Originally posted by inimalist
does this mean we can judge you personally from the use of "ime" in your comments?as, the use of "ime" instead of "I'm", to me, is an unmistakable sign that someone is a drone. And I can justify that just as well as you can, my friend (too bad you never tried to define anything).
Wait, is his reasoning for writing "I'm" as "ime", to be an "independent thinker"? Say it ain't so.
Originally posted by Burning thought
not really bollocks since youve not proven your point yet, youve simply said "wrong" just there. Show me the evidence that says people are too complex to group please, since you can group people easily by what they do/like without getting complicated, its a simple process, you can group social groups for example.
lol
the burden is not on me to prove people can't be classified.
Nothing you have said thus far proves anything except how you have developed as an individual and what beliefs about people accompany that.
Originally posted by Burning thought
No but the Asch study is all youve provided that sounds anything like what ime talking about so far.
that has much more to do with the fact that you are pulling this all out of your ass/don't understand the first thing about scientific research or any type of research for that matter (well, maybe useless research)
Originally posted by inimalist
lolthe burden is not on me to prove people can't be classified.
Nothing you have said thus far proves anything except how you have developed as an individual and what beliefs about people accompany that.
that has much more to do with the fact that you are pulling this all out of your ass/don't understand the first thing about scientific research or any type of research for that matter (well, maybe useless research)
The burdon is on you to reason why your "no thats wrong" is worth even notifying.
no not really, I think ill just do basically what your doing "your wrong".....
Originally posted by Burning thought
The burdon is on you to reason why your "no thats wrong" is worth even notifying.
I just posted things that showed evidence for my point (which im sure you couldn't even name)
you both ignored the point of what I posted and replied with something that indicates you have no idea what the content of what I posted meant.
you aren't even pretending to know what you are talking about
Originally posted by Burning thought
no not really, I think ill just do basically what your doing "your wrong".....
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you are ignorant
also, please highlight what I said that was wrong and I will do my best to support it
Originally posted by Bardock42
I did, actually, you just missed it. Again, something you share with dadudemon, for some reason you two seem determined to blame me, however straightforward my post might have been, for your lack of reading comprehension.
You are correct. I simply cannot comprehend things you intend, but fail to imply and I take liberty with your posts for the sake of argument. Apparently, rightly so, because you don't seem too keen on admitting that Sarah will eventually want children.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No one else has a problem understanding it, it's just that you guys are idiots.
Don't act like I'm below you. Mr. Math couldn't even understand the basics of converting a non ln and Log base using those. You're the one who makes vague short statements. You're fairly liberal with ambiguous pronoun reference and fail to expand on what you mean quite often. I suspect that you do this on purpose as a debating tactic. It works quite well for your arrogant attitude.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No offense, dadudemon, you are not nearly as bad as that fellow here.
I do take offense. But it's okay, we never disagreed with each other and we both know it.
Originally posted by dadudemonWhy? Because I asked you the same question you asked me just applied to your situation? Don't be ridiculous. I know just as little about what my girlfriend will want in the future as you know about what your wife will want in the future.
This makes you seem more of a douche.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You are correct. I simply cannot comprehend things you intend, but fail to imply and I take liberty with your posts for the sake of argument. Apparently, rightly so, because you don't seem too keen on admitting that Sarah will eventually want children.
Why should I admit such a ridiculous thing. Are you so delusional you think you can predict the future decisions and feelings of my girlfriend better than I do? Because even I (probably one of the people knowing her the best) would not be so arrogant to presume knowledge of the future.
Just for good measure: You are a fool.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't act like I'm below you. Mr. Math couldn't even understand the basics of converting a non ln and Log base using those. You're the one who makes vague short statements. You're fairly liberal with ambiguous pronoun reference and fail to expand on what you mean quite often. I suspect that you do this on purpose as a debating tactic. It works quite well for your arrogant attitude.
I was not acting like you are below me (I don't think you are), but in this case I just called you an idiot for often misunderstanding what I say, even though it follows from what I am replying to. You are unable to understand simple connections in language. I am sure you have many good qualities, but your reading comprehension is, at best, average.
