Anonymous #1 20h

Yes. If you wish to disregard the foundation of the country we live in to create a theological society that only benefits the group that you’re a part of and harms the minorities your religion says are offensive. Then your belief deserves to be attacked.

10

Anonymous OP 20h

If a Muslim proposes introducing some of their ideology into the constitution. I would be morally just to attack them?

-3

Anonymous #1 20h

Yes, their beliefs.

4

You’re actively crying because you don’t like the idea that a belief that intends to impose itself legislatively upon non-consenting parties should be criticized and attacked.

7

You attempted to strawman what I said and now since you have no legitimate argument you’re deflecting onto some attempt at a half insult

5

Anonymous OP 20h

What do you mean by attack?

-3

Anonymous OP 20h

And there was no straw man, its was a logical question given your stance

-3

Anonymous #1 19h

you christian nationalists are a plague, and disparage the name of christianity. then again it’s not like you’ve actually read the bible

2

Anonymous #1 19h

also it absolutely was a straw man, why the fuck did you bring up Muslim people when the topic is on christians advocating to force their religion onto others via embedding it into the constitution? Attempting to engage in propagandized fearmongering rooted in Islamophobia and xenophobia only works when you’re talking with someone who actually shares your prejudiced beliefs towards others.

15

Anonymous #2 19h

Who’s the Christian nationalist?

-3

Anonymous #2 19h

Their argument is about the indoctrination of a religious ideology into government, and so I asked about another religion to see if they had the same beliefs In what was was that misrepresenting, exaggerating or distorting their point?

-2

Anonymous #1 19h

you instantly switched the topic to avoid discussing the one actually at hand, then engaged in ad hominem when you didn’t get the answer you were looking for. and you, as well as the OOP that was quoted, are Christian nationalists. otherwise, what is your intention by attempting to come to the defense of OOP?

6

Anonymous #1 19h

like I said, attempting to engage in propagandized fearmongering via Islamophobia and xenophobia only works when you’re talking to people who actually share your prejudiced beliefs.

4

Anonymous #1 19h

(meaning, the rest of us see through your bullshit attempts at redirecting the conversation whilst indirectly defending the violence of Christian nationalism)

5

Anonymous #2 19h

I was seeing if the position is consistent. Again, how is that misrepresentation

-2

Anonymous #2 19h

I said nothing speaking ill of islam btw, if anything I was in defense because I said it was stupidity to insist it’s okay to attack someone for expressing those views

-2

Anonymous #1 19h

Assuming by attack we’re referring to a physical attack, which is what I am going off of

-2

Anonymous #1 19h

1st, you wrongfully generalized the entirety of Islam, 2nd, you weren’t merely “seeing if their position was consistent” as you immediately engaged in ad hom the second OP displayed that their position indeed was consistent. 3rd, you had no reason to bring up Muslim people aside from your attempts to redirect the conversation, which we’ve already established were disingenuous as you did not actually recognize that OP is consistent, and instead tried to disparage them.

6

Anonymous #2 19h

If we’re being annoying debate bros, you insisting that I am a Christian nationalist as a way to discredit my point is a “poisoning the well” fallacy See how unproductive and lame this is?

-2

Anonymous #1 19h

it seems like you’re just sitting here projecting your own guilt. you saw someone rightfully criticizing something you believe in, and you attempting to come at them with a strawmen argument; and attacked them once you received a response you didn’t like. furthermore, you’re maliciously attempting to dismiss the inherently violent nature of Christian nationalism and the attempts to forcibly legislate religion, both historically and presently; which is the entire topic of discussion.

3

Anonymous #2 19h

you attempted* like I said, Christian nationalism (and by extension, all forms of religious nationalism) is a plague on our world.

3

Anonymous #2 19h

What generalization was made? I did actually recognize that they are consistent, as in that they are consistently stupid. Because calling for violence on an opinion that doesn’t incite violence is stupid Just like saying if a muslim were to say the same thing, calling for violence against then is stupid

-2

Anonymous #1 19h

I’m discrediting your point via addressing them and dismantling them, pointing out your behavior through the conversation. I’m calling you a Christian nationalist for the same reason: your behavior. did you or did you not choose to come to the defense of the quoted OP (OOP) upon being criticized for advocating that the constitution should be amended to enforce Christianity? an inherently Christian nationalist position.

