Yeah, wouldn’t want to weasel around what people are talking about.
No weaseling in that post.
This is what weaseling looks like:
No, I think I’d feel that way, too. At least if you were killed, you’d have people on your side, you know? If you killed someone you’d feel awful and you’d have people hating on you too. It’s such a lonely feeling to be alone in your pain.
First you said that I came into a thread and started talking about legal consequences despite no one else having been discussing it. I prove your dumb ass wrong and you jump around and say “Well good thing you weren’t talking about that, you were talking about the lack of sympathy!” You are a fucking joke.
I admitted that I’d exaggerated in my original post. I wasn’t weaseling you douchebag.
Wow, I guess you’re righ- oh wait, no, you’re not.
So, you back off of every single thing you said in your initial post, yet I’m the one who has it all wrong. Then, you even back off a few of your clarifying points.
Genius.
In my initial post I establish a.) I feel sorry for the person she killed and b.) I don’t feel sorry for Laura at all and c.) There were no legal consequences (already demonstrated to you that there were people discussing the legal aspect before I joined the thread).
Now I’ve changed my stance to a.) I feel more sorry for the person she killed than I do for her and b.) There were no legal consequences.
Yeah, I’ve certainly backed off of “every single thing” I said in my initial post. Is there any more room in that corner for you to sink into?
Try this: In your initial post, when talking about the amount of sympathy you have for Laura Bush, you say you felt none because there were “no consequences”, which you’ve amended to mean “no legal consequences”. We were supposed to know that all along, because a bunch of people you didn’t reference at all had said something about the legal system at some point. Also, you admitted that you did feel some sympathy for Laura Bush, which was the one point I called you on.
The statement you backed off of is the one I called you on. Since you’ve conceded that point, why are you even arguing any more? Are you just trying to save face?
The consequences she didn’t have aren’t the reason I said I didn’t feel sorry for her, though they are a partial contributing factor. Another major factor is the fact that she’s not the one who was fucking killed by a negligent driver.
If by “amended” you mean “clarified,” sure.
When you’re talking about an accident in which someone’s killed, I thought it was fucking obvious that any reference to “consequences” involved legal ones.
I was under the impression that you’d “called me on” my suggestion that she faced no consequences:
1.) I call you a fucking joke.
2.) You call me a weasel.
3.) I remind you that the very reason I called you a joke was because of what a weasel you were being.
4.) You change the subject and declare that I’ve changed my stance on every single thing I established in my original post.
5.) I remind you that I’ve only changed my stance about one part of my original post.
6.) You ask me why the fuck I’m arguing as if we’re even still talking about the original subject.
Every post of mine has been reactionary, responding directly to the stuff you’ve been saying. But you keep changing shit up whenever I show how wrong you are.
For someone who calls people weasels, I’ve never seen anyone weasel around in a discussion like you have.
You’re the only one who has done any name-calling, I believe. I’ve tried to limit my remarks to your argument, but I may have slipped up somewhere. “Weaseling”, not “weasel”. Even so, we are in the pit, so no harm done.
Speaking of, I didn’t weasel. I stand by my assertion that your initial point had everything to do with why you felt sorry for Laura Bush. If you honestly felt no sympathy for her whatsoever, then it is reasonable to assume one of two things:
-
That by “no consequences”, you actually meant what you typed. Or…
-
If you meant “I feel no sympathy for her because she suffered no legal consequences”, then you were stupidly discounting any other consequences in evaluating whether or not she deserved any sympathy.
I haven’t changed the topic of discussion at all. Every post I’ve made has contained a direct reference to what you said in post 94.
No, you DID weasel. Come on, man.
I was talking about consequences and you said “Yeah well, we weren’t even talking about legal consequences.” I post quotes to show that that’s not true and you respond by saying “Yeah well, you were talking about sympathy.”
In my discussion with Tim I admitted that I had been hasty in my declaration that I felt no sympathy for her.
You started the discussion with me by asserting that no one in the thread was talking about legal consequences. So don’t ask why the fuck I’m “still arguing” with you, when you’re the one who dug it back up. I’m not arguing that that part of my original statement wasn’t stupid.
I’m posting this in the interest of clarity, I swear. This is getting pretty tedious for everyone else, so perhaps we could resume this over PM in the morning. No big deal either way.
My post 127 wasn’t an attempt to dig it back up. I was just trying to show that, even if you did mean legal consequences, your initial post still gave too little credence to other consequences. Since you’ve backed off that statement re “no sympathy”, then the point is moot & I probably shouldn’t have brought it back up. I missed a good bit of your discussion with tim as it was happening real time, which is why it looked like I was trying to beat a dead horse.