Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money, health and everything else that matters. Our goal is to ensure that everyone, regardless of income or status, can access accurate information that empowers them.
You accept your historical illiteracy and pat yourself on the back, because you aren’t being given a tongue bath. Dress it up however you like, but we both know you’re out of your depth. Treating reading a book like an insurmountable task when you’ll happily read propaganda by an open fascist doesn’t conceal your motives very well. Neither does declaring that your line of inquiry was a game, with a time limit, where you make the rules.
Lots of projection and bad faith arguments there from someone who can’t form a valid rebuttal lol. What a tantrum. Good faith arguments, fallacies, and logic are what we build legal systems and reasoning on, because it is what is sensical and provable and arguable. I can’t argue something nonsensical and nonarguable by definition (which is why people arguing in bad faith use them - to be manipulative). Thus, you lose because you aren’t arguing, you’re just spewing ego everywhere.
The one melting down is you when asked to read a book and not offered personal tutoring lol. It’s exactly like a kid trying and failing to control a conversation. That’s what a layabout like you with too much time on his hands can’t understand - being given a book is better than being treated to a Wikipedia article posting contest. Nobody should willingly spend their time seeking out Reddit arguments like you do. Probably years of your life cumulatively spent repeating Guardian articles.
It’s not my turn to read anything except a good faith rebuttal of my original argument. You are welcome to include the book as a source in that. More projection and bad faith arguments from you, huh?
https://archive.org/details/VideoAlexeiNavalnyComparesMuslimsToCockroaches
Your source, sir. Which you are too ashamed to speak on. I offer you a chance to present the second-to-last book you read as a source, not garbage you half remember from Youtube to demand more attention and announce you are “winning” your made up game
Not a man but you can still call me sir.
That doesn’t address my original arguments.
I’ll call you what you are which is a reply guy bootlicker for a thug who wants immigrant familied gunned down.
Okay, you were always free to do that, it still isn’t a valid argument.
https://archive.org/details/VideoAlexeiNavalnyComparesMuslimsToCockroaches
https://archive.org/details/VideoAlexeiNavalnyComparesMuslimsToCockroaches
It never fails to amuse the way people retreat into their shell like this when they find out the premises of their arguments are based on sources which are open to criticism. This is harder than making up a guy to get mad at huh?
I look forward to eventually hearing your criticism. So far you haven’t given any valid rebuttal.