Looks like you’ve already got your welcome! Since you ask, though, the least I can do is give you the honest opinion you asked for. Seeing as how you haven’t actually posted any of your stuff yet, there’s only so much to go on. Offhand, I’d say it’s likely to come down to what you’re using for ‘facts,’ what kind of attitude you’re describing by ‘over,’ and what you’re taking to mean a ‘fallacy.’ One thing that gives me pause is your casually dismissing the replies you’ve had elsewhere so far as ‘gibberish.’
Time being scarce, I’ve hardly had any time to look over your participation in the subreddits /r/dogs, /r/DebateAChristian, /r/HillaryForPrison, /r/MensRights, /r/pitbulls, /r/progun, /r/rant, /r/The_Donald, and /r/TrueReddit. Wow, you’re a veterinarian? Right on. Brace yourself, word gets around about something like that. You’ll find a great number of folks around here do love their critters. It does look like you’ve had some contentious conversations, alright. Snapzu’s something else, though, than you’ve encountered at Reddit. Central to the philosophy here is a basic level of respect for the other users. If you’re tired of being battered about the face and neck by commenters over there, you can rest a bit more easily here. Due respect, though, means respect is due. Escalation’s got limits here. You set the tone, but mind how.
Wittgenstein was a person early in life, and a person later in life, and they couldn’t’ve been less alike. Younger Ludwig, in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus days, insisted on a rigid, but brittle, analytical approach which was demanding enough for him to handle, but excruciating for people around him. Even exhausting. Decades later, he’d found his way through, out and around those strictures of meaning and understanding and achieved a grace in that whimsy and fun that would’ve been as nonsensical and gibberish to his younger self as we would find it wise and pragmatic. The Philosophical Investigations Ludwig sounds easier to know, but we are who we are when we are.
It seems to me you’ve got so much respect for authorities that its affected the basic level of respect you can show to people that don’t happen to be your authorities, whether those authorities are your personal interpretation of abstract concepts or mainline interpretations of Christian scripture. Your ‘facts’ apparently include spectres and the judgments of a vengeful Christian god with a very regimented and dogmatic contempt for homosexuality, for instance.
Facts you derive from your version of plagiarized fairy tales aren’t ‘facts’ by anyone’s definition. Those are your opinions, your username notwithstanding. They’re also your opinions now, and may not be what you believe next term, or next year, or after your first car accident or after you’ve filed taxes or when you’ve had some losses. They’re, importantly, not facts to other people that’ve already been through those things. You’ve got your transient, ephemeral opinions mixed up with 'facts,' and that’s setting the stage for some drama to come.
Which raises also rather pressing questions about your working definition of ‘fallacy.’ Too-worshipful abeyance of sundry and various arbitrary and capricious authorities may be age-appropriate for you, and you should hear it from someone at this stage that questioning authorities isn’t heresy to the dogmas you’re treating as absolute truths, but...
Looks like you’ve already got your welcome! Since you ask, though, the least I can do is give you the honest opinion you asked for. Seeing as how you haven’t actually posted any of your stuff yet, there’s only so much to go on. Offhand, I’d say it’s likely to come down to what you’re using for ‘facts,’ what kind of attitude you’re describing by ‘over,’ and what you’re taking to mean a ‘fallacy.’ One thing that gives me pause is your casually dismissing the replies you’ve had elsewhere so far as ‘gibberish.’
Time being scarce, I’ve hardly had any time to look over your participation in the subreddits /r/dogs, /r/DebateAChristian, /r/HillaryForPrison, /r/MensRights, /r/pitbulls, /r/progun, /r/rant, /r/The_Donald, and /r/TrueReddit. Wow, you’re a veterinarian? Right on. Brace yourself, word gets around about something like that. You’ll find a great number of folks around here do love their critters. It does look like you’ve had some contentious conversations, alright. Snapzu’s something else, though, than you’ve encountered at Reddit. Central to the philosophy here is a basic level of respect for the other users. If you’re tired of being battered about the face and neck by commenters over there, you can rest a bit more easily here. Due respect, though, means respect is due. Escalation’s got limits here. You set the tone, but mind how.
Wittgenstein was a person early in life, and a person later in life, and they couldn’t’ve been less alike. Younger Ludwig, in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus days, insisted on a rigid, but brittle, analytical approach which was demanding enough for him to handle, but excruciating for people around him. Even exhausting. Decades later, he’d found his way through, out and around those strictures of meaning and understanding and achieved a grace in that whimsy and fun that would’ve been as nonsensical and gibberish to his younger self as we would find it wise and pragmatic. The Philosophical Investigations Ludwig sounds easier to know, but we are who we are when we are.
It seems to me you’ve got so much respect for authorities that its affected the basic level of respect you can show to people that don’t happen to be your authorities, whether those authorities are your personal interpretation of abstract concepts or mainline interpretations of Christian scripture. Your ‘facts’ apparently include spectres and the judgments of a vengeful Christian god with a very regimented and dogmatic contempt for homosexuality, for instance.
Facts you derive from your version of plagiarized fairy tales aren’t ‘facts’ by anyone’s definition. Those are your opinions, your username notwithstanding. They’re also your opinions now, and may not be what you believe next term, or next year, or after your first car accident or after you’ve filed taxes or when you’ve had some losses. They’re, importantly, not facts to other people that’ve already been through those things. You’ve got your transient, ephemeral opinions mixed up with 'facts,' and that’s setting the stage for some drama to come.
Which raises also rather pressing questions about your working definition of ‘fallacy.’ Too-worshipful abeyance of sundry and various arbitrary and capricious authorities may be age-appropriate for you, and you should hear it from someone at this stage that questioning authorities isn’t heresy to the dogmas you’re treating as absolute truths, but it’s not up to you what other people understand such-and-such a concept to mean. You can’t even know, for sure, what other people understand even the simplest things to mean. There’s a fascinating field, or rather there was, called ‘semiotics.’ All was well and good in university semiotics departments until they conclusively proved the subject was impossible at the outset. Sad, because at least back then there were authorities around to lecture you on the futility of telling people what they should take as the only acceptable understanding of ‘sin.’
