you just want me to acknowledge our life is different.
At last.
This is of such marginal importance to my initial point.
Maybe you could have admitted its nonuniversality a couple of days ago, or added an “in my experience” or “I find that” or two, instead of contradicting people trying to explain the world outside your bubble to you.
Maybe you struggle with abstractions and logic
Ad hominem isn’t a strong debating tactic in my view. I never respected people who need to devalue others to try to make themselves look good. In addition, I think that refusing to accept that your experience might be non-universal doesn’t put you in the “observant and insightful” category. Your overgeneralisation was neither abstract nor logical, and in particular, the existence of illegal or extreme methods to obtain something doesn’t indicate its universal availability as strongly as you seem to think.
I just have to accept that my point is invalid because your life isn’t like mine. If that makes you happy, so be it.
Thanks.
But I’m just an example and I’m not unusual, you are.
I truly wish you’d find romantic love
Either your reading comprehension isn’t up to your implied claims to greater intelligence or you’re playing the ad hominem again.
and also get laid.
Slightly higher frequency would be nice, but I shan’t be approaching any druggies for any blowjobs nor raping anyone as you suggested. Instead, watching a romcom together under a blanket whilst playing with my wife’s hair often but not always works to get her in the right mood. It’s not particularly quick nor 100% reliable, nor is it something I’m going to do every night, but it’s very pleasant indeed.
Before you suggest it, I don’t see the existence of rohypnol (however you spell it, I’ll not google that) as evidence that I can increase the frequency!
Ad hominem isn’t a strong debating tactic in my view
No ad hominem, just an obvious observation you demonstrated solidly again with that reply.
And if you really took that ad hominem, then so were lots of assumptions about my “lavish rich fancy lifestyle” or “one romantic, many sexual partners”. I didn’t bring me, personally, at all into this argument.
or you’re playing the ad hominem again.
Nope, I wouldn’t know you enough to form a dislike to attack you personally, just because I am out of actual arguments. It was honestly meant. Why should I wish you being romantically ignored by life.
Despite that, I would now repeat my same points again, only for them to get ignored, and I really don’t like that. I drown in sparetime but it’s still too precious to waste it on a lost cause. No offense meant, it’s just fruitless to continue this.
At last.
Maybe you could have admitted its nonuniversality a couple of days ago, or added an “in my experience” or “I find that” or two, instead of contradicting people trying to explain the world outside your bubble to you.
Ad hominem isn’t a strong debating tactic in my view. I never respected people who need to devalue others to try to make themselves look good. In addition, I think that refusing to accept that your experience might be non-universal doesn’t put you in the “observant and insightful” category. Your overgeneralisation was neither abstract nor logical, and in particular, the existence of illegal or extreme methods to obtain something doesn’t indicate its universal availability as strongly as you seem to think.
Thanks.
But I’m just an example and I’m not unusual, you are.
Either your reading comprehension isn’t up to your implied claims to greater intelligence or you’re playing the ad hominem again.
Slightly higher frequency would be nice, but I shan’t be approaching any druggies for any blowjobs nor raping anyone as you suggested. Instead, watching a romcom together under a blanket whilst playing with my wife’s hair often but not always works to get her in the right mood. It’s not particularly quick nor 100% reliable, nor is it something I’m going to do every night, but it’s very pleasant indeed.
Before you suggest it, I don’t see the existence of rohypnol (however you spell it, I’ll not google that) as evidence that I can increase the frequency!
No ad hominem, just an obvious observation you demonstrated solidly again with that reply. And if you really took that ad hominem, then so were lots of assumptions about my “lavish rich fancy lifestyle” or “one romantic, many sexual partners”. I didn’t bring me, personally, at all into this argument.
Nope, I wouldn’t know you enough to form a dislike to attack you personally, just because I am out of actual arguments. It was honestly meant. Why should I wish you being romantically ignored by life.
Despite that, I would now repeat my same points again, only for them to get ignored, and I really don’t like that. I drown in sparetime but it’s still too precious to waste it on a lost cause. No offense meant, it’s just fruitless to continue this.