[quote]pat wrote:
It’s not the only argument I have ever lost.[/quote]
Oh I fuckin believe it.
[quote]
Was I not supposed to defend it? On semantical level, I was wrong. There is still an ontological contingent I am not convinced of. Nevertheless I have reformulated the argument to close the loophole. It’s fool proof now. It was actually a very simple fix once Kamui pointed out the specific problem.[/quote]
No, it isn’t fool proof. The problem with the argument you were making was very simple, and it was shown to you a hundred times over. You couldn’t see it…because you went into that discussion without knowing the definition of a valid argument–i.e., without knowing the first thing about the topic whereon you were loudly, foolishly opining. (Just like this thread.) You have not, since then, mastered logical reasoning to such an extent that you have proved that God exists, or whatever other controversial topic you think you’ve settled with a proof you’ve invented yourself. That you have convinced yourself of something so fatuous is troubling.
Anyway, since I can speak freely without any interruption the America’s invovlement in Syria has been a failure because of the following facts which are not in dispute:
U.S. created a ‘red line’ with a threat. Red line was ignored which was followed by another threat.
He let russia negotiate the terms. Syria got rearmed, heavily.
U.S. called for Assad’s ouster and did nothing to help ‘oust’.
Assad was rearmed by Russia with highly technological tactical weapons which rendered their capabilities increased over the non-tactical chemical weapons.
-The U.S. debated military aid to the rebels but never acted.
the rebellion, because it was not strong and had no support was overrun with terrorists.
Those terrorists have taken over a large part of Syria and now a large portion of Irag.
The civil war continues and has a destabilizing effect on the region.
Assad has greater capabilities than before and is slowly gaining ground. We called for his ouster.
The U.S. has now started to arm the rebels with lethal force which can easily fall into the hands of the terrorists now.
Assad still uses chemicals against his people. Not tactical targets, merely civilians who support the rebellion.
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s not the only argument I have ever lost.[/quote]
Oh I fuckin believe it.
[quote]
Was I not supposed to defend it? On semantical level, I was wrong. There is still an ontological contingent I am not convinced of. Nevertheless I have reformulated the argument to close the loophole. It’s fool proof now. It was actually a very simple fix once Kamui pointed out the specific problem.[/quote]
No, it isn’t fool proof. The problem with the argument you were making was very simple, and it was shown to you a hundred times over. You couldn’t see it…because you went into that discussion without knowing the definition of a valid argument–i.e., without knowing the first thing about the topic whereon you were loudly, foolishly opining. (Just like this thread.) You have not, since then, mastered logical reasoning to such an extent that you have proved that God exists, or whatever other controversial topic you think you’ve settled with a proof you’ve invented yourself. That you have convinced yourself of something so fatuous is troubling.[/quote]
You’ll never know now will you? Still talking to me? Wierd. Pride gets the better of you doesn’t it.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
pat wrote:
It’s not the only argument I have ever lost.[/quote]
Oh I fuckin believe it.
[quote]
Was I not supposed to defend it? On semantical level, I was wrong. There is still an ontological contingent I am not convinced of. Nevertheless I have reformulated the argument to close the loophole. It’s fool proof now. It was actually a very simple fix once Kamui pointed out the specific problem.[/quote]
No, it isn’t fool proof. The problem with the argument you were making was very simple, and it was shown to you a hundred times over. You couldn’t see it…because you went into that discussion without knowing the definition of a valid argument–i.e., without knowing the first thing about the topic whereon you were loudly, foolishly opining. (Just like this thread.) You have not, since then, mastered logical reasoning to such an extent that you have proved that God exists, or whatever other controversial topic you think you’ve settled with a proof you’ve invented yourself. That you have convinced yourself of something so fatuous is troubling.[/quote]
You’ll never know now will you? And it wasn’t an argument for God’s existence was it? Prove to me that it was… go ahead…
Still talking to me? Wierd. Pride gets the better of you doesn’t it.
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s not the only argument I have ever lost.[/quote]
Oh I fuckin believe it.