Other people not believing exactly as you do isn't 'fallacy' necessarily. Sometimes it's that you're wrong. It's always that you can't know what anyone else thinks or understands or, more bafflingly, knows to be true. Your truth isn't absolute, and it doesn't matter how heavy duty your authorities are. Yes, that can mean someone believes that pitties have genetic predispositions to violent behavior apart from their environment and their experiences. That can also, at the same time, be apostasy and abhorrent and entirely, unalterably wrong. The challenge for you in that moment isn't to pile up even higher ritual altars to ever more vengeful gods, but to relate to that person without losing your shit. What do you think, you're going to vanish that person by canceling out terms on both sides of a logical equation? No. You're a meat puppet floundering out here in the mud and the rain like the rest of us.
How many words do you type per minute? I'm around a whopping 20 wpm. The message I am responding to would have taken me two hours to type out. I'll bet it took you 5 minutes. That's why my messages tend to not be very long.
I hunt and peck, but it's been so long now that I type well enough. It got better when I started pretending the next letter would fly right at my eye if I didn't punch it down first. My accuracy is terrible though. Once I've gone back and fixed things, my WPM's no better than most, I'll bet. You've got the right idea — keep to the point.
Hmm, I seem to not be getting notified when I get replies.
I’ve hardly had any time to look over your participation in the subreddits
That is for sure. You completely took everything I said out of context or did a very quick skim to form an erroneous generalization.
One thing that gives me pause is your casually dismissing the replies you’ve had elsewhere so far as ‘gibberish.’
Gibberish: unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.
Facts you derive from your version of plagiarized fairy tales aren’t ‘facts’ by anyone’s definition. Those are your opinions, your username notwithstanding.
Fact definition: a thing that is indisputably the case.
Opinion: a belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable to one's own mind; judgment
Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
An educated opinion requires the use of facts. An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. A bias is as I stated earlier is gibberish and has no place in an educated discussion. If you can't support your opinion with any type of data to form a conclusion it is just that. I don't mind a debate, however, when someone gives their n=1 opinion and provides no value to the audience, it clutters the internet with fallacies. The grade school old adage " it is not just the answer but how you arrived at the answer" holds true in any adult conversation.
So facts to support your opinion over a fallacy to support your bias!! Get it?
Other people not believing exactly as you do isn't 'fallacy' necessarily.
Did I ever say that I could never be wrong? However, unless you can cite your sources and support your opinions at some kind of university level,it is just that. A fallacy is defined as "a mistaken belief, especially one based on an unsound argument".
Sometimes it's that you're wrong. It's always that you can't know what anyone else thinks or understands or, more bafflingly, knows to be true.
"I" am not wrong. I am smart but not innovative. I quote the innovators and experts. That is why I ask and try to understand why you think you know more than the evidence. FYI, I never cite just one source. If your answer is because uhhh uuhhh I feel or its just my opinion, well.....gibberish. I am very humble and respectful. I never dispute an expert unless I can back it up. That is just being stubborn.
I used to debate on the University level. Before I write anything, I normally debate both sides to catch my own unconscious biases. I actually find it humorous when I school someone in an argument that I am against (devils advocate). That is called a learning experience which I have had many. It is much better to get it wrong before it counts.
Your truth isn't absolute, and it doesn't matter how heavy duty your authorities are. Yes, that can mean someone believes that pitties have genetic predispositions to violent behavior apart from their environment and their experiences.
You must have skipped the about me,the conclusion and the gist of all my articles. My motto is "An opinion based on sound reasoning, logic, and empirical data is never really wrong; it’s debatable. An uneducated opinion formed by prejudice and bias is." So if someone gives me a credible argument, they get no flack from m...
Hmm, I seem to not be getting notified when I get replies.
I’ve hardly had any time to look over your participation in the subreddits
That is for sure. You completely took everything I said out of context or did a very quick skim to form an erroneous generalization.
One thing that gives me pause is your casually dismissing the replies you’ve had elsewhere so far as ‘gibberish.’
Gibberish: unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.
Facts you derive from your version of plagiarized fairy tales aren’t ‘facts’ by anyone’s definition. Those are your opinions, your username notwithstanding.
Fact definition: a thing that is indisputably the case.
Opinion: a belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable to one's own mind; judgment
Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
An educated opinion requires the use of facts. An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. A bias is as I stated earlier is gibberish and has no place in an educated discussion. If you can't support your opinion with any type of data to form a conclusion it is just that. I don't mind a debate, however, when someone gives their n=1 opinion and provides no value to the audience, it clutters the internet with fallacies. The grade school old adage " it is not just the answer but how you arrived at the answer" holds true in any adult conversation.
So facts to support your opinion over a fallacy to support your bias!! Get it?
Other people not believing exactly as you do isn't 'fallacy' necessarily.
Did I ever say that I could never be wrong? However, unless you can cite your sources and support your opinions at some kind of university level,it is just that. A fallacy is defined as "a mistaken belief, especially one based on an unsound argument".
Sometimes it's that you're wrong. It's always that you can't know what anyone else thinks or understands or, more bafflingly, knows to be true.
"I" am not wrong. I am smart but not innovative. I quote the innovators and experts. That is why I ask and try to understand why you think you know more than the evidence. FYI, I never cite just one source. If your answer is because uhhh uuhhh I feel or its just my opinion, well.....gibberish. I am very humble and respectful. I never dispute an expert unless I can back it up. That is just being stubborn.
I used to debate on the University level. Before I write anything, I normally debate both sides to catch my own unconscious biases. I actually find it humorous when I school someone in an argument that I am against (devils advocate). That is called a learning experience which I have had many. It is much better to get it wrong before it counts.
Your truth isn't absolute, and it doesn't matter how heavy duty your authorities are. Yes, that can mean someone believes that pitties have genetic predispositions to violent behavior apart from their environment and their experiences.
You must have skipped the about me,the conclusion and the gist of all my articles. My motto is "An opinion based on sound reasoning, logic, and empirical data is never really wrong; it’s debatable. An uneducated opinion formed by prejudice and bias is." So if someone gives me a credible argument, they get no flack from me.
