"Defensively"? Seriously? So that's OK, then? It's OK to call for an attack on someone else, as long as it's "defensive"?
That's just a rephrasing of "She started it!"
Do I need to put on my Mom voice and remind you that two wrongs don't make a right?
They're being "defensive" on someone else's behalf. Not their own. Unless they want to identify as an ICE agent, which I seriously doubt they are. So there's nothing "self" in the "self defense" there.
If liberals used "reasoning" like that, then any attack on that tiktoker or the assholes the other poster was talking about could encourage them to practice some of your "offensive self defense" and just start killing Trump supporters, Republicans, anyone they see as a threat. And that would be OK, because it would be the very best version of "offensive self defense", according to you. Right?
I also have to point out that the tiktoker hasn't actually done anything. They haven't physically harmed anyone. They haven't even actually called for anyone to harm them. At most it's an implied threat of doxxing someone, possibly stalking.
Calling for someone to be killed when all they've done is made an implied threat is simply not even in the same universe as "self defense". This isn't just an opinion. It's just an asinine argument.
hard disagree, and again, you use chatgpt and completely ignore the sarcasm.
you believe so much in a thing you are incapable of forming your own words for it and must resort to the brain rot of chatgpt to argue for you.
and yes, for anyone else who stumbles this far down the comment chain, his comments is 1000% chatgpt, the sentence watermarks are such an obvious giveaway.
you can make chatgpt have arguments for killing babies, doesn't mean it's a good argument. you can gave chatgpt make arguments for why it's good Charlie was murdered. doesn't make it a good argument.
Well, you just said it was a good argument. Pick a lane.
Not sure why you're obsessed with ChatGpt, but I assure you, I'm capable of making my arguments without it. There's no way I can prove that I'm not using it, so I'm not going to even try.
But I'll point out that you're deflecting from the actual argument (that you said was a good argument,btw) because you don't have a stance. There is no argument you can actually make, so you deflect with chatgpt BS.
"Defensively"? Seriously? So that's OK, then? It's OK to call for an attack on someone else, as long as it's "defensive"?
That's just a rephrasing of "She started it!"
Do I need to put on my Mom voice and remind you that two wrongs don't make a right?
They're being "defensive" on someone else's behalf. Not their own. Unless they want to identify as an ICE agent, which I seriously doubt they are. So there's nothing "self" in the "self defense" there.
If liberals used "reasoning" like that, then any attack on that tiktoker or the assholes the other poster was talking about could encourage them to practice some of your "offensive self defense" and just start killing Trump supporters, Republicans, anyone they see as a threat. And that would be OK, because it would be the very best version of "offensive self defense", according to you. Right?
I also have to point out that the tiktoker hasn't actually done anything. They haven't physically harmed anyone. They haven't even actually called for anyone to harm them. At most it's an implied threat of doxxing someone, possibly stalking.
Calling for someone to be killed when all they've done is made an implied threat is simply not even in the same universe as "self defense". This isn't just an opinion. It's just an asinine argument.
Okay chatgpt. Good argument.
It's a good argument no matter if I wrote it, chatgpt wrote it, or J K Rowling wrote it.
But the point is you agree it's a good argument, so 🤷♀️ glad you agree. 👍
hard disagree, and again, you use chatgpt and completely ignore the sarcasm.
you believe so much in a thing you are incapable of forming your own words for it and must resort to the brain rot of chatgpt to argue for you.
and yes, for anyone else who stumbles this far down the comment chain, his comments is 1000% chatgpt, the sentence watermarks are such an obvious giveaway.
you can make chatgpt have arguments for killing babies, doesn't mean it's a good argument. you can gave chatgpt make arguments for why it's good Charlie was murdered. doesn't make it a good argument.
Well, you just said it was a good argument. Pick a lane.
Not sure why you're obsessed with ChatGpt, but I assure you, I'm capable of making my arguments without it. There's no way I can prove that I'm not using it, so I'm not going to even try.
But I'll point out that you're deflecting from the actual argument (that you said was a good argument,btw) because you don't have a stance. There is no argument you can actually make, so you deflect with chatgpt BS.
Sad.