Well then why did you say the rest of the post of the person you’re responding to doesn’t matter? You did say that, didn’t you? You told them to stop and that their argument is faulty, but didn’t deny the actual claims. That implies to me you don’t care. If you do care, you did an extremely poor job of showing it by telling them to stop talking.
So if the above is so completely off base, why don’t you continue your argument with the poster above?
That’s too bad, because neither of those is the case. I personally think your attempt to kill the conversation above with your “stop typing” and again now with this comment is an actually an attempt to hide your head in the sand, but I guess we’ll never know.
Seems that way. Person 2 above said “it’s not x but it is y”, person above said “you can stop at it’s not x” implying to me they are fine with “but it is y”. What’s wrong with that inference?
What’s wrong with it is it’s factually inaccurate, fucking duh. You can stop at “it’s not genocide” because that by itself is an entirely accurate statement, everything you said after that is bullshit, and the comment you’re referring to was not ambiguous about that at all so you have absolutely no excuse for pretending otherwise.
No, he said everything else is some type of castle. I looked this castle up and it aligns well with the idea that he’s trying to shut down the other claims without considering them.
From the wiki:
where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”)
So he’s technically saying that the rest of the post is modest claims which are easy to defend, ie he agrees with Y. (I’m assuming the bailey is genocide and the motte is the claims of ethnic cleansing w/out genocide)
So your argument is “they are just dehumanizing and trying to exterminate a group of people, and I’m chill with that”? A bold position.
No, that’s very obviously not “my argument”, but I wouldn’t expect you to be above lying and putting words in my mouth.
Well then why did you say the rest of the post of the person you’re responding to doesn’t matter? You did say that, didn’t you? You told them to stop and that their argument is faulty, but didn’t deny the actual claims. That implies to me you don’t care. If you do care, you did an extremely poor job of showing it by telling them to stop talking.
So if the above is so completely off base, why don’t you continue your argument with the poster above?
Removed by mod
That’s too bad, because neither of those is the case. I personally think your attempt to kill the conversation above with your “stop typing” and again now with this comment is an actually an attempt to hide your head in the sand, but I guess we’ll never know.
Removed by mod
That is not something anyone here has said, dumbass
Seems that way. Person 2 above said “it’s not x but it is y”, person above said “you can stop at it’s not x” implying to me they are fine with “but it is y”. What’s wrong with that inference?
No
Valuable addition. I ask “why is that inference wrong” and you say “no”.
👍
🍆💦😜
What’s wrong with it is it’s factually inaccurate, fucking duh. You can stop at “it’s not genocide” because that by itself is an entirely accurate statement, everything you said after that is bullshit, and the comment you’re referring to was not ambiguous about that at all so you have absolutely no excuse for pretending otherwise.
No, he said everything else is some type of castle. I looked this castle up and it aligns well with the idea that he’s trying to shut down the other claims without considering them.
From the wiki:
So he’s technically saying that the rest of the post is modest claims which are easy to defend, ie he agrees with Y. (I’m assuming the bailey is genocide and the motte is the claims of ethnic cleansing w/out genocide)
Lol try harder patriot
Another solid argument that gets right to the real point of all this.
Arguments are for disagreements in good faith with people who are honest, you’re a lying sack of shit so you do not warrant an argument, cry about it