[quote]
Was I not supposed to defend it? On semantical level, I was wrong. There is still an ontological contingent I am not convinced of. Nevertheless I have reformulated the argument to close the loophole. It’s fool proof now. It was actually a very simple fix once Kamui pointed out the specific problem.[/quote]
No, it isn’t fool proof. The problem with the argument you were making was very simple, and it was shown to you a hundred times over. You couldn’t see it…because you went into that discussion without knowing the definition of a valid argument–i.e., without knowing the first thing about the topic whereon you were loudly, foolishly opining. (Just like this thread.) You have not, since then, mastered logical reasoning to such an extent that you have proved that God exists, or whatever other controversial topic you think you’ve settled with a proof you’ve invented yourself. That you have convinced yourself of something so fatuous is troubling.[/quote]
Come on baby, bring your ‘freinds’ into it… Hurt me! Hurt me so bad!
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
pat wrote:
It’s not the only argument I have ever lost.[/quote]
Oh I fuckin believe it.
It was the precondition of your argument for God’s existence, so, yes, it was part of your argument for God’s existence. The thread was called “proof of God.” You said that such a thing existed. You were spectacularly wrong, by very informed agreement. And by the reluctant testimony of the likes of Plantinga, who actually do understand logic.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
pat wrote:
It’s not the only argument I have ever lost.[/quote]
Oh I fuckin believe it.
It was the precondition of your argument for God’s existence, so, yes, it was part of your argument for God’s existence. The thread was called “proof of God.” You said that such a thing existed. You were spectacularly wrong, by unanimous agreement. And by the testimony of the liked of Platinga, who actually do understand logic.[/quote]
So no, it wasn’t an argument for God’s existence. A precondition for which is that contingent things exist. That has not been disproven.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
pat wrote:
It’s not the only argument I have ever lost.[/quote]
Oh I fuckin believe it.
It was the precondition of your argument for God’s existence, so, yes, it was part of your argument for God’s existence. The thread was called “proof of God.” You said that such a thing existed. You were spectacularly wrong, by very informed agreement. And by the reluctant testimony of the likes of Plantinga, who actually do understand logic.[/quote]
Anyhow sally, you get the last word since your not responding to me anymore. I am beat.
Why are you talking about the arguments for God’s existence? Oh! you have to bring up things from other threads that are irrelevant to this one because you made it personal. You’re weird man, very high strung.
Well you’re far more proud of it than I am ashamed… Do you see how many posts I have? I don’t get hung up on silly crap. When it’s not fun, I don’t do it. That’s when you see me gone, taking a break.
I lost one in a thousand, not really it doesn’t sting, it’s kinda wierd you keep bringing it up every thread. I usually leave things that belong to a thread, in the thread, then it’s forgotten. Again, man behavior. You move on, you don’t gloat.
I don’t gloat, I have won way more than I have lost. I don’t gloat because it’s an asshole thing to do. I don’t seek to make people feel bad deliberately. Fortunately, I can take it others cannot and I am sensitive to that. I don’t need to gloat, I let the argument speak for itself.
[/quote]
Let’s clear this up: I don’t consider a great victory for me to have beaten you in an argument. Far from it.
I am simply recalling another example of your shameless–that is, you seem not to even care that you’ve been repeatedly accused of this kind of thing by multiple people who are not ideologically aligned with each other–dishonesty.
But anyway, you get the point, and I think you actually do recognize what I’m talking about.
Well you’re far more proud of it than I am ashamed… Do you see how many posts I have? I don’t get hung up on silly crap. When it’s not fun, I don’t do it. That’s when you see me gone, taking a break.
I lost one in a thousand, not really it doesn’t sting, it’s kinda wierd you keep bringing it up every thread. I usually leave things that belong to a thread, in the thread, then it’s forgotten. Again, man behavior. You move on, you don’t gloat.
I don’t gloat, I have won way more than I have lost. I don’t gloat because it’s an asshole thing to do. I don’t seek to make people feel bad deliberately. Fortunately, I can take it others cannot and I am sensitive to that. I don’t need to gloat, I let the argument speak for itself.
[/quote]
Let’s clear this up: I don’t consider a great victory for me to have beaten you in an argument. Far from it.
I am simply recalling another example of your shameless–that is, you seem not to even care that you’ve been repeatedly accused of this kind of thing by multiple people who are not ideologically aligned with each other–dishonesty.
