That I'm commenting on a new account doesn't invalidate anything I've said. This is a weak and irrelevant criticism.
Using circular logic to refute someone's point isn't too smart either.
If your position is congruent with the parent comment, I know exactly what you are. I have no reason to debate small humans.
"Using circular logic to refute someone's point isn't too smart either."
Also, straw man. I chose "disregard" intentionally. Disregard is not synonymous with refute.
> > Using circular logic
It is best for your criticisms of things to be founded in truth, where possible. The first and last resort is the truth. It's a good habit to get into. There were plenty of other things you could have said, including:
> No, it's actually quite relevant.
You needn't worry about the truth justifying bigotry, in case that's the issue: while it's theoretically possible for a given piece of bigotry to have a basis in fact, reality seems to have some rather strong opinions on the matter! :-) If bigoted rhetoric had a habit of being correct, I think I would've found out by now. And if it were true, you would expect to see certain kinds of bigotry popping up in multiple places independently; rather than having traceable provenance, either as adaptions of prior bigotry, or as traced back to a historical figure with a strong and documented motivation for having people believe it.
That's not to say you need to put much effort into responding. But if you feel like putting that little effort in, it's best not to respond at all.[2]
[0]: https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/stupid-is-an-able...
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20110824041258/http://www.stupid... (see especially page 24)
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deny_recognition
While I understand your point, I decline.
Silence favors the wicked.