It was the only objection you raised at that point, so yes, it was your entire argument. Whether you had some super-secret argument in your head that you weren’t saying isn’t relevant to the argument you actually made.
Yes. It’s obvious that you’re acting smarmy to cover the gaps whenever you have nothing, to cover all the holes in your argument. It’s like you think if you just act smug, people won’t notice when you’re cornered and have no actual response.
It doesn’t work. It’s transparent. You’re not actually covering up the holes in your reasoning, you’re just demonstrating that you don’t care about how many holes there are in your reasoning, because you’re intellectually dishonest.
No, you haven’t. I have shown that it was terrorism, even by your definition though. You don’t care and just keep adding on extra stipulations that aren’t in your definition.
He never took credit for that violence, in fact, he tried to pretend it wasn’t him
Nowhere in either definition, at all. Complete non sequitor.
He never made any demands
Nowhere in either definition, at all. Complete non sequitor.
Just like the location is irrelevant. Just like every extra stipulation you pull out of your ass is irrelevant.
Are you unable to read, as well as unable to think? I said your strawmanning was when you claimed it was my entire argument:
You:
It was the only objection you raised at that point, so yes, it was your entire argument. Whether you had some super-secret argument in your head that you weren’t saying isn’t relevant to the argument you actually made.
You have trouble reading huh?
God, you’re so smarmy when you can’t think of an actual point. Do you not realize how transparent it is?
Transparent?
Yes. It’s obvious that you’re acting smarmy to cover the gaps whenever you have nothing, to cover all the holes in your argument. It’s like you think if you just act smug, people won’t notice when you’re cornered and have no actual response.
It doesn’t work. It’s transparent. You’re not actually covering up the holes in your reasoning, you’re just demonstrating that you don’t care about how many holes there are in your reasoning, because you’re intellectually dishonest.
I have nothing? I’ve shown that it wasn’t terrorism, including by your definition.
No, you haven’t. I have shown that it was terrorism, even by your definition though. You don’t care and just keep adding on extra stipulations that aren’t in your definition.
Nowhere in either definition, at all. Complete non sequitor.
Nowhere in either definition, at all. Complete non sequitor.
Just like the location is irrelevant. Just like every extra stipulation you pull out of your ass is irrelevant.