|
On May 30 2009 12:23 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:17 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:15 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were
A) wrong when you made that statement and
B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse. In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know. Dictionary.com Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Merriam-Webster is the most reputable dictionary there is for the english language, and is generally considered the only. Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun Date: 1799 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse ( as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis
Uh proof that it's the only? besides your claim?
btw: the source on dictionary.com for MY definition is
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
|
On May 30 2009 12:23 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:17 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:15 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were
A) wrong when you made that statement and
B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse. In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know. Dictionary.com Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Merriam-Webster is the most reputable dictionary there is for the english language, and is generally considered the only. Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun Date: 1799 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse ( as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis
Intercourse is:
3: physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person
^ according to webster ^
Therefore females can fuck by touching their genitalia together in a sexual way.
|
On May 30 2009 12:25 IntoTheWow wrote:
Don't waste your time with him. Just ignore the troll. Can we just all ignore this idiot?
Do you call everyone who opposes your views an idiot? Take a step back and see how flinging pejoratives doesn't help anyones case when arguing.
|
|
|
On May 30 2009 12:26 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:17 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:15 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were
A) wrong when you made that statement and
B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse. In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know. Dictionary.com Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Merriam-Webster is the most reputable dictionary there is for the english language, and is generally considered the only. Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun Date: 1799 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse ( as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis Uh proof that it's the only? besides your claim? btw: the source on dictionary.com for MY definition is Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
I used the actual Merriam-Webster website.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On May 30 2009 12:28 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:25 IntoTheWow wrote:
Don't waste your time with him. Just ignore the troll. Can we just all ignore this idiot? Do you call everyone who opposes your views an idiot? Take a step back and see how flinging pejoratives doesn't help anyones case when arguing.
No i call an idiot someone who engages in argument and uses logical fallacies. Also someone who chooses which posts to ignore and which ones to answer.
If you are going to play devil's advocate in every thread you enter than answer all the posts you get and without using fallacies.
|
Someone mentioned that there hasn't been any unbiased studies that indicate cultural factors can their correlation to homosexuality. That's not true. Google "Lung and Shu homosexual 2007". This study, while not perfect, showed a strong indication that parenting factors are critical to a child becoming homosexual or not.
|
"Species may possess vegetative incompatibility systems that allow mating only between individuals of opposite mating type, while others can mate and sexually reproduce with any other individual or itself. Species of the former mating system are called heterothallic, and of the latter homothallic.[48]
Most fungi have both a haploid and diploid stage in their life cycles. In sexually-reproducing fungi, compatible individuals combine by cell fusion of vegetative hyphae by anastomosis, required for the initiation of the sexual cycle. Ascomycetes and basidiomycetes go through a dikaryotic stage, in which the nuclei inherited from the two parents do not fuse immediately after cell fusion, but remain separate in the hyphal cells (see heterokaryosis).
The 8-spored asci of Morchella elata, viewed with phase contrast microscopy.In ascomycetes, dikaryotic hyphae of the hymenium form a characteristic hook at the hyphal septum. During cell division, formation of the hook ensures proper distribution of the newly divided nuclei into the apical and basal hyphal compartments. An ascus (plural asci) is then formed, in which karyogamy (nuclear fusion) occurs. These asci are embedded in an ascocarp, or fruiting body. Karyogamy in the asci is followed immediately by meiosis and the production of ascospores. The ascospores are disseminated and germinate and may form a new haploid mycelium.[49]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus#Sexual_reproduction
I could do this all day. See thats the funny thing about nature. It created a whole bunch of ways for organisms to reproduce. You know why? Because theres no one right way. So you can stick to heterosexual missionary with a traditional post-colital cigarrette. But stop claiming nature meant for your way to be the best.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On May 30 2009 12:29 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:26 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:17 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:15 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were
A) wrong when you made that statement and
B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse. In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know. Dictionary.com Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Merriam-Webster is the most reputable dictionary there is for the english language, and is generally considered the only. Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun Date: 1799 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse ( as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis Uh proof that it's the only? besides your claim? btw: the source on dictionary.com for MY definition is Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. I used the actual Merriam-Webster website. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
On May 30 2009 12:23 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:17 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:15 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were
A) wrong when you made that statement and
B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse. In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know. Dictionary.com Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Merriam-Webster is the most reputable dictionary there is for the english language, and is generally considered the only. Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun Date: 1799 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse ( as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis
Yeah, funny how you chose to leave the 3rd definition out.