But anyway, you get the point, and I think you actually do recognize what I’m talking about.[/quote]
Now this is really the last time!
So you bring it up in every thread because, you’re just an asshole who likes to gloat? If it’s not a big deal to you, why do you bring it up in every thread? Seems like it’s a big deal to you if you bring it up in every thread. Oh brother.
Now this is really the last time!
So you bring it up in every thread because, you’re just an asshole who likes to gloat? If it’s not a big deal to you, why do you bring it up in every thread? Seems like it’s a big deal to you if you bring it up in every thread. Oh brother. [/quote]
I didn’t say any of those posts were my last, did I?
But anyway. No, I brought it up here because you were dishonest during that discussion, and you were dishonest here. (Remember, again, when more than one poster noted that you were making shit up in this thread? Isn’t that bad? Don’t you wish nobody had had the grounds to make such an accusation? Doesn’t that make you stop and think? Or are you pathological or something?) I was, in other words, connecting dots, drawing a pattern wherein you are uninformed, opine loudly on the object of your ignorance, and then refuse to acknowledge your solecisms. Call it historical context.
Aside: You say I bring it up in every thread. In which other thread did I bring this up?
Now this is really the last time!
So you bring it up in every thread because, you’re just an asshole who likes to gloat? If it’s not a big deal to you, why do you bring it up in every thread? Seems like it’s a big deal to you if you bring it up in every thread. Oh brother. [/quote]
I didn’t say any of those posts were my last, did I?
But anyway. No, I brought it up here because you were dishonest during that discussion, and you were dishonest here. (Remember, again, when more than one poster noted that you were making shit up in this thread? Isn’t that bad? Don’t you wish nobody had had the grounds to make such an accusation? Doesn’t that make you stop and think? Or are you pathological or something?) I was, in other words, connecting dots, drawing a pattern wherein you are uninformed, opine loudly on the object of your ignorance, and then refuse to acknowledge your solecisms. Call it historical context.
Aside: You say I bring it up in every thread. In which other thread did I bring this up?[/quote]
I don’t remember, I don’t go furiously thubing through page after page of old posts. You did it, I saw it, I ignored it. You’re lying if you said you didn’t. And you were dishonest when you said you accepted my apology… Man, that is a low thing to do. A really low thing to do. If you meant it, I wouldn’t be hearing about it would I? You want to accuse of dishonesty, it goes both ways. You just take cheap shots when it suits you and when you say something that requires honor, it goes out the door.
Like when you said you didn’t make ad hominem attacks, but you, by definition actually did? That’s dishonest.
You call dishonest that which you didn’t like. The problem is you got focused on something that wasn’t the topic. That’s not my fault.
You call me ignorant, yet the facts on the matter of Syria which I bulleted with dashes several times are not contested? Are they?
You are too full of yourself. You want to get personal? Is that your goal? You want to point out my errors? You missed the entire point with your stupid chemical weapons derail. That was part of it, not all of it. Had you put it in context and acted like a decent human being, perhaps that could have been dealt with in context. To say it was that our handling of Syria was a victory because of that, inspite of the disaster that it is is just plain ignorant, period. There is nothing you can do about it because the situation is dire. It’s not all roses because Russia made a deal with Syria, quite the opposite. You talk about it as if it’s the only thing. You want to give obama a victory? Obama didn’t even do it, Russia disarmed Syria’s chemicals and loaded him up with tactical weapons. Oh, my bad, Russia brokered the deal. I don’t consider that a victory, I consider that a beneficial trade for Russia and Syria. There’s a very good reason Russia supports Assad. Russia’s agreements are all with Assad and they need them. The reason is simple geology.
Now this is really the last time!
So you bring it up in every thread because, you’re just an asshole who likes to gloat? If it’s not a big deal to you, why do you bring it up in every thread? Seems like it’s a big deal to you if you bring it up in every thread. Oh brother. [/quote]
I didn’t say any of those posts were my last, did I?
