“False narrative” do you not understand how hypotheticals work? Are all hypotheticals “deceptive?” Christ Jesus.
I’m not sure whether to pity you for having been failed by your educational system or whether to pity the educational system for having to deal with you.
And you can’t give any reason why my hypothetical isn’t valid beyond “it’s dumb” or it’s “a false narrative,” with no further explanation.
It’s not complicated, it’s incredibly straightforward. We don’t even need the hypothetical, since you seem to struggle with the concept of them. Let’s frame it this way instead: is it valid to say the exact things you say about one genocide about other genocides? Yes or no.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Why even bother with this bullshit and pretend it’s somehow the ultimate litmus test when we could’ve been discussing the facts? Oh, right, we tried that to no avail on your part.
is it valid to say the exact things you say about one genocide about other genocides? Yes or no.
How about this: Is it valid to accuse, misconstrue, bully, lie, attempt to publicly shame, and purposely misrepresent others under the guise of being an anti-genocide white knight by twisting people’s words even after they have fully explained what they meant and refuse to acknowledge that? Yes or no.
You talk a lot about human rights, and yet you fail to respect the people who are right in front of you.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Why even bother with this bullshit and pretend it’s somehow the ultimate litmus test when we could’ve been discussing the facts? Oh, right, we tried that to no avail on your part.
Because, dumbass, hypotheticals are not “bullshit,” they’re a perfectly valid form of reasoning, and have been accepted as such by everyone since fucking Socrates.
How about this: Is it valid to accuse, misconstrue, bully, lie, attempt to publicly shame, and purposely misrepresent others under the guise of being an anti-genocide white knight by twisting people’s words even after they have fully explained what they meant and refuse to acknowledge that?
I didn’t do any of that shit. I haven’t misconstrued a single thing you’ve said, I have not lied or bullied, I didn’t even engage when you brought it up more publicly in this thread, where you were trying to shame me.
Really, the only thing I’ve done is ask you is whether the Holocaust was justified or not, and when you couldn’t answer that, I called you a Nazi. That’s it.
Inb4 the “but you haven’t ExPlIcItLy DeNoUnCeD tHe hoLuCaUsT” because you can’t read between the lines. I know the horrors. Discovering its history is actually one of the most memorable moments of my teenage years. The harrowing thought that people could behave like this to one another changed me in ways no other thing has. I’ve read the books, some of them twice. And I haven’t even mentioned the other genocides, like the Rape of Nanking, that left me disheartened for weeks after reading it. Or the My Lai Massacre. Or even Gaza.
But none of that matters when we have some utter assholes on the internet using it as a cheap excuse to entertain themselves at the expense of others, as you and the other guy have. After all of this, I can confidently say that neither of your concerns is genuine, and that your only goal is to grind a stupid and superficial axe for cheap internet points. Rather than give the people the benefit of the doubt and allow people to share their thoughts and ideas, you’d rather go for the jugular. You’d much rather spend the day accusing, bickering, and vilifying than trying to understand. You’re an extension of the hate. You’re despicable.
I know the horrors. Discovering its history is actually one of the most memorable moments of my teenage years. The harrowing thought that people could behave like this to one another changed me in ways no other thing has. I’ve read the books, some of them twice. And I haven’t even mentioned the other genocides, like the Rape of Nanking, that left me disheartened for weeks after reading it. Or the My Lai Massacre. Or even Gaza.
Huh, you sound like a good person who cares about genocide, then. There was this other user running around telling people who were upset about genocide that “the world doesn’t revolve around genocide” and that they need to “move the fuck on.” Maybe I should introduce you to each other and let you duke it out with them. Lemminary, meet Lemminary.
There it is! The flaps of rotten skin hanging from the back that were tied up in a bun. So much for trying to look good.
they’re a perfectly valid form of reasoning
You know what’s also an even more valid form of reasoning? Sticking to what actually happened instead of inventing unfair scenarios.
