This was my first thought: when will we get an arm based framework laptop?

Ok, let’s wrap this up.

Overall, I rate this a 7/10 troll. 5 base points, plus 1 for sticking with it and another bonus point for that shit about Ned Flanders. That made me laugh so hard, I almost broke character and called you out, but I wanted to see how far you’d take it.

Thanks for the practice. I haven’t had a good one of these since my Reddit days.

Time for bed. See you around, bud

There you go again with your fantasy scenarios again… or was that just projection… again?

Wow, that’s even more sad than the story you just told me.

Also, irrelevant.

1. wow, that’s sad
2. it’s irrelevant to this discussion
3. I don’t care
4. somebody has made it this far to upvote my comments….
5. if you hadn’t gambled your health and well-being foolishly by not getting health insurance, you could afford to work through these troubling issues with a trained psychotherapist rather than… this

And, again, you make a personal attack because you have no rational response.

Just because you ignore the facts and evidence does not mean that they aren’t there. Everyone else but you can see them, apparently. And I really don’t care whether you believe me or not. I only care that others don’t believe you.

And only you are convinced by your arguments. You, and a fictional cartoon named Ned.

I don’t care if you trust me. I never have. Others will trust the evidence and facts that they have seen so far.

But I will continue to point out when you post misinformation because it’s the right thing to do.

You were using straw man because you had no rational response to a discussion about health insurance.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

No, you keep trying to change the subject, and I keep calling it out while staying on the subject of health insurance and the meaning of the word “gambling.” Again, blaming me for your words and actions.

You’re free to your “beliefs”, but the facts and evidence contradict you.

Because we are discussing health insurance and the definition of gambling. You keep trying to change the subject to various other subjects, such as:

• “being an American male”
• unemployment insurance
• your wages
• crossing the street
• my usage of quotation marks

and including religion, which is a straw man

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

That amnesia is really hitting you hard!

My religion says gambling is a sin.

Irrelevant to the discussion and a straw man

Insurance of any sort is a gambling as Ned from The Simpsons proves in his quote from the 8th episode of the 8th season of The Simpsons.

Fictional characters in a cartoon are not a source of reliable, verifiable facts, especially regarding healthcare and/or economic advice. And, wow, if you’re telling me that you base your financial and healthcare decisions (not to mention your religious convictions) based on a line from The Simpsons, then don’t simultaneously claim that you’re making a rational argument based on logic and facts. “Ned from The Simpsons said it” is a claim so ridiculous it really proves how desperate you are to hold onto your “beliefs” in the face of facts, evidence, and actual logic.

Now, you’re free to disagree but you haven’t been able to disprove either of those facts that together form an air-tight case for what I’m saying.

It’s your responsibility to prove your claims, not for me to disprove them, and you haven’t done that at all. Oh, and some throwaway joke from a fictional cartoon - on its own - isn’t proof of anything other than that your “beliefs” have a fictional (and very silly) basis.

Nice self-own.

You continue to refuse to back up your claims.

There’s that amnesia again! I’ve provided evidence repeatedly. All you can do is sealion.

You’re acting like the anti-abortion activists right now

More personal attacks because you have no rational response.

being completely unable to hear the other side of the conversation.

Except when I read and responded to every single thing you said. Just because I used evidence to prove you wrong over and over and over again - and you ignored it every time - doesn’t mean I didn’t listen to you— it proves that I did.

I’m acting like the pro-choice people putting out well thought out arguments backed up by facts and logic and a heathy dose of freedom and personal responsibility.

Another coping mechanism fantasy you”ve invented; this didn’t happen. But, if your “beliefs” still hold that this happened, please link to the facts and evidence and so-called “logic”. This should be interesting considering that you don’t even understand how health insurance works, what it’s for, or the definition of the word “gambling”.

As I’ve said several times before: you’re free to your “beliefs”, but the facts and evidence contradict them.

That’s your problem, not mine. Unlike you, I have no problem backing up my claims… and very well know better than to tell ridiculous lies.

You told me I couldn’t read 127 comment in the nearly seven minutes between comments.

No I didn’t. I said that your claim was an obvious lie. You’re welcome to prove otherwise with evidence, but, given the body of your behavior here during this discussion, I’m certain you would lie in order to “win” or “score points” in this argument, regardless of how silly or pointless the lie. your entire comment history here represents a dishonest representation of yourself when convenient.

I did and had time to respond to you but you don’t believe me because you must read slower.

There’s that zero-sum worldview again, where the only way you could do better is if someone else does worse. That’s the zero-sum bias

Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; it is people’s tendency to intuitively judge that a situation is zero-sum, even when this is not the case.[4] This bias promotes zero-sum fallacies, false beliefs that situations are zero-sum. Such fallacies can cause other false judgements and poor decisions.[5][6] In economics, “zero-sum fallacy” generally refers to the fixed-pie fallacy.

Do you often invent fantasies about strangers online when you’ve gambled foolishly on an argument you can’t win? Seems like a coping mechanism with very little payoff and a lot of toxicity.

Another personal attack because you can’t make a rational argument.

I just re-read all 127 comments in this thread and haven’t found any evidence that you’ve produced.

In the past three or so minutes since your last comment? That’s an obvious lie.

Sealioning is when you’ve already produced it

I have. There’s that amnesia again!

and I ask for it again or more

Which is exactly what you keep doing

not when I ask for evidence that you’re not producing because you never have and it doesn’t exist.

This is a scenario that you just invented and which didn’t happen. The evidence in the comments here confirms this. Your failure to accept the evidence and the fact is not evidence that I did not present facts and evidence. You’re in inability to understand that is also not my responsibility.

It’s also an example of the Circular reasoning fallacy

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, “circle in proving”;[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]

You have to respond to the request with evidence first.

I have. Repeatedly. I even quoted the answer I gave an hour ago to this question in the comment you replied to. Theres that amnesia again!

I’m just asking for evidence repeatedly that you refuse to produce repeatedly because it doesn’t exist

No, you’re just Sealioning

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”,[5] and has been likened to a  denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.

Source-available ≠ open source

There’s that amnesia again! You asked and I answered this question an hour ago:

You already produced that evidence when you commented…every time you comment. And I point it out every time. Just like the ad hominem attacks. But you seem to have serious memory problems.

It’s irrational to blame others for things you, yourself, do and say.

Now you’re just Sealioning

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”,[5] and has been likened to a  denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.