"Spamming a bunch of irrelevant links and calling people faggots isn't an argument"
The links aren't irrelevant. They relate back to and reinforce his claims. That's why he puts them right in the sentences. Have you really not clicked on a single one? No wonder he's calling you a faggot.
"You have to engage with someone's logic to have an argument."
You should take your own advice. I'm telling you how it looks from a 3rd party. He lays it right out in simple, concise sentences, and then backs up those claims with links inlaid into the sentences. It could not be simpler to ascertain how this person arrived at the thoughts they did.
You just can't be bothered to click on them, is all this is. You think you're too good, that you're above the information and the person presenting it, so of course you won't waste your time reading that garbage. You're elite.
The fact is you have NOTHING in return except postulation. You bring no evidence to bolster your claims in the opposite direction.
"Spamming links is far from that and a classic sliding technique."
He's not spamming links. Don't reinforce your own lies. Smart people can pick up on it immediately.
He's directly inlaying links into the text of his sentences that reinforce what the sentences claim. Again, you just think you're too good to do any real research because you know how it all is.
So psychology takes over:
You trivialize what he said, which makes the links in question also trivial, so therefor, you don't have to even attempt any real mental capacity. You have given yourself a shortcut to being stupid while delusionally thinking you're hot shit.
Spamming links like an asshole and demanding people read through everything, without even forming an actual argument, is not something that deserves a response.
Imagine thinking that copy pasta links was an argument. He had it ready to go.
He has literally ignored every single thing OP said. Didn't engage with a single thing.
That's not an argument. That's not discussion. That's called spamming.
You're just blinded by your own bias. Even the subtext to his links was total bullshit.
Now you're engaging in the sliding as well. You're probably his alt.
WE have to engage with him, but you... and him? Nah, you can just spam and pretend you had a discussion. Nice double standard, shilly fuck.
You know, I did have a one line pithy response about how stupid it is that you're getting pissed someone is providing links and sources to back up what they say, but I've actually decided to break this down piece by piece so that anyone coming along afterwards knows exactly what a fucking moron you are.
"What claims?"
The literal sentences he's typing? lol are you serious?
The OP post was about how Ye is controlled opposition to split up Trump support. The OP then engaged with u/Harambe who said: "Controlled opposition doesn't name the jew."u/TallestSkil then engaged off this response. The arguments in question stem from there. Is that easy enough for you to follow now, or do you require further spoon feeding?
"Spamming links like an asshole..."
Yes, we've already been over this and he's not doing that, you fucking moron. He's writing single line sentences, easy to digest, easy to read, and inlays links into those sentences to support what the sentences say. For some reason, you can't understand this.
"Imagine thinking that copy pasta links was an argument. He had it ready to go."
Repeating the same answer to the same set of stupid questions doesn't make it a copy pasta or spamming. Imagine thinking sourced claims are a copy pasta lmao.
"He has literally ignored every single thing OP said. Didn't engage with a single thing."
Except he has and you just won't read what he's saying because you're a fucking moron who thinks he's a hell of a lot smarter than he actually is. Again, we've been over this.
If you actually read the sentences and clicked on the links, you would understand his claims and wouldn't be whining at me to spoon feed them to you. "wHaT cLaiMs?"
"That's not an argument."
Except it is and you're just too stupid to understand it, hence this long winded post of mine going step by step for you. In a court or debate, you don't just make claims, fuck off and expect a win. You must provide evidence to support said claims. This ties into the metric of precedence: showcasing that the argument/claim has been made before and for what reasons.
"That's not discussion."
It's not on your level of discussion, clearly. Don't ever try to professionally debate anything.
"That's called spamming."
Yes, your honor. I'd like to provide ZERO evidence and ZERO support for my claims. I wouldn't want obstruction to be called on the account of spamming. Is my client free to go?
Now re-read that sentence again. In what world, other than the fantasy inside your head, does that sentence make any sense? This loops us back around to the start of my post where I point out you're getting pissed that he's providing links to back up what he says. Why? Does it challenge the fantasy inside your head? lol
"You're just blinded by your own bias."
lmfao if that's not the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not the one refusing to read evidence and claiming "I win. I'm superior." because of it, like a toddler.
"Now you're engaging in the sliding as well. You're probably his alt."
Oh yes, I forgot. If I don't agree with you, I'm sliding and his alt.
Get some fucking help, take your meds and get off the internet. Or, just take your zero sum musings back to reddit where dunning krugers get all the ego stroking they can handle.
The last word is yours. You're either pretending to be stupid on purpose (not a good angle to give your argument traction), really are that stupid, or just high echelon trolling, any reason of which doesn't require any further response from me.
I'm actually seeing the complete reverse.
It's tallest who has the salient arguments and puts links right into his posts text that back up what he claims.
I have not seen any direct evidence in the opposite direction. I see you and a few others deflecting while providing nothing of substance.
