Its pretty simple. Read what I wrote. Quote the text. Explain how the quoted text fits your assertion.
I assume you do not do this because you are aware you are being incredibly reductive and are essentially arguing against a fictitious position instead of the one I actually hold, because the actual position is one which no educated and reasonable person would disagree with. If that is t the case, then do the simple thing instead of continuing with this fallacious reductive presentation of my text.
It is far more simple. I do not take orders and you know how you think. If I did not get your point, explain me that I missed. If I understood you but I disagree, demonstrate your point or give me examples, so that you may convince me.
I have read that you have claims, I haven’t seen you pointing nor at ideologies, nor at historical facts, nor at some academic paper, nor at some book, nor article, nor even at a video. If nothing supports your claim, it makes them far from obvious in my mind.
Thanks for admitting you’re arguing in bad faith. You would have saved us both a bunch of time if you just admitted you were too prideful to go back on a position when you have no salient arguments, instead of doing this weird thing of making up some wild strawman and then acting weird when I asked you to point to any piece of text I had written that substantiated said strawman.
I would urge you to look inwards and reflect upon why you take requests for civil conversation as “orders” and why you pride yourself on being incapable of conversation.
edit: Why do you say FDR was a fascist and Salazar was a liberal? What a weird thing to believe. Why are you calling King Leopold of Belgium a liberal?
Its pretty simple. Read what I wrote. Quote the text. Explain how the quoted text fits your assertion.
I assume you do not do this because you are aware you are being incredibly reductive and are essentially arguing against a fictitious position instead of the one I actually hold, because the actual position is one which no educated and reasonable person would disagree with. If that is t the case, then do the simple thing instead of continuing with this fallacious reductive presentation of my text.
It is far more simple. I do not take orders and you know how you think. If I did not get your point, explain me that I missed. If I understood you but I disagree, demonstrate your point or give me examples, so that you may convince me.
I have read that you have claims, I haven’t seen you pointing nor at ideologies, nor at historical facts, nor at some academic paper, nor at some book, nor article, nor even at a video. If nothing supports your claim, it makes them far from obvious in my mind.
Thanks for admitting you’re arguing in bad faith. You would have saved us both a bunch of time if you just admitted you were too prideful to go back on a position when you have no salient arguments, instead of doing this weird thing of making up some wild strawman and then acting weird when I asked you to point to any piece of text I had written that substantiated said strawman.
I would urge you to look inwards and reflect upon why you take requests for civil conversation as “orders” and why you pride yourself on being incapable of conversation.
edit: Why do you say FDR was a fascist and Salazar was a liberal? What a weird thing to believe. Why are you calling King Leopold of Belgium a liberal?