Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

And you speak ABOUT my arguments - not to them.

Your idea of a "refutation" is a naked ad hom, backed only by the defiant jut of a weak chin.

But then, you believe, "I am because I SAY I am" is "science."

It isn't, you know. It is quite literally a classic science fallacy. It is anti-science superstition. 

If you were a committed medievalist whose spiritual entreaties went out to the goddess Fortuna, there might be a smidge of intellectual integrity to that pigeon-chested falderol. But you're just a spineless conformist who tries to blend into the penny-loafer set, hoping for that coveted seat at the cool kids' table.

You're weak in every aspect, son - and you have excruciatingly tiny feet. Get a chin, you **** lactose intolerant hump.

Your idea of a "refutation" is a naked ad hom

But then, you believe

If you were 

But you're just

You're weak