StinkyWanger: who

Asskiddie100: St. patricks vs ramadan be like

Asskiddie100: ._.

Mick: Obsessed Brimstone

Chud¹: kiss yourself

Chud²: the victims' children will protest for the arabs btw, i love cromwell heil cromwell ferret

Mick:

>Fuck dhem anti-semetic micks man they downgh care abow da howacaused and deedent soide with us in whirl worp two or howeva Rakesh made the Tika Masala [thumb]

62327[/thumb]
@Chud:

Mick:

D4rk_Jony:

>stabbing white kids is good o algo

dust, kiss yourself

Chud³: Brimstone

Alfietheboorufag: immigrating murderous muslims to europe is a mistake. and i blame kier starmer
(even though not all muslims are bad)

Warrior-Z: [url=site://post/view/97288#c729665]@Alfiethebooruflamboyant person[/url]:
Get strict immigration laws and procedures. Also "murder" is haram so they're simply immigrants, not Muslim.

Chud⁴:

>Michael Snee

one fucking letter.

Chud⁵: @Warrior-Z: no true Scotsman fallacy

Warrior-Z: @Chud: Wrong usage of that fallacy, special, I've never made a universal claim LMAO.

korg:

>KILL WHITEY!!!!

Chud⁶⁽⁵⁾: @Warrior-Z:
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition.[1][2][3]
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Chud⁷⁽⁵⁾: also

>responds in 0.000005 nanoseconds to a reply on an old post

>can't approve my post which has been waiting for approval for hours

least lazy booru janny xaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxa

Toilet-G: @Warrior-Z: Approve please

Warrior-Z: @Chud:
??? flamboyant person this literally is just repeating what I said? Thanks for conceding to my argument kiddo, oh and to elaborate on the definition; The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone defends a generalization by redefining the group or category to exclude counterexamples. It essentially involves shifting the goalposts to make the generalization seem like it holds true, even when it clearly doesn't.

So by saying that you're presupposing I redefined it? I didnt, I only use analytical definitions. Oh and special I never tried to generalize the term kek. When did I backtrack exactly?

Chud⁸⁽⁵⁾: I don't care approve my gem noon

Chud⁹: @Warrior-Z: what is blud waffling about in ohio :skull: