You didn't show me anything. I showed you that you misinterpreted what I wrote.
Dummy,
At no time in your original post did you indicate your statements were anything other than facts. You stated pedestrians were hurt.
[BY THE WAY, WHY DID YOU EDIT YOUR ORIGINAL POST TODAY AND CHANGE 'PEDESTRIANS' TO 'MOTORISTS'? LOL] You did NOT say pedestrians
may have been hurt. You stated the girls were the heroes. You did NOT say they
may have been heroes. And, of course, you stated the girls let their friend get raped. You did NOT say the girl
may have been raped. As I've already pointed out, your assumptions are not facts. Duh!
both Mike and the women purposefully crash into other cars, in addition to launching a motorcyclist into a billboard.
I think it's hilarious that you edited your original post. What's even more hilarious is that your claim is still factually incorrect. What proof do you have that any motorist (including the motorcyclist) was "hurt"? Which one(s) was/were shown with injuries, such as broken bones, severe bleeding, sprains, etc.?
I did not claim anything as a fact
Except, of course, that you did.
as I have presented to you multiple times. I even clarified for you that I was referring to the friends' indifferent and somewhat encouraging attitude towards the situation, rather than what actually occurred.
Yes, instead of admitting your errors, you tried to back your way out. No matter how hard you try, you cannot change the meaning of what you wrote in your original post. ๎
You're either too much of a *beep* to realize the futility of your post or you lack the integrity to admit that you're an *beep* who just likes being right.
Once again, at no point in your original post did you indicate your claims were anything other than facts.
"They let," not "he does." I don't give a *beep* whether or not he did. But, I do give a *beep* that her friends would let that happen to her.
See how your statement, "...that her friends
would let that happen to her" differs from your original claim, "I loathed that second group of women and found it absurd that they were supposed to be the heroes of the movie after hurting motorists, being just as viscous as Mike, and letting their friend get raped"? Your original claim was clearly stated as fact, whereas your most recent claim was stated as an assumption.
If i'm "not very intelligent," you by comparison must be a complete and utter *beep* Really, though, nice attempt at provocation.
Based on your inability to distinguish between a fact and an assumption, I've concluded that you're not very intelligent. I'm willing to bet most 10-year-old children could identify the difference between a fact and an opinion, yet you can't.
No, I meant my other two posts, not my first one. You must have not read a fรผcking word of those.
You stated a series of (what you thought to be) facts in your original post. As I pointed out, your facts weren't facts at all, but rather assumptions on your part. Sadly, you're too dumb to understand the difference. Oh, well...
That's not the same as claiming that it is an indisputable fact. If you want to get so caught up in semantics, how about this? I never said exactly that it was a fact, using the word fact. Isn't that productive?
LOL! One doesn't need to include the word "fact" in order to state a fact. Duh! ๎ฆ
Why does it have to be in my original comment? That has nothing to do with my original comment.
You tried to argue (in later posts) that you didn't state facts in your original post. And, of course, you did. So my first reply to you was correct. You loathed the second group of women based on a series of false assumptions on your part.
The original post is irrelevant, in that respect. I clarify in my other posts, because somehow you got hung up over wording of a very small part of my original post.
Hahahaa! Regardless of your backtracking/sidestepping in later posts, your original (and false) claims remained. Although you may have meant to imply a rape occurred, that's clearly not what you wrote in your original post. Duh!
Okay, well at least you can admit you're just the *beep* who goes around nitpicking posts.
So pointing out the severe flaws in your arguments is "nitpicking," eh? ๎ฆ
What are you trying to prove here? That people who are too literal can be *beep*? If so, lesson learned.
I'm merely exploiting your stupidity for all to see. I believe I've accomplished that task. ๎
The next person to reply to my post is a complete idiot...
reply
share
A_Race_Car_in_the_Red
9 years ago
*beep*,
I'm going to be honest, I didn't read your post, but i'm going to make the assumption that it's the same *beep* you've been trying to shove down my throat repeatedly about how important it is to not make assumptions, else, your whole argument falls apart.
To that, here's my response: You have no way of knowing whether or not I made an assumption, you just assumed I was. I could be playing devil's advocate and make the claim that the rape did occur, even if I thought otherwise, and you'd be none the wiser. Regardless, though, i'm telling you that I didn't make an assumption; this is not a debatable subject. Although, if you see any relevance in it, I guess you can argue whether or not my post reflects this.
