You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "It's a Free Country!"
True and I do appreciate the irony of your post, first it's content then followed by dictating terms of response.
True and I do appreciate the irony of your post, first it's content then followed by dictating terms of response.
I wasn't dictating terms of response. You responded how you wanted to. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, maybe the internet is not for you.
Reads like you're replying to your own post. How can you add the last statement to your post then deflect on me pointing it out? Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just reading your post.
The point is he was not dictating how you could respond, he was responding to your response. No one here is threatening or hurting you because of what you wrote or might later write.
@troglodactyl I don't feel hurt or threatened. Please elaborate for the poster or yourself which post of mine you have an issue with here and why. Did I deserve "If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, maybe the internet is not for you"? What a childish, insulting, anti-anarchist thing to say to someone.
What's the problem? Can you please enunciate what dictating means, because in this context it is read that he was telling you how you should respond, when I don't see how that is. He was making a point, which stands still, that by replying to the article with some ignorant remark like GTFO very much validates the efforts of educators all over this glorious usa. To keep saying that he dictated is clearly dismissive to his own words "I did not". Is his stance in question?Is it called into question simply because you ignored his statement and decided that you can ask how he can deflect without offering anything to show, clearly what you're talking about, as he has made it clear it wasn't to do with that if you didn't comprehend the words the first time. What are you saying with "dictating the terms of the response"?
What's the problem? Can you please enunciate what dictating means, because in this context it is read that he was telling you how you should respond, when I don't see how that is.(P.S. If you respond to this article by saying, “If you don't like it, then leave!” then you're just a well-trained slave demonstrating what a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome you have.)If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, maybe the internet is not for you.
Now my words: Who keeps saying that he dictated? I made the observation once and he did in his last statement, still.
To dictate implies clear authority, just or otherwise, recognized or not. It says: I command you to do this and you are to abide by it.
Who is he dictating? What is he dictating? Am I dictating when I presume that someone showing certain attitude or is simply a certain way is probably because of a certain factor? Or is it dictating when I am telling someone what to do, what to think? Am I dictating when I presume that someone focusing on something that isn't there and agreeing to the points I made previously only for them to then right after ridicule the post, the entire train of thought, because of an invented irony, and expressing that the internet is not the best place for someone like YOU, a you which glazes over the facts and agrees that what he said didn't mean much of anything, but even if what he said was true it's funny because of what a hitler he is, preaching anarchy. Reading comprehension is epic fail brow.
Was it not worth putting it in clear words exactly what you meant when you said it was ironic that this post "dictates the terms".. and decided that by quoting without context really settles a question which is asking to please provide a clearer meaning to your words which say "he is telling people how they should do things" very clearly with "dictating terms". Your observation of irony is... wrong. Your observation of dictating terms, is also wrong as he didn't tell anyone what to do, dictating as a verb and how you used it is conveying a specific sentiment, and this authority figure which is inherently in the figure of speech dictating terms, and especially when you allude that you can observe dictating from the statement about the internet not being the best place for people who have a difficult time discussing the valid points because they have tripped over some perceived infraction in logic land, a place that is never questioned, dare I.
Is it my responsibility to connect the dots in regards to what the definition of irony is or how the definition of dictate is applied to statements like "(P.S. If you respond to this article by saying, “If you don't like it, then leave!” then you're just a well-trained slave demonstrating what a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome you have.)"? I think not.
Would you prefer that I use the noun mandate instead of dictate?
Please don't forget to look up the definition of bloviate when you have a moment ;-)
No you're not responsible for defending your arguments. You are not responsible for defending your conjectures. You are not responsible for explaining the nonsense everyone sees as your thoughts.
You can switch up the definition of "TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO" with whatever other synonym you want of Impose Thy Will, it will not change the words or give the context the author initially set up with "If you respond with". You clearly have that certain specific, precise ax to grind, and why do I make that speculation, because rhetorically: is it my business to ASK what people mean and to reach an understanding and not appease to emotion but meaning, logic, context, or even better and much more easy: invent, laugh, and rinse and repeat?
What arguments should I be defending sir?
I am an observationalist imperious to your underlying insults so please address me with the same level of respect I will address you or not at all, thank you!
edit after reading your last post: I have no axe to grind nor waffle burning in my toaster but thanks for playing.
O I don't know, that he's telling you what to say, that's he's telling you what to do, or you know, those things you have been arguing..
If you want to label observation as an argument, so be it, I'm on season 2 episode 10 of Mad Men and am heading back into my theater room for the night. I really just came out to input some trades on the exchanges and here we are.
Here's a question for you: How many accounts in ratio does a steemian(steemit member) have on medium average? Night Night
Extracting truth out of your observation is like pulling teeth.
Observe.
So to summarise:
An article about the immorality/insanity of religion such as statism stirs something in you which compels you to express how grateful you are to come back to the plantation after traveling to 5 different countries. Just this year.
Everybody was like WOW when.. when..
mur freedom, less cunntrol, @rocktehv0te, doesnt matter youre still stoopid pesant- expressing his depraved need of control of the conversation.
That made you recoil, understandably, because this character comes on the scene to rub it in your face that being grateful for being less enslaved definitely means everything possibly awful:
that motherfuckinglicking meanie.
And you being one for everything virtuous and rationale and nobal3, so nuble, you say why yes, you are right kind sirs, you are correct about that one thing there and I appreciate that ironic request at the end, that part where you were talking about stuff and things as well, that was funny like that too.
Who would have thought that the evil determined bastards would sneer back with: meh meh, whatHaterever this never happens this REQUEST, WOOT REQUEST HUH, YOU BETTER HIDE, I KNOW YOUR IPZ!
Again, it's completely understandable to and if I could be blunt: ask hims evilness "how comes brah, I'm just making obz bro"
(your words are levels and levels of eloquence above that pessant of a paraphrase of mine, numi pare rau)
So was that an average of 2 accounts per steemian or more?
Based on your experience I guess we can both agree on at least 2 accounts, correct?