It’s hard to post links for evidence on the Klan here because most links use the triple k lettering, which is not allowed on these forums. And I’ve still given more evidence than you.
That doesn’t make me wrong about you.
Still doesn’t make me wrong about you. And now there are other sources, so your criticism, if it had any merit, is addressed. Will you now address mine?
I still gave more evidence than you did. Giving a poor source like I did is still better than no source like you did.
Merriam Webster defines superhuman as “exceeding normal human powers, size or capabilities”
By stating that “he alone” can fix it, he is stating he has capabilities not just beyond normal humans… beyond EVERY OTHER human.
It is literally the definition of a superhuman portrayal.
No, invalid sources are invalid.
And it speaks worse about you, because you were the first one demanding citations from others, when you didn’t list citations yourself like the hypocrite you are.
And when you finally do, after being called out, they are citations that wouldn’t be accepted in even a 101 class.
Stating he alone can fix it, if he actually said that, is still not superhuman as he is only human. Hypothetically speaking, being the top of human potential is still only human (again, hypothetical, in case you try to accuse me of calling Trump peak human potential).
Telling that you ignored my explanation about why there’s difficulty posting links relating to the Klan. It’s outside my control that most links have the three k’s lettering and that Blizzard doesn’t allow that to be posted in comments here.
I’ll try an alternate route. Click on the link cited on the following webpage.
The fact remains at least I made an effort, unlike you. If two people do the same offence, who did it first doesn’t matter. And a poor source is still better than no source, so your petty attempt to save face fails.
I wonder which parts of this comment you’ll cherry-pick in your next reply (or will you avoid cherry-picking in your next comment because I called it out here).
Merriam Webster defines superhuman as “exceeding normal human powers, size or capabilities ”
He claims he is capable of feats that no other Human can do.
A claim that he can perform feats not just exceeding the capabilities of normal Humans… exceeding the capabilities of every other Human.
His portrayal of himself is as superhuman, according to Merriam-Webster. If you don’t agree with the dictionary, you can enjoy being wrong.
You seem to think that superhuman means “not at all human” which is incorrect.
Even the Cambridge dictionary you touted lists the definition as “having abilities greater than most people”
Both the Cambridge and Merriam-Webster dictionaries define “superhuman” in ways that the phrase “I alone can fix it” qualifies as a superhuman portrayal.
You have a problem with the English language, reality, and truth. I am not surprised.
Sure it does. Especially when the one who did it first is then calling out others for something he did not do himself -that is a hypocrite.
You were the first one to ask for citations, when you did not list citations for your claims. Others were content to have a discussion without an academic bibliography for every post… while you demanded it of others, when you would not do it yourself until you were called out.
Telling that you didn’t post the link. And what makes Merrian Webster is more credible than Cambridge Dictionary?
You even cherry-pick with your sources lol
And you still haven’t given any evidence Trump said what you claim he did. For someone who loves to accuse others of arguing in bad faith, you do it a lot more than most yourself.
I addressed this above. Though unlike you, I’m not going to mispresent you with disingenuous accusations like ones of having a problem with reality and the English language.
Wrong. Who did what first is irrelevant to hypocrisy. And you’re still cherry-picking too in your desperation to save face.
If your criticism had any merit, at least I addressed it, unlike you did for your flaws. Considering putting you back on the ignore list, but I won’t if you stop cherry-picking (but you won’t next comment: prove me wrong, or you’ll only do because I called you out).
Do you think words are only allowed to have one definition? Are you too lazy to scroll passed the first line Google shows you?
Words can have multiple definitions and intonations.
I listed the definition of “superhuman” as it appears in both the Merriam-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries. It is there for anyone to read.
They both back my point.
Merriam Webster defines superhuman as “exceeding normal human powers, size or capabilities “
Even the Cambridge dictionary you touted lists the definition as “having abilities greater than most people”
According to both dictionaries, Trump’s phrase of “I alone can fix it” is a superhuman claim.
Yes, it is telling that you are unaware of the fact that words have multiple meanings.