I mostly debunk myths with keeps me in the neutral stance. So when have I ever stated the absolute truth? I just call out BS. If you are unable to support your point by definition I can call you bias, ignorant, uneducated, prejudicial or plain stupid.
Another skim where you completely missed the mark.
Your ‘facts’ apparently include spectres and the judgments of a vengeful Christian god with a very regimented and dogmatic contempt for homosexuality, for instance.
If you are referring to my "judgment article" I proved my point two fold. 1: To people who do not identify themselves as Christian I used numerous dictionaries. Definitions are exact factual meanings. 2. Christians consider the bible to be absolute truth (fact). So if a Christian is incorrectly applying the bible, they are again spreading a fallacy. So my opinions are based on the facts. And in many cases, the bible (whether you believe it or not) conforms to many of the Ideologies in the USA. Since Christianity makes up a very large percentage of the USA population, tieing in the bible strengthens the argument further.
from someone at this stage that questioning authorities isn’t heresy to the dogmas you’re treating as absolute truths, but it’s not up to you what other people understand such-and-such a concept to mean.
Honestly, I don't understand the purpose of your post. You seem to be trying to make some type of philosophical "ignorance is bliss argument" or "what is really wrong" type of argument. You keep claiming that I am asserting dogma and absolute truth by asking for a supporting argument. Would you give that same spiel when a teacher gives a student an F when he turns in a research paper with nothing more than "correlation does not equal causation"? Since nothing is 100% he is right. Is the sky really blue if I am colorblind?
1st off, when someone posts on my topic and calls experts wrong, yes it is up to me. It is called teaching respect. To call an expert in the field wrong without a rebuttal is downright arrogant, rude and shows their ignorance.
Second, maybe your morality is a fairytale but I believe we should all do our part. Slavery, Women's rights, Holocaust and many unjust events and laws used false facts and pseudo-logic to support their argument. Remember when cigarettes were good for you and people didn't think alcohol-impaired driving? It is not up to me to save a person in a burning building, feed the poor, or contribute to society either. However, I will. If I only get a few people to think, I did my job. Nowadays children "learn" more from a smartphone than their parents.
So in short, anyone can believe anything they want, but it doesn't mean I won't call you out and expose your beliefs as illogical and idiotic. That used to be the media's job but as I showed in another article, ratings have overruled journalistic integrity.
I will be mostly posting the same articles from my blog for debate until I create new ones. If people want to expand their minds be my guest, If they want to prove me wrong even better, if they want to guest post and have the people decide perfection!! However, if they want to troll or spam, they are not welcome. The name, tone and the way I write along with asking for proof several times, should make it crystal clear.
Gibberish: unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.
May I suggest you've gotten so little out of people's responses because you've put so little into understanding them? I feel as though you've given my response very short shrift. Seems to me you're using 'gibberish' to mean any responses you can't fit within your doctrinaire understanding of your very personal selection of esoteric belief systems. Or, distressingly as likely, won't bother trying to fit.
Fact definition: a thing that is indisputably the case.
Am I taking crazy pills or have you gotten 'facts' mixed up with 'axioms' and 'propositions' and 'inferences' and 'beliefs' all at once?
Opinion: [...] Bias: [...]
As much as I appreciate your taking time out of your day to explain four and seven letter words to me, because apparently I wouldn't've encountered these before and need them explained, it could be taken as pedantic condescension in casual conversation. Especially given that the working definitions you're apparently happy to teach seem as if they were done in particularly crude children's finger-paint handwriting.
[...] A bias is as I stated earlier is gibberish and has no place in an educated discussion.
There's a problem. Using the system you're describing, if someone else makes a statement, and it doesn't square with your secret homespun mix of dogma, their expressions become facts become opinions become bias become fallacy become gibberish. No wonder every response you get comes through as gibberish. To say nothing of what game you've decided we're all playing in your idea of an 'educated discussion' and 'adult conversation.' Because it looks like one where you correct people quite a lot.
Get it?
Daresay so. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm always wrong.
"I" am not wrong.
Really? Because a lot of us are often wrong. It's all I can do to realize some, of the many, times I am wrong. So often is the average person wrong that it may be good to get ahead of this common human failing, and always play the fool. People you've thought were wrong, I'll bet, may've had some truth of their own you could've gained from, if you hadn't been so busy gainsaying them. There's always a chance that you were wrong, even if it wasn't in correctly applying some dogma or another, but because say the dogma's been long-refuted, or you'd seriously misjudged the nature of the conversation you were having, or how you might've benefited by it or even what your unfounded suppositions were. Could be, right? How red would your face be?
I am smart but not innovative. I quote the innovators and experts.
There are unkind ways to characterize this relationship. The question I am left with is what I'm paying you for, exactly.
I used to debate on the University level.
No way, really? I had an inkling of this when /u/RoamingGnome expressed a human, personal sentiment and you 'corrected' him. Which is a bit like seeing a butterfly in the garden and trying, combatively, to solve it with Gaussian elimination.
Before I write anything, I normally debate both sides to catch my own unconscious biases.
Your short time in this universe is not a forensics competition with another school. Sometimes the answer is neither A nor B, but 1, 2, and 6. Sometimes the answer is because it snowed the night before and besides, haven't you always wanted to anyway?
I actually find it humorous when I school someone in an argument that I am again...
Gibberish: unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.
May I suggest you've gotten so little out of people's responses because you've put so little into understanding them? I feel as though you've given my response very short shrift. Seems to me you're using 'gibberish' to mean any responses you can't fit within your doctrinaire understanding of your very personal selection of esoteric belief systems. Or, distressingly as likely, won't bother trying to fit.
Fact definition: a thing that is indisputably the case.
Am I taking crazy pills or have you gotten 'facts' mixed up with 'axioms' and 'propositions' and 'inferences' and 'beliefs' all at once?
Opinion: [...] Bias: [...]
As much as I appreciate your taking time out of your day to explain four and seven letter words to me, because apparently I wouldn't've encountered these before and need them explained, it could be taken as pedantic condescension in casual conversation. Especially given that the working definitions you're apparently happy to teach seem as if they were done in particularly crude children's finger-paint handwriting.
