jankforlife@lemmy.ml to Memes@lemmy.ml · vor 2 MonatenThOSe DArN TAnKIeS!!!lemmy.mlimagemessage-square20linkfedilinkarrow-up165arrow-down139
arrow-up126arrow-down1imageThOSe DArN TAnKIeS!!!lemmy.mljankforlife@lemmy.ml to Memes@lemmy.ml · vor 2 Monatenmessage-square20linkfedilink
minus-squaremeekahlinkfedilinkarrow-up8arrow-down14·vor 2 MonatenEquating police with literal tanks… Alright Guess I should have specified excessive force. Tbf, police also has a problem with that, but that’s a different story.
minus-squareKimBongUn420@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up15arrow-down6·vor 2 MonatenAh so you’re fine with armored police vehicles as long as they’re not called tanks… alright
minus-squaremeekahlinkfedilinkarrow-up8arrow-down6·vor 2 Monaten Tbf, police also has a problem with that, but that’s a different story. What part of that did you not understand?
minus-squareBrainInABox@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10arrow-down7·vor 2 Monaten Equating police with literal tanks… Alright You were the one who said “force”, asshole, you didn’t say anything about tanks specifically, or why the specific type of vehicle used would matter. Guess I should have specified excessive force Good news! Nobody ever considers the force used by the governments they support to be excessive.
minus-squaremeekahlinkfedilinkarrow-up6arrow-down9·vor 2 Monatenlmao you really think you’re arguing in good faith here? Coming in with an ad hominem right out of the gate, and then completely ignoring an entire third of my comment. not gonna convince anyone of anything this way. touch some grass.
minus-squaremeekahlinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down8·vor 2 Monaten Insulting you is not an ad-hominem it literally is, lol
minus-squareBrainInABox@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·vor 2 MonatenIt literally is not. My god.
minus-squaremeekahlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down3·vor 2 MonatenSince you’re ignoring points that are inconvenient to your argument, and instead attack me as a person, it is
minus-squareThirdConsul@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down3·vor 2 MonatenAd hominem, ad personam, who cares. The point is that calling your interlocutor “dumb fuck” does not enrich the discussion, nor the readers.
minus-squareBrainInABox@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·vor 2 MonatenIt’s more enriching than the comment I was replying to.
Equating police with literal tanks… Alright
Guess I should have specified excessive force. Tbf, police also has a problem with that, but that’s a different story.
Ah so you’re fine with armored police vehicles as long as they’re not called tanks… alright
What part of that did you not understand?
You were the one who said “force”, asshole, you didn’t say anything about tanks specifically, or why the specific type of vehicle used would matter.
Good news! Nobody ever considers the force used by the governments they support to be excessive.
lmao you really think you’re arguing in good faith here? Coming in with an ad hominem right out of the gate, and then completely ignoring an entire third of my comment.
not gonna convince anyone of anything this way. touch some grass.
Removed by mod
it literally is, lol
It literally is not. My god.
Since you’re ignoring points that are inconvenient to your argument, and instead attack me as a person, it is
No, it literally isn’t.
Removed by mod
Ad hominem, ad personam, who cares. The point is that calling your interlocutor “dumb fuck” does not enrich the discussion, nor the readers.
It’s more enriching than the comment I was replying to.