And to think you accuse me of being a bad faith arguer.
It's because you are. You didn't like that I explicitly stated that phenotypes can't define a homogenous social group. You rejected that and asserted that there would have to be a phenotype because a phenotype is as simple as the direction of hair on your head. This isn't how geneticists typically categorize human phenotype groups, nor is it evidence of a jewish phenotype. You even claimed I was arguing that no genetic difference exist between people. Then you turned around and claimed that I had changed by position from saying that a jewish phenotype existed to saying that I claimed it had to. Now you're claiming that I'm arguing against a different position.
My position has never changed: there is no such thing as a jewish phenotype.
What sucks is that even with Arch, who is explicitly bad faith but good in quality, I can still get some genuine positions out of him. It's not that you're advocating psuedo-scientific racial theories that's most annoying; it's that you are arguing like the absolute worst of them, and I know you're actually better than that.
I'm telling you that the white nationalists have a better grasp of genetics than what you are asserting, that's why your claim is silly: their assertions are still retarded, and yours is even less informed than theirs.
I just find the pro-semite arguers to be incredibly bad at their job to a point where its insulting to even read.
Yeah? And who's that? It can't possibly be the anti-theist, minarchist, anti-Zionist, that specifically demands that all foreign aid to Israel be halted, and that non-practicing jews are just lying for identity points, and shouldn't be allowed "The Right of Return".
My position has never changed: there is no such thing as a jewish phenotype.
Yes I'm sure that is the position that you hold. You present this by saying 5 paragraphs worth of circular garbage to say "nu uh, that definition is wrong!" and arguing in circles with people you've already admitted you made up based on stereotypes.
I showed you a literal definition of a word, and you didn't like that. Nothing either of us has said from that point onward has mattered, which is why I've only for the most part spoken directly to you instead of engaging with your arguments. But good on the fictional me you are battling with, he is lobbing all sorts of accusations at you.
And here I am only managing to call you a donkey.
I assume you mean Jester.
Well yes he was actually retarded, well done clearing that low bar by listing all the super cool labels you gave yourself.
I showed you a literal definition of a word, and you didn't like that.
Your definition, and it's application to human genetics, is wrong. That is why there is no "jewish phenotype". There is no "circular garbage", you're just wrong.
I've only for the most part spoken directly to you instead of engaging with your arguments.
Right, so you admit to engaging in a bad faith discussion from the beginning, after claiming that I wrongly accuse you of it.
But good on the fictional me you are battling with, he is lobbing all sorts of accusations at you.
Even this is in bad faith. You just admitted that all you've done is accuse me, while you pretend that I invented a strawman of you that accused me of things, which you already admitted you did in this very paragraph. You're actually trying to gaslight me, which is fucking bizarre.
Forget the whole phenotype thing. This is the actual issue: why are you like this? I'm not even trying to have a go at you. Why are you acting like this? Why are you being so aggressively disingenuous? Look at the very first sentence you responded to me with.
I suppose larger noses and afros just cease to exist because it would be mean to talk about it and Jews are the literal only group of people in history to not be effected by genetics.
Nobody said that. You made a wildly reductive strawman out of my statement, and you've only gotten more disingenuous, more personal, more manipulative, and more aggressive from there. Even for an internet argument, this is weird behavior. This isn't even trolling. It's like you're trying make me personally angry at you, by trying to agitate me as much as possible, no matter what your actual position is. This isn't even the first time you've acted like this. The last 3 conversations I've had with you, you've just gone absolutely apeshit and hostile, and I have no idea why you think you need to try and infuriate me.
I can't tell if this some weird rhetorical device to try and get me to say or do something that you can weaponize; or if you think you can say something to effect my personal life; or if you just have some sort of eye-bleeding hatred for me. I'm genuinely confused.
Right, so you admit to engaging in a bad faith discussion from the beginning, after claiming that I wrongly accuse you of it.
No, I gave a direct response. You responded like a donkey, so I stopped putting in effort from that point on because it was clear how this was going to go, the same way it always does.
I even asked you to say I was doing it, as I was doing it.
you've just gone absolutely apeshit and hostile
If you read this as hostile and apeshit, you're reading comprehension is worse than I ever imagined. I've literally been having a giggle at your expense for days now, while you keep trying to bait me back into an argument I've openly told you we weren't continuing.