As for calling me 2Mr. Math"(s)...the time I mentioned I even study Mathematics on KMC you can count on one hand. I don't particularly pride myself in it, and, in fact, you probably mentioned it more often than I did.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I do take offense. But it's okay, we never disagreed with each other and we both know it.
Well, it was meant offensive. So, good job 😐
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why? Because I asked you the same question you asked me just applied to your situation? Don't be ridiculous. I know just as little about what my girlfriend will want in the future as you know about what your wife will want in the future.
If we were talking about women losing the desire to have children, you would have a point. Since the question was the opposite, you question was misplaced.
When we start talking about women who lose the desire to have children, let me know. Until then, that's not the topic of discussion.
Nice try, Mr. non sequitur.
How about you say, "Yes, she wants children eventually." Or, "you're right and I knew you were right. But it's all anecdotes and it doesn't matter." I know your pride his huge, though, so you don't have to answer a question that both of us know the answer to.
Will you die a little inside if you admit it, though? Is it the gerbil?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why should I admit such a ridiculous thing. Are you so delusional you think you can predict the future decisions and feelings of my girlfriend better than I do? Because even I (probably one of the people knowing her the best) would not be so arrogant to presume knowledge of the future.
It's rather simple, prideful grumpy pants, ask her. "Sweetheart, do you eventually want to have children?" I never said assume what her answer would be, now did I?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Just for good measure: You are a fool.
NOOOOOOOO! Say it ain't so!
Originally posted by Bardock42
I was not acting like you are below me (I don't think you are),
Have you ever heard of "talking down" to someone? You don't have to say "I am better than you", and still say it. If you say, "you are a fool", regardless of whether or not you are aware, there's an understood (whether consciously acknowledged by all parties involved or not) notion that the person or persons calling the other a fool would have to be aware of a superior understanding in order to recognize it as foolish. Can a fool sincerely call a fool a fool and it have substance? Sure, but you obviously don't think yourself a fool when you call others a fool, do you? (Chime in with the "not necessarily. Great. But get the point instead of arguing semantics.)
Originally posted by Bardock42
but in this case I just called you an idiot for often misunderstanding what I say, even though it follows from what I am replying to.
"Often" is a gross over exaggeration. I'm sure you know that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are unable to understand simple connections in language.
False. I'm unable to make supposed simple connections with YOU because you use ellipses much too often and love to employ ambiguous pronoun references.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am sure you have many good qualities,
That's lame...
Originally posted by Bardock42
but your reading comprehension is, at best, average.
False. Your writing abilities are at best, average. You can make a reasoned argument well enough, but for reasons intentional or unintentional, you fail to be adequately explicit enough at times. The vast majority of the time, it is easily understood.
Let's not forget that you've admitted yourself to not explaining well enough at times.
However, this is a damned message board. Many of the things typed on a message board cannot be adequately conveyed since it is only text. Informal discussion and understanding in that discussion is limited, especially when the responses are not explicit. You can never pass of the post (the one that caused this discussion) as adequately explained in order for myself or the person you responded to to understand what exactly you meant.
Originally posted by Bardock42
As for calling me 2Mr. Math"(s)...the time I mentioned I even study Mathematics on KMC you can count on one hand. I don't particularly pride myself in it, and, in fact, you probably mentioned it more often than I did.
So....what? And stop being a politician. You just flaunted a comic to inimalist that spoke of the purity of mathematics. I'm quite sure he understood why you found humor in that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it was meant offensive. So, good job 😐
No. I was meant to carry as much substance as calling me a fool or a douche.
Oh, but something that seems to trouble you, when I said "My girlfriend doesn't want children", I meant "My girlfriend doesn't want children" not "My girlfriend doesn't want children at the moment". I am sorry I was being too vague by stating exactly what I meant and you adding something to it in your mind.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, but something that seems to trouble you, when I said "My girlfriend doesn't want children", I meant "My girlfriend doesn't want children" not "My girlfriend doesn't want children at the moment". I am sorry I was being too vague by stating exactly what I meant and you adding something to it in your mind.
You asked her?
She said she never wants children?
Because that would be on topic and I have no problem discussing that.
