That's cool. Thanks for the arrows, they helped your point a lot.
I am sure you spent a long time editing this terrible phone picture hoping you could "use it against me" while you stewed all weekend because I was able to garner a massive emotional response from you.
I took mine 15 seconds ago in the bathroom of my house. Which I own.
You have nothing on me. What's next, fite me irl?
Yawn. Emotional investment in the argument only to quit because you "don't like the syntax"
You'd make a great run-out EC from TRP.Red, but you couldn't possibly be interesting or likeable enough to earn any title from a group of men.
Haha, sure. I appreciate your preoccupation with me. You've already made me art and waited around all weekend for my response. What more could a patrician ask of his subjects?
@redpillschool FYI tags don't seem to work if there are non-alpha characters in username, even numerical. I noticed a user with underscores in his name would become italicized after the underscore as well.
Was curious when you would feel there was enough opposition to join. This is a sophist argument you're buttressing with dictionary definitions, as if the definition validates your use. That is the erasure of context, and an appeal to authority. Both are common sophist tactics.
ARGUMENT A: Being an EC isn't special (especially here).
The idea of identifying yourself as a "plane jane regular user" means you inherently identify as beneath something, or at a minimum an otherwise indistinguishable member of some crowd. That fits. (A) is my way of saying, I don't play on teams, and you are guilty of the same transgression that led me to dismiss adam - you make faulty assumptions and seek jouissance from others' approbation or acceptance of your assumptions. He did armchair psychology, you do sophistry.
Because of (A), I tested adam-l based on the benefit of the doubt. When he proved he was unwilling to fight or post physique, I dismissed him. Your use of Doble camiseta fails because I clearly don't play for a team.
ARGUMENT B: I judge based on content of individual character, not team. This is because i am an individualist.
panqueque is pretty simple to dismiss - I make friends in real life and share my experiences with them based on the content of their character. Because you cannot understand (A) and think in teams, you believe (B) which is that I flipped on a team, but the binary only exists in your head.
I need more clarity on your use of tibio to refute it, but it's just a redux of (A) as far as I can tell.
Your reliance on terms over substance is evidence of your deficiency in the formation of argument.
Put simply, if we measure one another based on our own rules of measurement (and base our opinions of the other based on our solipsistic measuring tool) we go in circles. If we instead engage in enough sport combat (here, that has to be words) to determine we're both capable of learning from another - THEN, we take the step past the ego to engage in good faith, we can create a lot of value.Read More