I didn’t bother to read the rest with such a disingenuous opening.
Well, thats very on brand for you, I suppose. You took one piece of one point of mine and built your prior post around it instead of responding to the whole post with a more complete argument. Enjoy your bubble, I guess. There’s nothing in there to challenge your position. I suppose that must be very comfortable for you.
You’ve got your statements sewn up tight with your blinders on ignoring lots of good work that charities do because that doesn’t support your narrative.
No, you responded by putting words in my mouth and then I clarified. You followed up with blatantly miscontruing what I said in the clarification, which is consistent with your first post.
Go ahead and get the last word in. I’m sure you will make something up and proclaim you won.
No, you responded by putting words in my mouth and then I clarified. You followed up with blatantly miscontruing what I said in the clarification, which is consistent with your first post.
Your clarification was equally suspect or incomplete. I tried to expand your incomplete definition to point out that not only to charitable organizations exist that perform work outside the basics of the first level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and that government should not be the only arbiter of which causes should receive funding which is what you’re proposing. You ignore that and refocused on basic healthcare treatment, which is just a fraction of what charitable donations go to, yes beyond just cancer treatment, which was your argument.
Go ahead and get the last word in. I’m sure you will make something up and proclaim you won.
How do you know I didn’t already do what you’re accusing me of? You stop reading posts the first moment when you find something upsetting to you.
Well, thats very on brand for you, I suppose. You took one piece of one point of mine and built your prior post around it instead of responding to the whole post with a more complete argument. Enjoy your bubble, I guess. There’s nothing in there to challenge your position. I suppose that must be very comfortable for you.
You’ve got your statements sewn up tight with your blinders on ignoring lots of good work that charities do because that doesn’t support your narrative.
Have a great day!
No, you responded by putting words in my mouth and then I clarified. You followed up with blatantly miscontruing what I said in the clarification, which is consistent with your first post.
Go ahead and get the last word in. I’m sure you will make something up and proclaim you won.
Your clarification was equally suspect or incomplete. I tried to expand your incomplete definition to point out that not only to charitable organizations exist that perform work outside the basics of the first level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and that government should not be the only arbiter of which causes should receive funding which is what you’re proposing. You ignore that and refocused on basic healthcare treatment, which is just a fraction of what charitable donations go to, yes beyond just cancer treatment, which was your argument.
How do you know I didn’t already do what you’re accusing me of? You stop reading posts the first moment when you find something upsetting to you.
Guys, guys. You’re arguing with strangers on the Internet. You both look like idiots.