I realized I don't have actually anything else to do, so I read it...and boy was I right, lots and lots of nonsense.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If we were talking about women losing the desire to have children, you would have a point. Since the question was the opposite, you question was misplaced.When we start talking about women who lose the desire to have children, let me know. Until then, that's not the topic of discussion.
We are talking about women wanting children. Losing the desire is just as valid as gaining the desire.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nice try, Mr. non sequitur.
You don't understand what that means, do you?
Originally posted by dadudemon
How about you say, "Yes, she wants children eventually." Or, "you're right and I knew you were right. But it's all anecdotes and it doesn't matter." I know your pride his huge, though, so you don't have to answer a question that both of us know the answer to.
What about I repeat what I said "My girlfriend doesn't want children" ... yes, she DOESN't want children. Not ever. According to her.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Will you die a little inside if you admit it, though? Is it the gerbil?
You are being an idiot. You obviously assumed a different answer. Meh, you were wrong, as usual.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's rather simple, prideful grumpy pants, ask her. "Sweetheart, do you eventually want to have children?" I never said assume what her answer would be, now did I?
No need, I already stated in this thread (something you replied to, too) that she doesn't. You are just being a moron again.
Originally posted by dadudemon
NOOOOOOOO! Say it ain't so!
It is though. You are.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Have you ever heard of "talking down" to someone? You don't have to say "I am better than you", and still say it. If you say, "you are a fool", regardless of whether or not you are aware, there's an understood (whether consciously acknowledged by all parties involved or not) notion that the person or persons calling the other a fool would have to be aware of a superior understanding in order to recognize it as foolish. Can a fool sincerely call a fool a fool and it have substance? Sure, but you obviously don't think yourself a fool when you call others a fool, do you? (Chime in with the "not necessarily. Great. But get the point instead of arguing semantics.)
A person can be foolish in a few aspects and normal in many others. I feel I am superior to you in some aspects, yes. I don't feel I am superior to you though.
Originally posted by dadudemon
"Often" is a gross over exaggeration. I'm sure you know that.
Well, you have trouble a lot. But hey, if you just ask me "Sorry, I did not understand this, for I am a moron, could you elaborate" I will break it down for you. I know you can't read good and want to do other stuff good, too.
Originally posted by dadudemon
False. I'm unable to make supposed simple connections with YOU because you use ellipses much too often and love to employ ambiguous pronoun references.
Nah.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's lame...
Also, a lie.
Originally posted by dadudemon
False. Your writing abilities are at best, average. You can make a reasoned argument well enough, but for reasons intentional or unintentional, you fail to be adequately explicit enough at times. The vast majority of the time, it is easily understood.
So, you think all the other people on here, having no problem whatsoever with my posts, are just better at guessing than you? You are that fake kind of christian, look up the piece about the mote in your brother's eye.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's not forget that you've admitted yourself to not explaining well enough at times.
There's a difference between not explaining something that even the most stupid of morons could understand it and leaving out vital information. The second is what you accuse me of, the first what I admit to.
Originally posted by dadudemon
However, this is a damned message board. Many of the things typed on a message board cannot be adequately conveyed since it is only text. Informal discussion and understanding in that discussion is limited, especially when the responses are not explicit. You can never pass of the post (the one that caused this discussion) as adequately explained in order for myself or the person you responded to to understand what exactly you meant.
That's just your little excuse for you not understanding stuff. The problem with you is that you add your own little parts to my post. You don't take them at face value (which would make sense) but assume obscure implications and complicated mind games, like the ones, you would like to be able to created, but can't.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So....what? And stop being a politician. You just flaunted a comic to inimalist that spoke of the purity of mathematics. I'm quite sure he understood why you found humor in that.
So? So did a psychology major and an English literature major. A comic taken from one of the most popular web comics. With a joke that plays on the rivalries between academic fields, which are widely known.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No. I was meant to carry as much substance as calling me a fool or a douche.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense.
This line of thinking makes you appear incredibly sexist, dadudemon. You've already claimed that any woman to approach a man will likely be infected with stds or be a gold digger, in another thread. Now you seem to be claiming that women are hard wired with the decision to have children, whether they claim otherwise or not.
You have provided absolutely no proof for either of these claims, as always. Yet again, it's just this horribly told anecdotal tripe that you somehow expect us all to swallow.