[...] A bias is as I stated earlier is gibberish and has no place in an educated discussion.
There's a problem. Using the system you're describing, if someone else makes a statement, and it doesn't square with your secret homespun mix of dogma, their expressions become facts become opinions become bias become fallacy become gibberish. No wonder every response you get comes through as gibberish. To say nothing of what game you've decided we're all playing in your idea of an 'educated discussion' and 'adult conversation.' Because it looks like one where you correct people quite a lot.
Get it?
Daresay so. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm always wrong.
"I" am not wrong.
Really? Because a lot of us are often wrong. It's all I can do to realize some, of the many, times I am wrong. So often is the average person wrong that it may be good to get ahead of this common human failing, and always play the fool. People you've thought were wrong, I'll bet, may've had some truth of their own you could've gained from, if you hadn't been so busy gainsaying them. There's always a chance that you were wrong, even if it wasn't in correctly applying some dogma or another, but because say the dogma's been long-refuted, or you'd seriously misjudged the nature of the conversation you were having, or how you might've benefited by it or even what your unfounded suppositions were. Could be, right? How red would your face be?
I am smart but not innovative. I quote the innovators and experts.
There are unkind ways to characterize this relationship. The question I am left with is what I'm paying you for, exactly.
I used to debate on the University level.
No way, really? I had an inkling of this when /u/RoamingGnome expressed a human, personal sentiment and you 'corrected' him. Which is a bit like seeing a butterfly in the garden and trying, combatively, to solve it with Gaussian elimination.
Before I write anything, I normally debate both sides to catch my own unconscious biases.
Your short time in this universe is not a forensics competition with another school. Sometimes the answer is neither A nor B, but 1, 2, and 6. Sometimes the answer is because it snowed the night before and besides, haven't you always wanted to anyway?
I actually find it humorous when I school someone in an argument that I am against (devils advocate). That is called a learning experience which I have had many.
Get out more.
I mostly debunk myths with keeps me in the neutral stance.
I enjoy myths. They're so much more preferable than when people treat them as religions.
If you are referring to my "judgment article" I proved my point two fold. [...]
You got sex wrong because you used an ancient religious text as absolute truth. Hang on that, accept it, work with that realization, and move on from there.
1: To people who do not identify themselves as Christian I used numerous dictionaries. Definitions are exact factual meanings.
You really, really ought to go back and reread my response again. Take your time. Jabberwocky jobsworth soda fountain Uhuru.
2. Christians consider the bible to be absolute truth (fact). So if a Christian is incorrectly applying the bible, they are again spreading a fallacy. So my opinions are based on the facts. And in many cases, the bible (whether you believe it or not) conforms to many of the Ideologies in the USA. Since Christianity makes up a very large percentage of the USA population, tieing in the bible strengthens the argument further.
I think we may've found another fly in your ointment. You've also confused your aching, patrician American Christian Dominionist messiah complex for absolute truth.
Honestly, I don't understand the purpose of your post.
You asked if I honestly thought you would be welcome.
You seem to be trying to make some type of philosophical "ignorance is bliss argument" or "what is really wrong" type of argument.
No, you've simply not paid attention.
I will be mostly posting the same articles from my blog for debate until I create new ones.
Do consider posting and commenting in some proportion to your self-promotion. The rule calls for a 10:1 ratio. Aim for that at first.
The name, tone and the way I write along with asking for proof several times, should make it crystal clear.
Do you accept, as proof, the Bhagavad Gita, railroad timetables from Nebraska in 1934 and a 45 RPM of 'Take The Skinheads Bowling' by Camper Van Beethoven?
I have a tendency of hitting the edit button like 10 times after posting.
This is a problem. Snapzu has a lenient policy around editing your comments, so one ought not to abuse it. If you need to, compose your comments off-line. If you do edit a comment, don't be surprised when people respond to your comments the way you made them, before your like-a-ninja edits. If you do edit a comment substantially, don't make ninja edits — append an 'Edit:' line that explains what you've done and why.
The important thing, with all that out of the way, is that we get around to asking, as we so often do, "What's your earliest memory of a childhood trauma?"
May I suggest you've gotten so little out of people's responses because you've put so little into understanding them? I feel as though you've given my response very short shrift.
Again as you claim you skimmed and in doing so you made an erroneous generalization. I will explain below as again your points (I still don't really know if you have one) is all over the place. I can't comprehend how asking how they arrived at that answer is a lack of understanding? Asking them to provide incite is the exact opposite not trying to understand.
Opinion: [...] Bias: [...]As much as I appreciate your taking time out of your day to explain four and seven letter words to me, because apparently I wouldn't've encountered these before and need them explained.
You apparently needed them to be explained because I am using them correctly as shown.
There's a problem. Using the system you're describing, if someone else makes a statement, and it doesn't square with your secret homespun mix of dogma,
Again your lack of understanding of the definitions you are using is comical. If you provide no evidence to support your opinion after being asked numerous times it is bias, prejudice and gibberish. That is a fact. For example, if you were to say Pit bulls are more aggressive than most breeds that is not an opinion but a false fact. And the use of the word Fact is very broad. For example, the National Center for Science education defines fact as: Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” To quote Stephen Jay Gould who is an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. " For an example it is considered a FACT that all humans have 46 chromosomes. However, that can change over time. People still debate the fact that the Earth is Round.
Am I taking crazy pills or have you gotten 'facts' mixed up with 'axioms' and 'propositions' and 'inferences' and 'beliefs' all at once?
You really are taking the crazy pill. As per above I am using the word fact and other words just fine.
However, you keep using the word dogma out of context. [Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted] (a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted) Dogma [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dogma] (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dogma) . [A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a religion] (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma) Statement of facts are not a belief nor is an opinion based on verifiable data.
And if you want to state inference instead of an opinion to try and sound smart it is not working. An inference requires "a statement of fact to interpret, draw logical conclusions from given data, and project implications from the facts". So again I fail to see what you are trying to conclude. We draw inferences from factual observations. In hard sciences, many use the term theory which is defined is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and...
