re: Trying to stop child trafficking is now "Qanon-adjacent" and "paranoid"

quote:

---

I couldn't use "myth" because more than one myth was relied on in the Qtard narrative.

---

Mythos is myth. If you couldn’t use myth, you shouldn’t use mythos.

quote:

---

SFP
Think about how that makes you look.

quote:

---

Toomer
The very fact you keep bumping this thread clearly indicates you have no clue how you come across to the rest of this board.

---

---

I think it is safe to infer that SFP is fully-aware that a large number of the local hoi polloi do not like him. He just does not assign enough value to their opinions to make him give a damn about it.

quote:

---

Mythos is myth. If you couldn’t use myth, you shouldn’t use mythos.

---

quote:

---

"Mythos" is a noun that refers to a system of beliefs, especially those that deal with supernatural forces, that are characteristic of a particular cultural group. It can also refer to anything transmitted by word of mouth, such as a fable, legend, narrative, story, or tale, especially a poetic tale.

---

The "system of beliefs" denotes the plurality I was referencing.

quote:

---

I think it is safe to infer that SFP is fully-aware that a large number of the local hoi polloi do not like him. He just does not assign enough value to their opinions to make him give a damn about it.

---

Yes I am both the most beloved and most hated person in the history of this site. It just depends on the zeitgeist and what talking points the general public is parroting at the moment.

The poli board is nothing like the rant was when I would talk about how shitty Miles and Orgeron were. Believe me.

quote:

---

His sole, transparently obvious goal here is to defend child trafficking by claiming it isn't common.

---

The truly sad thing about this post is that you are actually dumb-enough to really BELIEVE that this is his position.

Someone mentioned above that they had a smart relative for whom the wife picks his clothes. His sartorial taste is non-existent. Egad. There is a big difference between that and people like you who are simply too stupid to dress themselves, because the shoelaces are too complicated.

quote:

---

Please don’t have kids.

---

He isn't able to bond, No worries there

quote:

---

Holy Crap. It’s about stopping people from hurting children.

---

The fact that you somehow argued against this statement is discouraging. I would think every decent human would be against this. I mean, regardless of semantics or sensationalism, you have taken the opposite side of the argument. We get it. You are super smart. And maybe not everyone that is against child trafficking is completely informed. Maybe some exaggerate. Hell, many didn’t even go to college. But they know right from wrong.

You have allied yourself against the side that is against, semantics not withstanding, child trafficking. You have squarely planted your flag on the side of child trafficking and pedophilia. Maybe you don’t realize it. But you have. You don’t have to try to win every internet argument just because you can. Sometimes it is best to just fold and sit a hand out. Unless you really do believe that child trafficking isn’t wrong…



You sure seem to be on the side of wrong here.

quote:

---

The fact that you somehow argued against this statement i

---

I did not do any such thing.

I called out a dishonest rhetoric.

I didn't speak to the underlying words b/c they were dishonest and a response would not further the discussion in any meaningful way.

quote:

---

I would think every decent human would be against this. I mean, regardless of semantics or sensationalism, you have taken the opposite side of the argument.

---

I literally have not, in great detail.

quote:

---

You have allied yourself against the side that is against, semantics not withstanding, child trafficking. You have squarely planted your flag on the side of child trafficking and pedophilia.

---

And there is that dishonesty again.

I specifically have responded in a way as to give detailed, rational responses in order to avoid the rhetorical trap of having to agree with all points of the argument you've been spoonfed. When the response isn't what you anticipated, this occurs.

quote:

---

Unless you really do believe that child trafficking isn’t wrong…

---

quote:

---

You sure seem to be on the side of wrong here.

---

Agree with everything we say or else you don't support fighting against one variable of many we require you to believe.

quote:

---

Agree with everything we say or else you don't support fighting against one variable of many we require you to believe.

---

It is simpler than that.

"You must agree with everything I say, or I will infer that you disagree with EVERYTHING that I say ... and I will hound you with that nonsensical inference until the end of time."

It is how simpletons think.

Good God