53 ms·

Um...what? That doesn't even make sense. How does labeling it as sarcasm "suit me" especially when I gave a talking point about how it doesn't even matter if it

• zepto 11y ago
  It matter because if the comment about causing brain damage to babies wasn't sarcasm, then it was extreme and a false dichotomy, so your accusation against my rhetorical style would apply there equally. You have chosen to label it as sarcasm to make your attack on the style rather than the substance of my point look reasonable - that's what I mean by it 'suiting you'. I don't actually believe that the point about brain damaging babies was sarcasm. I think the poster was being serious because that is one of the harms caused by malaria. I don't at all see how this could be construed as a sarcastic comment. If sarcasm was irrelevant, why did you base you use it to account for the false dichotomy?
  • BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    Haha okay I'm done. You've very obviously a troll. All you want to do is try to (falsely) redirect the conversation far, far away from your hyperbolic claims that you have still yet to source (and you obviously never will). You're sitting here arguing over the intent of a statement made by someone not even in this argument simply because I stated I thought it was sarcasm but then went on the explain how it didn't even matter if it was sarcasm and why. Go back to reddit and have run arguing with yourself.
    • zepto 11y ago
      Your argument relied on it being sarcasm.