Im not trying to do anything, except correct your delusional definition of genocide. I considered including an actual definition of genocide in my comment, but ultimately didn’t. Someone else already did, and you basically threw out a non sequitur about how definitions are made up.
You’re getting down voted bcz you are wrong, and you just keep doubling down. But, I guess if it makes you feel superior to other people, keep on keeping on.
People already refuted your point, and you said the definition is made up. You’ve literally moved the goal posts of your argument so it can’t be wrong bcz in your own words “it’s a definition, like all definitions”. It’s a bad faith argument.
If you want to be against killing people, that’s fine. People are simply pointing out that murdering billionaires doesn’t meet the definition of genocide.
If you want a word for murdering billionaires, feel free to make up a new one.
Im not trying to do anything, except correct your delusional definition of genocide. I considered including an actual definition of genocide in my comment, but ultimately didn’t. Someone else already did, and you basically threw out a non sequitur about how definitions are made up.
You’re getting down voted bcz you are wrong, and you just keep doubling down. But, I guess if it makes you feel superior to other people, keep on keeping on.
TIL downvotes = being wrong.
:/
It isn’t a non sequitur. It’s simply a made up definition like all definitions. It doesn’t mean they’re right or wrong.
You can either refute my statement, or you can’t.
People already refuted your point, and you said the definition is made up. You’ve literally moved the goal posts of your argument so it can’t be wrong bcz in your own words “it’s a definition, like all definitions”. It’s a bad faith argument.
If you want to be against killing people, that’s fine. People are simply pointing out that murdering billionaires doesn’t meet the definition of genocide.
If you want a word for murdering billionaires, feel free to make up a new one.