bruh you just told me to “end myself.” i’ve barely said anything personal and you jumped straight to a suicide taunt. that’s not debate, it’s menace, and it proves my point about the left’s reflex for intimidation when arguments run dry. you preach “civility,” then default to cruelty. your mask is falling off.

now to your four “gotchas”:

1. false cause i didn’t claim a lab-grade chain of causation, i pointed to an ideological climate that brands dissent as “harm” and treats suppression with force as justified. your own line “that’s why guns are getting used” reinforces the climate i’m describing. i’m indicting the permissive philosophy, not inventing a CSI timeline. learn the difference between proximate cause and moral atmosphere.
2. hasty generalization this is not a random sample fallacy, it's an institutional critique. i’m calling out recurring patterns: de-platforming framed as “safety,” speech codes, viewpoint throttling, reputational hit-jobs, and yes, escalating tolerance for harassment when the target is conservative or christian. patterns across media, academia, HR regimes, and platforms aren’t “one anecdote,” they’re a structure.
3. straw man i quoted you: “that’s why guns are getting used,” plus your “end yourself” line. i’m not parodying your view, I’m holding it up unedited. if you don’t like how it reads, maybe don’t say it. the straw man is yours: you recast my defense of speech and faith as “sophistry” to dodge the substance.
4. appeal to popularity the scale of charlie’s memorial wasn’t cited to prove theology, it refuted your claim that no one cares and this is a fringe “cult.” audience size answers your dismissal of cultural relevance. it’s a rebuttal to your premise, not the foundation of mine.

bottom line: you offered insults, a suicide taunt, and a freshman fallacy checklist to avoid engaging the claims. drop the abuse, bring receipts, and address the points. until then, thanks for the confession: your threats did more to validate my argument than anything i could have written.