But anyway. No, I brought it up here because you were dishonest during that discussion, and you were dishonest here. (Remember, again, when more than one poster noted that you were making shit up in this thread? Isn’t that bad? Don’t you wish nobody had had the grounds to make such an accusation? Doesn’t that make you stop and think? Or are you pathological or something?) I was, in other words, connecting dots, drawing a pattern wherein you are uninformed, opine loudly on the object of your ignorance, and then refuse to acknowledge your solecisms. Call it historical context.
Aside: You say I bring it up in every thread. In which other thread did I bring this up?[/quote]
I don’t remember, I don’t go furiously thubing through page after page of old posts. You did it, I saw it, I ignored it. You’re lying if you said you didn’t. And you were dishonest when you said you accepted my apology… Man, that is a low thing to do. A really low thing to do. If you meant it, I wouldn’t be hearing about it would I? You want to accuse of dishonesty, it goes both ways. You just take cheap shots when it suits you and when you say something that requires honor, it goes out the door.
Like when you said you didn’t make ad hominem attacks, but you, by definition actually did? That’s dishonest.
You call dishonest that which you didn’t like. The problem is you got focused on something that wasn’t the topic. That’s not my fault.
You call me ignorant, yet the facts on the matter of Syria which I bulleted with dashes several times are not contested? Are they?
You are too full of yourself. You want to get personal? Is that your goal? You want to point out my errors? You missed the entire point with your stupid chemical weapons derail. That was part of it, not all of it. Had you put it in context and acted like a decent human being, perhaps that could have been dealt with in context. To say it was that our handling of Syria was a victory because of that, in spite of the disaster that it is is just plain ignorant, period. There is nothing you can do about it because the situation is dire. It’s not all roses because Russia made a deal with Syria, quite the opposite. You talk about it as if it’s the only thing. You want to give obama a victory? Obama didn’t even do it, Russia disarmed Syria’s chemicals and loaded him up with tactical weapons. Oh, my bad, Russia brokered the deal. I don’t consider that a victory, I consider that a beneficial trade for Russia and Syria. There’s a very good reason Russia supports Assad. Russia’s agreements are all with Assad and they need them. The reason is simple geology.[/quote]
I was going to ignore this pile of gibberish and just let the thing die rather than make the point, again, that the simplistic list you’ve been pushing for weeks now was countered by multiple posters over thousands and thousands of words (and these counterpoints were met, by you, with a very telling silence), but there is one thing – and it’s more than indicative – that deserves to be noted.
It’s time for a refresher course on the history of this thread.
You wrote, without elaboration (and therefore without much meaning):
[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite [Obama] in a big way.[/quote]
To which I directly responded:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]
To which you, in turn, directly responded:
[quote]pat wrote:
The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell.[/quote]
[That is, you responded to my request for clarification in the affirmative.] From there, the argument proceeded: to the simplistic objections regarding Assad’s having crossed the line and Obama’s having “done nothing” [which is nonsense] about it, to Bismark/SexMachine/smh’s responses to the said objections. Rational decision-making and cost-benefit ratios and all that.
In other words, I made this about the August/September 2013 “red line”/chemical weapons chain of affairs because that was what I wanted to debate. I made it explicitly clear to you that that was what I wanted to debate, and not only did you not object, you reaffirmed your position and proceeded to defend it. Now that the chips have fallen where they’ve fallen, you are heading back to the beginning with a mind to alter history. But it isn’t going to fly.
I repeat myself: I intervened in this discussion to debate a specific point which you made and with which I took explicit and specific issue. Because my name is not Barack Obama, and I am not paid by Barack Obama, I have exactly no interest in defending Barack Obama for the defense’s sake. I don’t care whether or not you like him or his policies and, indeed, I don’t support even the majority of the decisions he’s made as president. What I do care about is agreeing with good arguments and attacking bad ones. I saw a bad one, and I attacked it.
I have no interest in arguing the grand, wide-angle “Syria problem” with you, because that kind of counter-factual debate requires a great deal of prior study, is much more complicated than you seem to think, and is in some ways unsolvable.