I haven’t misconstrued a single thing you’ve said,
How many times have you called me a Nazi, exactly? I should’ve kept count, but it was literally every single comment for a while. You’ve also lied, pretending you didn’t understand a basic analogy, and barraged me repeatedly over something I said to somebody else. And now you’re even trying to lie to others about me by giving a partial context, just enough to give the wrong idea, so that they get on your side early.
where you were trying to shame me.
I simply said it was you because it is. I also thought it was really funny that you were trying to look good in the top comments so that people would upvote you. Now you’re devolving to the nasty little gremlin that you truly are, and I hope people can see that.
Really, the only thing I’ve done is ask you is whether the Holocaust was justified or not
You have not, you just did. I can unequivocally say the Holocaust is evil because–get this–I have a bit of Jewish and native ancestry. Le gasp. But no, you’d rather put people down instead by lying like this.
You know what’s also an even more valid form of reasoning? Sticking to what actually happened instead of inventing unfair scenarios.
So… you’re denying that hypotheticals are a valid form of reasoning, by calling them "invented unfair scenarios.
How many times have you called me a Nazi, exactly? I should’ve kept count, but it was literally every single comment for a while.
Yes, because you said Nazi shit. I didn’t “misconstrue” anything. I also lost count.
You’ve also lied, pretending you didn’t understand a basic analogy
You keep repeating this claim that I’m “pretending not to understand you.” It’s complete nonsense. If there is some alternate meaning to your words that isn’t Nazi shit, I can assure you that I don’t understand that meaning whatsoever.
and barraged me repeatedly over something I said to somebody else.
Yes, you did say Nazi shit to somebody else, I’m not sure why it matters who it is you’re saying Nazi shit to.
You have not, you just did.
I did, multiple times. That’s what my hypothetical was asking. I didn’t realize that you both hate and don’t understand hypotheticals, for reasons that remain a mystery to me, but I guess that’s where you were confused.
I can unequivocally say the Holocaust is evil
OK! Great! Progress! You finally answered my hypothetical then, despite refusing to for some reason the first dozen times I asked.
So, since the Holocaust was evil, even though we could imagine someone saying all the same shit about how “the world doesn’t revolve around genocide” and people need to “move the fuck on,” it clearly shows that those are not valid things to say about genocides in general, and are, in fact, pretty fucked up.
So, now it’s unclear. Before, you said a bunch of Nazi shit. Now, you’re contradicting what you said before. So I don’t really know what to make of that.
I mean, if you’re serving shit, I’m gonna call it shit. If you overload the premise, it’s not exactly analyzing anything of value. I still don’t understand why we have to do this exercise for you to be satisfied, rather than focusing on what was said in the context without the bullshit. It makes no sense to do this besides you wanting to control the narrative.
Yes, because you said Nazi shit. I didn’t “misconstrue” anything. I also lost count.
And you’re a pedo. Prove me wrong.
Yes, you did say Nazi shit to somebody else, I’m not sure why it matters who it is you’re saying Nazi shit to.
Because you’re a nosy-ass, stubborn busybody. You literally cannot let go of the fact that someone said something you disagreed with, and you took it to heart, far worse than if it had been said to you.
I did, multiple times. That’s what my hypothetical was asking.
OK! Great! Progress! You finally answered my hypothetical then, despite refusing to for some reason the first dozen times I asked.
OMG! It’s like you were being disingenuous! Until you rephrased it! :D What a curious turn of events! OMG! I still don’t understand why that has to be explicitly said to you as if this site were filled to the brim with Nazis that need to be identified. This whole exercise that people like you do is so fucking stupid.
So, since the Holocaust was evil, even though we could imagine someone saying all the same shit about how “the world doesn’t revolve around genocide” and people need to “move the fuck on,” it clearly shows that those are not valid things to say about genocides in general, and are, in fact, pretty fucked up.
So, now it’s unclear. Before, you said a bunch of Nazi shit. Now, you’re contradicting what you said before. So I don’t really know what to make of that.
Funny how now I need to explain myself ALL OVER AGAIN. Damn, it’s like you’re doing this on purpose.
