TakodachiEnjoyer on Nostr: It's not on me to bear the burden of proof in this case. You guys are making the ...
It's not on me to bear the burden of proof in this case. You guys are making the positive statement that niggers are humans. Your attempt here to shift the burden of proof in this case is itself proof of bad faith. Just because you don't like being in the position of having to defend a bad argument that you know is bad doesn't give you license to get out of it by burden of proof shifting. Concede or get a better argument. I'll wait. You've also made previous comments that you just don't like arguing with TND spergs, and yet you find yourself embroiled again, when you clearly have the choice to withdraw or not engage. I consume a lot of your content and I know you can in fact engage in good faith, but frequently choose not to. I prefer to engage in good faith at all times, even in the face of extremely overwhelming bad faith in order find ways to strengthen my own arguments while chastising the bad faith.
We both agree that whites are humans so there is no controversy there. Now we both know that as this dialogue progresses whatever criteria we agree on that recognizes white human status, niggers will catastrophically fail. Even though you would engage in extremely bad faith attempts to shift the criteria such that niggers make the cut, you will fail miserably. I don't have to do much more than point at the last 100 years of the failures of the nigger uplift programs to make the case that if we hammered out a set of objective criteria, a sort of standard humanity test, niggers would fail.
"How would you feel if niggers could make the cut?"
"But niggers can't make the cut!"
Your DNA argument is bad, and you know it's bad. If I were to in bad faith make the case that gorillas and chimps (or any number of other animals) share as much or nearly as much DNA with humans, you would then pivot to throwing that data in the trash because it is trash. Even though you were just relying on it a second ago. You might even try to disingenuously claim that chimps or gorillas are humans depending on how much bad faith you wanted to engage in at the time, or some other shit tier continuum fallacy based off bad data.
The ongoing bad faith engagement now has devolved to the predictable attacks on moral character, as is tradition. As western civilization continues to collapse we're all going to have to "get comfortable with the idea that you're going to kill lots and lots of people", either by action or inaction. Did you get comfortable with the idea that you're going to kill lots and lots of people, when you enlisted? Am I now a bad person for preparing for collapse self defense situations? Has being an American soldier ever been morally justified? Would being a soldier or public servant in a hypothetical white state with TND, PND, or MND (the M is for marginal) advancement policies be morally justified? It seems like you pick and choose when flexing state power is appropriate, with the organizing principle that it must never be used against niggers especially by whites for white interests. Both you and Super advocate for separation policies with what seems like a contrived naivete about what kind of logical conclusions we can predict will happen should they be carried out. Which he continually stepped over, and now it seems you will as well. Is it moral to have an "awww shucks, I guess it didn't work out, but we tried" attitude even when you know better?
"lol, but I don't know any better"
We both agree that whites are humans so there is no controversy there. Now we both know that as this dialogue progresses whatever criteria we agree on that recognizes white human status, niggers will catastrophically fail. Even though you would engage in extremely bad faith attempts to shift the criteria such that niggers make the cut, you will fail miserably. I don't have to do much more than point at the last 100 years of the failures of the nigger uplift programs to make the case that if we hammered out a set of objective criteria, a sort of standard humanity test, niggers would fail.
"How would you feel if niggers could make the cut?"
"But niggers can't make the cut!"
Your DNA argument is bad, and you know it's bad. If I were to in bad faith make the case that gorillas and chimps (or any number of other animals) share as much or nearly as much DNA with humans, you would then pivot to throwing that data in the trash because it is trash. Even though you were just relying on it a second ago. You might even try to disingenuously claim that chimps or gorillas are humans depending on how much bad faith you wanted to engage in at the time, or some other shit tier continuum fallacy based off bad data.
The ongoing bad faith engagement now has devolved to the predictable attacks on moral character, as is tradition. As western civilization continues to collapse we're all going to have to "get comfortable with the idea that you're going to kill lots and lots of people", either by action or inaction. Did you get comfortable with the idea that you're going to kill lots and lots of people, when you enlisted? Am I now a bad person for preparing for collapse self defense situations? Has being an American soldier ever been morally justified? Would being a soldier or public servant in a hypothetical white state with TND, PND, or MND (the M is for marginal) advancement policies be morally justified? It seems like you pick and choose when flexing state power is appropriate, with the organizing principle that it must never be used against niggers especially by whites for white interests. Both you and Super advocate for separation policies with what seems like a contrived naivete about what kind of logical conclusions we can predict will happen should they be carried out. Which he continually stepped over, and now it seems you will as well. Is it moral to have an "awww shucks, I guess it didn't work out, but we tried" attitude even when you know better?
"lol, but I don't know any better"