Which gets at something I’ve said a few times over the course of this thread. The ability to reason and argue with as much specificity* as possible is a highly undervalued skill. (Check into any collection of terminal idiots–commenters at Breitbart or Daily Kos, for example–and you’ll find the opposite of the kind of specific rationality that I’m talking about. Or look at the best threads on PWI, which are threads that, in one way or another, contain sustained investigation of a particular topic’s most fundamental details.) You and I weren’t talking about “Syria” or “Benghazi” or “Iraq,” we were talking about something specific, and this was made clear from the utter outset.
*Relatedly, I’ve lately seen a few posters grumble about “graduate school” types–I may have been implicated, though I’m not in graduate school–focusing on minutia. Well, same deal.[/quote]
…And yet, my argument is that “our handling of Syria was a victory because of [the chemical weapons affair]”?
Jesus.
Jesus.
You win, Pat. The thought of having to hold your hand through another one of my posts–of literally making an argument and then having to go back and try to get you to somehow wrap your head around the argument just made–is exhausting in itself. It’s all settled now.
Now this is really the last time!
So you bring it up in every thread because, you’re just an asshole who likes to gloat? If it’s not a big deal to you, why do you bring it up in every thread? Seems like it’s a big deal to you if you bring it up in every thread. Oh brother. [/quote]
I didn’t say any of those posts were my last, did I?
But anyway. No, I brought it up here because you were dishonest during that discussion, and you were dishonest here. (Remember, again, when more than one poster noted that you were making shit up in this thread? Isn’t that bad? Don’t you wish nobody had had the grounds to make such an accusation? Doesn’t that make you stop and think? Or are you pathological or something?) I was, in other words, connecting dots, drawing a pattern wherein you are uninformed, opine loudly on the object of your ignorance, and then refuse to acknowledge your solecisms. Call it historical context.
Aside: You say I bring it up in every thread. In which other thread did I bring this up?[/quote]
I don’t remember, I don’t go furiously thubing through page after page of old posts. You did it, I saw it, I ignored it. You’re lying if you said you didn’t. And you were dishonest when you said you accepted my apology… Man, that is a low thing to do. A really low thing to do. If you meant it, I wouldn’t be hearing about it would I? You want to accuse of dishonesty, it goes both ways. You just take cheap shots when it suits you and when you say something that requires honor, it goes out the door.
Like when you said you didn’t make ad hominem attacks, but you, by definition actually did? That’s dishonest.
You call dishonest that which you didn’t like. The problem is you got focused on something that wasn’t the topic. That’s not my fault.
You call me ignorant, yet the facts on the matter of Syria which I bulleted with dashes several times are not contested? Are they?
You are too full of yourself. You want to get personal? Is that your goal? You want to point out my errors? You missed the entire point with your stupid chemical weapons derail. That was part of it, not all of it. Had you put it in context and acted like a decent human being, perhaps that could have been dealt with in context. To say it was that our handling of Syria was a victory because of that, in spite of the disaster that it is is just plain ignorant, period. There is nothing you can do about it because the situation is dire. It’s not all roses because Russia made a deal with Syria, quite the opposite. You talk about it as if it’s the only thing. You want to give obama a victory? Obama didn’t even do it, Russia disarmed Syria’s chemicals and loaded him up with tactical weapons. Oh, my bad, Russia brokered the deal. I don’t consider that a victory, I consider that a beneficial trade for Russia and Syria. There’s a very good reason Russia supports Assad. Russia’s agreements are all with Assad and they need them. The reason is simple geology.[/quote]
I was going to ignore this pile of gibberish and just let the thing die rather than make the point, again, that the simplistic list you’ve been pushing for weeks now was countered by multiple posters over thousands and thousands of words (and these counterpoints were met, by you, with a very telling silence), but there is one thing – and it’s more than indicative – that deserves to be noted.
It’s time for a refresher course on the history of this thread.
You wrote, without elaboration (and therefore without much meaning):
[quote]pat wrote:
The failure in Syria has come back to bite [Obama] in a big way.[/quote]
To which I directly responded:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.[/quote]
To which you, in turn, directly responded:
[quote]pat wrote:
The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell.[/quote]
[That is, you responded to my request for clarification in the affirmative.] From there, the argument proceeded: to the simplistic objections regarding Assad’s having crossed the line and Obama’s having “done nothing” [which is nonsense] about it, to Bismark/SexMachine/smh’s responses to the said objections. Rational decision-making and cost-benefit ratios and all that.
