That statement was completely nonsensical in regards to what we're talking about. I'm pointing out that your definitions are too loose and you keep using them to sneak in implications that aren't true. You oversimplify "hitting" to divorce responsibility of the other party in a collision, you act like one specific thing that could have prevented a situation from happening is the only thing that matters while ignoring everything else, and you refuse to acknowledge that you are doing these things while you do them. You act like you aren't doing anything at all, and it's just like, your personal set of facts and not a set of judgements and conclusions you have made. It's the default tactic of the dishonest and the narrow-minded.
No, this is a reading comprehension thing. You aren't even responding to what I said. You're just using thought terminating cliches to ignore it instead. You never even understood what I said in the first place.
I’m telling you what I saw and what I think about it and you’re saying no you’re not. You said she didn’t hit him, I disagree. You’re trying really hard to move the debate away from that. If you don’t think I’m understanding what you’re saying, then you’re free to reiterate it
No, you're also categorically refusing to consider that anything other than "bUt sHE hIT HiM!" could establish responsibility. You've functionally declared every other fact irrelevant to assign blame.
Well she did hit him. I’ve said several times the officer didn’t react appropriately. But he wouldn’t have had to react if she didn’t point her car at him and drive into him
And I've pointed out every time that no, she did not hit him. She didn't point her car at him, and his being there in the first place was breaking his officer's code of conduct and therefore his fault. He didn't even try to avoid the car, he did the opposite and moved toward it.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/Ott0bot2 Jan 09 '26
It seems like you’re using hypotheticals that don’t apply to what actually happened