|
On May 30 2009 12:29 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:26 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:17 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:15 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were
A) wrong when you made that statement and
B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse. In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know. Dictionary.com Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Merriam-Webster is the most reputable dictionary there is for the english language, and is generally considered the only. Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun Date: 1799 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse ( as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis Uh proof that it's the only? besides your claim? btw: the source on dictionary.com for MY definition is Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. I used the actual Merriam-Webster website. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary clever. Except read scwizard's post. I can go get my dictionary (actual paper) if you want. But he seems to have owned you pretty hard. give him the 50?
|
On May 30 2009 12:30 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:25 IntoTheWow wrote:
Don't waste your time with him. Just ignore the troll. Can we just all ignore this idiot? Do you call everyone who opposes your views an idiot? Take a step back and see how flinging pejoratives doesn't help anyones case when arguing. No i call an idiot someone who engages in argument and uses logical fallacies. Also someone who chooses which posts to ignore and which ones to answer. If you are going to play devil's advocate in every thread you enter than answer all the posts you get and without using fallacies.
I'm sorry, I cannot be reasonably required to answer every post when I'm debating with upwards of 6+ posters. To impose those requirements is pretty absurd restriction isn't it?
Secondly, when dealing with opinions, as such this is, there is no such thing as logic. Belief systems are not built upon logic. Principles, are not built upon logic. Values, are not built upon logic.
I all ready laid out my opinion in the matter, I've just been needlessly arguing semantics for the past 2 pages.
I won't stoop to actually, calling you an idiot, but I think people who base their beliefs on logic, and who bases the merits of opinions on logic, is, sorry, the idiot. Philosophy is antithesis to logic, and that is the core of belief systems.
|
On May 30 2009 12:34 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:29 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:26 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:17 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:15 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were
A) wrong when you made that statement and
B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse. In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know. Dictionary.com Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Merriam-Webster is the most reputable dictionary there is for the english language, and is generally considered the only. Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun Date: 1799 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse ( as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis Uh proof that it's the only? besides your claim? btw: the source on dictionary.com for MY definition is Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. I used the actual Merriam-Webster website. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary clever. Except read scwizard's post. I can go get my dictionary (actual paper) if you want. But he seems to have owned you pretty hard. give him the 50?
I don't have any way to accept 50$, but temaliquid does. Donate it to the site 
|
On May 30 2009 12:33 Archerofaiur wrote:"Species may possess vegetative incompatibility systems that allow mating only between individuals of opposite mating type, while others can mate and sexually reproduce with any other individual or itself. Species of the former mating system are called heterothallic, and of the latter homothallic.[48] Most fungi have both a haploid and diploid stage in their life cycles. In sexually-reproducing fungi, compatible individuals combine by cell fusion of vegetative hyphae by anastomosis, required for the initiation of the sexual cycle. Ascomycetes and basidiomycetes go through a dikaryotic stage, in which the nuclei inherited from the two parents do not fuse immediately after cell fusion, but remain separate in the hyphal cells (see heterokaryosis). The 8-spored asci of Morchella elata, viewed with phase contrast microscopy.In ascomycetes, dikaryotic hyphae of the hymenium form a characteristic hook at the hyphal septum. During cell division, formation of the hook ensures proper distribution of the newly divided nuclei into the apical and basal hyphal compartments. An ascus (plural asci) is then formed, in which karyogamy (nuclear fusion) occurs. These asci are embedded in an ascocarp, or fruiting body. Karyogamy in the asci is followed immediately by meiosis and the production of ascospores. The ascospores are disseminated and germinate and may form a new haploid mycelium.[49]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus#Sexual_reproductionI could do this all day. See thats the funny thing about nature. It created a whole bunch of ways for organisms to reproduce. You know why? Because theres no one right way. So you can stick to heterosexual missionary with a traditional post-colital cigarrette. But stop claiming nature meant for your way to be the best.