Even though this is great finger exercise, it's getting kind of tedious. How much longer do you think you will be coming up with nonsensical rebuttals?
Edit: I did read part of your post, just now; the idiotic thing you say about needing blood to see if someone's hurt. Buddy, a nine year old child could easily tell that when the motorcyclist smashed into the board, it hurt like hell. Also, isn't it kind of unproductive and hypocritical to correct someone's error, but think it's pathetic for them to correct said error?
๐ฅ ๎ ๐ฅ "I'll show you the life of the mind!"
reply
share
Stigger
9 years ago
You have no way of knowing whether or not I made an assumption
You claimed the girls let their friend get raped. That's clearly an assumption on your part as there's no evidence to support your ridiculous claim. Duh!
I could be playing devil's advocate and make the claim that the rape did occur, even if I thought otherwise, and you'd be none the wiser.
LOL!
Regardless, though, i'm telling you that I didn't make the assumption, nor did I ever claim it was a fact. That is not a debatable subject.
Recap: You made a series of claims, which you believed to be facts. I pointed out your ridiculous claims were false. Instead of having the intelligence to realize you made a series of really stupid statements, you tried to sidestep your original remarks saying you didn't state facts. Of course, that proves my claim was correct - that you loathed the second group of women based on a series of false assumptions on your part. Hilarious! I love laughing at you! ๎ฆ
The idiotic thing you say about needing blood to see if someone's hurt. Buddy, a nine year old child could easily tell that when the motorcyclist smashed into the board, it probably either killed him or hurt like hell,
Thanks for providing even more proof that you're not very intelligent. You're assuming the motorcyclist was hurt even though you have exactly zero proof to support your claim. The motorcyclist could very well have gotten up and walked away unscathed. You don't know one way or the other, yet assumed [key word] he was injured. Evidently, you're just not very good at this logic stuff. But at least you're good for a laugh. ๎ฆ And for that, I thank you!
๎ฆ
The next person to reply to my post is a complete idiot...
reply
share
A_Race_Car_in_the_Red
9 years ago
I don't even know where to begin. This is easily the second least intelligent post I have ever encountered that wasn't obviously a troll. Let's start with the fact that you so arrogantly have decided you have the definitive answer to whether or not I made an assumption, if you're not me that's technically impossible. And no, restating my original post in which I never claim anything as fact is not proof.
But, it's got to be this nail in the coffin to any sign of your intelligence, that made me both laugh and cringe the most. You seriously expect me to believe that the motorcyclist wasn't hurt just because his legs might still function. Any human being who gets launched into a billboard from a fast moving motorcycle will feel a great deal of pain. I never thought that this would be something I would have to explain to anyone... You must be awful at this logic thing.
If this is a joke, and I can easily see how it could be, then you got me. But as it stands, I'm blocking you, Buddy.
๐ฅ ๎ ๐ฅ "I'll show you the life of the mind!"
reply
share
Stigger
9 years ago
And no, restating my original post in which I never claim anything as fact is not proof.
You are certainly one of the dumbest people I've ever encountered on any message board.
Once again, you made the following claims in your original post:
I loathed that second group of women and found it absurd that they were supposed to be the heroes of the movie after hurting pedestrians, being just as viscous as Mike, and letting their friend get raped.
Even someone as dumb as you should be able to see you listed a series of reasons (which you obviously believed were facts) for loathing the second group of women. Duh! At no point did you indicate in any way that your reasons were anything other than facts. Duh! Then I came along and pointed out your clear use of assumptions. You replied and contested having used any assumptions, so I gave a clear example. Here's the best part: after realizing you got completely 0wn3d, you tried to claim your original post did not contain...get this...facts (just as I said). LOL!
You seriously expect me to believe that the motorcyclist wasn't hurt just because his legs might still function.
That's not my argument, Dummy. There's no proof the motorcyclist (or any pedestrian as you originally claimed) was hurt. People have been involved in accidents without being the slightest bit injured. Other people have suffered life-threatening injuries without even knowing it (i.e. construction worker fell and a nail became embedded in his skull and he didn't even know). Duh!
Like I've said before, you're definitely one of the dumbest people I've ever encountered on a message board. ๎ฆ
But as it stands, I'm blocking you, Buddy.
๎ฌ
The next person to reply to my post is a complete idiot...
reply
share