2

Anonymous #2 19h

For someone who seems pertinent in pointing out fallacies, you use them quite frequently

-2

Anonymous #1 19h

yet, while I’m able to point out the exact instances in which you utilize said logical fallacies, you fail to address any of the times you claim that I have. isn’t that strange?

5

Anonymous #1 19h

(or, more accurately, isn’t that just a perfect little projection)

5

Anonymous #2 19h

Am I simultaneously an islam nationalist as well? I think the same for someone saying Hinduism should be indoctrinated more into the constitution. Am I then a hindi nationalist?

-2

Anonymous #1 19h

as I stated, and you maliciously ignored, religious nationalism is inherently violent; and it has been documented as such. your personal beliefs will never discredit that.

4

Anonymous #1 19h

did I say you were? I said you were islamphobic, not an “Islam nationalist” Desperation isn’t a good look on you.

3

Anonymous #2 19h

You are unable to accurately use that term in relation to what ive said, you’re just hurling shit at a wall and insisting that it sticks

-2

Anonymous #2 18h

I never said you did, that’s my point If I say that you shouldn’t physically attack someone for saying Christ should be in the constitution, then you label me as a Christian nationalist But if I say the same for Islam, why will you not label me as an Islamic nationalist?

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

mate it stuck the second you attempted to vilify Muslim people in your own defense additionally, still refusing to touch the topic of the inherent violence within religious nationalism?

10

Anonymous #1 18h

(then again, desperation)

8

Anonymous #2 18h

There is no vilification, look back at what I said. I said it would be stupid to attack someone for having that viewpoint Are you able to point out the vilification

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

because you’re advocating for violence against others, regardless of whether you’re willing to recognize it. this is a secular nation, and Christianity has caused countless deaths throughout its existence (as has every religion). What do you think happens to everyone who doesn’t believe in Christianity, upon it hypothetically becoming a national religion? what do you think happens to everyone within the lgbtqia+ community? What do you think happens to the women in our lives?

9

Anonymous #1 18h

you vilifying Muslim people is not only islamophobic, it’s stupid as fuck. no one is advocating for Islam to be a constitutional religion in the United States. people like YOU however, are attempting to force Christianity upon all of us, despite our repeated refusal. ADDITIONALLY, you don’t even read your own fucking Bible. you’re out here proselytizing like a moron.

10

Anonymous #1 18h

like I said, a fucking plague; and yes, YOU are violent on the premise of your beliefs.

5

Anonymous #2 18h

Oh my god you genuinely can’t actually point to where the supposed vilification is can you. You actually just throwing shit at a wall

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

equating Muslim people to your Christian nationalism is the vilification. not all followers of Islam ascribe to the belief that it needs to be systemically enforced. you’re attempting to equate all follows of Islam with zealous nationalists, such as yourself in terms of Christianity.

5

Anonymous #2 18h

every religion has its own form of zealous religious nationalism; that’s exactly what it is though: extremist zealotry.

9

Anonymous #1 18h

I’ve already addressed this. you’re too lost in your own religious psychosis to comprehend it.

9

Anonymous #2 18h

Before you keep responding I have a question If you didn’t have breakfast today, how would you feel?

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

(and don’t think I didn’t notice you entirely avoid the topic of the inherent violence within your advocacy; you’re malicious as fuck for that)

8

Anonymous #1 18h

we’ve had conversations before, and you do this exact same thing every single time you’re too deep to defend yourself. are you afraid to address what happens to everyone who disagrees with your religion once it’s systemically enforced? are you afraid to acknowledge how your beliefs are inherently violent? are you afraid to acknowledge how you are directly going against the teachings of Christ?

8

Anonymous #1 18h

you’re not slick, you’re a scumbag; and you’re utterly terrible at propagandizing in favor of your beliefs. if anything, your attempts work to assist us in deconstructing the overwhelming propaganda that conditions the masses. thank you for that.

5

Anonymous #2 18h

I avoided it because it would be pointless to address the comment “ Christian nationalism is inherently violent” because that not an opinion supported by research (PMID: 35001995) but I dont think we could hold that conversation without you incessantly saying im a Christian.

-2

Anonymous #2 18h

This is a nuanced topic and I genuinely dont think you can participate

-2

Anonymous #2 18h

Ermmm actually thats ad hominem 🤓

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

it doesn’t matter whether you actually are or not, what matters is what you’re defending (and it would be odd to run to the defense of Christian nationalism if you weren’t a Christian, unless of course you’re being paid to do so) and no, I specifically discussed certain demographics and the impact on them. don’t be disingenuous, address my comment directly. what happens to non-believers when Christianity is state-enforced? what happens to us gay people, and the entire lgbtqia+ community?

4

Anonymous #2 18h

what happens to women? Scripture is very clear in its discriminatory hate and violence, so please do expand on your chosen position. if you think that “Christ should be in the constitution”, how does that look in the long term?

8

Anonymous #1 18h

did you even read the study you cited? it works directly against your position💀 you disproved yourself, you dumb fuck.

8

Anonymous #2 18h

Okay fine, if you insist you can have a nuance conversation Christ teaches “ love your neighbor as yourself” “ do onto others as you would like done onto you” and to care for the poor, sick and hungry. HYPOTHETICALLY if I wanted those brought into the constitution, what violence is being done and who exactly is harmed

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

but would your proposal be limited to the line of “love thy neighbor as you love thyself”? this is why I say you’re disingenuous, and malicious, because you’re cherry picking a single line from the entirety of the Bible, in order to avoid discussing the topic of systemic discrimination and oppression (which has already been documented in relation to Christianity, on top of the existing systemic oppression that exists within this country) is it that you just don’t care bc it wont affect you?

8

Anonymous #1 18h

AND, let’s be honest here, you did not say that you wanted that single line in the constitution, you said you wanted “Christ” in it. what does the Bible say should happen to non-believers?

5

Anonymous #2 18h

“More broadly, however, religious ideology’s effect on support for violence is essentially conditional”

-2

Anonymous #2 18h

(I’d expand once again to the lgbtqia+ community and women, but you obviously refuse to address those topics for some odd reason…. maybe you’ll be willing to only address non believers, even though I doubt it)

6

Anonymous #2 18h

Yes I would, that is the entirety of my hypothetical proposal Who is hurt by that, are you able yo answer that question

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

ah, good point, it’s the combination of Christian nationalism and white supremacy, exactly like we’re seeing in the United States currently.

7

Anonymous #2 18h

(Again, cherry-picking?)

8

Anonymous #1 18h

so you don’t want Christ in the constitution then, merely a single line inspired by religion? or are you now changing your proposal to avoid being exposed for your true beliefs?

4

Anonymous #1 18h

What confuses you about the word attack, in reference to a belief system. There was a strawman, show me when I said we should attack people and not their beliefs. I’ll wait.

9

Anonymous #2 18h

From what I can see, christ says not to judge (dont cast the first stone), once rebuked his disciples when they wanted to cause harm to a village that denied christ, and even makes a non-believer the hero of a parable as to show they aren’t bad people (good Samaritan)

-2

Anonymous #2 18h

also, this second portion of the conclusion seems vital.

7

Anonymous #2 18h

Right, so then we agree that Christian Nationalism isn’t inherently violent

-1

Anonymous #1 18h

yet, the church has historically launched mass campaigns on killing non-believers who refuse to convert. and the topic of us queer folk? Or women? there’s a difference between being a christian who believes in god and has faith in their beliefs, and attempting to systemically enforce said beliefs onto everyone else.

3

Anonymous #2 18h

Additionally, I’d argue you’re going against your own faith by doing so.

6

Anonymous OP 18h

You use attacking the person and belief interchangeably, in the post you referenced attacking the person. That is what Im going off of I even clarified later that I am referring to attacking the person and also a physical attack

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

“should not be understood to minimize the extent of the risks associated with Christian nationalism” no, you and your beliefs are immensely dangerous and violent; and if god is up there watching us, they’re going to condemn you for weaponizing their name and image in your own twisted favor.

8

Anonymous #1 18h

no they do not, you malicious dickhead. OP specifically stated “yes, their beliefs”, in which you immediately engaged in ad hom to avoid recognizing their response.

8

Anonymous #1 18h

unless you’re just illiterate?

9

Anonymous #2 18h

The teachings of Christ, and the historic teachings of the church are very different. So that would explain that Christ didn’t condone violence towards women, you’re referencing christianity as if you are knowledgeable so I assume you know the story behind casting the first stone and the samaritan woman at the well

-1

Anonymous #2 18h

“Christians: "why do people attack christians???" also christians:” That is referencing the person and not the belief, no?

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

You clarified to someone else moron, you didn’t do it. Go ahead! I’m waiting for you to show me when I explicitly talked about attacking people and not the belief.

10

Anonymous #2 18h

Point to my hypothetical “christ in the constitution” example and show the class where the violence is. You have yet to do that

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

Jesus also teaches to love thy neighbor, and that the meek will inherit the earth surely we can’t forget about Matthews 6-5:6 either, to pray in the privacy of your own home rather than proselytizing in the street corners or synagogues. you twist the teachings of Christ for your own favor. you do not need Christ embedded in the constitution to be a good Christian, or to faithfully follow your beliefs.

7

Anonymous #1 18h

You’re either intentionally dense or actually just not intelligent enough to be discussing this.

6

Anonymous #2 18h

the only reasoning for such is forcing your belief onto others, which results in violence (and denying this does nothing but condemn yourself, as history has shown what people with your exact perspective are willing to do to force others into submission)

7

Anonymous OP 18h

Your post is talking about the person, your first comment said belief. I asked for clarification and you didn’t respond. Then I went on to mention that the “attack” that I am saying is stupid to perform is that of a physical one

-2

Anonymous OP 18h

my money is on a combination of a lack of intelligence and a high level of malice

6

Anonymous #1 18h

I explicitly said belief multiple times

4

Anonymous #2 18h

Okay, so again I ask you where the violence in what I said is

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

did you or did you not advocate for Christ to be in the constitution? Your denial of the inherent violence behind such advocacy is meaningless. you can’t rewrite history, nor can you dismiss it when it’s favorable.

6

Anonymous #1 18h

seems we’ve reached the point of going in circles due to your arrogant and willful ignorance.

9

Anonymous OP 18h

Your post says the person, my first comment is referring to the person, your comment is the belief. That is why I asked for clarification

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

then you ignored said clarification to respond with ad hominem. implying you were never looking for clarification, but rather a confrontation.

7

Anonymous #1 18h

Actualy, my first comment in response is explicitly saying the belief should be attacked. You follow up with “so you want to attack THEM????” You can try to pretend that’s not what happened but it’s right there

8

Anonymous #2 18h

Loving thy neighbor, taking care of the poor/hungry and treating others how you would like to be treated. That is example I gave, and i said that that is where it would stop. you are fundamentally unable to show how that would be inciting violence

-2

Anonymous OP 18h

If you are saying that violence against those people is immoral then we agree

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

all you said earlier was “love thy neighbor…”, not the other two; Jesus also taught that lying is a sin, which apparently you don’t care too much about that part. that’s why I asked if it was actually about amending the constitution to include new *religiously-inspired* lines, rather than including Christ themself, but you doubled down. I already tried to give you the out you’re trying to invoke, and you refused to accept it.

8

Anonymous #1 18h

You’re deflecting. Yes or no did I say belief in the first comment and did you respond with “attack them” in the second?

8

Anonymous #1 18h

so, I’ll ask once again: is it that you merely want to add a small set of lines to the constitution that is inspired by your faith, such as “take care of the poor and hungry”, “treat others how you want to be treated”, “love your neighbor”; or do you want to add lines that include the concept and persona of “Christ” themself within the constitution?

