>>109009397>Actually no that isn’t what humoring means
1. Going along with something that seems stupid or pointless for the sake of the other person.
2. Perhaps agreeing with someone just to keep them happy.
This was first result on Google and from urban dictionary, but the rest of them say the same thing with more words.>You’re claiming a shitty argument that has been passed around for decades.
Assuming that because something is commonly said or thought, it must because they got it from someone else is very convenient way to defend one’s ego, and one that has just as many historical exceptions as it does cases where it applies, if not more so.>You’re stating an opinion like it’s a fact
While me calling it bad may have been an opinion, the lack of character arcs and awkward performances are observable facts>that may or may not even be your own original thought.
I’ve already talked about the idiocy of such an assumption, but regardless, whether or not it’s original is irrelevant. The Prequels’ flaws are manifest on the screen, and whether you find them damning or not, they were still noticed lambasted by both the critics and masses alike for being flaws.>You’re the one who started claiming bullshit about the Star Wars movies.
Because it was a valid comparison.>So again, my rebuttal is, in this scenario it is COMPLETELY impossible for you to humor me.
That is obvious>You are the one who needs to bring support and evidence to your side.
I already have. And you’ve failed to address them, instead choosing to rant and rave about how It doesn’t count because it’s “unoriginal”.
There is clearly no further point in trying to reason with you further, you clear have no use for reason. Instead i’m just going to conclude with what you had already made apparent with your posts: You have trash tastes.