.
@aataat.bsky.social
The point - you imbecile and/or liar - is that that single commonality doesn't make them them same.
There are other things at play that make the scenarios significantly different... Hence why the original comparison to immigration was dumb: it misses the things that make them different!
There are other things at play that make the scenarios significantly different... Hence why the original comparison to immigration was dumb: it misses the things that make them different!
February 4, 2026 at 1:43 AM
The point - you imbecile and/or liar - is that that single commonality doesn't make them them same.
There are other things at play that make the scenarios significantly different... Hence why the original comparison to immigration was dumb: it misses the things that make them different!
There are other things at play that make the scenarios significantly different... Hence why the original comparison to immigration was dumb: it misses the things that make them different!
Lol.
Saying "They are not the same because someone was asked to leave in both" DOES NOT equal saying "they are different because someone was asked to leave in both".
These are very basic things. Are you sure you're not incredibly dumb?
Saying "They are not the same because someone was asked to leave in both" DOES NOT equal saying "they are different because someone was asked to leave in both".
These are very basic things. Are you sure you're not incredibly dumb?
February 4, 2026 at 1:40 AM
Lol.
Saying "They are not the same because someone was asked to leave in both" DOES NOT equal saying "they are different because someone was asked to leave in both".
These are very basic things. Are you sure you're not incredibly dumb?
Saying "They are not the same because someone was asked to leave in both" DOES NOT equal saying "they are different because someone was asked to leave in both".
These are very basic things. Are you sure you're not incredibly dumb?
No, the guy was showing that two things aren't the same just because you were asked to leave in both.
I'm sorry basic rhetorical techniques elude you.
You are literally reading things in bad faith precisely because of your tribalism.
I'm sorry basic rhetorical techniques elude you.
You are literally reading things in bad faith precisely because of your tribalism.
February 4, 2026 at 1:31 AM
Why would I do that when, again, it's NOT downplaying sex crimes? That's something you made up.
You have yet to explain the logic in how it downplays anything without requiring a bad faith reading.
It's hilarious you think assuming the very thing you need to prove is a good argument lol
You have yet to explain the logic in how it downplays anything without requiring a bad faith reading.
It's hilarious you think assuming the very thing you need to prove is a good argument lol
February 4, 2026 at 1:23 AM
Why would I do that when, again, it's NOT downplaying sex crimes? That's something you made up.
You have yet to explain the logic in how it downplays anything without requiring a bad faith reading.
It's hilarious you think assuming the very thing you need to prove is a good argument lol
You have yet to explain the logic in how it downplays anything without requiring a bad faith reading.
It's hilarious you think assuming the very thing you need to prove is a good argument lol
No, not at random you liar. Chosen because it makes the point clear: the two are not the same just because a person was asked to leave in both.
What better way to do that than to choose a very obvious situation where someone is being asked to leave for a good reason? (In contrast to immigration).
What better way to do that than to choose a very obvious situation where someone is being asked to leave for a good reason? (In contrast to immigration).
February 4, 2026 at 1:12 AM
There is no downgrading of any sex crime to anyone not hell-bent to reading things in bad faith to make a shitty point.
February 4, 2026 at 1:05 AM
There is no downgrading of any sex crime to anyone not hell-bent to reading things in bad faith to make a shitty point.
No, not at random you liar. Chosen because it makes the point clear: the two are not the same just because a person was asked to leave in both.
What better way to do that than to choose a very obvious situation where someone is being asked to leave for a good reason? (In contrast to immigration).
What better way to do that than to choose a very obvious situation where someone is being asked to leave for a good reason? (In contrast to immigration).
February 4, 2026 at 12:58 AM
No, not at random you liar. Chosen because it makes the point clear: the two are not the same just because a person was asked to leave in both.
What better way to do that than to choose a very obvious situation where someone is being asked to leave for a good reason? (In contrast to immigration).
What better way to do that than to choose a very obvious situation where someone is being asked to leave for a good reason? (In contrast to immigration).
No, the guy was showing that two things aren't the same just because you were asked to leave in both.
I'm sorry basic rhetorical techniques elude you.
You are literally reading things in bad faith precisely because of your tribalism.
I'm sorry basic rhetorical techniques elude you.
You are literally reading things in bad faith precisely because of your tribalism.
February 4, 2026 at 12:54 AM
No, the guy was showing that two things aren't the same just because you were asked to leave in both.
I'm sorry basic rhetorical techniques elude you.
You are literally reading things in bad faith precisely because of your tribalism.
I'm sorry basic rhetorical techniques elude you.
You are literally reading things in bad faith precisely because of your tribalism.
Yeah that wasn't their point you liar. Their point - which you didn't address - is that two things aren't equal just because you were asked not to do them in both.
Relevant because the person they were responding to were pretending the two scenarios were the same.
Relevant because the person they were responding to were pretending the two scenarios were the same.
