@applejack this is incredibly reductive, for example, I don't strictly believe in X, there are other options other than Y, and following X strictly to the conclusion of Y may violate another principle, Z, or may inadvertently lead to outcomes that run counter to X. It's simply dumb to look at it as a strictly black and white scenario where only X and Y exist with no other context or externalities.

@shitgrifter The meme doesn't mention externalities or context, it implies the argument is wrong because the libtard doesn't believe it himself

@applejack @shitgrifter That makes it a bad faith argument and therefore wrong.

@AR-15 @shitgrifter That's not in any way true and you know it. You have your own brain, you can look at whether the point is valid or not, regardless of what the libtard's motives are

@applejack @AR-15 yes, and, using my brain, I can also rationalize and consider the various other externalities that invalidate the point. Furthermore, why do I have to have some kind of obligation to someone who is only willing to legitimize my beliefs in bad faith? Obviously if I thought my interests were served by a given policy or idea I would support that policy or idea and there would be no reason to invoke a strawman of my beliefs in bad faith.

@shitgrifter @AR-15 I don't have any disagreement with externalities or it being a bad point

>why do I have to have some kind of obligation
Nobody said that. It's internet memes, do what you want, I'm still going to continue being right

>bad faith
Irregardless of it, pointing out when someone is inconsistent is completely legitimate