May I suggest you've gotten so little out of people's responses because you've put so little into understanding them? I feel as though you've given my response very short shrift.
Again as you claim you skimmed and in doing so you made an erroneous generalization. I will explain below as again your points (I still don't really know if you have one) is all over the place. I can't comprehend how asking how they arrived at that answer is a lack of understanding? Asking them to provide incite is the exact opposite not trying to understand.
Opinion: [...] Bias: [...]As much as I appreciate your taking time out of your day to explain four and seven letter words to me, because apparently I wouldn't've encountered these before and need them explained.
You apparently needed them to be explained because I am using them correctly as shown.
There's a problem. Using the system you're describing, if someone else makes a statement, and it doesn't square with your secret homespun mix of dogma,
Again your lack of understanding of the definitions you are using is comical. If you provide no evidence to support your opinion after being asked numerous times it is bias, prejudice and gibberish. That is a fact. For example, if you were to say Pit bulls are more aggressive than most breeds that is not an opinion but a false fact. And the use of the word Fact is very broad. For example, the National Center for Science education defines fact as: Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” To quote Stephen Jay Gould who is an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. " For an example it is considered a FACT that all humans have 46 chromosomes. However, that can change over time. People still debate the fact that the Earth is Round.
Am I taking crazy pills or have you gotten 'facts' mixed up with 'axioms' and 'propositions' and 'inferences' and 'beliefs' all at once?
You really are taking the crazy pill. As per above I am using the word fact and other words just fine.
However, you keep using the word dogma out of context. [Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted] (a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted) Dogma [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dogma] (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dogma) . [A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a religion] (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma) Statement of facts are not a belief nor is an opinion based on verifiable data.
And if you want to state inference instead of an opinion to try and sound smart it is not working. An inference requires "a statement of fact to interpret, draw logical conclusions from given data, and project implications from the facts". So again I fail to see what you are trying to conclude. We draw inferences from factual observations. In hard sciences, many use the term theory which is defined is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. You would be laughed at to try and disprove a theory which many call fact (as shown above).
No wonder every response you get comes through as gibberish.
LOL the irony a statement of fact a false one at that. Actually, many respect my opinion. Did I mention debate team and I email many who I cite to discuss? Your bias is looking at the few who I have ongoing replies to. Anonymity breeds contempt for some.
IYou got sex wrong because you used an ancient religious text as absolute truth. Hang on that, accept it, work with that realization, and move on from there
Wow, I am going to have to call you ignorant at this point. A Christian CONSIDERS the bible absolute truth. That is a FACT. So the best way to debate a Christian is to use what they consider absolute truth. So again please stop skimming and read it.
You really, really ought to go back and reread my response again. Take your time. Jabberwocky jobsworth soda fountain Uhuru.You've also confused your aching, patrician American Christian Dominionist messiah complex for absolute truth.
Lol I did and it is very painful. Again read the above response. Whether I believe the bible is the absolute truth is irrelevant. If you debating a book, the book is your guide. I could only assume you never did a book report or a DBQ.
No, you've simply not paid attention.
I think you were under the assumption that I would not actually read what you wrote. I still don't understand what you are trying to prove? So you encourage people to state incorrect data? Do you encourage people to stick to their biases and prejudices? Because all I ask is to substantiate your reasoning. Sorry I am not gullible.
Maybe you are the B.O.B to astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson:
"If you want to think the world is flat, go right ahead. But if you think the world is flat and you have influence over others, as with successful rappers, or even presidential candidates, then being wrong becomes being harmful to the health, the wealth and the security of our citizenry."
There are many Flat earthers that think it is not a fact. I sense you might be one of those conspiracy theorists if you are having trouble with anything I am saying. Again if you have any issue with my articles, debate them.
My article stated Facts. My title Pit Bull prejudice defies logic is a fact because of Fact 1: Studies show that Pit Bulls were not more aggressive than other breeds. Fact 2: There are no peer-reviewed studies that show Pit Bulls are dangerous and should have restrictive laws. Fact #3 Every Authoritative body with leading experts backing them call for BSL. Fact 4: The American Bar has also stated BSL is discriminatory due to lack of evidence. Fact 5: There has been no aggressive gene found in the Pit Bull. Fact 6: as of 2016 in humans, the warrior gene, homosexual gene, pedophile gene and any other gene to justify behavior has been disproven. A publication from the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric association includes admissions that there is no “gay” gene. The warrior gene has been studied maybe even before the 90's, so....
This is a problem. Snapzu has a lenient policy around editing your comments, so one ought not to abuse it. If you need to, compose your comments off-line.
So does Reddit, facebook, twitter, Hubski, Google Plus, Disqus and many other places. And in all honesty, my rough draft seems to be more put together than your final one.
Do consider posting and commenting in some proportion to your self-promotion. The rule calls for a 10:1 ratio. Aim for that at first.
I actually asked the admin and I am good to go. The TOS states the 10:1 rule is only if you do not stay active in my post. Since the TOS used "and" which is an addition, I would need to violate both 10 percent and not replying back. I was ok by the rules but wanted to make sure I abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the law.
Wow you needed so much correction that Snapzu post ran out of room. Again your reading comprehension is horrid. I was giving him a compliment.
You state::
No way, really? I had an inkling of this when /u/RoamingGnome expressed a human, personal sentiment and you 'corrected' him. Which is a bit like seeing a butterfly in the garden and trying, combatively, to solve it with Gaussian elimination.
His comment here:
People will comment on how smart or informed I am. I tell them it has nothing to do with me being smart and everything to do with the fact that I can pretty much find any information I need as long as I have my smart phone and a data connection.
Yes, doing something as simple as looking something up before spewing nonsense is being smart. Looking something up to ensure accuracy means you are thorough, thirsty and will retain at lease some of the knowledge. So he should stop selling himself short to those people =)
The definition of smart from various dictionaries: "done with intelligence or careful thought" , " Having or showing intelligence; bright", "clever, witty, or readily effective, as a speaker, speech, rejoinder"
So just like the rest of your "gibberish", yes that is what it is now, you are trying to call me out on a compliment. Although, smart is subjective, he was being modest and I called him out on it. People deserve recognition just like people deserve to be put in their place. Him using the dictionary makes him a genius compared to this.
