You're disgusting and a pathetic liar.

I don't consider you worth a link from my profile, especially on the allies list. It looks disgraceful there. We don't really have the feature right now, though, so you're acting more like a sticky parasite there. Luckily, I'm not in too much of a hurry about that.

Now fade away. You're dismissed.

With a grammar of comparable complexity?

I know many don't, but their syntax is much simpler. Many don't even have plural forms for most words.

Also, English is perhaps the only language that does not have gender for objects even with such a grammar.

You should not because I would never (which is actually your first 3 paragraphs combined)

Seriously, who let you on a computer that connects to the Internet?

same for someone with a physical disability like lets go on a walk, oh wait.

The joke's on you.

And for the race thing ofc I will deal with different races differently most races have different cultures so it would make little sense to behave the same way around every culture.

Great. You post definitions without reading them.

Yes, he's someone I'd rather not have at my side anyway, except as a little pawn. They make the positions derogatory.

I don't care about any other part you've said here...

I don't like to nit pick about grammar but the entire statement except the claim is off.

You're the one who doesn't seem to know the littlest things about syntax and structure (not to mention formatting). Try doing your nit picking (seriously?) and show where I was grammatically wrong.

It's just your opinion is not a universal refutation of freaking logic.

And that's even worse than just mindlessly crying that you refuted me, without any reason.

So, you are dismissed. I have already said that I am not replying to that there, if you couldn't comprehend that.

Now fade away.

My claim here didn't really need your demonstration, but whatever.

They did, in 2001.

I've heard that it didn't go well. You'd remember, you're old.

I don't care to know why. Structuralism is dead.

I'd say it depends on how much you want them to forgive you.

As a side note, it'd remind you of something if the website always had a weekly points leaderboard.

Seems like you're obsessed with getting to the top of the leaderboard this time.

Well, I've been around the top for months.

Don't worry about him. He already has hard time figuring out what is said.

We always come far enough from originally intended meanings of words. That's inevitable.

I can't say for sure... I've only heard rumours about people arguing in the corners of the Internet, such as the YouTube comments section.

But from what I've heard, it seems pretty much insane.

Yes, usable information, or pragmatic truths, is a rare thing to come by from them. They seem to reflect more of insecurity than persuasion. Like they want to win over some crowd, as is the case of public debates. But still, with a lot of insecurity.

I wouldn't call it an argument, but the exact word evades me.

Anyway, this is the definition, from the Oxford Dictionary of Law,

A defect of reason, arising from mental disease, that is severe enough to prevent a defendant from knowing what he ...

The one from that page isn't clear enough - it goes into the legalities too soon.

Man, you've been paying him so much attention?

I'd say he must be flattered.

So, the correct term is perseveration.

Also, you know, the problem of induction. Just because something happened doesn't mean that it always will.

I guess I didn't include it earlier. Well, it just sounds rude if you're worth anything.

I'm not replying anymore in this thread unless you can present an argument against me.

I don't care about your random objections - they're meaningless, irrational and worthless.

It is just your opinion that you have refuted...worthless for consideration.

Unless you can present it as an argument.

As a recap,

I said something.

You asked where I said anything.

I told you that.

You asked where I explained it.

I told that and explained that too.

Now you're just crying over how you refuted everything I said.

Here's a little game for you.

Try refuting ANYTHING that I've said.

If you'll just cry over how you refuted everything, which you clearly couldn't even be close to doing, then you're dismissed.

You've said nothing which challenges me. Thus, I have no reason to defend.

But if you need guidance, then you can see my profile.

I wonder... I've already made my claim and shown you how I did that. So for all purposes of this thing you posted right now, you're dismissed.

Anything else I've said there is in support of it. You can read other of my arguments if you want it much longer. You're free to browse them all.

Or you can put your reasoning here if you disagree with mine, and I might destroy your claims if they seem worthy of attention.

I'd recommend you read more carefully than that.

(Hint : IT'S LITERALLY THE FIRST FEW WORDS.)

I wonder about that.

You know what, perhaps you're right.

Books? You don't need books there.

We will have all the great philosophers there. And souls are, of course, timeless (let's ignore all the absurdities - I believe they have some tricks to ignore them in Christian theology) so you'll have a complete existence.

