Don't you literally say that to everyone? It seems like your standard deflection really, I mean you literally just did that in the RWBY thread. It seems rather suspicious that you always resort to claiming people need to read. At least that is my experience.
"You seem to think the people you argue with are wrong, ISNT THAT SUSPICIOUS?"
This is a pitiful attempt at well-poisoning if I've ever seen one, of course there are commonalities between my interlocutors, and thus my responses to them, what a meaningless observation, read any good Wittgenstein recently?
Walked into what? By dismantling your definition. I mean you are now are trying to argue the exact opposite of context even more, now that I caught you.
You're incoherent.
You tried to throw "bullying" out as a negative, as a pejorative, and insisted *I* was making America out to be a bully, whereas *you* diddnt think they were, then doubled back when held to your own context and insisted that "Bully" meant "anyone who used force or the threat of force to dominate or intimidate" which would include... Every single military, government, and policing entity since the dawn of fucking time.
You've embarrassed yourself with your own sophistry, and it's hilarious.
No, because everyone and everything dominates and intimidates at some point, so it would hardly make everyone a bully. It would have to be a pattern of behavior that establishes it. A country is a bully, if it actually pursues it
"USA isnt a bully but you want them to be!"
"Bullying is using force!"
"I-I mean it's using force- a- a lot! A vague amount of "a lot" that I can neither define nor attribute! But-! Uh! my vision of america isnt it and yours is!"
Continue to flail, I'm delighted to watch you self destruct in public.
and the USA you describe sounds like it would pursue it.
I dont have the time to teach you to read.
I am pretty sure you did propose a system, since you explained it and then advocated for it. How haven't you advocated for a system? Because all this argumentation sounds like advocating for a system to me.
-Explaining a practical reality is the same as advocacy
-Sounds like
I dont give a used fig what I sounded like to someone who cant be assed to pay attention or keep up with basic english, I care about what I actually said.
The USA is not a cliff, it is an actual entity.
The cliff is a metaphor for predictable and present danger, big brain.
And why should there be consequences?
There it is ladies and gentlemen, the ingratitude and arrogance of the world America ensures and protects, summed up in six words.
"Why should I get mauled JUST because I go around slapping tigers on the ass? Why SHOULD I break my legs if I walk over a cliff? Why isnt it a powerful outside entity's
job to constantly ensure I'm protected from the obvious, predictable, and natural consequences of my own actions? What do you mean say thank you!? Thats it's JOB!"
you are the one saying what you are saying such things.
For those of you keeping score at home, this is the guy who thinks he cant possibly be misreading.
Because this sounds like cheap apologia.
"acknowledging the overwhelmingly likely outcome of a thing is apologia"
You mean the exact situation where someone has to take responsibility for their actions?
... No? The exact situation where one party has no recourse other than to shamelessly beg for assistance from a dominant second party under no compulsion to provide help besides "hypothetical and unexpected beneficence".
It's like you've never even seen cartoon porn before.
I am not the person who thinks insults are a good way to win a debate as it is clear you do.
Quote, literally the person who opened up with an insult.
I literally was stating I thought you were being an idiot, matter of factly, it is far different than what you are doing.
"I wasnt insulting you by calling you retarded, I was just saying that you're retarded."
Do you even hear what comes out of your mouth? You've made a fucking laughingstock of yourself, and thats due to your intensely hypocritical argumentation.
Everyone thinks they are exception
Not what I said, not what I implied, who the fuck are you even talking to? It's like you had this response prepared and just ignored that what I said didn't fit into it.
Everyone thinks they are exception until they stop being it, all empires fall and then come at the mercy of those they lorded over. That is the point.
Which is a non sequitur, and it should be obviously so, but allow me to wrinkle your brain a bit here: Saying "You'll be sorry when your empire collapses due to X" with the caveat of "Every empire falls eventually and it could be an arbitrary amount of time later due to basically anything" completely
undercuts the point of "X is impractical" that is implicit in saying "You'll regret X". It's like saying "You'll regret making enemies with Jim, because in a hundred years you'll be dead, and maybe, maybe Jim will be the one to have caused it". No practical reason, no threat, not even an argument towards made-up probability, just "Everyone dies eventually and maybe your weak enemy will be the cause".
I clearly do, if I actually want the USA to be good and moral for its own sake.
You clearly dont, based on your own arrogant position that showing infinitely more mercy than all the empires before it and concurrent to it is somehow not only not enough, but in and of itself so horrible as to be criminal.
Because you never should have been there in the first place. You made the choice to get involved in the region and to interfere, and that rightfully earns you enmity.
Harboring an entity's enemy is, itself, an act against that entity.
No, that is you, given how much you are reaching and now going for cheap tactics. Keep at it, maybe you'll convince yourself you won, and people easily tricked by such theatrics.
Talk about projection with a side of incoherent sentence structure.
No, I don't I already explained in simple English why I didn't think it worked. And just because you try to torture the metaphor more doesn't make me wrong.
Just because you diddnt grasp the simple metaphor doesnt make an explanation of it torturous. Though I suppose learning can be a painful experience, even when someone hand-holds you through it by explaining in detail what something you should have already understood meant.
Again insults don't make you correct. You can insult me all you want, but all it shows is that you are insecure enough in your own position that you feel that you need
-Actually opened with an insult
By the way was that busted ass sentence supposed to have an ending? No, no, you're right, clearly I'm the one struggling.
And again you return to that cannard. You deflect, because I took apart your argument and showed your hypocrisy.
No, you really don't get it, you genuinely don't understand what I meant by the original comment, so your canned responses to what you think I said are non-sequiturs. Selecting individual, highly contextual words and trying to make some kind of insane point by citing formative, general definitions is bad faith debating.
No, I am pretty sure that this is because of continuous moral development and development of rules of warfare dating back to the middle ages. Such as the Geneva Convention.
"Literally what is world war one"
"Literally what is world war two"
The world has slaughtered itself gleefully, unrestrainedly, and on an ever increasing scale, consistently. What you call moral development is nothing more than the presence of a singular morally developed arbitrator dragging what nations it can kicking and screaming away from whatever happens to be the nearest sharp object they're trying to impale themselves on this week.
Well, you also get access to their markets, their resources, and military support so that you
Great, so for our blood, and money, we get paid back in infinitesimally less blood, and money.
Military! MILITARY HE SAYS! God, I'll piss myself laughing, stop stop.
Hows your country's NATO contribution this year by the way?
I am pretty sure 1 is going to near burn their entire country down.
You dont understand the functional difference between burning down someone's house and killing their entire extended family, good.
And why do they deserve it? You haven't established it yet.
You deserve the results of your pattern recognition failures, whether a given entity is morally justified in delivering those results or not. That is in fact what "asking for it" means.
When you cross America, you
deserve Ghengis Khan, thats what you
deserve for being so suicidally arrogant as to challenge something so much more powerful than yourself, and you should be
infinitely grateful that instead you chanced to have America as your superior opponent, the only power in history that would not give you
exactly what you should have expected to happen for being so stupid. You should scream your thanks to the heavens that you get to live in the
unbelievably unlikely exception, and not the
rule.
edit: I probably did misinterpret what you said
Probably.
