so every insane thing is common sense now
Every insane thing has “common sense” behind it.
The earth is obviously flat. When I walk outside, the ground is flat. You’d be crazy to believe it’s round. It’s just common sense
I’m afraid every time ET and broosie argue
ET makes a point
Bruises explains why it’s not a good point
Et tries to steer the conversation to become more general and larger in scale
Every insane thing has “common sense” behind it.
The earth is obviously flat. When I walk outside, the ground is flat. You’d be crazy to believe it’s round. It’s just common sense
You can’t just change the definition of common sense bruh
Every insane thing has “common sense” behind it.
The earth is obviously flat. When I walk outside, the ground is flat. You’d be crazy to believe it’s round. It’s just common sense
et “ there is no scale “
in response to bmass saying he tries to steer the convo to be more general and larger in scale
There’s no scale. Contextually, a code of silence isn’t blackmail. Whether there’s evidence or not makes zero difference. One person going to the police and confessing is enough. If that’s not
blackmail, then adding evidence to it isn’t either
Evidence being kept by one party doesn't make the difference between something being or not being blackmail? That's the argument you're making?
You can’t just change the definition of common sense bruh
Common sense is entirely subjective bro. What you think is common sense is not what someone else thinks is common sense. Two exact opposite viewpoints can both be based on common sense
What do you think blackmail is if it's not that
et “ there is no scale “
in response to bmass saying he tries to steer the convo to be more general and larger in scale
I wasn’t trying to is what I meant. You either accept a code of silence isn’t blackmail or you don’t. People don’t refer to that as blackmail.
I wasn’t trying to is what I meant. You either accept a code of silence isn’t blackmail or you don’t. People don’t refer to that as blackmail.
Its not just a code of silence stop being intentionally vague
No one is trying to say just a code of silence is blackmail
Its a code of silence where one person is keeping evidence of the other party
Evidence being kept by one party doesn't make the difference between something being or not being blackmail? That's the argument you're making?
No, the argument I’m making is that you’re using semantics to try to define blackmail literally. Whereas I’m saying a code of silence isn’t blackmail in a conversational sense.
I wasn’t trying to is what I meant. You either accept a code of silence isn’t blackmail or you don’t. People don’t refer to that as blackmail.
most people absolutely accept that if you secretly recorded somebody raping children and then hold onto it, thats blackmail. even if youre in it raping too
I’m afraid every time ET and broosie argue
ET makes a point
Bruises explains why it’s not a good point
Et tries to steer the conversation to become more general and larger in scale
He is a nice man but he argues like the most bad faith prick in the world
most people absolutely accept that if you secretly recorded somebody raping children and then hold onto it, thats blackmail. even if youre in it raping too
If you’re using it to obtain money or favors, yes. If it’s solely part of a code of silence, no, not in the way that the average person thinks or talks about blackmail.
If you’re using it to obtain money or favors, yes. If it’s solely part of a code of silence, no, not in the way that the average person thinks or talks about blackmail.
yes it is
and more importantly its the defitnion of blackmail lol
You lied to me
ok but listenn nothing to do tomorrow what am i rushing for
yes it is
Nobody defines it as blackmail.
Two men kill someone. One keeps the murder weapon, the other keeps the victim’s bloody shirt. To ensure a code of silence.
It’s not blackmail the way people think about blackmail.
Bruises is a trooper
Good night beautiful people itt
Good night beautiful people itt
and more importantly its the defitnion of blackmail lol
Again, you want to argue semantics. No one’s first thought on a code of silence would be blackmail.
Adultery is having s***with someone that’s not your spouse. If you found out that a couple had a threesome, you could say they committed adultery. Nobody would say that though because that’s not how we conversationally define adultery, even though it fits the literal definition.
Idk how else to get this across
I want a 400 pounds person on my back crack it
This argument is being attributed to me but for 99% of its duration it was just et and Tuneout
Again, you want to argue semantics. No one’s first thought on a code of silence would be blackmail.
Adultery is having s***with someone that’s not your spouse. If you found out that a couple had a threesome, you could say they committed adultery. Nobody would say that though because that’s not how we conversationally define adultery, even though it fits the literal definition.
Idk how else to get this across
ironic u are accusing me of arguing semantics lol thats like your go to