I didn't say him asking was a problem to begin with
You didn't need to. Because even asking why he did in the first place as you did says you think he needs a reason why. And as I explained in many different ways, he has numerous reasons why he would do it that are reflexively obvious.
I assume you think Freedom ends when it comes to freedom of expression
Probably shouldn't start making wild assumptions about someone's beliefs right after whining about thinking you were strawmanned. And then whining about "I was not hypocritical, its not truuu."
The America adjective of your previous statement wasn't relevant, unless you think "innocent until proven guilty" is uniquely American, which is why your cheap defense was worth pointing out as laughable. That entire bit was to point out that trawling through someone's comment history when you don't have a good defense is dumb, gay, and pathetic.
Because he can and has good reason to do so. You seem to be unable to parse the two different parts of my argument, which is that "he has absolutely every right to ask" and "vaper has every right to say no if its not over some defined line." Its obvious because no one except you seems to think its weird and wrong to approach someone to ask a simple thing.
You're going to make an argument about assumption
No assumption was needed, you said something dumb. I called it dumb. I tried to break it down in a few different ways to get you to understand, none worked. My only assumption was that you are a pro vaper, which you didn't acknowledge so I'm take that W on a guess.
And the America part is very relevant
It isn't, unless America is the only system in the world with "innocent until proven guilty" as a foundational element of its working (in theory, we know the law acts like it aint). But again, that entire line is irrelevant beyond pointing out your ad hominem was pathetic and undermined your own argument.
Which again, is hypocritically hilarious that you open with one common debate fallacy, and then go on to whine about me totally doing one to you.
You didn't need to. Because even asking why he did in the first place as you did says you think he needs a reason why. And as I explained in many different ways, he has numerous reasons why he would do it that are reflexively obvious.
Probably shouldn't start making wild assumptions about someone's beliefs right after whining about thinking you were strawmanned. And then whining about "I was not hypocritical, its not truuu."
The America adjective of your previous statement wasn't relevant, unless you think "innocent until proven guilty" is uniquely American, which is why your cheap defense was worth pointing out as laughable. That entire bit was to point out that trawling through someone's comment history when you don't have a good defense is dumb, gay, and pathetic.
Because he can and has good reason to do so. You seem to be unable to parse the two different parts of my argument, which is that "he has absolutely every right to ask" and "vaper has every right to say no if its not over some defined line." Its obvious because no one except you seems to think its weird and wrong to approach someone to ask a simple thing.
No assumption was needed, you said something dumb. I called it dumb. I tried to break it down in a few different ways to get you to understand, none worked. My only assumption was that you are a pro vaper, which you didn't acknowledge so I'm take that W on a guess.
It isn't, unless America is the only system in the world with "innocent until proven guilty" as a foundational element of its working (in theory, we know the law acts like it aint). But again, that entire line is irrelevant beyond pointing out your ad hominem was pathetic and undermined your own argument.
Which again, is hypocritically hilarious that you open with one common debate fallacy, and then go on to whine about me totally doing one to you.