February 4, 2026 at 12:46 AM
Yeah that wasn't their point you liar. Their point - which you didn't address - is that two things aren't equal just because you were asked not to do them in both.
Relevant because the person they were responding to were pretending the two scenarios were the same.
Relevant because the person they were responding to were pretending the two scenarios were the same.
No you quite literally did not. The post you linked to is them talking about a separate issue. That is not what you need to provide.
You claimed the original post of theirs HAS to be about consent, and be the only issue of consent that this person had (hence searching for others).
Get to it.
You claimed the original post of theirs HAS to be about consent, and be the only issue of consent that this person had (hence searching for others).
Get to it.
February 4, 2026 at 12:24 AM
No you quite literally did not. The post you linked to is them talking about a separate issue. That is not what you need to provide.
You claimed the original post of theirs HAS to be about consent, and be the only issue of consent that this person had (hence searching for others).
Get to it.
You claimed the original post of theirs HAS to be about consent, and be the only issue of consent that this person had (hence searching for others).
Get to it.
Not sure how that's supposed to respond to anything I said. I'm sorry you were caught making things up in an effort to dismiss valid criticism.
February 4, 2026 at 12:14 AM
Not sure how that's supposed to respond to anything I said. I'm sorry you were caught making things up in an effort to dismiss valid criticism.
You didn't address anything I said. Again they didn't even use the word consent. You made that up.
Now not only are you making things up, you're trying to avoid addressing their point. Even under your accusation (that they are looking for something) that wouldn't change the fact they found it!
Now not only are you making things up, you're trying to avoid addressing their point. Even under your accusation (that they are looking for something) that wouldn't change the fact they found it!
February 4, 2026 at 12:11 AM
You didn't address anything I said. Again they didn't even use the word consent. You made that up.
Now not only are you making things up, you're trying to avoid addressing their point. Even under your accusation (that they are looking for something) that wouldn't change the fact they found it!
Now not only are you making things up, you're trying to avoid addressing their point. Even under your accusation (that they are looking for something) that wouldn't change the fact they found it!
They don't say that. They didn't even use the word consent. They asked a question, implying that is one issue. Not implying that's the only one let alone that it's limited to a word they didn't use.
February 3, 2026 at 11:59 PM
They don't say that. They didn't even use the word consent. They asked a question, implying that is one issue. Not implying that's the only one let alone that it's limited to a word they didn't use.
I just saw the video. Not being snarky: Can you tell me what part of the original post was a lie?
The video I saw showed people complaining about Will taking photos of them while a dumpster was on fire, and then het got hit.
What am I missing?
The video I saw showed people complaining about Will taking photos of them while a dumpster was on fire, and then het got hit.
What am I missing?
February 3, 2026 at 11:58 PM
I just saw the video. Not being snarky: Can you tell me what part of the original post was a lie?
The video I saw showed people complaining about Will taking photos of them while a dumpster was on fire, and then het got hit.
What am I missing?
The video I saw showed people complaining about Will taking photos of them while a dumpster was on fire, and then het got hit.
What am I missing?
They were responding to Stancil generally denying everything. How does responding to that imply there is only one issue?
February 3, 2026 at 11:54 PM
They were responding to Stancil generally denying everything. How does responding to that imply there is only one issue?
So is it accurate to say you went from saying "She never said that" to "Oh well it's totally understandable that she would say that"?
November 27, 2025 at 4:15 AM
So is it accurate to say you went from saying "She never said that" to "Oh well it's totally understandable that she would say that"?
- Arcanum
- Fallout 1 & 2
- Gangsters: Organized Crime
- Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic
- Fallout 1 & 2
- Gangsters: Organized Crime
- Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic
November 26, 2025 at 4:31 PM
- Arcanum
- Fallout 1 & 2
- Gangsters: Organized Crime
- Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic
- Fallout 1 & 2
- Gangsters: Organized Crime
- Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic
Yes I do, and I used it accurately.
November 9, 2025 at 12:49 PM
Yes I do, and I used it accurately.
What a funny way of admitting you were wrong.
October 25, 2025 at 2:43 AM
What a funny way of admitting you were wrong.
"Yank" is a term that "people that wanna cause harm to the US" use? Like where? Did Osama use "Yanks" somewhere I missed.
October 7, 2025 at 3:09 PM
"Yank" is a term that "people that wanna cause harm to the US" use? Like where? Did Osama use "Yanks" somewhere I missed.
And? How does that change anything? He said Adams was a courageous and authentic leader!
"He only praised Epstein after he died!" Oh my that changes everything!
"He only praised Epstein after he died!" Oh my that changes everything!
September 29, 2025 at 2:39 AM
And? How does that change anything? He said Adams was a courageous and authentic leader!
"He only praised Epstein after he died!" Oh my that changes everything!
"He only praised Epstein after he died!" Oh my that changes everything!