I'm asking for the nuance. I'm asking for the lines in the sand. I choose to primarily talk to leftists for a reason. The fact that a conversation about ethics is beyond the pale is nutter butters.
I mean, I get it. I've seen plenty of guys like you on the webs. Keyboard warriors who think they are tough minded, but somehow never manage to actually talk to a girl. Guys who are too scared to go to a Starbucks because the baristas intimidate them.
I mean, what are you going to do now your hero Andrew Tate is in jail?
Pointing out that you're avoiding the argument isn't exactly triggered. And I'm arguing in favor of non-aggression, so your attempts to hide your failings are worse than the initial gambit.
I feel like you're having trouble following instead of just refusing to confront internal inconsistencies at this point. Either way, hug a dead veteran today.
I speak out against idolizing mass murderers, and the first thing you think of is girls writing to serial killers.
You could have talked about things like sports teams with names like "Vikings," or "Raiders."
You could have talked about movies like "The Godfather" or TV show "Black Sails."
No, you went with your obsession; the women who constantly scorn, deride, belittle, and/or ridicule you on a daily basis.
You're the one who brought up the idea of women flagrantly throwing themselves at the lowest scum while you sit alone and miserable, crying over your keyboard and smashing your head against the wall in anguish.
You bring it up because that's what haunts your thoughts, day and night.
And how do I know this? What makes me so sure?
Anyone who isn't obsessed like you would have simply stopped responding.
Like they say, truth let's the facts speak for themselves, but lies repeat over and over.
You're off your rocker. I chose a ridiculous example, because they idolize mass murderers and at most need therapy rather than a bullet - but that outcome fits your poorly thought out definition.