My aggression is reactive and not in the name of any cause. If you're a moralist, you're a moralist and your moral arguments are stupid.
Nope. I have outlined my preference for such things as being my within my possession. Tell me, is desire for pizza a form of zealotry?
-
-
That itself, that approach is absent or disdainful of nuance
-
Incorrect. Your constant mixing of planes is lacking or disdainful of nuance. The fact that every want must somehow be moral is lacking.
-
I want it noted that this was driven not out of empathy but because you were at least trying to honestly respond
-
Honestly and empathy are not mutually exclusive. It's only when moralistic judgements get wrapped up in "honesty" that they are incompatible
-
And I haven't been showing any empathy at all. Maybe I'm lazy. Or maybe I'm in a world of chaos right now. Whatever.
-
once again, nobody made the argument that you were. You clearly aren't. You are however, promoting empathy. that is what I was responding to
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
> it manifested as the cause you fight for
-
You are confused. But whatever.
-
You are lazy. It appears we vacation regularly at this point
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
My point was that you offered this as a solution, counter to the approach of others
-
So? That doesn't make it my cause. They offer trash burritos, I offer anchovie pizza.
-
You fight, you fight for a reason. That is a cause. You take issue because what we do, causes harm to your perspective
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Stop pretending you are absent moralism, elitism etc
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Your cause is that we should share your approach. The moment you argued in promotion of your approach>
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.