Pinpoint
Banned
-
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2018
- Posts
- 6,717
Went this way when I am talking about bodybuilding/ buffing up (I'm 6'1 and he's 5'7). (And he could have benched like 350-400 pounds for such a small guy lmao). And now he has joint issues/ prematurely-arthritic
ME:So dad, why did you work out so much when you didn't have a reason to be buff really? There wasn't MMA in the 80s, nor a lot of Fighting league/ competitions and from what I recall you weren't in them at 19-22.
DAD: Health reasons. (bs)
ME: But you knew it would fuck up your joints, look at all the farmers at 40 years old who work so hard and then end up breaking their discs, spine, etc. (*he's from north dakota)
DAD: Uh... well I can say it was probably Ignorance.
ME: BUT YOU WERE AROUND FARMERS ALL THE TIME, YOU REALLY WANNA SELL ME ON BEING IGNORANT OF IT? It was probably just insecurity about your height, looks. It was aesthetical reasons I'm sure.
And then he uses expressionalities of irony by simply laughing at the situation. HEHEHEHEHEHE.
(When in reality if he has no reason/ logic when he came at me with it in the first place, and then has to only combat back by holding back the platform of discussion that is articulative of concepts/ ideas. Gestures/ expressions will just convey a person's perspective without the convention of comunally holding conversement. He's lost on one front so he has to flee to the other.
Through merely laughing... then he really just lost the argument.
People who have no argument, or lose it create gaslighting impressions of you losing, or being weak.
When in reality if they started an argument in the first place, and are on the tail end of losing, and going to that, then it's a last ditch effort to avoid indignity.)
Me: Yeah... you're just hiding your loss of the argument around expressing laughter. If you really wanted me to believe my investigations/ stance here was so ridiculous then you wouldn't have even conversed in the first place.
Nothing is ironic about me putting valid detail (farmers break disks from overworking which you can see) and valid detail together (short/ manlet doing workouts at the expense of health).
ME:So dad, why did you work out so much when you didn't have a reason to be buff really? There wasn't MMA in the 80s, nor a lot of Fighting league/ competitions and from what I recall you weren't in them at 19-22.
DAD: Health reasons. (bs)
ME: But you knew it would fuck up your joints, look at all the farmers at 40 years old who work so hard and then end up breaking their discs, spine, etc. (*he's from north dakota)
DAD: Uh... well I can say it was probably Ignorance.
ME: BUT YOU WERE AROUND FARMERS ALL THE TIME, YOU REALLY WANNA SELL ME ON BEING IGNORANT OF IT? It was probably just insecurity about your height, looks. It was aesthetical reasons I'm sure.
And then he uses expressionalities of irony by simply laughing at the situation. HEHEHEHEHEHE.
(When in reality if he has no reason/ logic when he came at me with it in the first place, and then has to only combat back by holding back the platform of discussion that is articulative of concepts/ ideas. Gestures/ expressions will just convey a person's perspective without the convention of comunally holding conversement. He's lost on one front so he has to flee to the other.
Through merely laughing... then he really just lost the argument.
People who have no argument, or lose it create gaslighting impressions of you losing, or being weak.
When in reality if they started an argument in the first place, and are on the tail end of losing, and going to that, then it's a last ditch effort to avoid indignity.)
Me: Yeah... you're just hiding your loss of the argument around expressing laughter. If you really wanted me to believe my investigations/ stance here was so ridiculous then you wouldn't have even conversed in the first place.
Nothing is ironic about me putting valid detail (farmers break disks from overworking which you can see) and valid detail together (short/ manlet doing workouts at the expense of health).
Last edited: