![Papers PLEASE [680x542 - 57KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/T6nYc0.jpg){kind=link}
Cool. Well, I just finished eating my oatmeal creme pie cookie which I assume materialized out of nothing, since I don't have any evidence to the contrary (and therefore it's the rational default). I'm really tired of these evasive and stupid answers so have a good one.
And now you're resorting to logical fallacies. See strategem 28: http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm
This trick is chiefly practicable in a dispute if there is an audience who is not an expert on the subject. You make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes the opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If the opponent must make a long, complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen.
What did sweet little jesus say about modesty and vanity, and which one of the two lets you end up in hell?
That's literally your argument though. It's pointless to continue carrying on because when you're not spiraling off into unrelated topics you're evading the questions, mischaracterizing the points, and being pedantic. So I assume at this point it's probably some form of dishonesty, though I initially provided the benefit of the doubt.
You might also have lost the dispute, and now try to weasel your way out via gaslighting, casting doubt upon the integrity of your opponent, and so on.
But that's okay. It wasn't my intention to convince you to become an evil misanthropic nihilist or something like that. I was just chatting, and to be honest, it took up too much of my time, which I should have spent coding. So have a nice time. No hard feelings, and such.
(post is archived)