>>3489735Ok. Seeing that you got a disability of some kind I'll spell it out for you real slowly.
It was a sarcastic hyperbolic retort (Google "Sarcasm" for more information) pretending to be of the opposite side of the argument (the one you were referencing, by the way) for comedic effect and pseudo criticism.
As in, it was just a shitty joke.
And since you obviously didn't get it maybe it was better if you didn't reply at all before looking like a lunatic.