It created two ways. Asexual and sexual.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On May 30 2009 12:34 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:30 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 30 2009 12:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:25 IntoTheWow wrote:
Don't waste your time with him. Just ignore the troll. Can we just all ignore this idiot? Do you call everyone who opposes your views an idiot? Take a step back and see how flinging pejoratives doesn't help anyones case when arguing. No i call an idiot someone who engages in argument and uses logical fallacies. Also someone who chooses which posts to ignore and which ones to answer. If you are going to play devil's advocate in every thread you enter than answer all the posts you get and without using fallacies. I'm sorry, I cannot be reasonably required to answer every post when I'm debating with upwards of 6+ posters. To impose those requirements is pretty absurd restriction isn't it? Secondly, when dealing with opinions, as such this is, there is no such thing as logic. Belief systems are not built upon logic. Principles, are not built upon logic. Values, are not built upon logic. I all ready laid out my opinion in the matter, I've just been needlessly arguing semantics for the past 2 pages. I won't stoop to actually, calling you an idiot, but I think people who base their beliefs on logic, and who bases the merits of opinions on logic, is, sorry, the idiot. Philosophy is antithesis to logic, and that is the core of belief systems.
Then what's to argue? If you believe something different then say "i believe in: this, this and this" and leave the thread. But stop posting shit like it's the one and only truth that there is.
Facts that come from a logical train of though have more value that simple beliefs.
Also your believes have nothing to do with you twisting the truth (such as leaving a definition from the dictionary out to favor your argument). Stop using silly scapegoats and argument.
|
On May 30 2009 12:36 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:33 Archerofaiur wrote:"Species may possess vegetative incompatibility systems that allow mating only between individuals of opposite mating type, while others can mate and sexually reproduce with any other individual or itself. Species of the former mating system are called heterothallic, and of the latter homothallic.[48] Most fungi have both a haploid and diploid stage in their life cycles. In sexually-reproducing fungi, compatible individuals combine by cell fusion of vegetative hyphae by anastomosis, required for the initiation of the sexual cycle. Ascomycetes and basidiomycetes go through a dikaryotic stage, in which the nuclei inherited from the two parents do not fuse immediately after cell fusion, but remain separate in the hyphal cells (see heterokaryosis). The 8-spored asci of Morchella elata, viewed with phase contrast microscopy.In ascomycetes, dikaryotic hyphae of the hymenium form a characteristic hook at the hyphal septum. During cell division, formation of the hook ensures proper distribution of the newly divided nuclei into the apical and basal hyphal compartments. An ascus (plural asci) is then formed, in which karyogamy (nuclear fusion) occurs. These asci are embedded in an ascocarp, or fruiting body. Karyogamy in the asci is followed immediately by meiosis and the production of ascospores. The ascospores are disseminated and germinate and may form a new haploid mycelium.[49]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus#Sexual_reproductionI could do this all day. See thats the funny thing about nature. It created a whole bunch of ways for organisms to reproduce. You know why? Because theres no one right way. So you can stick to heterosexual missionary with a traditional post-colital cigarrette. But stop claiming nature meant for your way to be the best. It created two ways. Asexual and sexual.
Asexual covers ALOT, it's like saying there are two countries in the world: Botswana and not-Botswana.
|
"Species may possess vegetative incompatibility systems that allow mating only between individuals of opposite mating type, while others can mate and sexually reproduce with any other individual or itself. "
Donate the $50 to Teamliquid. And don't make stupid bets in the future.
|
On May 30 2009 12:33 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:29 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:26 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:17 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:15 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were
A) wrong when you made that statement and
B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse. In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know. Dictionary.com Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Merriam-Webster is the most reputable dictionary there is for the english language, and is generally considered the only. Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun Date: 1799 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse ( as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis Uh proof that it's the only? besides your claim? btw: the source on dictionary.com for MY definition is Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. I used the actual Merriam-Webster website. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:17 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:15 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were
A) wrong when you made that statement and
B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse. In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know. Dictionary.com Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Merriam-Webster is the most reputable dictionary there is for the english language, and is generally considered the only. Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun Date: 1799 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse ( as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis Yeah, funny how you chose to leave the 3rd definition out.
There is no third definition. As long as we going by merriam-webster, and intercourse is defined as such, I would say yes, then I am wrong. Too bad others can't admit when they are ever wrong.