6

Anonymous #1 18h

(and you’re STILL misrepresenting the conversation (and committing the sin of lying), I’ve repeatedly discussed how Christian nationalism is inherently violent, and that is never want you advocated for. you repeatedly expand the scope)

5

Anonymous #2 18h

Well you can clearly see that I did day all three

5

Anonymous #2 18h

Speaking of lying

0

Anonymous OP 18h

I think I have already said that exact thing three times already

-2

Anonymous #1 18h

actually I’ll give you that, and apologize, as I didn’t recognize the last lines of that statement in your earlier comment; I originally thought it was only about love thy neighbor (which is why I didn’t mention the other two in my response) - that’s on me. that being said, it’s interesting that you left out the response in which I mentioned systemic discrimination and oppression.

5

Anonymous #1 18h

And yes, you’ve been lying this entire conversation, both about the violent nature of christian nationalism and OP’s perspective on the matter, even after being corrected in which you double down.

6

Anonymous #1 18h

That wasn’t a yes or no. Go ahead.

8

Anonymous #1 18h

this is one of those instances of lying I mentioned.. breaking one of the big 10 as a Christian nationalist no less? Strange…

5

Anonymous OP 18h

Yes, to state now for the 4th time

-2

Anonymous #2 18h

Well, if you would’ve scrolled down a small bit, you would’ve seen my response. In which I clarified the hypothetical proposal would be limited to that.

-2

Anonymous #2 18h

in all honesty this conversation has gone on for far too long, and I’m going to go run some errands. I’ll be back later to respond to any additional comments, but I’m just going to leave you with this earlier comment of mine; specifically its final portion. individual faith = beautiful and amazing; systemically enforced religion = oppressive and bad.

6

Anonymous #2 17h

Don’t forget Islamic nationalist as well, and also Hindi nationalist

-2

Anonymous #1 17h

I saw your response, which is what prompted this. if that’s the entirety of your position, there’s no need to come to the defense of OOP, and this conversation need not continue; but you insist on dismissing the violent nature of Christian nationalism…

4

Anonymous #2 17h

I literally commented after addressing your comment Think about it while you’re gone and then get back to me about how my proposal is inciting violence and if so against who exactly. I’m curious to finally hear your answer

-2

Anonymous #1 17h

So you saw me clarify beliefs and still chose to imply I meant to attack the person. Got it!

8

Anonymous #1 17h

oh my fucking god you’re relentless. not only lying, also failing to “love thy neighbor” every step of the way. ✌️

6

Anonymous #2 17h

What lie?

-2

Anonymous #1 17h

you’ll receive the exact same answer you’ve been getting this entire time, and at this rate you won’t be receiving any more. the only reason this conversation has continued this long, was to deconstruct your beliefs in a semi-public forum for others to see; hence why I thanked you earlier.

11

Anonymous #1 17h

are you blind to the words OP has typed in front of your face?

8

Anonymous #2 17h

You cant, the reason I keep bringing it up is because you literally cannot point the violence there because there is none

-1

Anonymous #2 17h

My beliefs being that it is a moral to physically attack someone for the statement, and that I agree with those three tenants mentioned earlier? Pretty solid belief system

-1

Anonymous #1 17h

then respond to these specific points that you’ve avoided this entire conversation. you’re not slick, and I’m done wasting my time on you.

8

Anonymous OP 17h

I asked for clarification (because when I brought up attacking the person you never mentioned that it was bad) and then when no clarification was given stated that “I” am going off of physical violence for a person

-2

Anonymous #2 17h

I have literally given you two examples with women, I’m not sure why you ignore that I said the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the church are very different. Jesus himself did not mention the LGBT community, so I’d probably say to defer with what he was saying about other things related to sex. Where he was against the stoning of the woman who committed adultery (which was common practice at the time) and not treating the prostitute as an outcast.

-2

Anonymous #1 17h

Or just “ treat others how you want to be treated” and “ love your neighbor as yourself”

-2

Anonymous #1 17h

You’d love to pretend you were just clarifying although you said this after the clarification

7

Anonymous #1 17h

You said this after I clarified the belief by the way. I’m repeating it for everyone else’s sake. You saw me say attack their beliefs and still said this. Explain how you physically attack a belief system!

5

Anonymous OP 17h

No because when I asked “what do you mean by attack” there was no response That’s why I clarified that I was referring to a physical attack

-2

Anonymous #1 17h

So explain how you physically attack a belief.

