>So sticking to a point you don't agree with = "sealioning"?
well, if I would say I don't agree with you and I dont' want to, but you keep pushing the argument that I should agree with you, yes, it's sealioning.
> For real?
Yes, If you're being socratic, I'll surpass that by being dharmic then, I'll reward you with my silence and since I have what I wanted from this thread, I feel contented and I'll leave, farewell my troubled friend.
>You really belong in a safe space hugbox if sticking to my guns triggers you this much.
Oh so you're angry now? Keep dwelling there my friend, keep sticking to your guns, I swear i'm not being triggered, I just had a good word game with you and I feel like you weren't able to lay a single point. I don't care about what you're proselytizing here, but wish you the best in your flawed meaningless irrelevant quest. Yet it seems you're not having much fun out of it.
>You're the one that mixed the two topics.
There's categories of bait, so your's were categorized correctly each time, something could start as concern trolling and evolves into sealioning, hope you'll understand this, but if you're trolling I'll assure you have good foundations for it, keep improving!
>So if that's two topics you mixed, why you are assuming I'm troll?
No, I exposed your stupidity.
Farewell dear internet interloper, hope you'll find the answers in other interlocutors, because I'm leaving you without a good answer, and hence keeping my promise of dharmic silence answering to your amateurish socratic method.
If somebody keeps answering you, it will not be me.
>You don't see me making up words just because you insist in pursuing your goal of not being emphatic to women, do you?
I'm not at fault for your own ignorance, but guess what, I magically decided to be empathic to women (no, just kidding, I tryed to be compassionate to you before leaving), farewell, everything changes, so my opinions too! viva la wahmen!
Attached: for_the_lulz2.jpg (600x560, 36K)