Message from @wahx
Discord ID: 545077030270533652
no you're being clear Srowder
sorry man but if you just say the opposite of what you just said about the core point of a debate you're gonna confuse people
What am i not being clear on so i can clarify it.
You're not, you're fine
Wahx is trying to jab at me
lmao now you've confused srowder
Both of you have
Wahx, you asked me to clarify my point. I did, but why do you still hold the original point against me?
That's not fair
I explained the full idea that I was trying to express
because you did not clarify, you tried to clarify
am I not allowed to recover with an explanation?
But I did clarify
How did I not clarify?
"making someone cry isn't harassment" and "causing another person to cry in fear is harassment" are not contradictory to you?
you have said both
What is the point that is trying to be made
Its not making someone cry alone that's harassment. I failed to mention the intent.
The second statement is my actual point
And seriously, I used crying as an example
OH
You think I believe the law literally has a claus about tears??
God no
nah I do not
Okay then I'm confused.
about what?
"causing another person to cry in fear is harassment"
I added "in fear" we're talking about intent. Isn't that the clarification you were looking for?
And why wasn't it good enough?
It's like you're arguing wtih me about a point I'm not making
If you actually hear me, then you'll know what I'm saying.
Making someone cry can happen without bullying
Or fear
Agreed
dude, I have no idea what point you're making because you can't decide if causing someone to cry is harassment or not, until recently when you redefined it to mean: intending to cause fear or harm
That's why I clarified what I meant
Can't decide?
I said it once and immediately clarified
YOU wouldn't let my first sentence go
actually you didn't until you said "I failed to mention the intent."
You refused to accept my clarification