- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/9997521
To the person from lemm.ee who reported this post as “terrorism” go fuck yourself.
Link for tickets: https://events2022.tpusa.com/events/kyle-rittenhouse-at-kent-state
Locked because I keep getting reports from people arguing. Cool off.
In that case, we’re just arbitrarily making up definitions to words and pretending that the whole world accepts our definition as the definition. Which is fucking dumb. Which is why I pointed out that the definition TD was using was not sufficient. Can I call you a murderer because you’ve responded like a moron, and I hereby define that as the definition for murder? Hello? 911? We have a murderer on the loose, come lock them up?
Of course not. It’s a fucking stupid argument. Either words have meaning, or they don’t. If you want to call Kyle a killer thats fair. He definitely killed someone, but it falls way short of murder. Even if it was unlawful, it still doesn’t meet the test for murder, probably manslaughter instead (the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder). Or, words don’t have meaning. Therefore, “distant your flexible you volume”. It probably means something nice.
I didn’t define either word, you did. Don’t blame me because you’re not smart enough to see a trap bud.
What did I blame you for? What word did I accuse you of defining? What trap did I fall for?
Nothing, never said you did I think you should probably check username though.
Look at your last three comments to me and answer that one yourself, it’s quite obvious and if you can’t remember something you said less than a day ago I won’t hold my breath for this conversation anyway.
The one you clearly still don’t see.
Are you sure you arent @madison420
This isn’t you, in literally your previous reply to me ~3 hrs ago?
Because that is you, saying that I blamed you for something (still not sure what though, please reference). That is you, saying that I fell for a trap (which is not apparent, so please explain). So yeah. I’m pretty sure I know that I have at least 3 different conversations going on here that have fragmented off at different points. Are you having an identity issue? Maybe problems keeping your accounts straight?
I am me, correct. Seems obvious but you do you.
Reading comprehension, get some.
Please, point out specifically where my reading comprehension was lacking? Is asking for specific examples with quotes too much?
Also still missing is the “trap” that I fell in to, and the “thing” that I blamed you for. Go ahead and quote those, otherwise I’ll take Hitchen’s Razor to those claims.
Try the last several of your comments, I already said that so add that comment as well.
I didn’t miss anything, it’s very obvious. Need I point out the color of the sky for you as well or at some point are you going to take responsibility for saying stupid trolly shit?
Right, so at this point, you have made assertions without evidence, and when asked to simply reference the evidence, you have failed make even the simplest defense of your claims.
Therefore, your points regarding my reading ability, blaming you for something, and that I fell into a “trap” by you can be refuted with the same evidentiary threshold.
If you’d like to continue this discussion, please provide direct evidence that:
I have blamed you for something
I have fallen for a trap
there is a lack of reading comprehension on my part.
Further discussion without meeting these (very basic) requirements is a tacit admission that any and all of those claims are without merit, and you yourself are trolling and not providing honest discourse.
The ball is in your court.