It must be a pretty well-worn habit for you by now, to simply ignore things you don’t like. That doesn’t make you right, however, and it’s more proof of your bad faith.
It must be a pretty well-worn habit for you by now, to simply ignore things you don’t like.
I wonder if you see the irony in this given the last 2 comments above. This is where substanceless posturing always leads. Just vibes and self-contradiction.
Combining confident posturing with aversive and dishinest behsvior is often entertaining, but I think it has about run its course in this thread.
If you would like to engage in good faith in the future I would be happy to have a discussion. But I will be ignoring genocide-apologetic bad faith behavior in this comment chain.
Do you often find that to be an effective debate tactic?
I’ll take that to mean you have no response to what I said.
It must be a pretty well-worn habit for you by now, to simply ignore things you don’t like. That doesn’t make you right, however, and it’s more proof of your bad faith.
I wonder if you see the irony in this given the last 2 comments above. This is where substanceless posturing always leads. Just vibes and self-contradiction.
Pointing out the flaws in your bad-faith argument isn’t irony.
I’ll take that to mean you don’t see the irony.
Unlike you, I don’t see things that aren’t there.
Combining confident posturing with aversive and dishinest behsvior is often entertaining, but I think it has about run its course in this thread.
If you would like to engage in good faith in the future I would be happy to have a discussion. But I will be ignoring genocide-apologetic bad faith behavior in this comment chain.
Do you often find this to be an effective debate strategy?