Your argument should stand on its own without resorting to namecalling. (Argumentum ad Hominem-emotive form)
it does
I'm not the one "resorting" to it, adding it on like a spice to a meal isn't resorting to it
For example, I can lay out a perfectly mathematical argument against why kikes lied about the holocaust...that argument is not lessened the slightest if I choose to call them "jews" or "kikes" in my explanation, only people who still possess the remnants of their programming would take offense to it. After all, jews are generally white people, and they have promoted an anti white narrative my entire life, white people are allowed to be dehumanized on national television to applause...so that rule applies to kikes too right? kikes like ben shapiro who call himself a "white jew" right?
You see...when someone is unintelligent and can't muster an argument they may resort to nothing but name calling, but when someone has actual arguments, words like "kike", like I said, are just a little flavouring to spice it up and do not detract from the original points
The only reason jews are white is because (((they))) say they are. There is a great book called The poisonous mushroom. It is a short, childs book that helps children tell the difference between whites and jews. I think that would be a great book for you to read. You are not adding spice you virtue signaling to others telling them name calling is ok. It is our job to lead by example.
lmfao
stfu you stupid little child...of course I know jews say they are white, I was using their own logic against them to force a certain response
seriously fuck off, you have no idea how to fight back against kikes nor how to use their own rhetoric against them
PS your "lead by example" nonsense is the kind of mentality that non violent christians who turn the other cheek adopted...how did that work for them? oh yea...it didn't.
(post is archived)