On MMA, thank you for the clarification that it means "Mixed Martial Arts", I wasn't aware of that (this is sarcasm, which is a new concept that I was taught here on the last couple of days). Again, you don't know what you're talking about - and I could give you more information, but it's my private life so I choose not to.
"The goalposts were..." - the 'goalposts' were something that you made up on something that was never a 'debate'. As if I need to justify to a stranger where I train/ should train
"Then the "These guys are everywhere" gish gallop" - but I never said that police officers who brag about beating up protestors are everywhere/ in all academies. I said, and I quote: "Plus I've trained at different MMA academies because I've lived in a few different countries, and there are always idiots - always."
That you took that to mean that I was saying that all academies have bloodthirsty police officers is your error/problem, and I've clarified multiple times that's not what I said/meant - but go ahead, keep insisting on imagination.
"Idiots" means several things - it means people with various types of extreme views (of all shapes and sizes, from far-right to anarchism to misogyny to homophobia etc. etc.) but it also means people who do steroids, people who don't know the difference between training vs. sparring vs. competing, among many other things. This is similar to what Jack Daw has now mentioned in post #5836
I also clearly explained to you that I wouldn't even possibly know if 'all academies have police officers who brag about beating up protestors' because.... well, because, I haven't trained in all academies, have I?
But, yes, play around with your 'goalposts'... goal posts that were defined/decided by you for whatever reason on whatever virtual debate you thought was taking place.
If this wasn't clear to you then, it probably isn't now either.
You just transformed this: "what I brought up shortly after the initial october attacks in the post you replied to which is the one I replied to and reminded you of (Which you are replying to here)"
Into: "what I brought up shortly after the initial october attacks in the post you replied to A which is the one I replied to B and reminded you of C (Which you are replying to here)"
My friend, do you even think I know what post A, B and C you're talking about, that the spaghetti gets more organized with three letters?
I'll repeat this part, in case you missed it (but you're free to help/not help, that's your choice): 'If you want to make me aware of the alternative approach you proposed, you can please just tell me the # number of the post I should read'
I can read it and comment. If not, then I'm not going to read what you proposed (I don't know what you proposed 8 months ago...)