Twice, I said to drop it twice.
You ask me how my day and uncles felt about getting screwed over.
I responded with "Who said they got screwed over? Nobody".
This was a direct response to a question you presented me.
Here is your response where you shifted my quote to a different topic:
“Nobody got screwed over”? Seriously? What rock do you live under?
You REALLY never heard about service members getting shafted by the government?
MAN, that’s some wacky world your mind is living in."
Misuse of my quote.
Well...since you like to talk about context and comprehension so much, let's take a close look at that post:View attachment 41071
Notice that I said "It doesn't mean I'm unable to empathize with them when they get fvcked over after serving their time". I then asked about your dad's and uncleS getting screwed over, since you volunteered that they were in the service AND in Vietnam. Your sharing that info would suggest they are somehow tied to the issue of being affected by Agent Orange. If they weren't, why would you even bring them into the discussion? Was it to provide some weight to your argument that service members should not be taken care of after the gov't has done them wrong?
You then responded "Who said they got screwed over? Nobody." You did not say this response was specific to your relatives, AND my post (that you quoted) specifically speaks of all service members, not just your relatives.
Since you were non-specific, your response was sweeping to the entire body of my post. That's how our language works.
Work on your comprehension, especially of your own words, if you think you are going to "catch" me.
This one didn't work out for you at all.
I posted my opinion on convicting someone of rape. You then took that quote and applied it to this horseshit:
"Nice backpedal.
Vietnam never happened. Your dad never went, nor did your uncles. Korean War and WWII never happened. Nor did Civil War.
9/11 never happened. Iraq war? Nope. Afghanistan? No.
Grade school must never have happened since you obviously didn’t witness that either."
Misuse of my quote.
That's two thus far shooter.
'Afraid that's not how it works, Skippy. You made the very clear statement that you will not convict someone of an act unless you actually witnessed that act. In this case, that act is rape. What that means is that you do not believe something has happened unless you have seen it in person, regardless of victim testimony, eyewitness testimony, evidence, or even hearsay testimony.
Are you going to now spin the script to say that this standard of action is one you only apply in the case of rape, and you feel differently about other circumstances? Be careful how you answer b/c you could be painting yourself right into another corner.
Would you apply the same standards to a murder trial? How about larceny? If you refuse to believe a rape victim, why would you believe someone who claims they were in a war?
It was also asked many times but never answered: Would you believe your own daughter without witnessing the assault if SHE was the victim? The answer helps with that bigger picture of what standards you apply, and WHEN.
Again, pay attention to that corner.
