Why are you types so hell-bent on making conversation as difficult as possible? You write as though you are trying to convince people to vote for democrats, yet you consistently flee at any chance of having an actual discussion, resulting in only being able to preach to your genocidal choir.
Typically in forums such as these a person does not write in order to convince the one they are responding to, but to influence the people just reading the sidelines. In order to influence those people you have to make your position appear cogent and reasonable. If you continually fail to engage with anything the other argues, then all you do is make yourself look stupid and uneducated, reflexively defending a position you in no way understand.
Your initial argument was terrible, yet instead of just writing that people decided to explain why it was terrible. The user you are responding to here did so via an analogy that could be better, but one that was completely understandable. Yet you decide not to engage with their argument, instead you behave like a petulant child playing dumb in the face of something they do not care to understand. Why then even write anything to begin with? What is the point of your text? I know I will not get an answer to these questions from you, since you types are allergic to answering questions for some reason. I don’t understand it, not even from a vitriolic or hostile perspective. When I am certain in my beliefs, my position, my reasoning, my arguments, then I do not shy away from answering simple questions or at least adressing why I feel they are beneath a response.
Why are you types so hell-bent on making conversation as difficult as possible? You write as though you are trying to convince people to vote for democrats, yet you consistently flee at any chance of having an actual discussion, resulting in only being able to preach to your genocidal choir.
Typically in forums such as these a person does not write in order to convince the one they are responding to, but to influence the people just reading the sidelines. In order to influence those people you have to make your position appear cogent and reasonable. If you continually fail to engage with anything the other argues, then all you do is make yourself look stupid and uneducated, reflexively defending a position you in no way understand.
Your initial argument was terrible, yet instead of just writing that people decided to explain why it was terrible. The user you are responding to here did so via an analogy that could be better, but one that was completely understandable. Yet you decide not to engage with their argument, instead you behave like a petulant child playing dumb in the face of something they do not care to understand. Why then even write anything to begin with? What is the point of your text? I know I will not get an answer to these questions from you, since you types are allergic to answering questions for some reason. I don’t understand it, not even from a vitriolic or hostile perspective. When I am certain in my beliefs, my position, my reasoning, my arguments, then I do not shy away from answering simple questions or at least adressing why I feel they are beneath a response.