You read the first definition and think that is it? The lazy logic of someone who thinks Wikipedia is a good source to find a full membership roster of the Invisible Empire.
That is wrong. You asked for citations when you didn’t make them. You are the hypocrite.
I didn’t even ask for your citations - so I am not a hypocrite about it. I just pointed out you were a hypocrite for asking others for citations when you did not list any, yourself.
You knew I was right, so after the fact, you lazily come up with Wikipedia links to post.
Had you not been a hypocrite to begin with, I wouldn’t have that to call out.
Then you’re throwing away your vote. Literally thowing it away. Like it or not, we have a two party duopoly. Wishing it were otherwise is like wishing Star Trek was real. And since most people who feel that way generally would vote more liberal than conservative, than you’re doing Trump a favor by throwing our vote away in this fashion. That’s why the GOP is happy to throw money at Ralph Nader and candidates like him, because they knew he’d be taking away votes from the Democrats.
I don’t give a copper about terms such as “good” and “evil” those are terms of demagoguery. I take a look at both of these men and listen to their own words about what they plan to do in the next term if they have the keys to ther Oval Office.
I don’t need to make statements about Trump’s intentions. YOU JUST NEED TO LISTEN TO THE MAN HIMSELF.
And if a Christian Fascist Theocracy is what spins your wheels, then I’ve got nothing to say to you.
Then it’d come down to what the definition of “superhuman” is regarding cults of personality. And I still gave more evidence for my side (I even did your job for you at one point).
See my comment above.
Nothing you said here disproves anything I said.
Nothing you said here either disproves anything I said. My points remain valid. I grow weary of your petty attempts to save face. If you reply to this, don’t quote-mine, or I’ll block you.
You gave no evidence to prove your point or to disprove what I said. While your attempt at using a dictionary backfired, because you didn’t know words can have more than one meaning.
I provided the definition from two different dictionaries to back up that Trump was making superhuman claims about himself.
Yes, I disproved your nonsense about :
You are the hypocrite because you asked Drahliana for a citation first - without listing your citations. You did not cite anything until after I proved you a hypocrite.
You even acknowledged your hypocrisy, by lazily posting Wikipedia links after I called you out. Not even because I asked you for them, but because you knew you were being a hypocrite.
Your points were invalid from the start.
You demand sources from others when you do not provide your own.
You argue against two dictionaries about the definition of a word, which simply proves you do not understand what you are talking about.
And your invalid points were based on nonsense Wikipedia links that could have no possible way of knowing the actual numbers of the invisible empire.
All your points were invalid, as they were based on conjecture from garbage websites, coupled with your misunderstanding of the way dictionaries work.
You mean you don’t want me to point out your falsehoods and self contradictions by quoting you? If the gobbledygook you pass off as logic is embarrassing for you to see, I don’t blame you.
Now, can we please get back to worgen? I love talking rl politics as much as the next filthy tankie but this is a WoW forum. This is like trying to have a reasoned, nuanced debate in Barrens chat.
If you block him, we’ll still be seeing it. All that you’ll accomplish is hiding from the discourse. Feel free to block me as well if it will make you feel better. I’m all about people feeling better.
I don’t get his thing against Quote Mining or whatever he wants to call it. Sometimes people don’t want to respond to the entirety of a post and want to point out and talk about a specific thing within said post.
Which is allowed mind you and isn’t agains any rules
There seem to be a few people lately, (insert speculation…), that have been very particular regarding who is or isn’t allowed to speak to them in what is literally a public forum.
To me it’s obvious. Just ignore them, literally by using the feature/tool or consciously by just moving past their post if you don’t want to engage with them. Heck threatening them with putting them on ignore seems rather childish to me because all it does is give the other person power.
That’s been the Democrat pitch all the time. Promise things they won’t push for or … hey, do you want me or the Republican foaming at the mouth? The reason Trump has so many supporters right now is because the “I’m Not the Republican” as their main appeal is wearing mighty thin.
