So you telling me what anarchists don't do when I asked a straightforward and simple question which is pertinent as the entire argument follows crudely Anarchist is me, anarchy is zap, i am adult, but thanks for telling me what you think anarchists do or don't.
Exactly which logical fallacy is that and why and how does it apply? You are an anarchist, and now you're telling me that you won't tell me what to think, as if I asked your opinion or thoughts, when I asked to explain how are you a part of a aggression tolerant society while being for Zero tolerance to aggression, exactly what you denied even though you clearly dedicated an article to, which begins with I am an anarchist, hilariously though you'd sooner deny that and deny any kind of principle, especially reason, because you avail to consider that someone querying you for your opinion or thoughts means they have availed themselves of sovereignty, and next youll tell me that I implied for you to tell me what or how to think and accuse me of whatever implications conveniently avoiding the obvious question: how can you be for Zero Aggression Principle (I'll call you aggression intolerant) in a society that is tolerant of aggression?
Telling me to think what I want to think since you have no argument, what was my screen name before I changed it, since I haven't changed it once this is the blockchain old man.
You're accusatory and insinuative nonsense is reflection of the same combative and rude bullshit you've given my sincere and simple question which you avoid and keep avoiding. I never asked you what to think, never implied such demands then you twisted it into combat because I challanged you bullshit fact that you knew me before I changed my screen name. I remarked that you have no argument or shit to say to the question instead you're blabbering blathering on making demands while you're not busy trying to evade the guilt of actually standing for something but really doing nothing about it by denying and making insinuations that I was asking you anything to do with "how or what to think".
how can you be for Zero Aggression in a society so tolerant of aggression?
Meerely a fucking question old man, if you don't want to answer it say fuck off or whatever but projecting your crap while evading the obvious point of this discourse while hurling crap at your imaginary pleble that's begging to be your slave is your freudean slip.
I am telling you to think instead of throwing around logical fallacies which you still have to explain why and how they pertain and how and why it invalidates my argument. Think: How are you for Zero Aggression in an Aggression Tolerant Society?
I'm not FOR anything
(in the sense that you imply)
that would be ME telling others what to think.
Anarchists don't do that.
So you telling me what anarchists don't do when I asked a straightforward and simple question which is pertinent as the entire argument follows crudely Anarchist is me, anarchy is zap, i am adult, but thanks for telling me what you think anarchists do or don't.
yet ANOTHER logical fallacy...you are just full of them.
All I said (reading comprehension is a thing)
is that
(that would be me)
am an anarchist.
an individual
I don't need someone else to tell me how to think
or to behave
that's the
"no rulers" part.
as such I'm not telling you
or anyone
what to do or think either
that would make me your ruler
no thanks..
(thinks of this as a public service announcement)
is that so hard?
Exactly which logical fallacy is that and why and how does it apply? You are an anarchist, and now you're telling me that you won't tell me what to think, as if I asked your opinion or thoughts, when I asked to explain how are you a part of a aggression tolerant society while being for Zero tolerance to aggression, exactly what you denied even though you clearly dedicated an article to, which begins with I am an anarchist, hilariously though you'd sooner deny that and deny any kind of principle, especially reason, because you avail to consider that someone querying you for your opinion or thoughts means they have availed themselves of sovereignty, and next youll tell me that I implied for you to tell me what or how to think and accuse me of whatever implications conveniently avoiding the obvious question: how can you be for Zero Aggression Principle (I'll call you aggression intolerant) in a society that is tolerant of aggression?
I've dealt with you before..before you changed your screenname.
think what you want to think.
Telling me to think what I want to think since you have no argument, what was my screen name before I changed it, since I haven't changed it once this is the blockchain old man.
I'm not making an argument.
I'm merely stating a fact.
I AM an anarchist.
You're being very rude and combative.
You're accusatory and insinuative nonsense is reflection of the same combative and rude bullshit you've given my sincere and simple question which you avoid and keep avoiding. I never asked you what to think, never implied such demands then you twisted it into combat because I challanged you bullshit fact that you knew me before I changed my screen name. I remarked that you have no argument or shit to say to the question instead you're blabbering blathering on making demands while you're not busy trying to evade the guilt of actually standing for something but really doing nothing about it by denying and making insinuations that I was asking you anything to do with "how or what to think".
how can you be for Zero Aggression in a society so tolerant of aggression?
Meerely a fucking question old man, if you don't want to answer it say fuck off or whatever but projecting your crap while evading the obvious point of this discourse while hurling crap at your imaginary pleble that's begging to be your slave is your freudean slip.
I am telling you to think instead of throwing around logical fallacies which you still have to explain why and how they pertain and how and why it invalidates my argument. Think: How are you for Zero Aggression in an Aggression Tolerant Society?