I tried to give you a way out that made you look less foolish. It would be slightly less stupid if you were arguing "I'm saying this because the media would say this if the roles were reversed".
You said, in my interpretation, that I was assuming racial animus without proof because of my bias. I am knowing saying you are applying a animus based on a bias of yours.
Nowhere did I assert animus. Do you even hear yourself?
I tried to give you a way out that made you look less foolish. It would be slightly less stupid if you were arguing "I'm saying this because the media would say this if the roles were reversed".
You're peacocking.
Nowhere did I assert animus. Do you even hear yourself?
It's implied, or you just pointed out his religion, and ethnicity for the fun of it
I'm embarrassed for you. You're not normally retarded, and you're one of the least unpleasant people here, but you decided to make peak retardation the hill to die on. Very well then.
It's implied
It's nowhere implied.
or you just pointed out his religion
I didn't point out his religion.
and ethnicity for the fun of it
I pointed out his ethnicity because idiot German politicians led phony 'refugees' from this phony non-country into Germany, and by doing that, they have wrecked the place. It's got nothing to do with animus.
I'm embarrassed for you. You're not normally retarded, and you're one of the least unpleasant people here, but you decided to make peak retardation the hill to die on. Very well then.
I don't have a personal issue with you. I don't understand why you feel the need to attack me, personally. If suggesting you might have biases, like everyone else, is somehow insulting to you, I apologize.
And I know you personally didn't bring up his religion but it's written in the story you cited. I don't think you post willy nilly so you picked the article you most agreed with.
I don't have a personal issue with you. I don't understand why you feel the need to attack me, personally.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that you're acting very stupid at this moment. That's nothing personal. I act stupid sometimes, though not here now. And what I said about you is just about the nicest I've ever said about someone with whom I have a disagreement.
If suggesting you might have biases, like everyone else,
Not at all. No doubt I do. But one can make a bad argument even for the axiomatically true, even 2+2=4. Did you know that 2+2=4 because Trump is Hitler?
But plenty of people make bad arguments. I mostly disliked how you brought this up where it was completely irrelevant.
I don't think you post willy nilly so you picked the article you most agreed with.
This was the first article that I saw that pointed out that the perpetrator was a Syrian so called refugee. It was freshly reported at the time.
But so what, even if I intentionally took an article that pointed this out? It's been reported that he attacked people, hoping to kill Jews. I don't know if that is true, so I didn't mention it. You claimed it with no basis at all.
I tried to give you a way out that made you look less foolish. It would be slightly less stupid if you were arguing "I'm saying this because the media would say this if the roles were reversed".
Nowhere did I assert animus. Do you even hear yourself?
You're peacocking.
It's implied, or you just pointed out his religion, and ethnicity for the fun of it
I'm embarrassed for you. You're not normally retarded, and you're one of the least unpleasant people here, but you decided to make peak retardation the hill to die on. Very well then.
It's nowhere implied.
I didn't point out his religion.
I pointed out his ethnicity because idiot German politicians led phony 'refugees' from this phony non-country into Germany, and by doing that, they have wrecked the place. It's got nothing to do with animus.
I don't have a personal issue with you. I don't understand why you feel the need to attack me, personally. If suggesting you might have biases, like everyone else, is somehow insulting to you, I apologize.
And I know you personally didn't bring up his religion but it's written in the story you cited. I don't think you post willy nilly so you picked the article you most agreed with.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that you're acting very stupid at this moment. That's nothing personal. I act stupid sometimes, though not here now. And what I said about you is just about the nicest I've ever said about someone with whom I have a disagreement.
Not at all. No doubt I do. But one can make a bad argument even for the axiomatically true, even 2+2=4. Did you know that 2+2=4 because Trump is Hitler?
But plenty of people make bad arguments. I mostly disliked how you brought this up where it was completely irrelevant.
This was the first article that I saw that pointed out that the perpetrator was a Syrian so called refugee. It was freshly reported at the time.
But so what, even if I intentionally took an article that pointed this out? It's been reported that he attacked people, hoping to kill Jews. I don't know if that is true, so I didn't mention it. You claimed it with no basis at all.