I defined the phrase "party shill". If you disagree with that definition then, you know, disagree with it.
No, you didn't. You said this:
Again, you're just adorable. Like a little child trying desperately to believe in Santa Claus. Never give your naivety -- the GOP needs people like you.
You dismissed me. You didn't say anything about what I said, whether you disagreed with it or why, much less any counter definition or argument to support your position versus mine.
Then you cried about how mean the liberals were to you.
Nope. I simply responded that your statement quoted above wasn't an actual rebuttal of mine. You know, cause it wasn't.
Then I explained that your definition was stupid and now you're crying some more.
No. You claimed it was stupid. You didn't actually say why you thought so, nor did you come up with a different definition that disproved my position with regards to Carlson being a Republican Shill. Saying something over and over doesn't make it true. You kinda have to provide some sort of facts, logic, argument, etc. You failed to do that. Utterly.
Again, you seem to labor under the impression that you can say whatever dumbshit stupid crap that comes into your head and everyone else owes you the response you want rather than the response it deserves.
There's that projection thing again. That's exactly what you did
. I'm the one who provided a definition and an argument that said definition didn't fit. You're the one who just made a claim and when called on it just repeated it and tossed insults at the person questioning you.
He's absolutely not a "Republican shill" though
I absolutely believe that you believe this. In fact, I would be shocked if you didn't.
Because it's true. I get that you don't want to accept this, but it's literally true. By the definition of the phrase, it's true.
Yet, for some bizarre reason, you refuse to simply acknowledge that and move on. It's not like this is even a very important issue. You just get stuck on things like this.
Here's a suggestion which may help you out. In the future, when you just toss out a claim and someone points out that it's not technically correct, instead of going off on a tirade, maybe just look at the definition and if your use of a word or phrase wasn't actually correct, just acknowledge it and provide the correct terminology (like the aforementioned "conservative shill").
That way you come off as someone who's reasonable and rational and can change how they speak of things to be more accurate instead of someone who's so afraid of "being wrong" that they'll continue to shout to the heavens that they are right and the other person is wrong, even when it's clearly the other way around, and frankly a simple acknowledgement and adjustment would have been so much easier.
I don't play "gotcha" games Joph. You do, but I don't. So if you had responded by saying "Ok. So maybe not technically a Republican Shill, but he's still shilling for hardcore conservative ideas that I think are stupid", I would not have done the gotcha thing of claiming you're changing your position and that makes you a liar, and you don't know what you're talking about, etc, etc, (like you've done to me a zillion times on this forum). I don't care about that. I care that we use correct and accurate terminology when talking about things. Because I find that when we don't (and I'm not just talking about this forum, but communication in general), it leads to the ability for people to change the argument simply by intentionally misusing the terminology. I would have simply accepted the new label and moved on, knowing that we're all on the same page in terms of what we're talking about. Edited, Sep 8th 2020 1:31pm by gbaji Edited, Sep 8th 2020 1:33pm by gbaji