In Internet argument fashion, a bunch of people will just jump all over you, and take your words through every useless permutation of meaning they can think of, for which they can contrive a shallowly plausible counterargument. I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend.
I understood what he said. But nice fallacious empty message here. Tell me how you define victimless? How do you define violent? Which one is easier to define in court? Or would you rather just invade discussions with fallacies and attacking the messenger? Also didn't you just jump all over my message?
> I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend.
As do I. I find myself continually defending things I didn't say because people are more concerned with arguing with what they think I meant rather than reading what I actually said.
