Read the articles, lad.

Read them.

Knowledge retention is awful when it comes to a subject that the person is not interested in.

gross on the inside to they present and pristine as possible on the outside.

I'll forget them the next day.

Bullwhip theres a thing called burden of proof

If you make a claim you have to provide evidence and the sources

When your claim is challenged

And consodering you jad easier access and knowledge of an article you could have been kind to provide it in the forst place. I see its all resolved now anyways, thanks mr squeaky for providing it.

Kudos to you

>provide then dozens of proofs
>lmao i wont read them ill just forget tomorrow anywayz xD

I'm starting to think I speak some kind of extremely advanced English that only I comprehend.

I didn't want proofs for anything. I wanted him to provide the study that confirmed his statement and to understand why it's done.

It's not quantum physics or anything overly complex.

Just "provide everything that supports your statement without people needing to ask for it".

Say a person claims vaccines cause autism. They just do that, and pull the "just search it lmao" card when someone asks for the article or study they read to reach this conclusion.

How many articles on this subject are there? How do I know which one was the one he looked at?

Besides that, it's etiquette.

The waiter brings the drink you asked for, he doesn't tell you to go to the restaurant's kitchen to get it yourself.

that ain't the point, @Sterling you scrubo

after the shitty exchange you two had, he gave you several sources regarding homosexuals

when i asked you what you thought of it, you capped out with a similarly cheap tactic

so it's not like you're some kind of high rhetoric master and the other guy is some emotional beast

I can't think anything about something I didn't read, besides "I don't know what's in there because I didn't read it".

Again, I had and still have no interest in them, so I would rather not force myself to read them.

Just because someone offers me something, it doesn't mean I have to accept it.

quite the gymnastics to just say "lmao whateverz"

>Also, pedophilia and homosexuality are different things (although that part you know) and it doesn't necessarily involve children of the opposite sex. I'd also believe that a homosexual pedophile (now that's something for the stories) would prefer little boys over little girls.

you claimed this, articles have been presented to disprove that

>The danger is not having non-heteros in a classroom, the danger is having them force LGBT propaganda down kid's throats.

read dem articles, lad

would you rather be entertained than enlightened?

Third time: not interested.

the absolute state of radical centrism

What?

"I read it at least three times back and forth and couldn't find something that proved your statement, so could you please point it to me in the article?"
well instead of arguing you caould have linked it. If you truly have have better things to do you could have not dragged the whole autism and the argument further, as you are doing now

if the sentence above is wht you consider moaning and whining then i pity anyone who has to converse with you

"point it to me in the article" is different from "link me the article".

this topic is over if any of you continue blabbering about it i will issue mutes

starting now

<:totenkopf:356189786882703360>