All that'd remain is to party.

I'll be at the eternal party.

There are drinks, which don't harm you (for obvious reasons). And no hangovers, because spirits don't need to sleep.

Oh, that's strange.

Oh, that's strange.

Well, could itself is generally used as a modal in past tense.

You're confusing stuff for the readers.

All crusades weren't against Muslims.

It was your Dark Ages, anyway. If Islamic empires could do that, then about any empire across the world could enslave you.

Don't worry about such little stuff about heart attacks in heaven. I wouldn't have one, even if I see you sitting on the back of Christus. My heart is strong.

It's still better than the religions. I could create better fairytales on the same drugs, yet they're the ones people follow, and take as their opium.

Though it'd be better if we got to say that. But sadly, it won't happen.

Is that, like, your orgasm face?

Seems like it.

I'm Zeus. Didn't you see my picture?

Incidentally, I've been living, without that, for a long time.

No, they don't.

Some can always think anything - contrast is the most efficient strategy for progress.

Well, we're the only country that has a bill of rights for cows, or so I've heard.

You can't find beef. All of the foreign chains offer just cocks/hens and goats here. Or perhaps seafood.

The only real thing is what is happening. Everything else is imagination, anticipation or memory.

Unless, of course, what is happening is a delusion.

Some might do. There are even street cows here - some sort of curse on cows by some demigod.

2 of the biggest deities - Krishna and Shiva, had a special thing for cows.

I don't, though. Except that my name is a reference to Shiva.

No, I don't. I'm pretty much vegetarian. Hindus don't eat beef - it's probably even illegal to sell in India, for I have never seen such.

So does mine.

But I don't like religion enough for my mood to be that way for long.

So you intentionally made it vague.

It does seem to.

It does seem to.

In the times of the universal deceit, truth shall be the new hate speech.

Oh, I thought for a while that you were talking about the LGBTQ community.

Yes, they were forced against their natural instincts. The things I said in the last line.

Yes, they were forced against their natural instincts. The things I said in the last line.

Well, that's not how it works. You'll also need rocket, fuel and other things.

As to the LG part, that should probably soon go extinct if it is something genetic.

The same is possible for the entire community, though, but perhaps not so probable.

Sounds like a win-win scenario.

But sadly, the homophobic fundamentalists are also those people who don't understand natural selection. Ideally, they would have been the first ones to go extinct.

Oh, Guardian. That's one of the 3 publications of written journalism that I prefer (the other 2 being Economist and Hindu).

But you might also want to look at it from the other side, which doesn't think of it as dangerous or unnatural at large in detachment. And that's the transhumanist side. Especially the way I look at it.

An introduction to it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

No, I don't.

It is still the same mind as far back as memory stretches.

So, what type of a name would you like?

Biological sex doesn't matter if it isn't needed.

But no, it won't work like that. As I told you, we wouldn't be changing our minds.

I doubt that.

You're forgetting something - transhumanism.

It also happens to be the side that I support.

Now that I think of it, it does have those Antichrist vibes. Whatever, the Christians are too busy wondering about Islam.

I doubt that.

You're forgetting something - transhumanism.

It also happens to be the side that I support.

Now that I think of it, it does have those Antichrist vibes. Whatever, the Christians are too busy wondering about Islam.

I'm afraid (not really) that such crazy wishes of yours will have to stay unfulfilled. Forever. (Especially yours.)

Ah man...whats your problem with ma surname....what do you need it for...

You seemed confused over whether surnames are real, chimp.

Come on! Your skin colour looks like faeces and pig skin coloured. Who is better?

I wonder what colour you are referring to.

As to the better one, chimp, I am, of course.

Jatin is a Hindu name of Indian origin. It means the one who has matted hair (Hindi: Jatadhari), i.e. Lord Shiva. Sanskrit: Śiva,.............

Okay... So it refers to the greatest saint that ever was.

And, apparently, if you knew enough, you'd know that it can still mean saint by that definition.

You are no more hindu but you use two hindu names.

So, you have no surnames in Ghana?

