Just the President of the United States saluting a North Korean general.

[Good1]

In the post I quoted you said you were first a Canuck, and now a Brit. When I said you said that, you compared it to me calling you a cuck, your dad a pimp, and your mom a prostitute.

So you changed the OR to AND now? So were you lying before or lying now?

I said you said you were a Canuck first, and now a Brit. You denied it and compared that to me calling you a cuck, your dad a pimp, and your mom a prostitute.

Later you changed the comparison to me calling you and/or your dad a pimp, your mom a whore, and you to the child of incest.

So the confusion comes from your changing comparisons to me saying you said you were a Canuck who is now Brit. Then I quoted you saying that. In context, that's what you said.

 

[exGOPer]

I said you said you were a Camuck first, and now a Brit. You denied it and compared that to me calling you a cuck, your dad a pimp, and your mom a prostitute. Later you changed the comparison to me and/or your dad a pimp, your mom a whore, and you to the child of incest. So the confusion comes from your changing comparisons to me saying you said you were a Canuck who is now Brit. Then I quoted you saying that. In context, that's what you said.

the post I quoted you said you were first a Canuck, and now a Brit. When I said you said that, you compared it to me calling you a cuck, your dad a pimp, and your mom a prostitute.

Didn't I tell you to read up on 'Argument from Analogy' wiki page and the importance of Logical Necessity?

 

[Good1]

Didn't I tell you to read up on 'Argument from Analogy' wiki page and the importance of Logical Necessity?

I read up on it and found that you are stretching the analogy beyond its definition. It does not apply to the comparison you made between me calling you a Canuck/Brit (according to your own admission) and comparing that to as if I had called you a cuck, a pimp, your dad a pimp, your mom a prostitute, your mom a whore, and you the child of incest. But that's not what I said. I only said that you said you were Canadian and/or Brit. Then I quoted you saying that.

 

[exGOPer]

I read up on it and found that you are stretching the analogy beyond its definition.

It's not even a definition, you clearly need to read more. May I suggest an elementary book on Logic first?

Take a pick, I will send you the link by PM

 

[Good1]

It's not even a definition, you clearly need to read more. May I suggest an elementary book on Logic first?

Take a pick, I will send you the link by PM

View attachment 187348

Your effort to hide behind a facade of logic only works if I had said something like: You said you were British. So your mom is a whore. That's an improper conclusion of similarities. Or, if I said: You are the child of incest, so you must be British. That too is a stretch that fits the logical fallacy you are hiding behind.

Basically, I'm calling you out on your own logical fallacy, in which you make a comparison of Brits and Canucks to cucks, pimps, whores, and bastards.

 

[exGOPer]

Your effort to hide behind a facade of logic only works if I had said something like: You said you were British. So your mom is a whore.
.

I can see you are clearly not hiding behind any facades at all, your ignorance is intentional and inherited without any remedial hope.

Here's the thing, who cares what you call or think or say? You think you are too smart with your lame rhetorical tricks?

 

[Good1]

I can see you are clearly not hiding behind any facades at all, your ignorance is intentional and inherited without any remedial hope.

Here's the thing, who cares what you call or think or say? You think you are too smart with your lame rhetorical tricks?

It's possible, even probable, that English is not your first language, which is why I believe you may be a second generation immigrant from a culture that really hates street dogs.

But English is my first language, and you have not believably shown how you did not mean to compare Canadians and Brits to bastards, pimps, and whores.

You don't have enough command of the language to make a defense, so I can only conclude your comparison was a Freudian Slip, revealing what you really think about nations of white legacy.

 

[exGOPer]

It's possible, even probable, that English is not your first language, which is why I believe you may be a second generation immigrant from a culture that really hates street dogs.

But English is my first language, and you have not believably shown how you did not mean to compare Canadians and Brits to bastards, pimps, and whores.

You don't have enough command of the language to make a defense, so I can only conclude your comparison was a Freudian Slip, revealing what you really think about nations of white legacy.

blah blah blah

 

[Good1]

blah blah blah

If you were right, then Frederick Foreslight, a Canadian in command of the English language, would have come to your aid by now with some choice ad hominems. And none of the other Canadians and Brits here "like" what you compared them to either.

 

[exGOPer]

If you were right, then Frederick Foreslight, a Canadian in command of the English language, would have come to your aid by now with some choice ad hominems. And none of the other Canadians and Brits here "like" what you compared them to either.

Who give a fuck?