Which is even more hilarious and confusing because it has been days. Meaning no one is reading this but us, we've both made it clear no minds will ever be changed. So your insistence on trying to continue this discourse has me quite concerned.
But if you think I have some insane vendetta out for you (there is that narcissism again, thinking you are so super special), why'd you even respond to me to begin with? You jumped into this, only to now get upset that I responded like you say I always do. That's not a good look for you buddy.
I even asked you to say I was doing it, as I was doing it.
I apologize for trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, while you claimed you weren't engaging in bad faith, while you engaged in bad faith, until you explicitly stated you were engaging in bad faith, making every part of the argument moot.
No, I gave a direct response.
That's a lie. The moment I replied is the moment you decided to act in bad faith.
you're reading comprehension is worse
That's a lie as well. You explicitly lied about my point, and then accused me of lying, while lying about my point, because you have acted in good faith yet.
you keep trying to bait me back into an argument I've openly told you we weren't continuing.
That's a lie as well. I never tried to bait you back into an argument, I tried to keep you on topic. You also didn't say you weren't continuing the argument, you were just trying to belittle me and make reductive or strawman arguments.
we've both made it clear no minds will ever be changed.
That's a lie as well. I never said my mind could never be changed, and nor did you.
why'd you even respond to me to begin with?
I thought you'd behave like a normal person. You're literally the only person that acts like this, even among people I disagree with. Even with people who are antagonistic with me. Even among bad faith actors.
That's why it's strange to me, literally nothing you've said since your first reply is honest. Not your opinions, not your perceptions, not your comments, not your criticisms. You're actually trying to gaslight me, when I can see previous comments. It's really weird. I don't know why you've taken up such a hostile strategy since the first sentence.
Here's an example. Me and current_horror have plenty of disagreements. However, on just a discussion related to generations, there's no issue. Agree to disagree. Like normal people.
Your behavior is crazy out of bounds for basically any social norm, to the point that it's interesting. I keep responding to you because I entirely respond in good faith, even if I end up being wrong about something. I don't even consider arguing in bad faith. So, it's interesting and perplexing to see someone only argue in bad faith, in all cases, in all situations, from the word 'go'. I've literally never seen anyone behave like this. Even shills, glowfags, and schitzo posters have plenty of genuine moments.
You jumped into this, only to now get upset that I responded like you say I always do
That's a lie as well. I said it was the last 3 times that your behavior has been so strange. You actually never used to act like this. You also know that there is no "jumping into this". I replied to a conversation on an open forum like everyone else. You can't claim some sort of special ownership over the replies to your comment, and wonder why someone you disagree with is allowed to respond.
It's because you are. You didn't like that I explicitly stated that phenotypes can't define a homogenous social group. You rejected that and asserted that there would have to be a phenotype because a phenotype is as simple as the direction of hair on your head. This isn't how geneticists typically categorize human phenotype groups, nor is it evidence of a jewish phenotype. You even claimed I was arguing that no genetic difference exist between people. Then you turned around and claimed that I had changed by position from saying that a jewish phenotype existed to saying that I claimed it had to. Now you're claiming that I'm arguing against a different position.
My position has never changed: there is no such thing as a jewish phenotype.
What sucks is that even with Arch, who is explicitly bad faith but good in quality, I can still get some genuine positions out of him. It's not that you're advocating psuedo-scientific racial theories that's most annoying; it's that you are arguing like the absolute worst of them, and I know you're actually better than that.
I'm telling you that the white nationalists have a better grasp of genetics than what you are asserting, that's why your claim is silly: their assertions are still retarded, and yours is even less informed than theirs.
Yeah? And who's that? It can't possibly be the anti-theist, minarchist, anti-Zionist, that specifically demands that all foreign aid to Israel be halted, and that non-practicing jews are just lying for identity points, and shouldn't be allowed "The Right of Return".
I assume you mean Jester.
Yes I'm sure that is the position that you hold. You present this by saying 5 paragraphs worth of circular garbage to say "nu uh, that definition is wrong!" and arguing in circles with people you've already admitted you made up based on stereotypes.
I showed you a literal definition of a word, and you didn't like that. Nothing either of us has said from that point onward has mattered, which is why I've only for the most part spoken directly to you instead of engaging with your arguments. But good on the fictional me you are battling with, he is lobbing all sorts of accusations at you.
