You made up a completely separate scenario that involves an individual going to a specific location to target a specific group of people.
In this scenario, a person saw a random article in their feed that happens to mention the legislator’s faith. And that person commented generally on all faith (but especially Abrahamic faiths) being dangerous.
They didn’t seek out an article about muslims to target muslims.
If the article was about a Jewish legislator or Christian legislator where their faith is directly mentioned in the headline, the comment’s intent and meaning would remain identical.
me when I can’t argue anything of substance against the smarter person but I still want to be willfully ignorant and keep doing the stupid shit I’m doing
No, it isn’t. You’re just being reactionary.
You made up a completely separate scenario that involves an individual going to a specific location to target a specific group of people.
In this scenario, a person saw a random article in their feed that happens to mention the legislator’s faith. And that person commented generally on all faith (but especially Abrahamic faiths) being dangerous.
They didn’t seek out an article about muslims to target muslims.
If the article was about a Jewish legislator or Christian legislator where their faith is directly mentioned in the headline, the comment’s intent and meaning would remain identical.
“I saw a random place of worship and wandered right in.”
That’s just intellectual dishonesty. Stop coping and grow up.
I’m the one coping? You managed to be that upset at me you replied in two different comment chains.
Ironic and hypocritical that you would call me out for something you did in the same comment chains.
stop coping and grow up.
me when I can’t argue anything of substance against the smarter person but I still want to be willfully ignorant and keep doing the stupid shit I’m doing
#iamverysmart
the smarter person
:3 “i can’t win an argument with substance so instead I’ll just have my friends come defend me with memes”
ok pal. love u.