So how do you expect me to respond now that I've seen this cartoon? I genuinely have no ill will towards you or anyone, I'm simply trying to defend what I think is right in what I think is the most reasonable and civil way possible. Accusing someone of "sea lioning" is creating a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, if you're criticizing them for being reasonable and civil, how else should they defend themselves?
Is it possible to bring up ape behavioral studies without being accused of bad intentions? What do you propose is the best way to go about it?
Re:Thank you to dang and sctb
by DonHopkins on Saturday November 24, 2018 @06:15PM
(#18524452)
Stop.
Wow, no counter argument. Just shut down discussion. Okay
Re:Thank you to dang and sctb
by DonHopkins on Saturday November 24, 2018 @07:22PM
(#18524673)
No, not okay. Just stop.
[dead]
Re:Thank you to dang and sctb
by DonHopkins on Sunday November 25, 2018 @12:20PM
(#18527736)
Now you've lost all pretense of being reasonable and civil, and you're proven beyond a doubt that you understand precisely what sea lioning is, and that you're doing it consciously and on purpose, and that you're not arguing in good faith, and that your intentions are bad.
You've seen the cartoon of course, haven't you? Of course you have, because you're acting exactly as the cartoon describes, and you are well aware of what you're doing, while pretending you don't know, and that you never heard of the term, even after it's been pointed out to you several times.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning
Now that I've given you a link and explained it to you yet again, your pretense of not knowing what we're talking about when we accuse you of sea-lioning is no longer valid, so give it up.
Failure to acknowledge that you've read the definition of that term, understand what it means, and how it perfectly describes what you're doing, constitutes an admission of guilt that you're not arguing in good faith.