Predictable. A textbook example of rhetorical acrobatics. Let’s address your points—or rather, your evasions masquerading as points. Your habit of declaring 'fallacy' as a trump card is a perfect example. Identifying a perceived fallacy doesn’t engage with the argument itself—it’s like calling a fire ‘arson’ while refusing to grab a bucket of water. Repeating 'that’s a fallacy' is not a substitute for discussion; it’s a well-practiced evasion, and you’ve leaned on it consistently.
Your accusation that I’ve fabricated your beliefs is ironic, considering your repeated projections about my supposed inability to accept differing opinions. I haven’t 'read your mind,' Calron—I’ve read your words, tangled as they often are. Your dismissal of critiques as 'fake mind reading' while accusing me of projecting motives onto you is both amusing and self-defeating. If you feel misunderstood, perhaps it’s worth considering how clearly—or unclearly—you articulate your arguments.
Your repeated use of Trump’s actions as definitive proof, while ignoring his broader pattern of ambiguity and inaction, is another example of missing the forest for the trees. Yes, isolated instances of Trump condemning hate exist, but leadership isn’t about checking a box once—it’s about consistent, principled action. Clinging to singular events as though they absolve his failures proves selective reasoning, not a strong case.
Finally, framing my extended engagement as evidence of 'nerves struck' is a clever attempt, but it falls flat. Patience isn’t frustration, and critique isn’t concession. If this exchange has lasted a week, it’s because unraveling your tangents takes time. The irony, of course, is that you accuse others of being unwilling to engage while consistently refusing to concede even minor points. It’s a clear reflection of a debate strategy focused on avoidance rather than genuine discourse. If you’re capable of engaging substantively, now is the time—but somehow, I suspect we’ll circle back to the same evasive patterns as you've already proven yourself to do.
Case in point, I've conceded many things and acknowledged the points you bring up. And you fail to acknowledge any of mine. Yours is a demonstration of your rhetorical impotence. I had hoped to help you find your way out of it, but you seem to think that logic is the end of wisdom. Rather, it's the beginning of wisdom. I had hoped that in your last reply you'd crawl out your circular reasoning, projection and gas lighting.
