it's not my fault that you're unable to identify a post riddled with ad hominems and 'arguments' against strawman positions no one involved in this really holds. why you resort to your little 'he does that every time, it doesn't even apply' routine i don't know. my best guess is that you're trying to convince your imaginary audience and me that you REALLY don't mind when i point such things out, and that's ok. you guys like your ad homs, and i like pointing them out - it's just fascinating to see how someone could confuse what has to come first in this little game...

also, concerning the pro-life issue, i was strictly on topic and merely asked you a question without suggesting anything. i even explained to you what made me curious (acting like you didn't get what i meant by 'anti-choice'), and clarified that i'm convinced both sides mean the best regarding the issue even before you eventually replied. the fact that you feel that it was a 'trap' of some sort genuinely surprises me.

you constantly acting like a victim when you're one of the worst ad hom attackers and strawman argument makers is why we're all laughing at you. we all do it, all of us, to a person. but there is only a small group of people who fluff out every post by whining about it, and you just so happen to do it in almost every post. its so lock step that it often reads like copy pasta. some people say "umm" imperceptibly before they speak, you say "setting asside the ad hom attacks and strawman arguments" imperceptibly before you get to what you're actually going to say. its funny, change it or get laughed at, tbh we dont care.



i have legitimately never heard the term "anti-choice", and when i asked for clarification i said "abortion?" because i thought that's what you meant, i didnt feign ignorance. try not to lie. you brought it up out of the blue in an attempt to trap me as being biased towards a GOP minded scotus pick. it was an ok attempt, take the compliment, i just saw it a mile away.

please elaborate. what exactly do you feel i'm 'wrong' about? see, that's the problem with arguing against strawmen: you start to believe i actually hold the positions you made up in the first place. in reality i did not 'enjoy' or 'support' that kind of protest at any point - i merely replied to someone suggesting this is something the police should be called for, asking which crime they committed in their opinion.

not that i believe the den of after-the-fact larpers, but of course that chan is claiming the “gang rape leader” angle was their hoax and baldy fell for it. the twitter being made private thing is prob just a coincidence

This post was edited by excellence on Sep 25 2018 01:30pm

The crime(s) in this instance would have been... disturbing the peace, verbal assault, that I know of... there may be one or two others.

honestly the right should have just paid for a bunch of bullshit stories to be planted about Kav doing crazy shit so they could discount them, just send them all in a manilla envelope to baldy and he'd be reporting them on CNN within the hour.

It's the first thing you type. every time.

you're even shortening it so you can type it even faster.



Ooops - missed one.



This post was edited by djman72 on Sep 25 2018 01:35pm

strawperson you bigot.