If you overload the premise, it’s not exactly analyzing anything of value.
This is the first time you’ve said anything close to an argument of why you reject my hypothetical that isn’t just rejecting hypotheticals altogether, so I’ll address it. I didn’t overload the premise. I literally changed one thing: I made it about the Holocaust instead of Gaza. That’s it. How does doing that “overload the premise?”
Your hypothetical was asking a loaded and incriminating question regardless of how I answered it.
Yes! If would incriminate you either way, because it forced you to either double down on what you had said and say that the Holocaust was justified, or contradict what you had said and say that the Holocaust wasn’t justified. The only reason you were in that situation was that you said shit that would also justify the Holocaust if it was valid. That’s your fault for painting yourself into that corner by using arguments that would justify the Holocaust! It’s not somehow my fault for pointing out that your arguments would also justify the Holocaust.
Just because a hypothetical makes you look bad doesn’t mean it’s invalid.
“False narrative” do you not understand how hypotheticals work? Are all hypotheticals “deceptive?” Christ Jesus.
I’m not sure whether to pity you for having been failed by your educational system or whether to pity the educational system for having to deal with you.
No, I’m literally saying yours is, actually. But talk about the failed education system some more, why don’t cha. Embody this post for us all, please.
And you can’t give any reason why my hypothetical isn’t valid beyond “it’s dumb” or it’s “a false narrative,” with no further explanation.
It’s not complicated, it’s incredibly straightforward. We don’t even need the hypothetical, since you seem to struggle with the concept of them. Let’s frame it this way instead: is it valid to say the exact things you say about one genocide about other genocides? Yes or no.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Why even bother with this bullshit and pretend it’s somehow the ultimate litmus test when we could’ve been discussing the facts? Oh, right, we tried that to no avail on your part.
How about this: Is it valid to accuse, misconstrue, bully, lie, attempt to publicly shame, and purposely misrepresent others under the guise of being an anti-genocide white knight by twisting people’s words even after they have fully explained what they meant and refuse to acknowledge that? Yes or no.
You talk a lot about human rights, and yet you fail to respect the people who are right in front of you.
Because, dumbass, hypotheticals are not “bullshit,” they’re a perfectly valid form of reasoning, and have been accepted as such by everyone since fucking Socrates.
I didn’t do any of that shit. I haven’t misconstrued a single thing you’ve said, I have not lied or bullied, I didn’t even engage when you brought it up more publicly in this thread, where you were trying to shame me.
Really, the only thing I’ve done is ask you is whether the Holocaust was justified or not, and when you couldn’t answer that, I called you a Nazi. That’s it.
Still no answer btw 🤔
Inb4 the “but you haven’t ExPlIcItLy DeNoUnCeD tHe hoLuCaUsT” because you can’t read between the lines. I know the horrors. Discovering its history is actually one of the most memorable moments of my teenage years. The harrowing thought that people could behave like this to one another changed me in ways no other thing has. I’ve read the books, some of them twice. And I haven’t even mentioned the other genocides, like the Rape of Nanking, that left me disheartened for weeks after reading it. Or the My Lai Massacre. Or even Gaza.
But none of that matters when we have some utter assholes on the internet using it as a cheap excuse to entertain themselves at the expense of others, as you and the other guy have. After all of this, I can confidently say that neither of your concerns is genuine, and that your only goal is to grind a stupid and superficial axe for cheap internet points. Rather than give the people the benefit of the doubt and allow people to share their thoughts and ideas, you’d rather go for the jugular. You’d much rather spend the day accusing, bickering, and vilifying than trying to understand. You’re an extension of the hate. You’re despicable.
Huh, you sound like a good person who cares about genocide, then. There was this other user running around telling people who were upset about genocide that “the world doesn’t revolve around genocide” and that they need to “move the fuck on.” Maybe I should introduce you to each other and let you duke it out with them. Lemminary, meet Lemminary.
HUH FUNNY HOW THAT IS.