SaLIenT ARguMents
Spamming a bunch of irrelevant links and calling people faggots isn't an argument
You have to engage with someone's logic to have an argument.
Spamming links is far from that and a classic sliding technique.
"Spamming a bunch of irrelevant links and calling people faggots isn't an argument"
The links aren't irrelevant. They relate back to and reinforce his claims. That's why he puts them right in the sentences. Have you really not clicked on a single one? No wonder he's calling you a faggot.
"You have to engage with someone's logic to have an argument."
You should take your own advice. I'm telling you how it looks from a 3rd party. He lays it right out in simple, concise sentences, and then backs up those claims with links inlaid into the sentences. It could not be simpler to ascertain how this person arrived at the thoughts they did.
You just can't be bothered to click on them, is all this is. You think you're too good, that you're above the information and the person presenting it, so of course you won't waste your time reading that garbage. You're elite.
The fact is you have NOTHING in return except postulation. You bring no evidence to bolster your claims in the opposite direction.
"Spamming links is far from that and a classic sliding technique."
He's not spamming links. Don't reinforce your own lies. Smart people can pick up on it immediately.
He's directly inlaying links into the text of his sentences that reinforce what the sentences claim. Again, you just think you're too good to do any real research because you know how it all is.
So psychology takes over:
You trivialize what he said, which makes the links in question also trivial, so therefor, you don't have to even attempt any real mental capacity. You have given yourself a shortcut to being stupid while delusionally thinking you're hot shit.
Get a grip.
What claims?
Spamming links like an asshole and demanding people read through everything, without even forming an actual argument, is not something that deserves a response.
Imagine thinking that copy pasta links was an argument. He had it ready to go.
He has literally ignored every single thing OP said. Didn't engage with a single thing.
That's not an argument. That's not discussion. That's called spamming.
You're just blinded by your own bias. Even the subtext to his links was total bullshit.
Now you're engaging in the sliding as well. You're probably his alt.
WE have to engage with him, but you... and him? Nah, you can just spam and pretend you had a discussion. Nice double standard, shilly fuck.
You know, I did have a one line pithy response about how stupid it is that you're getting pissed someone is providing links and sources to back up what they say, but I've actually decided to break this down piece by piece so that anyone coming along afterwards knows exactly what a fucking moron you are.
"What claims?"
The literal sentences he's typing? lol are you serious?
The OP post was about how Ye is controlled opposition to split up Trump support. The OP then engaged with u/Harambe who said: "Controlled opposition doesn't name the jew." u/TallestSkil then engaged off this response. The arguments in question stem from there. Is that easy enough for you to follow now, or do you require further spoon feeding?
"Spamming links like an asshole..."
Yes, we've already been over this and he's not doing that, you fucking moron. He's writing single line sentences, easy to digest, easy to read, and inlays links into those sentences to support what the sentences say. For some reason, you can't understand this.
"Imagine thinking that copy pasta links was an argument. He had it ready to go."
Repeating the same answer to the same set of stupid questions doesn't make it a copy pasta or spamming. Imagine thinking sourced claims are a copy pasta lmao.
"He has literally ignored every single thing OP said. Didn't engage with a single thing."
Except he has and you just won't read what he's saying because you're a fucking moron who thinks he's a hell of a lot smarter than he actually is. Again, we've been over this.
If you actually read the sentences and clicked on the links, you would understand his claims and wouldn't be whining at me to spoon feed them to you. "wHaT cLaiMs?"
"That's not an argument."
Except it is and you're just too stupid to understand it, hence this long winded post of mine going step by step for you. In a court or debate, you don't just make claims, fuck off and expect a win. You must provide evidence to support said claims. This ties into the metric of precedence: showcasing that the argument/claim has been made before and for what reasons.
"That's not discussion."
It's not on your level of discussion, clearly. Don't ever try to professionally debate anything.
"That's called spamming."
Yes, your honor. I'd like to provide ZERO evidence and ZERO support for my claims. I wouldn't want obstruction to be called on the account of spamming. Is my client free to go?
Now re-read that sentence again. In what world, other than the fantasy inside your head, does that sentence make any sense? This loops us back around to the start of my post where I point out you're getting pissed that he's providing links to back up what he says. Why? Does it challenge the fantasy inside your head? lol
"You're just blinded by your own bias."
lmfao if that's not the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not the one refusing to read evidence and claiming "I win. I'm superior." because of it, like a toddler.
"Now you're engaging in the sliding as well. You're probably his alt."
Oh yes, I forgot. If I don't agree with you, I'm sliding and his alt.
Get some fucking help, take your meds and get off the internet. Or, just take your zero sum musings back to reddit where dunning krugers get all the ego stroking they can handle.
The last word is yours. You're either pretending to be stupid on purpose (not a good angle to give your argument traction), really are that stupid, or just high echelon trolling, any reason of which doesn't require any further response from me.
Thanks for the time kill.