my mind but about external world.

Actually, there is the term "appear" in your example. Appearance is something related to a subject. You lost it somewhere in between your example and your analysis. This appearance is probably caused by lack of understanding the second law of thermodynamics and failure to consider obvious evidence, hence an example of personal incredulity.