When I start posting please participate either for or against my argument IDC. Just bring those sources with you!!!!!
Wow, this compliment makes me a horrible human being.
I should just keep quoting Neil Degrasse Tyson as he deals with this on a regular basis. FYI,even a world-renowned astrophysicist, along with many intelligent people don't get all positive comments. Thought,I would bring that up again to highlight your unsubstantiated opinion.
Neil Degrasse Tyson: B.o.B is obviously and amusingly wrong in the things he's saying, but he's free and able to say them. That's worth celebrating. There are still many places around the world where opposing the prevailing wisdom comes at great personal cost and risk. So when I see a darling old conspiracy theory being dredged up and so gently euthanized, it makes me smile. It also makes me appreciate the advancement of the so-called developed world: one of the enduring differences between Western democracies and Russia and China is the greater liberty to speak your mind.
I don't wish to hold up B.o.B as some paragon of free speech. His ramblings border on the delusional, and his encouragement for people to read up on Holocaust denier David Irving is repugnant. But it's because I disagree with his flat Earth beliefs that I want them out in public view. This gives me the opportunity to contest them — civilly — and offers at least the possibility of spreading enlightenment. B.o.B might still feel overwhelmed by the number of people challenging him, but if we all do it in a polite and respectful manner, it might lead to fewer diss tracks and greater solidarity..
The infamous quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Ignorance has shown to do harm and if someone chooses to use their free speech to spew incorrect information, I will call them out on it. I might not be even close to as innovative or even smart as Degrasse but I will be sure to spread and...
Wow you needed so much correction that Snapzu post ran out of room. Again your reading comprehension is horrid. I was giving him a compliment.
You state::
No way, really? I had an inkling of this when /u/RoamingGnome expressed a human, personal sentiment and you 'corrected' him. Which is a bit like seeing a butterfly in the garden and trying, combatively, to solve it with Gaussian elimination.
His comment here:
People will comment on how smart or informed I am. I tell them it has nothing to do with me being smart and everything to do with the fact that I can pretty much find any information I need as long as I have my smart phone and a data connection.
Yes, doing something as simple as looking something up before spewing nonsense is being smart. Looking something up to ensure accuracy means you are thorough, thirsty and will retain at lease some of the knowledge. So he should stop selling himself short to those people =)
The definition of smart from various dictionaries: "done with intelligence or careful thought" , " Having or showing intelligence; bright", "clever, witty, or readily effective, as a speaker, speech, rejoinder"
So just like the rest of your "gibberish", yes that is what it is now, you are trying to call me out on a compliment. Although, smart is subjective, he was being modest and I called him out on it. People deserve recognition just like people deserve to be put in their place. Him using the dictionary makes him a genius compared to this.
When I start posting please participate either for or against my argument IDC. Just bring those sources with you!!!!!
Wow, this compliment makes me a horrible human being.
I should just keep quoting Neil Degrasse Tyson as he deals with this on a regular basis. FYI,even a world-renowned astrophysicist, along with many intelligent people don't get all positive comments. Thought,I would bring that up again to highlight your unsubstantiated opinion.
Neil Degrasse Tyson: B.o.B is obviously and amusingly wrong in the things he's saying, but he's free and able to say them. That's worth celebrating. There are still many places around the world where opposing the prevailing wisdom comes at great personal cost and risk. So when I see a darling old conspiracy theory being dredged up and so gently euthanized, it makes me smile. It also makes me appreciate the advancement of the so-called developed world: one of the enduring differences between Western democracies and Russia and China is the greater liberty to speak your mind.
I don't wish to hold up B.o.B as some paragon of free speech. His ramblings border on the delusional, and his encouragement for people to read up on Holocaust denier David Irving is repugnant. But it's because I disagree with his flat Earth beliefs that I want them out in public view. This gives me the opportunity to contest them — civilly — and offers at least the possibility of spreading enlightenment. B.o.B might still feel overwhelmed by the number of people challenging him, but if we all do it in a polite and respectful manner, it might lead to fewer diss tracks and greater solidarity..
The infamous quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Ignorance has shown to do harm and if someone chooses to use their free speech to spew incorrect information, I will call them out on it. I might not be even close to as innovative or even smart as Degrasse but I will be sure to spread and reaffirm it with other intellects.
P.S. please stop saying my _______. Again, my opinions are irrelevant (n=1), hence why I use the citation system. I am simply citing, paraphrasing and quoting from experts. So when someone has the nerve to discredit experts without any evidence, I will defend the people who can't be here to defend it themselves.
I will personally let you know when I try to be innovative and form an opinion that is contrary to the consensus of the majority experts. At that point, you can criticize me to your heart's content but please use at least high school level logic.
Alas, this is starting to bore me. If you disagree with my articles, prove me wrong. Debate me with evidence, logic and reason. If you are having trouble finding scholarly sources I suggest JSTOR, ProQuest, PubMed, and SAGE. You can even use Google Scholar if you do not have access to paid ones. I will share with you a little secret. Many times you can copy the title from scholarly paid databases in a search engine and you can find it free from the author, a nonprofit or someone who had paid permission.
Again your lack of understanding of the definitions you are using is comical.
Tell me you're not going to try to learn me some more four- and five-letter words. You are? Super.
For example, the National Center for Science education defines fact as […]
Good job!
As per above I am using the word fact and other words just fine.
Way to go, Champ!
However, you keep using the word dogma out of context. Dogma is […]
Yes, because word sense meanings are only allowed within 'contexts' you have personally issued formal, written approvals for two full business days in advance.
And if you want to state inference instead of an opinion to try and sound smart it is not working.
What are you: eight, nine?
Actually, many respect my opinion.
Sure they do. That's swell, really.
Wow, I am going to have to call you ignorant at this point.
Don't go to the trouble. You got that attitude across pretty early. For instance, you're still saying 'hey' in the lounge, and straight-away you can already tell this's going to be a thing with you. As it has been.
Sorry I am not gullible.
I get it. You're a bot. I'm solipsizing with RACTER here.
