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.
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.