In other words, I made this about the August/September 2013 “red line”/chemical weapons chain of affairs because that was what I wanted to debate. I made it explicitly clear to you that that was what I wanted to debate, and not only did you not object, you reaffirmed your position and proceeded to defend it. Now that the chips have fallen where they’ve fallen, you are heading back to the beginning with a mind to alter history. But it isn’t going to fly.
I repeat myself: I intervened in this discussion to debate a specific point which you made and with which I took explicit and specific issue. Because my name is not Barack Obama, and I am not paid by Barack Obama, I have exactly no interest in defending Barack Obama for the defense’s sake. I don’t care whether or not you like him or his policies and, indeed, I don’t support even the majority of the decisions he’s made as president. What I do care about is agreeing with good arguments and attacking bad ones. I saw a bad one, and I attacked it.
I have no interest in arguing the grand, wide-angle “Syria problem” with you, because that kind of counter-factual debate requires a great deal of prior study, is much more complicated than you seem to think, and is in some ways unsolvable.
Which gets at something I’ve said a few times over the course of this thread. The ability to reason and argue with as much specificity* as possible is a highly undervalued skill. (Check into any collection of terminal idiots–commenters at Breitbart or Daily Kos, for example–and you’ll find the opposite of the kind of specific rationality that I’m talking about. Or look at the best threads on PWI, which are threads that, in one way or another, contain sustained investigation of a particular topic’s most fundamental details.) You and I weren’t talking about “Syria” or “Benghazi” or “Iraq,” we were talking about something specific, and this was made clear from the utter outset.
*Relatedly, I’ve lately seen a few posters grumble about “graduate school” types–I may have been implicated, though I’m not in graduate school–focusing on minutia. Well, same deal.[/quote]
…And yet, my argument is that “our handling of Syria was a victory because of [the chemical weapons affair]”?
Jesus.
Jesus.
You win, Pat. The thought of having to hold your hand through another one of my posts–of literally making an argument and then having to go back and try to get you to somehow wrap your head around the argument just made–is exhausting in itself. It’s all settled now.
Edited[/quote]
Explaining what I meant, vs. taking things literally is also very exhausting and serves little point. I use hyperbole to emphasize a point. You take it literally and act directly on the words and not the point. Then you will call me a liar. I ain’t got time for that. You honestly think ‘nothing’ meant a literal nothing. Where I meant it as ineffective, reactive, disaster of American application to a situation. But you won’t believe that. You’ll point to the words and insist I meant a literal nothing. And you don’t think that’s not exhausting to deal with?
I am not going to stop using hyperbole to make a point. I will say that shit because that’s how I get people to hook in to the discussion.
You pointed to something where you tried to show your vast detailed knowledge of something and I flat didn’t give a shit about the details. That wasn’t the point. Explaining it just gave you ammo to attack me personally, for no reason really. ‘Oh look how stupid you are!’ Well I may be stupid, but I wasn’t lying.
Nevertheless, I accept the ‘win’ because the facts of the matter bare out what I have always said. Obama’s policies in Syria have been a disaster. In other words Obama did ‘nothing’ to better the situation despite all his rhetoric. In other words, obama did nothing in syria. Nothing to stop the war, nothing to oust Assad, nothing to help the rebels, nothing to stop the spread of terrorism in the region. There’s a whole lot of nothing to go around.
Ah, what’s the point of explaining…
We whined and acted like a couple of little prima donna, whiny little bitches these last couple of pages. Like an old married couple. That was kinda stupid.
I take exception to the low blows and the ad hominems, and highly considered putting you on my ignore list. But I am not going to do that. I think your a smart guy. I think you are too emotional, but smart. If you want to put me on ignore, that’s fine.
I closing I want to put this spat to bed. And this time, I mean where we don’t bring old shit up in future discussions, kind of bed. That’s low and I would not do it to you or anybody. In fact I have not, even to ‘The Bodyguard’ who was maybe the biggest asshole on earth.
As for proof of God, I will happily take you on, anytime, anywhere if you dare. If you argue the contrary, you have no chance.
Peace to you smh, I wish you the best and all that is good and right.