I sense you might be one of those conspiracy theorists if you are having trouble with anything I am saying.
You get that a lot, do you? Trouble in social settings? Flak from people that, obviously, are jealous of your greatness, no doubt?
And in all honesty, my rough draft seems to be more put together than your final one.
Not that every little thing is a pissing match with you or you're compensating for anything, mind you.
Wow you needed so much correction that Snapzu post ran out of room.
Happy I could help. You do seem to have some things you need to work out.
Again your reading comprehension is horrid.
You know, I think I could probably have picked up on a few things earlier than I did.
The definition of smart from various dictionaries: […]
You just give, and give and give. When is it time for you? For your needs? By this point, you've literally defined the word 'and' for me. Suggestion: if you find yourself needing to condescend so far as to define three- and four-letter words for your correspondent, you're doing it wrong.
At that point, you can criticize me to your heart's content but please use at least high school level logic.
Why should I? I'm sure you'll do a far better job pointing out problems than I ever could.
Intriguing. Looking forward to seeing your stuff. Welcome!
Honest opinion, will I be welcome? Most places (Reddit) I just get gibberish like replies.
Looks like you’ve already got your welcome! Since you ask, though, the least I can do is give you the honest opinion you asked for. Seeing as how you haven’t actually posted any of your stuff yet, there’s only so much to go on. Offhand, I’d say it’s likely to come down to what you’re using for ‘facts,’ what kind of attitude you’re describing by ‘over,’ and what you’re taking to mean a ‘fallacy.’ One thing that gives me pause is your casually dismissing the replies you’ve had elsewhere so far as ‘gibberish.’
Time being scarce, I’ve hardly had any time to look over your participation in the subreddits /r/dogs, /r/DebateAChristian, /r/HillaryForPrison, /r/MensRights, /r/pitbulls, /r/progun, /r/rant, /r/The_Donald, and /r/TrueReddit. Wow, you’re a veterinarian? Right on. Brace yourself, word gets around about something like that. You’ll find a great number of folks around here do love their critters. It does look like you’ve had some contentious conversations, alright. Snapzu’s something else, though, than you’ve encountered at Reddit. Central to the philosophy here is a basic level of respect for the other users. If you’re tired of being battered about the face and neck by commenters over there, you can rest a bit more easily here. Due respect, though, means respect is due. Escalation’s got limits here. You set the tone, but mind how.
Wittgenstein was a person early in life, and a person later in life, and they couldn’t’ve been less alike. Younger Ludwig, in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus days, insisted on a rigid, but brittle, analytical approach which was demanding enough for him to handle, but excruciating for people around him. Even exhausting. Decades later, he’d found his way through, out and around those strictures of meaning and understanding and achieved a grace in that whimsy and fun that would’ve been as nonsensical and gibberish to his younger self as we would find it wise and pragmatic. The Philosophical Investigations Ludwig sounds easier to know, but we are who we are when we are. It seems to me you’ve got so much respect for authorities that its affected the basic level of respect you can show to people that don’t happen to be your authorities, whether those authorities are your personal interpretation of abstract concepts or mainline interpretations of Christian scripture. Your ‘facts’ apparently include spectres and the judgments of a vengeful Christian god with a very regimented and dogmatic contempt for homosexuality, for instance.
Facts you derive from your version of plagiarized fairy tales aren’t ‘facts’ by anyone’s definition. Those are your opinions, your username notwithstanding. They’re also your opinions now, and may not be what you believe next term, or next year, or after your first car accident or after you’ve filed taxes or when you’ve had some losses. They’re, importantly, not facts to other people that’ve already been through those things. You’ve got your transient, ephemeral opinions mixed up with 'facts,' and that’s setting the stage for some drama to come.
Which raises also rather pressing questions about your working definition of ‘fallacy.’ Too-worshipful abeyance of sundry and various arbitrary and capricious authorities may be age-appropriate for you, and you should hear it from someone at this stage that questioning authorities isn’t heresy to the dogmas you’re treating as absolute truths, but...
... Read FullHow many words do you type per minute? I'm around a whopping 20 wpm. The message I am responding to would have taken me two hours to type out. I'll bet it took you 5 minutes. That's why my messages tend to not be very long.
I hunt and peck, but it's been so long now that I type well enough. It got better when I started pretending the next letter would fly right at my eye if I didn't punch it down first. My accuracy is terrible though. Once I've gone back and fixed things, my WPM's no better than most, I'll bet. You've got the right idea — keep to the point.
The older I've got,the worse my typing has become. I tend to hunt and peck,except playing Minecraft.
Hmm, I seem to not be getting notified when I get replies.
That is for sure. You completely took everything I said out of context or did a very quick skim to form an erroneous generalization.
Gibberish: unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.
Fact definition: a thing that is indisputably the case.
Opinion: a belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable to one's own mind; judgment
Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
An educated opinion requires the use of facts. An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. A bias is as I stated earlier is gibberish and has no place in an educated discussion. If you can't support your opinion with any type of data to form a conclusion it is just that. I don't mind a debate, however, when someone gives their n=1 opinion and provides no value to the audience, it clutters the internet with fallacies. The grade school old adage " it is not just the answer but how you arrived at the answer" holds true in any adult conversation.
So facts to support your opinion over a fallacy to support your bias!! Get it?
Did I ever say that I could never be wrong? However, unless you can cite your sources and support your opinions at some kind of university level,it is just that. A fallacy is defined as "a mistaken belief, especially one based on an unsound argument".
"I" am not wrong. I am smart but not innovative. I quote the innovators and experts. That is why I ask and try to understand why you think you know more than the evidence. FYI, I never cite just one source. If your answer is because uhhh uuhhh I feel or its just my opinion, well.....gibberish. I am very humble and respectful. I never dispute an expert unless I can back it up. That is just being stubborn.
I used to debate on the University level. Before I write anything, I normally debate both sides to catch my own unconscious biases. I actually find it humorous when I school someone in an argument that I am against (devils advocate). That is called a learning experience which I have had many. It is much better to get it wrong before it counts.