9

Anonymous OP 17h

“ I would be morally just to attack them (the person)” “Yes,the belief” I don’t know why you’re acting like it’s crazy to continue on the assumption of physical attack, if you had said “no, the belief” then there would be no room for confusion

-2

Anonymous #1 17h

Answer me. How do you physically attack a belief.

6

Anonymous OP 17h

Well you obviously you can’t physically attack a belief, but you can physically attack a person, that’s why I asked for clarification on what you meant by attack because the post implied person but you responded “yes, the belief” Pretty reasonable confusion I’m not sure what you’re looking for here

-2

Anonymous #1 15h

Great so then there was no reasonable way for you to claim you thought I meant the person after I clarified the belief multiple times. Look where being dense got you:

3

Anonymous OP 15h

Me when I’m ambiguous on wording and there’s confusion

0

Anonymous #1 15h

You when you can’t comprehend what the word belief means so you try to default onto an intentional misinterpretation of what was said:

1

Anonymous OP 15h

You agree violence is bad, I don’t see anything wrong with challenging one’s beliefs What else are you looking for?

1

Anonymous #1 15h

Clearly you do! Otherwise you wouldn’t have tried to paint the entire thing as if I ever implied the person was being attacked “we should attack beliefs” “well why would you attack the person physically?”

4

Anonymous OP 15h

I just told you I don’t

1

Anonymous OP 15h

You did imply person, literally your post refers to a person

0

Anonymous #1 15h

Oh you mean you don’t like it when someone intentionally misrepresents what you say?

5

Anonymous #1 15h

So an hour after I made the post and cleared it up in the comments when you talked about physical attack I still implied a person to you?

5

Anonymous OP 15h

When you came back it has been pretty much just semantics

0

Anonymous OP 15h

Genuinely what are you looking for or do you just want to argue semantics

-1

Anonymous #1 15h

Do you disagree with what I said about not physically attacking someone

0

Anonymous #1 14h

it’s disgusting how disingenuous and malicious you are. you cannot comprehend the concept of acknowledging when you’re wrong, can you?

7

Anonymous #2 14h

I misinterpreted what they said

-1

Anonymous #2 14h

Or um uhhhh actually that’s ad hominem

-1

Anonymous #3 14h

In regards to which part?

-2

Anonymous #2 14h

Of course, coming from the person who cannot point to the violence and what I said

-1

Anonymous #1 14h

That was a question Answer.

1

Anonymous OP 13h

Yeah I know, I’m still waiting for your answer

0

Anonymous #1 13h

Also not an answer. Try again moron.

4

Anonymous OP 13h

Are you looking for a genuine answer to a sarcastic question?

-1

Anonymous OP 13h

But sure I got you Yes, its annoying

-1

Anonymous #1 13h

so you agree It’s annoying but you’re perfectly content doing it Hurry up, answer the second question in the screenshot moron.

1

Anonymous OP 13h

Question for question idiot, answer mine next

0

Anonymous #1 13h

You avoided the two questions that came before your one question. You’ll answer both before I answer the question you asked out of the delusions you have Try again moron. Answer this time.

1

Anonymous OP 13h

Listen here buster, you have no right to hoard questions like that. Either question for question or forget about it

0

Anonymous #1 13h

I’m waiting

1

Anonymous #1 13h

Oh I get it, it’s perfectly normal for you to avoid things that offend you. I asked 2, you chose to answer 1, if I knew counting was that hard for you I would’ve used smaller words and typed shorter responses to accommodate. I’ll try that here: Not an answer. Try again, you moron.

6

Anonymous #1 13h

You’re so offended you typed that you were waiting 1 minute after you sent the the other response. I love the fact that I’ve offended you this much. Keep doing it, it makes me laugh.

6

Anonymous OP 13h

That’s damn right tough guy, you asked two questions and I answered one. And before I answer that second question, it’s your turn to answer mine.