And here I am only managing to call you a donkey.
Well yes he was actually retarded, well done clearing that low bar by listing all the super cool labels you gave yourself.
Your definition, and it's application to human genetics, is wrong. That is why there is no "jewish phenotype". There is no "circular garbage", you're just wrong.
Right, so you admit to engaging in a bad faith discussion from the beginning, after claiming that I wrongly accuse you of it.
Even this is in bad faith. You just admitted that all you've done is accuse me, while you pretend that I invented a strawman of you that accused me of things, which you already admitted you did in this very paragraph. You're actually trying to gaslight me, which is fucking bizarre.
Forget the whole phenotype thing. This is the actual issue: why are you like this? I'm not even trying to have a go at you. Why are you acting like this? Why are you being so aggressively disingenuous? Look at the very first sentence you responded to me with.
Nobody said that. You made a wildly reductive strawman out of my statement, and you've only gotten more disingenuous, more personal, more manipulative, and more aggressive from there. Even for an internet argument, this is weird behavior. This isn't even trolling. It's like you're trying make me personally angry at you, by trying to agitate me as much as possible, no matter what your actual position is. This isn't even the first time you've acted like this. The last 3 conversations I've had with you, you've just gone absolutely apeshit and hostile, and I have no idea why you think you need to try and infuriate me.
I can't tell if this some weird rhetorical device to try and get me to say or do something that you can weaponize; or if you think you can say something to effect my personal life; or if you just have some sort of eye-bleeding hatred for me. I'm genuinely confused.
No, I gave a direct response. You responded like a donkey, so I stopped putting in effort from that point on because it was clear how this was going to go, the same way it always does.
I even asked you to say I was doing it, as I was doing it.
If you read this as hostile and apeshit, you're reading comprehension is worse than I ever imagined. I've literally been having a giggle at your expense for days now, while you keep trying to bait me back into an argument I've openly told you we weren't continuing.
Which is even more hilarious and confusing because it has been days. Meaning no one is reading this but us, we've both made it clear no minds will ever be changed. So your insistence on trying to continue this discourse has me quite concerned.
But if you think I have some insane vendetta out for you (there is that narcissism again, thinking you are so super special), why'd you even respond to me to begin with? You jumped into this, only to now get upset that I responded like you say I always do. That's not a good look for you buddy.
There is always eyes, the thing that matters is there memory.
I apologize for trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, while you claimed you weren't engaging in bad faith, while you engaged in bad faith, until you explicitly stated you were engaging in bad faith, making every part of the argument moot.
That's a lie. The moment I replied is the moment you decided to act in bad faith.
That's a lie as well. You explicitly lied about my point, and then accused me of lying, while lying about my point, because you have acted in good faith yet.
That's a lie as well. I never tried to bait you back into an argument, I tried to keep you on topic. You also didn't say you weren't continuing the argument, you were just trying to belittle me and make reductive or strawman arguments.
That's a lie as well. I never said my mind could never be changed, and nor did you.
I thought you'd behave like a normal person. You're literally the only person that acts like this, even among people I disagree with. Even with people who are antagonistic with me. Even among bad faith actors.
That's why it's strange to me, literally nothing you've said since your first reply is honest. Not your opinions, not your perceptions, not your comments, not your criticisms. You're actually trying to gaslight me, when I can see previous comments. It's really weird. I don't know why you've taken up such a hostile strategy since the first sentence.
Here's an example. Me and current_horror have plenty of disagreements. However, on just a discussion related to generations, there's no issue. Agree to disagree. Like normal people.
Your behavior is crazy out of bounds for basically any social norm, to the point that it's interesting. I keep responding to you because I entirely respond in good faith, even if I end up being wrong about something. I don't even consider arguing in bad faith. So, it's interesting and perplexing to see someone only argue in bad faith, in all cases, in all situations, from the word 'go'. I've literally never seen anyone behave like this. Even shills, glowfags, and schitzo posters have plenty of genuine moments.
That's a lie as well. I said it was the last 3 times that your behavior has been so strange. You actually never used to act like this. You also know that there is no "jumping into this". I replied to a conversation on an open forum like everyone else. You can't claim some sort of special ownership over the replies to your comment, and wonder why someone you disagree with is allowed to respond.