Anyways, rubbing genitals together, as defined as intercourse, however they can't reproduce.
|
On May 30 2009 12:38 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:33 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 30 2009 12:29 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:26 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:17 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:15 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were
A) wrong when you made that statement and
B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse. In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know. Dictionary.com Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Merriam-Webster is the most reputable dictionary there is for the english language, and is generally considered the only. Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun Date: 1799 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse ( as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis Uh proof that it's the only? besides your claim? btw: the source on dictionary.com for MY definition is Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. I used the actual Merriam-Webster website. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary On May 30 2009 12:23 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:17 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 12:15 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were
A) wrong when you made that statement and
B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse. In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know. Dictionary.com Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Merriam-Webster is the most reputable dictionary there is for the english language, and is generally considered the only. Main Entry: sexual intercourse Function: noun Date: 1799 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse ( as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis Yeah, funny how you chose to leave the 3rd definition out. There is no third definition. As long as we going by merriam-webster, and intercourse is defined as such, I would say yes, then I am wrong. Too bad others can't admit when they are ever wrong. Anyways, rubbing genitals together, as defined as intercourse, however they can't reproduce.
and going back to the original discussion, how is reproduction important to marriage?
|
On May 30 2009 12:37 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:34 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:30 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 30 2009 12:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:25 IntoTheWow wrote:
Don't waste your time with him. Just ignore the troll. Can we just all ignore this idiot? Do you call everyone who opposes your views an idiot? Take a step back and see how flinging pejoratives doesn't help anyones case when arguing. No i call an idiot someone who engages in argument and uses logical fallacies. Also someone who chooses which posts to ignore and which ones to answer. If you are going to play devil's advocate in every thread you enter than answer all the posts you get and without using fallacies. I'm sorry, I cannot be reasonably required to answer every post when I'm debating with upwards of 6+ posters. To impose those requirements is pretty absurd restriction isn't it? Secondly, when dealing with opinions, as such this is, there is no such thing as logic. Belief systems are not built upon logic. Principles, are not built upon logic. Values, are not built upon logic. I all ready laid out my opinion in the matter, I've just been needlessly arguing semantics for the past 2 pages. I won't stoop to actually, calling you an idiot, but I think people who base their beliefs on logic, and who bases the merits of opinions on logic, is, sorry, the idiot. Philosophy is antithesis to logic, and that is the core of belief systems. Then what's to argue? If you believe something different then say "i believe in: this, this and this" and leave the thread. But stop posting shit like it's the one and only truth that there is. Facts that come from a logical train of though have more value that simple beliefs. Also your believes have nothing to do with you twisting the truth (such as leaving a definition from the dictionary out to favor your argument). Stop using silly scapegoats and argument.
Believe it or not, some people like to debate and argue. This is why there are lawyers.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On May 30 2009 12:41 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 12:37 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 30 2009 12:34 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:30 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 30 2009 12:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 12:25 IntoTheWow wrote:
Don't waste your time with him. Just ignore the troll. Can we just all ignore this idiot? Do you call everyone who opposes your views an idiot? Take a step back and see how flinging pejoratives doesn't help anyones case when arguing. No i call an idiot someone who engages in argument and uses logical fallacies. Also someone who chooses which posts to ignore and which ones to answer. If you are going to play devil's advocate in every thread you enter than answer all the posts you get and without using fallacies. I'm sorry, I cannot be reasonably required to answer every post when I'm debating with upwards of 6+ posters. To impose those requirements is pretty absurd restriction isn't it? Secondly, when dealing with opinions, as such this is, there is no such thing as logic. Belief systems are not built upon logic. Principles, are not built upon logic. Values, are not built upon logic. I all ready laid out my opinion in the matter, I've just been needlessly arguing semantics for the past 2 pages. I won't stoop to actually, calling you an idiot, but I think people who base their beliefs on logic, and who bases the merits of opinions on logic, is, sorry, the idiot. Philosophy is antithesis to logic, and that is the core of belief systems. Then what's to argue? If you believe something different then say "i believe in: this, this and this" and leave the thread. But stop posting shit like it's the one and only truth that there is. Facts that come from a logical train of though have more value that simple beliefs. Also your believes have nothing to do with you twisting the truth (such as leaving a definition from the dictionary out to favor your argument). Stop using silly scapegoats and argument. Believe it or not, some people like to debate and argue. This is why there are lawyers.
So basically you ignore my post and answer whatever you feel like? try again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