It’s like you’re not fucking listening. 😂
I was listening before when you were pro-genocide and I’m also listening now that you’ve changed tact to being anti-genocide.
There it is! The flaps of rotten skin hanging from the back that were tied up in a bun. So much for trying to look good.
You know what’s also an even more valid form of reasoning? Sticking to what actually happened instead of inventing unfair scenarios.
How many times have you called me a Nazi, exactly? I should’ve kept count, but it was literally every single comment for a while. You’ve also lied, pretending you didn’t understand a basic analogy, and barraged me repeatedly over something I said to somebody else. And now you’re even trying to lie to others about me by giving a partial context, just enough to give the wrong idea, so that they get on your side early.
I simply said it was you because it is. I also thought it was really funny that you were trying to look good in the top comments so that people would upvote you. Now you’re devolving to the nasty little gremlin that you truly are, and I hope people can see that.
You have not, you just did. I can unequivocally say the Holocaust is evil because–get this–I have a bit of Jewish and native ancestry. Le gasp. But no, you’d rather put people down instead by lying like this.
So… you’re denying that hypotheticals are a valid form of reasoning, by calling them "invented unfair scenarios.
Yes, because you said Nazi shit. I didn’t “misconstrue” anything. I also lost count.
You keep repeating this claim that I’m “pretending not to understand you.” It’s complete nonsense. If there is some alternate meaning to your words that isn’t Nazi shit, I can assure you that I don’t understand that meaning whatsoever.
Yes, you did say Nazi shit to somebody else, I’m not sure why it matters who it is you’re saying Nazi shit to.
I did, multiple times. That’s what my hypothetical was asking. I didn’t realize that you both hate and don’t understand hypotheticals, for reasons that remain a mystery to me, but I guess that’s where you were confused.
OK! Great! Progress! You finally answered my hypothetical then, despite refusing to for some reason the first dozen times I asked.
So, since the Holocaust was evil, even though we could imagine someone saying all the same shit about how “the world doesn’t revolve around genocide” and people need to “move the fuck on,” it clearly shows that those are not valid things to say about genocides in general, and are, in fact, pretty fucked up.
So, now it’s unclear. Before, you said a bunch of Nazi shit. Now, you’re contradicting what you said before. So I don’t really know what to make of that.
I mean, if you’re serving shit, I’m gonna call it shit. If you overload the premise, it’s not exactly analyzing anything of value. I still don’t understand why we have to do this exercise for you to be satisfied, rather than focusing on what was said in the context without the bullshit. It makes no sense to do this besides you wanting to control the narrative.
And you’re a pedo. Prove me wrong.
Because you’re a nosy-ass, stubborn busybody. You literally cannot let go of the fact that someone said something you disagreed with, and you took it to heart, far worse than if it had been said to you.
Don’t start with your shit. Your hypothetical was asking a loaded and incriminating question regardless of how I answered it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF3WWxSrv5E
OMG! It’s like you were being disingenuous! Until you rephrased it! :D What a curious turn of events! OMG! I still don’t understand why that has to be explicitly said to you as if this site were filled to the brim with Nazis that need to be identified. This whole exercise that people like you do is so fucking stupid.
Funny how now I need to explain myself ALL OVER AGAIN. Damn, it’s like you’re doing this on purpose.
This is the first time you’ve said anything close to an argument of why you reject my hypothetical that isn’t just rejecting hypotheticals altogether, so I’ll address it. I didn’t overload the premise. I literally changed one thing: I made it about the Holocaust instead of Gaza. That’s it. How does doing that “overload the premise?”
Yes! If would incriminate you either way, because it forced you to either double down on what you had said and say that the Holocaust was justified, or contradict what you had said and say that the Holocaust wasn’t justified. The only reason you were in that situation was that you said shit that would also justify the Holocaust if it was valid. That’s your fault for painting yourself into that corner by using arguments that would justify the Holocaust! It’s not somehow my fault for pointing out that your arguments would also justify the Holocaust.
Just because a hypothetical makes you look bad doesn’t mean it’s invalid.