That, or you’re a troll. Which seems much more likely.
I can’t imagine any sane person discovering how unpopular their position is as yours, and not stopping to reconsider whether they might not have an accurate understanding of how people think about the subject.
I’m right because I’m right, and your refusal to actually consider what I’ve said in your position is mind boggling. You HAVE to be trolling? Right?!
Your position would require omnipotence on your part to be valid, yet you claim to be able to determine the presence of hypocrisy based on factors that have no obligation to correlate with the conclusion you are claiming is obvious.
Oh look, here I go paraphrasing my own point again. As if you’ll finally comprehend it enough to put together the beginnings of a valid retort.
Your position would require omnipotence on your part to be valid, yet you claim to be able to determine the presence of hypocrisy based on factors that have no obligation to correlate with the conclusion you are claiming is obvious.
No, my point explains itself. You on the other hand require whole paragraphs to try to convince yourself that whatever you think is true, is.
Do you not understand the word “lie”?
Do you not know what the word “hypocrisy” means?
In that case I can understand how you would need to paraphrase YOURSELF. Even your own argument against me, claiming that I’M claiming to be the omnipotent one falls on the fact that you only care about your own arguments, making you, dare I say, a hypocrite?
Getting downvoted by the majority is your idea of a “point that explains itself”?
Either your point doesn’t explain itself, or you made it poorly. Or it didn’t make sense in the first place.
Either way, the next step any normal person would take, is to ELABORATE. If to no one else, at least to themselves, so as to validate their assumptions.
If you can’t, your point should be dropped.
If you just go “well, it’s obvius” then you didn’t do that. What you did, was ignore potential data.
You on the other hand require whole paragraphs to try to convince yourself that whatever you think is true, is.
I might write with the confidence of knowing I’m right, but at least I’m not at the level of hubris where I write as if you’re delusional enough to already agree with me, and desperately trying to pull the wool back over your head.
If your goal isn’t to make a genuine attempt to convince me, why are you here?
Clearly, your stance doesn’t stand on it’s own, so for gods sake reinforce it.
And if you wont do that, how are you NOT a troll?
you only care about your own arguments
I’m literally begging you to present yours.
claiming that I’M claiming to be the omnipotent
You’re replying too fast. I’m saying you can’t be, but would need to be, to have a valid argument.
If you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it. As far as I can tell, your only point is that you can tell when someone is being hypocritical, based on a single point of behaviour, on a matter as wide as the seasons. That’s correlation=causation type nonsense.
Semantics? Really?
Rewording an argument when someone refuses to engage with it is a great way to make a point multiple times, to try to get enough pieces of it into someones head, so they might get it.
This way of doing it has a chance of working even when someone is actively refusing to think.
Winter is defined as the cold season, meaning snow, shorter days.
If you say you like the winter but you dislike the cold and the snow, then what would you call that?
You keep arguing as if I am the one who defined what winter is. I obviously didn’t. So when you make the claim that “I” somehow define what winter is, I’m frankly at a loss of what to say other than that you don’t understand what words mean.
But i suppose anything is winter if you do it during the winter.
The discussion is over.
I’m clearly incapable of helping you get it.
That, or you’re a troll. Which seems much more likely.
I can’t imagine any sane person discovering how unpopular their position is as yours, and not stopping to reconsider whether they might not have an accurate understanding of how people think about the subject.
So being correct is a popularity contest? Really?
No.
I’m right because I’m right, and your refusal to actually consider what I’ve said in your position is mind boggling. You HAVE to be trolling? Right?!
Your position would require omnipotence on your part to be valid, yet you claim to be able to determine the presence of hypocrisy based on factors that have no obligation to correlate with the conclusion you are claiming is obvious.
Oh look, here I go paraphrasing my own point again. As if you’ll finally comprehend it enough to put together the beginnings of a valid retort.
No, my point explains itself. You on the other hand require whole paragraphs to try to convince yourself that whatever you think is true, is. Do you not understand the word “lie”? Do you not know what the word “hypocrisy” means?
In that case I can understand how you would need to paraphrase YOURSELF. Even your own argument against me, claiming that I’M claiming to be the omnipotent one falls on the fact that you only care about your own arguments, making you, dare I say, a hypocrite?
Getting downvoted by the majority is your idea of a “point that explains itself”?
Either your point doesn’t explain itself, or you made it poorly. Or it didn’t make sense in the first place.
Either way, the next step any normal person would take, is to ELABORATE. If to no one else, at least to themselves, so as to validate their assumptions.
If you can’t, your point should be dropped.
If you just go “well, it’s obvius” then you didn’t do that. What you did, was ignore potential data.
I might write with the confidence of knowing I’m right, but at least I’m not at the level of hubris where I write as if you’re delusional enough to already agree with me, and desperately trying to pull the wool back over your head.
If your goal isn’t to make a genuine attempt to convince me, why are you here?
Clearly, your stance doesn’t stand on it’s own, so for gods sake reinforce it.
And if you wont do that, how are you NOT a troll?
I’m literally begging you to present yours.
You’re replying too fast. I’m saying you can’t be, but would need to be, to have a valid argument.
If you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it. As far as I can tell, your only point is that you can tell when someone is being hypocritical, based on a single point of behaviour, on a matter as wide as the seasons. That’s correlation=causation type nonsense.
Semantics? Really?
Rewording an argument when someone refuses to engage with it is a great way to make a point multiple times, to try to get enough pieces of it into someones head, so they might get it.
This way of doing it has a chance of working even when someone is actively refusing to think.
What is your strategy? Be annoying?
Winter is defined as the cold season, meaning snow, shorter days.
If you say you like the winter but you dislike the cold and the snow, then what would you call that?
You keep arguing as if I am the one who defined what winter is. I obviously didn’t. So when you make the claim that “I” somehow define what winter is, I’m frankly at a loss of what to say other than that you don’t understand what words mean.
But i suppose anything is winter if you do it during the winter.