4 ms·
it would be very useful to know whether or not you believe "hate" and "violence" have been recently redefined/had their definitions expanded, because this is th
by adamrezich 3y ago
it would be very useful to know whether or not you believe "hate" and "violence" have been recently redefined/had their definitions expanded, because this is the lynchpin of my entire argument, and you kind of keep dodging it, which allows you to now frame my assertion that these definitions have changed as being something that only a small subset of the population buys into. continuing to dodge this is either naïve or disingenuous—because it means that you're either claiming or feigning (respectively) ignorance about this topic, which is central to the claims made by the study, in the context in which it is being made.
- freejazz 3y agoI just said twice that the words have not been redefined and here you are asking again, pretending like you are a reasonable person engaged in good faith discussion. I have repeatedly rejected your assertion that the words are redefined and I have repeatedly pushed back against your evidence ("some people disagree with me!") that leads you to think the words have been redefined. I have specifically said that we can easily refer to the dictionary instead of the strawman you are insisting on, because you found some people with unreasonable beliefs. It's as if you have not engaged with my posts at all.
- adamrezich 3y agoit seems we're talking past each other, so there's not much point in continuing this discussion
- freejazz 3y ago[flagged]
- adamrezich 3y agois it really so hard to refrain from ad hominems and insults?
- freejazz 3y agoYawn. Spare me the sanctimony and either actually respond to my posts, or get lost.
- Cupertino95014 3y agoWow. You really do attack everyone personally, don't you?