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.
That's a lie. The moment I replied is the moment you decided to act in bad faith.
Its not, you took offense with something I said. I gave you back the literal definition (and called you a donkey). You can't just throw "bad faith" at everything that isn't to your debate club liking.
That's a lie as well. I never said my mind could never be changed, and nor did you.
Yes Captain Autism, its called an inference. Its when you take obvious meaning from a text that doesn't need to be directly said because its blatantly obvious what is going on behind the scenes. Because, as you pointed out, we've had these go ats before. Nothing was accomplished in them. I felt more secure in my position, and I cannot imagine yours changed closer to my POV either.
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.
Yes I anticipated you would respond with this. And I don't disagree with you on the principle.
But I'm also not the one whining about how someone responds to me, after initiating the conversation myself and noting how poorly it has gone the last few times. That's on you buddy, you can't complain then pull principle to justify eating shit while hating that it tastes like shit.
It is amusing though how you seem to be physically uncapable of accepting that I did you don't like and instead have to create some psychodrama where I am trying to "gaslight" you. While also trying to convince me that I don't actually believe my own opinions in the same sentence, which is some good irony I'm sure you won't get and will write 3 more paragraphs on how its okay when you do it because I'm a lying liar who lies.
That's another lie. I never said that it offended me, I simply disagreed with it. You responded with a reductive argument.
You can't just throw "bad faith" at everything that isn't to your debate club liking.
This is also another lie. You already admitted to acting in bad faith from the start.
This is what is so perplexing to me. You're lying about your own lies. That's not a normal behavior. I don't think you're a pathological liar, as I've actually interacted with you for years without incident prior to this. If you were a pathological liar, this would be a medical condition that we could all see. It would be a kind of schitzo-posting. You only just started acting like this in the past month or so. That's what confuses me. You're not normally like this, or at least you weren't.
its called an inference.
That's another lie. You didn't make any inferences, you were already acting in a hostile and bad faith manner by your own admission. From the first word of my response, you decided to take the most antagonistic path you could, and you've never deviated. If you were to make an inference, you would have had to have been taking in some facts or context. You didn't. This conversation has basically just been one way: you talking at me and refusing to engage honestly.
While also trying to convince me that I don't actually believe my own opinions in the same sentence
That's another lie. I thought I knew what your opinion was initially, which is why I disagreed with it. I don't really know what your opinions are at this point because you haven't been honest with me at all.
I never said that it offended me, I simply disagreed with it.
I'm sorry that your autism has reached such levels that you cannot even parse a sentence's meaning because you want to disagree with it some more.
You already admitted to acting in bad faith from the start.
No I admitted to saying I began doing so after I made my point and found your response lacking. You've just been accusing me of doing so from the start because you didn't like my first initial point.
You didn't make any inferences
Except I did. I inferred that this conversation would go nowhere productive, and that neither of our minds would budge by having it. Which Is why I put in no effort after I putting up my point (which still stands undefeated).
And lo, it didn't and no minds were changed. In fact, much like our previous conversations, I feel more secure in my position because of how this has gone.
I don't really know what your opinions are at this point because you haven't been honest with me at all.
You probably would, but you've spent so much time constructing me in your head that you've become too lost in the sauce to be able to even read the things I say. You are too busy rushing to call everything a lie and playing your victim card of "why you gaslighting me bro? :( I just wanna have a real conversation why you like this."
My opinion about Judaism not being just a religion hasn't changed in the slightest.
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.
Its not, you took offense with something I said. I gave you back the literal definition (and called you a donkey). You can't just throw "bad faith" at everything that isn't to your debate club liking.
Yes Captain Autism, its called an inference. Its when you take obvious meaning from a text that doesn't need to be directly said because its blatantly obvious what is going on behind the scenes. Because, as you pointed out, we've had these go ats before. Nothing was accomplished in them. I felt more secure in my position, and I cannot imagine yours changed closer to my POV either.
Yes I anticipated you would respond with this. And I don't disagree with you on the principle.
But I'm also not the one whining about how someone responds to me, after initiating the conversation myself and noting how poorly it has gone the last few times. That's on you buddy, you can't complain then pull principle to justify eating shit while hating that it tastes like shit.
It is amusing though how you seem to be physically uncapable of accepting that I did you don't like and instead have to create some psychodrama where I am trying to "gaslight" you. While also trying to convince me that I don't actually believe my own opinions in the same sentence, which is some good irony I'm sure you won't get and will write 3 more paragraphs on how its okay when you do it because I'm a lying liar who lies.
That's another lie. I never said that it offended me, I simply disagreed with it. You responded with a reductive argument.
This is also another lie. You already admitted to acting in bad faith from the start.
This is what is so perplexing to me. You're lying about your own lies. That's not a normal behavior. I don't think you're a pathological liar, as I've actually interacted with you for years without incident prior to this. If you were a pathological liar, this would be a medical condition that we could all see. It would be a kind of schitzo-posting. You only just started acting like this in the past month or so. That's what confuses me. You're not normally like this, or at least you weren't.
That's another lie. You didn't make any inferences, you were already acting in a hostile and bad faith manner by your own admission. From the first word of my response, you decided to take the most antagonistic path you could, and you've never deviated. If you were to make an inference, you would have had to have been taking in some facts or context. You didn't. This conversation has basically just been one way: you talking at me and refusing to engage honestly.
That's another lie. I thought I knew what your opinion was initially, which is why I disagreed with it. I don't really know what your opinions are at this point because you haven't been honest with me at all.
I'm sorry that your autism has reached such levels that you cannot even parse a sentence's meaning because you want to disagree with it some more.
No I admitted to saying I began doing so after I made my point and found your response lacking. You've just been accusing me of doing so from the start because you didn't like my first initial point.
Except I did. I inferred that this conversation would go nowhere productive, and that neither of our minds would budge by having it. Which Is why I put in no effort after I putting up my point (which still stands undefeated).
And lo, it didn't and no minds were changed. In fact, much like our previous conversations, I feel more secure in my position because of how this has gone.
You probably would, but you've spent so much time constructing me in your head that you've become too lost in the sauce to be able to even read the things I say. You are too busy rushing to call everything a lie and playing your victim card of "why you gaslighting me bro? :( I just wanna have a real conversation why you like this."
My opinion about Judaism not being just a religion hasn't changed in the slightest.
Just to make sure about something, you didn't create a fake account and start telling YesMovement to kill himself, right?
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/16bj0fr4Uy/alex-stein-boxing-match-cancelle/c/4TvB6FgukIa
That would be fucked up to expand our issue to random people who did nothing wrong.