i disagree. [...]
Your behaviour reflects on other liberals. The behaviour of other liberals does not (by default) reflect on you. This is common sense, and your lack of understanding of this simple concept is the root of this entire discussion.
but cool, i accept that you're not grouping me in with the folks who call republicans terrorists. done deal. as usual, you could have resolved this with the sentence, "I'm not saying that you personally call republicans terrorists." that would have cleared things up nicely.
No, it wouldn't have. More importantly,
no, it didn't. Me saying that "
I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell,
it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See,
the problem here is that you see me talking about 'liberals', but you think 'oh shit, he must be talking about me!'. You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How 'ironic'." resulted in you immediately dismissing my clarification, and then complaining that I should have provided it.
As usual, this could have been resolved by you responding to what people are actually saying, and not to strawmen you constructed.
haha no u
you don't actually have to give me the benefit of any doubts or whatever agreement you're talking about. you just say, "that's not what i said; i said x/y/z." try it sometime. i assure you, as i've assured you before, that i'll never respond with "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha." i'll always respond, as i have this time, with "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."
Please review the following chain of events. Here's me telling you what I didn't and did say.
I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!". You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How "ironic".
And here is your response. Compare and contrast it to "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha." as well as "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."
Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?
That said, I still think you're horribly wrong. There's nothing surprising, controversial, ironic, hypocritical or whatever going on here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves.
Fair enough, I'll chalk it down to you having redefined "Islam" in your mind. It's such a worrisome trend among American neoprogressives.
Once again you remind yourself of the substance of my objection. The pro-life platform is irrelevant here until evidence to the positive is presented. The burden of proof lies on liberals as the accusers
See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!".
yeah i can't imagine how i got that idea
You see, the problem here is that you're a living contradiction. You went well out of your way to try and shit on me clarifying what I did and didn't say, only to then suggest that this clarification would have sorted everything out. It's really not hard to conclude that you're dishonest and that you have a very poor recollection of the conversation to date.
as usual, though, i suspect that this is less about the argument and more about derailing the conversation into an abyss you know i'll fall for. your next post will prove me right by being just a string of personal attacks. watch it happen. it's almost...formulaic.
Yes. You will ignore the facts of the matter and the arguments that I brought to the table. You will ignore that you were entirely wrong about whether or not a clarification on my part would have helped, even though we know it
actually didn't. You will not reflect on your character, your assumptions, or your accusations. Instead, you will point out that I called you dishonest and that I claimed your memory is a bit shit. Or you'll pick on that little "living contradiction" rant, objecting to some of the words used rather than the
meaning behind them. Finally, you might go super-meta on me and claim that this very paragraph is one huge personal attack!
It really is rather formulaic, but I'm not the one at fault here.
the irony to me is that a member of a group widely regarded as being unwilling to distinguish between violent and non-violent muslims is extolling folks to make that distinction for christians.
He is not doing that. At the time of your posting, we didn't even know that the assailant was a Christian. Right now, the dominant theory is that he was shocked with the leaked PP videos, but even that isn't completely confirmed yet.
You simply made up a story in your mind, and you're trying to spread it ahead of the facts. This is dangerous, because it creates interesting beliefs along the lines of "Mike Brown dindu nuttin". That's why you're getting called out on your shit.
it's ironic to me because i think neither christians, nor muslims, nor their respective religious texts, are inherently violent.
Have you read either of them?
It's a bit like me saying that I don't
think Harry Potter lived in England at some point during his life. It's not a claim I can honestly make, having read at least one of the HP books.
Your wishy-washy feels and thoughts about what a book says are quite insignificant when contrasted with the actual printed book.