-1

Anonymous #1 13h

I’m waiting

-1

Anonymous #1 13h

I’m not sure what you learned in stupid Town, but that’s how alternating questions works

0

Anonymous #1 13h

Still waiting

0

Anonymous #1 13h

Also not an answer. Try again, you moron. I’m keeping the responses short to accommodate your low intelligence. Thanks btw for doing exactly what I want with spending multiple minutes of your life that you can never get back by typing out comments crying that I’m not engaging in your delusion fast enough. Seriously keep it up lolol

1

Anonymous OP 13h

Not an answer, try again loser

0

Anonymous OP 13h

“An answer is a spoken, written, or acted reaction to a question, request, or problem” It seems you’re too dumb to figure it out yourself so here the definition for answer

0

Anonymous #1 13h

I’m waiting

0

Anonymous #1 13h

Not an answer. Try again you moron. There’s the comments crying about me not engaging in your delusions fast enough! I really do like the idea that you’re wasting time you can never get back doing that It’s really simple, you answer everything I asked then I answer you. I’m content wasting your life doing this because ultimately you’re doing what I want anyways lmao Hurry now, moron.

2

Anonymous OP 12h

Yeah bucko that’s not how this works, I answered one of yours now you answer one of mine Now.

-1

Anonymous OP 12h

Dude is so offended he’s reporting my comments

0

Anonymous OP 12h

Hurry up

-1

Anonymous #1 12h

Oh boy where do I start. The fact you had to Google it and still don’t understand, or the fact that your most time intensive argument was calling someone a poopy head and spamming everyone else in the process?

1

Anonymous #3 12h

Dude just saw the phrase somewhere and has been waiting to squeeze it into conversation lol

-1

Anonymous #1 12h

Yeah I saw it somewhere… in my freshman intro to sociology textbook. Get outta here 💀

1

Anonymous #3 12h

You’ve been waiting that long?

-1

Anonymous #1 12h

Hindi isn’t a religion btw 😛

7

Anonymous #4 12h

Spelling mistake, I was going for hindu

-1

Anonymous #1 12h

Not an answer, try again moron You’re going to cave before I will lol. I’m getting what I want regardless. You not answering wastes your time which makes me content and you answering forces you to confront your idiocy. Either way I’m happy lol. Go ahead and type your hurry ups and I’m waiting’s. I wonder which one you’ll pick lmao

3

Anonymous #3 12h

He deleted his comments where he was intentionally dense in the beginning lmaooo

1

Anonymous OP 12h

You were gone so long friend I had started to assume the worst. I miss you

0

Anonymous #1 12h

It’s comforting to know that you were thinking about me

0

Anonymous #1 12h

Show the ones that got removed! I’m curious.

6

Anonymous #1 12h

Not an answer, try again moron.

3

Anonymous OP 12h

I love when you call me that

-1

Anonymous #1 11h

Not an answer. Try again moron. You’ve completely given up on even trying to act like an adult that’s actually so funny lmao

3

Anonymous OP 11h

I’m still waiting for you to answer a question, stop behaving like a child

0

Anonymous #1 11h

Not an answer. Try again moron. Back to your charade of pretending you can be intelligent lol

5

Anonymous OP 11h

That’s what I just said, you refuse to give an answer

0

Anonymous #1 11h

I like that you keep coming back

0

Anonymous #1 11h

Not an answer. Try again moron. Double commenting again lolol

3

Anonymous OP 10h

This bond we share is almost intimate. Neither side able to pull away from the other

-1

Anonymous #1 10h

Not an answer. Try again moron.

2

Anonymous OP 10h

Do you giggle a little bit when you type stuff like that?

-1

Anonymous #1 9h

Not an answer. Try again moron.

1

Anonymous OP 8h

Aw man cmon you can’t say the same thing twice

0

Anonymous #1 8h

Not an answer. Try again moron.

0

Anonymous OP 8h

Have you finally given up?

0

Anonymous #1 8h

Not an answer. Try again moron.

1

Anonymous OP 8h

Aw man you gave up

1

Anonymous #1 7h

Not an answer. Try again moron hurry up

0

Anonymous OP 7h

Boooooooooooooo copy paste is so lame

1

Anonymous #1 6h

Not an answer. Try again moron.

0

Anonymous OP 43m

Say any of the following words to admit you have a crush: not an answer try again moron

1