If the truth of what you say is so clear, it shouldn't be difficult to convince me, who is, in many ways, already on your side.
Do you think it's a valid arguement? Or annoying as fuck and patently false?
Anything but election news
36 minutes ago
8 comments:
What is this in reference to?
(hey, by the way -- you did know I was kidding when I greeted you as Canadian Clown Dyke, right? I thought it sounded hilarious.)
Context!
(violet: that's funny... only she's still just a wannabe Canadian)
Violet, see my response. ;)
Feminism, more aptly an arguement about sexism in Titus and Lysistrata.
I thought it was a bullshit statement no matter how you said it, but you can read the whole thing, it's linked in my "for fuck's sake" post down further.
I'm going with 'annoying as fuck and patently false'. I think it;s that damn 'moral highground' bullshit again.
Every liberal troll I've had has used this phrase.
You must get all the post modernists then.
This guy I know posted that after saying that I was being unreasonable and getting angry at his bullshit sexism.
Gar. Post modernists need to get their heads removed from their asses every once in a while.
I can finally post to your blog! whoohoo!
its' a ridiculous, specious logical fallacy. (Phallacy? hehee).
Just because person A agrees with you on B and C, doesn't mean that if he doesn't agree with E, that E is false.
He is confusing truth and agreement.
absurd.
Post a Comment