You must have skipped the about me,the conclusion and the gist of all my articles. My motto is "An opinion based on sound reasoning, logic, and empirical data is never really wrong; it’s debatable. An uneducated opinion formed by prejudice and bias is." So if someone gives me a credible argument, they get no flack from m...
... Read FullMay I suggest you've gotten so little out of people's responses because you've put so little into understanding them? I feel as though you've given my response very short shrift. Seems to me you're using 'gibberish' to mean any responses you can't fit within your doctrinaire understanding of your very personal selection of esoteric belief systems. Or, distressingly as likely, won't bother trying to fit.
Am I taking crazy pills or have you gotten 'facts' mixed up with 'axioms' and 'propositions' and 'inferences' and 'beliefs' all at once?
As much as I appreciate your taking time out of your day to explain four and seven letter words to me, because apparently I wouldn't've encountered these before and need them explained, it could be taken as pedantic condescension in casual conversation. Especially given that the working definitions you're apparently happy to teach seem as if they were done in particularly crude children's finger-paint handwriting.
There's a problem. Using the system you're describing, if someone else makes a statement, and it doesn't square with your secret homespun mix of dogma, their expressions become facts become opinions become bias become fallacy become gibberish. No wonder every response you get comes through as gibberish. To say nothing of what game you've decided we're all playing in your idea of an 'educated discussion' and 'adult conversation.' Because it looks like one where you correct people quite a lot.
Daresay so. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm always wrong.
Really? Because a lot of us are often wrong. It's all I can do to realize some, of the many, times I am wrong. So often is the average person wrong that it may be good to get ahead of this common human failing, and always play the fool. People you've thought were wrong, I'll bet, may've had some truth of their own you could've gained from, if you hadn't been so busy gainsaying them. There's always a chance that you were wrong, even if it wasn't in correctly applying some dogma or another, but because say the dogma's been long-refuted, or you'd seriously misjudged the nature of the conversation you were having, or how you might've benefited by it or even what your unfounded suppositions were. Could be, right? How red would your face be?
There are unkind ways to characterize this relationship. The question I am left with is what I'm paying you for, exactly.
No way, really? I had an inkling of this when /u/RoamingGnome expressed a human, personal sentiment and you 'corrected' him. Which is a bit like seeing a butterfly in the garden and trying, combatively, to solve it with Gaussian elimination.
Your short time in this universe is not a forensics competition with another school. Sometimes the answer is neither A nor B, but 1, 2, and 6. Sometimes the answer is because it snowed the night before and besides, haven't you always wanted to anyway?
... Read FullAgain as you claim you skimmed and in doing so you made an erroneous generalization. I will explain below as again your points (I still don't really know if you have one) is all over the place. I can't comprehend how asking how they arrived at that answer is a lack of understanding? Asking them to provide incite is the exact opposite not trying to understand.
You apparently needed them to be explained because I am using them correctly as shown.
Again your lack of understanding of the definitions you are using is comical. If you provide no evidence to support your opinion after being asked numerous times it is bias, prejudice and gibberish. That is a fact. For example, if you were to say Pit bulls are more aggressive than most breeds that is not an opinion but a false fact. And the use of the word Fact is very broad. For example, the National Center for Science education defines fact as: Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” To quote Stephen Jay Gould who is an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. " For an example it is considered a FACT that all humans have 46 chromosomes. However, that can change over time. People still debate the fact that the Earth is Round.
You really are taking the crazy pill. As per above I am using the word fact and other words just fine.
However, you keep using the word dogma out of context. [Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted] (a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted) Dogma [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dogma] (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dogma) . [A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a religion] (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma) Statement of facts are not a belief nor is an opinion based on verifiable data.
And if you want to state inference instead of an opinion to try and sound smart it is not working. An inference requires "a statement of fact to interpret, draw logical conclusions from given data, and project implications from the facts". So again I fail to see what you are trying to conclude. We draw inferences from factual observations. In hard sciences, many use the term theory which is defined is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and...
... Read FullWow you needed so much correction that Snapzu post ran out of room. Again your reading comprehension is horrid. I was giving him a compliment.
You state::
His comment here:
The definition of smart from various dictionaries: "done with intelligence or careful thought" , " Having or showing intelligence; bright", "clever, witty, or readily effective, as a speaker, speech, rejoinder"
So just like the rest of your "gibberish", yes that is what it is now, you are trying to call me out on a compliment. Although, smart is subjective, he was being modest and I called him out on it. People deserve recognition just like people deserve to be put in their place. Him using the dictionary makes him a genius compared to this.
Wow, this compliment makes me a horrible human being.
I should just keep quoting Neil Degrasse Tyson as he deals with this on a regular basis. FYI,even a world-renowned astrophysicist, along with many intelligent people don't get all positive comments. Thought,I would bring that up again to highlight your unsubstantiated opinion.
The infamous quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Ignorance has shown to do harm and if someone chooses to use their free speech to spew incorrect information, I will call them out on it. I might not be even close to as innovative or even smart as Degrasse but I will be sure to spread and...
... Read FullTell me you're not going to try to learn me some more four- and five-letter words. You are? Super.
Good job!
Way to go, Champ!
Yes, because word sense meanings are only allowed within 'contexts' you have personally issued formal, written approvals for two full business days in advance.
What are you: eight, nine?
Sure they do. That's swell, really.
Don't go to the trouble. You got that attitude across pretty early. For instance, you're still saying 'hey' in the lounge, and straight-away you can already tell this's going to be a thing with you. As it has been.
I get it. You're a bot. I'm solipsizing with RACTER here.
You get that a lot, do you? Trouble in social settings? Flak from people that, obviously, are jealous of your greatness, no doubt?
Not that every little thing is a pissing match with you or you're compensating for anything, mind you.
Happy I could help. You do seem to have some things you need to work out.
You know, I think I could probably have picked up on a few things earlier than I did.
You just give, and give and give. When is it time for you? For your needs? By this point, you've literally defined the word 'and' for me. Suggestion: if you find yourself needing to condescend so far as to define three- and four-letter words for your correspondent, you're doing it wrong.
Why should I? I'm sure you'll do a far better job pointing out problems than I ever could.
You’re not the only one, Mister.