Mine is a special one because it actually means something. With that new piece of knowledge, I know that my full name is a reference to Lord Shiva.

Even if that were the case i ain't gay.

Though you certainly are, I won't be doing it with a chimp. Not to mention that I am almost purely straight.

Oh, so hair of a fish somehow represent blind men painting the sky.

As to my name, Jatin means a Saint, and Nagpal means a one who pets venomous snakes.

What about yours? Is it entirely meaningless?

Oh, so you aren't a total conservative.

Well, I consider myself somewhat liberal - only as much is directly against the traditional part of conservatism. Except that, I'm a minarchist.

Why? Conservatives are about upholding traditional values, which is fundamentalist christianity.

No, this part I was referring to.

many believe the universe to be just 6000 years old and that some omniscient, omnipotent overlord in the sky made it all.

So, all conservatives (in America) are not like that?

Well, that's what it seems like on this website.

Like a blind man trying to paint the sky......he will always paint it thick dark cloudy,

I wonder about that.

In case you might never eventually come to notice, there is a link in the description.

That's the reason for the question.

I wouldn't have written that if I could see who it was.

I do.

It helps me recognise idiots from a mile away.

Thanks for that.

Though I still wonder - who is the eternally ignorant to downvote a physics lesson followed by an emoji.

Apparently, someone escaped after downvoting that.

Someone came online just to downvote it, and was swift to return.

Who else would create such a debate without knowing enough about the fundamental particles. 😜

Of course not. If US gave rights to everyone worldwide, then Trump wouldn't have gotten away with destroying EPA.

On the other hand, FBI is given the right to hack any computer in the world. Not to mention that NSA already monitors most of the world Internet traffic.

You're so desperate that you're raising fingers randomly at groups for being from Revelation.

Just like its been going on for about 2000 years.

Okay... So it harms many bird species (thinning eggs would, eventually, lead to extinction).

Well, many are really worried about the effects of playing with the environment. And since they're part of the same environment as others, I'd say that it gives them the right to have a say as much as anyone else, all other factors of their rights being equal. In short, freedom is independent of opinion.

As to whether it is the right decision...that requires the resolution of controversies and debates going on about the topic. Because that's just how I define morality - a reasonable consensus.

Though I'm tempted to say that because of the compromise by both sides, what is going on is a moral solution, since neither side is or has been too willing for the compromise, the issue is still unresolved.

Well, okay... but I can't reply to myself.

It was pushed by the environmentalists, because it harmed the environment more than just pests, it seems.

I'd find analysing the position much easier through my selectionist lens if humans weren't such social animals. Then, it wouldn't matter much if a few groups went extinct by messing up with their food chains. But adding it all together... I'll be coming to it a bit later from now.

No, I didn't.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/north-korean-rocket-launch-meme.jpg

All mosquitos don't cause malaria.

The things go much more complex than "LET'S KILL THEM!".

As to the specific question you raised, I'd recommend you learn a bit about the specific species of mosquitos, a part of which causes malaria.

Oh, that one.

I doubt I could have played much longer.

Anyway, you can do some Photoshop battles on the link I gave.

Yes, that's right.

But it also obviously means that progress is meant as a neutral thing here. You can torture people for eternity and still call it progress by that.

Though what is the game you're taking about?

As to that debate, I'll be posting on it much later.

In that case, thanks for providing the game.

Oh, I see.

If you try that, it'll mean a nuclear war. You know, all the uranium stuff.

Of course I know what I am talking about.

Though you should see the people who can use Photoshop.

https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshopbattles/

As I said, I don't use Photoshop.

I never had to edit images, and don't think I'll be needing it. There are better software I could learn for entertainment - though I might get to it sometime.

I don't use Photoshop, but doesn't seem like it'd be hard.

Freestyle on the colours, and then crop the image into that background, which should be rather easy on Photoshop as to how I've seen it being used one time.

Okay.

And who would you take down with you? That part doesn't make sense.

Oh.

And what is the go down stuff?

I don't think so, though.

It seem seems too much like another photo, which I think was American something, which just some colours added and such stuff.

What is this Murica?

You think he has enough brain to actually read that?

He's probably not more than a random archaic chatbot.