Post. Not think. Post.
And the laws they put up. The demonstrations they hold. Etcetera, Etcetera, Etcetera.
You were going to tell me when I advocated disarming all law enforcement.
Or are you the kind of guy that just accuses people of things for no reason?
Yep, I was right. Peace out, enjoy your echochamber trolling.
Trolling serves no purpose other than to agitate. Reductio ad absurdum is more than that. Aristotle had some interesting thoughts on non-contradiction.
I get you. More than you know.
Thatās exactly what youāre doing. Agitating.
Sure you do.
Are you learning? Donāt lie.
Iām learning what motivates you.
Clearly. Otherwise I wouldnāt have been able to satirize your extremists beliefs.
Do you need to believe that?
That wasnāt satire. You just repeated. Like a parrot.
Believe what? The truth?
Itās apparent in what you post that your only motivation is to troll. Thereās no attempt at rational discussion.
Satire:
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize peopleās stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
I thought I was exaggerating your statements, not parroting them. If you think I was merely parroting you, then youāre way more out in left field than I thought.
There is nothing rational about your stance on these issue. In fact there is not much rational about liberalism in general. Itās all based on emotion.
What is rational about saying federal law enforcement needs to be armed with the very arms you would deny me for the very same reasons?
What is rational to claim protection of others to prevent an illegal border crossing while decrying a physical barrier or policies that would do the same?
You would rather the Border Patrol killed young ladies than build a wall or deport? Rational?
What is rational about somebody from Massachusetts dictating to me what I must accept or not?
What is rational about 9 unelected lawyers ruling this country?
I understand the pathological need for the collectivism of secular puritanism. I simply reject it.
You clearly donāt understand my positions at all.
Itās impossible to have a rational conversation with someone that crafts straw men over and over again. If thereās one thing thatās a cancer on this message board is that we spend too much time telling people what they believe rather than asking what people believe.
I donāt advocate for bans of AR15s.
I donāt advocate for no physical walls on the border.
I donāt advocate the border patrol kill people rather than build a wall or deport.
I donāt advocate 9 lawyers run the country.
I think I know exactly what youāre going to say in response to this. I sincerely hope Iām wrong.
It wasnāt funny, ironic, an exaggeration, or ridicule (which would require me to feel ridiculed). So not satire.
I reject your normative morality limitation of any field within the confines of any lines. If you want to know where I am, go read the Constitution and what you and your ilk call the anti-federalist papers.
Look up the true meaning of āfederalistā and āfederalā. Study the meaning of the word ārepublicā.
Study the history of gun control. Live on a border. Spend some time with some agents of the state.
Get woke.
Do you believe in supporting a candidate who advocates violations of Constitutionally recognized rights?
Sounds like the guys attacking the agent should be tried for assault and attempted murder.
You are ignoring years of reading 100s of posts.
Prejudice is not a cancer.
