Yes. correct. you should disbelieve anything and everything someone has experienced in the past if it's not explicitly documented to prove it to a naysayer. Right. Got it. I'll mention that to my grandfather when he speaks of WW2.
Well, depends on what he says. If he's, for example, a Marine that suggests the pacific theater was handled entirely by them and disagrees that the Army conducted more amphibious landings during the island hopping campaigns than they did...then yeah, you might want to mention that his facts are a little off. His personal perspective is important but that doesn't mean it's the only perspective and that it's not colored by time and new information.
Let me point out the stupidity of attacking someone who supports 'your side' of an issue because their inner narrative doesn't fall in lock step 100% with your own. That's not a way to keep support. Yet here we are, with both you and dave going after, and dave actually insulting, someone who is 100% on side with you on this issue, yet doesn't think exactly as you do. Fastest way in the world to lose the middle is by stupidity from the extremes.
How is asking you to back up a claim you made that has fundamental effects on the argument considered an attack?
Keep support? How does your support have any effect on the issue? Your inner narrative is not the point, I would like to suss out facts. This isn't an extreme.
If you want an attack then I'll point out that I don't give a fuck about the support of someone who claims that an entire group of people likes to "play" the victim when that group of people has actually been victimized.
/shaqattack
Last edited: