Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
might wanna read the definition again.
nop
still yes
sick response, i take this as you admitting your comment was bullshit and lacked nuance.
no one is asking you to cry for anyone.
what fallacy? me pointing out how there is nuance? lmfao
might want to reread my comments, because this isnt what happened at all.
nop
sick response, i take this as you admitting your comment was bullshit and lacked nuance.
no one is asking you to cry for anyone.
what fallacy? me pointing out how there is nuance? lmfao
might want to reread my comments, because this isnt what happened at all.
Read the etymology of the word
Nop, I care more about people having real life difficulties than building owners having assurance problems, if you have other priorities then I can't help you.
Trying to make it look like that building owners are similar to people in real distress. There is no freaking nuance to have here. Except if you want to defend some bourgeois.
I read it. And this is what you did.
Nop, I care more about people having real life difficulties than building owners having assurance problems, if you have other priorities then I can't help you.
Trying to make it look like that building owners are similar to people in real distress. There is no freaking nuance to have here. Except if you want to defend some bourgeois.
I read it. And this is what you did.
read the current definition, then riots that intend to further political/ideological goals are acts of terrorism.
i also care more about those people, but that doesnt mean your comment completely lacked nuance and was just way off. generalization fallacy btw.
never heard about that fallacy before, but obviously there will be some building owners in real distress, for all kinds of reasons. the world still isnt black and white and generalizing is antilogical. quite ironic considering you claim to be all about science.
nah, apparently you are just reading what you want into my comments.
or straight strawmanning.
i also care more about those people, but that doesnt mean your comment completely lacked nuance and was just way off. generalization fallacy btw.
never heard about that fallacy before, but obviously there will be some building owners in real distress, for all kinds of reasons. the world still isnt black and white and generalizing is antilogical. quite ironic considering you claim to be all about science.
nah, apparently you are just reading what you want into my comments.
or straight strawmanning.
Funny I found this definition:
The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Looks a lot more accurate. But in both case, riot are not pushing political/ideological goal, its just a way to express anger. Its the last resort of a population that we don't listen to. But keep defending the power dude.. I'm sure it will go well.
That's questionnable looking at how quick you jumped on the nuance bangwagon to defend building owners.
Sure, poor things...
I see you making good old capitalistic stance. Screaming for "NUANNNCE" when .. there is none to have.
The appeal of nuance is a bias in the world where 8 individuals have as much wealth as the 3 billion of people
You are right.. Poor landlords.. Poor little building owners...
YES .. YES LOUDER.. They worked SOOOO HARD .. Poor little things
The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Looks a lot more accurate. But in both case, riot are not pushing political/ideological goal, its just a way to express anger. Its the last resort of a population that we don't listen to. But keep defending the power dude.. I'm sure it will go well.
That's questionnable looking at how quick you jumped on the nuance bangwagon to defend building owners.
Sure, poor things...
I see you making good old capitalistic stance. Screaming for "NUANNNCE" when .. there is none to have.
The appeal of nuance is a bias in the world where 8 individuals have as much wealth as the 3 billion of people
You are right.. Poor landlords.. Poor little building owners...
YES .. YES LOUDER.. They worked SOOOO HARD .. Poor little things
Last edited:
i thought riots are about making yourself heard by the men in power?
and well yes, thats why i specified, IF riots do have political aims, then they are acts of terrorism.
im still not "defending the power".
can you stop collecting logical fallacies?
[automerge]1694022825[/automerge]
i just called out your statement and how it lacks nuance and simplifies shit. im not defending anything.
stop putting words into my mouth all the time
[automerge]1694022929[/automerge]
i dont see how any of this has anything to do with our conversation at hand lmao.
you oversimplified and generalized shit, i called it out. thats it. has nothing to do with any bias, nothing to do with 8 individuals who are crazy rich lmfao.
this is antilogical waffle
and well yes, thats why i specified, IF riots do have political aims, then they are acts of terrorism.
im still not "defending the power".
can you stop collecting logical fallacies?
[automerge]1694022825[/automerge]
i just called out your statement and how it lacks nuance and simplifies shit. im not defending anything.
stop putting words into my mouth all the time
[automerge]1694022929[/automerge]
i dont see how any of this has anything to do with our conversation at hand lmao.
you oversimplified and generalized shit, i called it out. thats it. has nothing to do with any bias, nothing to do with 8 individuals who are crazy rich lmfao.
this is antilogical waffle
this is like back when trump was president and people lied like crazy about his statements. and whenever i corrected them, they cried about me defending trump. Nah bro, im just calling out your bullshit, that doesnt automatically mean im defending anything holy fucking shit antilogic brainrot @Logiko
[automerge]1694023091[/automerge]
except when they do
[automerge]1694023187[/automerge]
nah bro you are just putting words into my worth or deliberately distorting my statements.
[automerge]1694023091[/automerge]
except when they do
[automerge]1694023187[/automerge]
nah bro you are just putting words into my worth or deliberately distorting my statements.
i didnt make any comparison, i just called out your statement for simplifying this shit lmfao. how often do i have to repeat this until you get it?
or is it that you dont want to get it? and just read whatever you want? or straight lie about what im saying? then we are back to strawman fallacy.
[automerge]1694023308[/automerge]
a pattern of shitheads putting words into my mouth because they have antilogic brainrot? sure, i guess.
[automerge]1694023407[/automerge]
example:
Shithead A: trump said all mexicans are rapists
Me: uhm actually thats not what he said, you are distorting his statement
Shithead A: oH So YoU aRe A NaZi AnD DeFeNdInG TrUmP
thats basically it lmfao
[automerge]1694023499[/automerge]
emphasis on especially btw.
or is it that you dont want to get it? and just read whatever you want? or straight lie about what im saying? then we are back to strawman fallacy.
[automerge]1694023308[/automerge]
Seems like their is a pattern here 
[automerge]1694023407[/automerge]
example:
Shithead A: trump said all mexicans are rapists
Me: uhm actually thats not what he said, you are distorting his statement
Shithead A: oH So YoU aRe A NaZi AnD DeFeNdInG TrUmP
thats basically it lmfao
[automerge]1694023499[/automerge]
emphasis on especially btw.