Lol I literally wrote out timeline so I could cover key events from the wiki link.
You were making fun of my comprehension but you couldn’t even bother to read my comment.
Everyone here can see how you are intellectually dishonest. For me it’s actually a great way to end this thread. You’ve exposed your epistemology wonderfully here.
Ah so you can’t handle any pushback to any of your points. It’s no wonder you’re famous around here.
You can’t make fun of my own comprehensive skill when you are the one that clearly didn’t read my last post and made yourself look like a total fool. I admitted I made a mistake but seems to me you’re doubling down.
Which one of us is showing minimal level of literacy? Certainly not the person that didn’t read their own Wiki post and fail to respond to any counterpoint.
You can’t make fun of my own comprehensive skill when you are the one that clearly didn’t read my last post and made yourself look like a total fool.
I read the post. I just found it so utterly detached from what was actually written in the wiki article, including some truly bizarre play about how the courts were the ones who TRULY gave LGBT folk rights while also dismissing pro-LGBT executive and legislative action as meaningless, because… it was struck down by the courts.
If that’s your peak level of literacy, there’s really no reason to play stupid games with you. I have no need of stupid prizes.
Which one of us is showing minimal level of literacy? Certainly not the person that didn’t read their own Wiki post and fail to respond to any counterpoint.
Yeah it’s definitely the person that always accuses the other one of the minimal lack of comprehension literacy that’s the strongest orator in the thread.
Definitely not the sign of a weak debater with a person that can’t support their own points.
Look I get that you don’t actually have a response which is why you just keep trying to dismiss my counterpoints of “well when people fight in the courts” it’s not the Democrats doing anything. And you still haven’t pointed to any legislation or executive actions besides hand waving at a Wikipedia article that didn’t support your point.
We all know that you can’t support your point it’s okay to just stop arguing.
I mean this would work except it’s not your house, you offered a public opinion in a community that encourages debate. It’s almost like this is an expected reaction to posting something on Lemmy.
But of course I’d expect the person that keeps accusing me of having poor literacy to have that understanding.
So you either didn’t or couldn’t read the section of the wiki article. Great. We’re done here.
Lol I literally wrote out timeline so I could cover key events from the wiki link.
You were making fun of my comprehension but you couldn’t even bother to read my comment.
Everyone here can see how you are intellectually dishonest. For me it’s actually a great way to end this thread. You’ve exposed your epistemology wonderfully here.
Wherein you dismiss legislative and executive action, yes, even when the courts work against them.
Like I said. Minimal level of literacy.
Ah so you can’t handle any pushback to any of your points. It’s no wonder you’re famous around here.
You can’t make fun of my own comprehensive skill when you are the one that clearly didn’t read my last post and made yourself look like a total fool. I admitted I made a mistake but seems to me you’re doubling down.
Which one of us is showing minimal level of literacy? Certainly not the person that didn’t read their own Wiki post and fail to respond to any counterpoint.
I read the post. I just found it so utterly detached from what was actually written in the wiki article, including some truly bizarre play about how the courts were the ones who TRULY gave LGBT folk rights while also dismissing pro-LGBT executive and legislative action as meaningless, because… it was struck down by the courts.
If that’s your peak level of literacy, there’s really no reason to play stupid games with you. I have no need of stupid prizes.
Sorry that you really want me to play slop games with your complete inability to process information.
Yeah it’s definitely the person that always accuses the other one of the minimal lack of comprehension literacy that’s the strongest orator in the thread.
Definitely not the sign of a weak debater with a person that can’t support their own points.
Look I get that you don’t actually have a response which is why you just keep trying to dismiss my counterpoints of “well when people fight in the courts” it’s not the Democrats doing anything. And you still haven’t pointed to any legislation or executive actions besides hand waving at a Wikipedia article that didn’t support your point.
We all know that you can’t support your point it’s okay to just stop arguing.
I mean this would work except it’s not your house, you offered a public opinion in a community that encourages debate. It’s almost like this is an expected reaction to posting something on Lemmy.
But of course I’d expect the person that keeps accusing me of having poor literacy to have that understanding.
And you don’t understand what sealioning is. Also unsurprising.