what is AHUGECAT butthurt about this time?DroidPhysX
He thinks these news will inevitably lead to pedophilia and bestiality marriage. And he also thinks science is untrustworthy and biased because he disagrees with it.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]what is AHUGECAT butthurt about this time?lx_theo
He thinks these news will inevitably lead to pedophilia and bestiality marriage. And he also thinks science is untrustworthy and biased because he disagrees with it.
I can get you to disagree with "science" in 3 seconds if I wanted to.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]what is AHUGECAT butthurt about this time?lx_theo
He thinks these news will inevitably lead to pedophilia and bestiality marriage. And he also thinks science is untrustworthy and biased because he disagrees with it. Forgot he likes to slippery slope.
**** no, do it publicly if you're so sure your incompetency will win out.
So you said you agreed with what scientific community discovers, right? There are no biases. No manipulations, correct?
The data they gather must be reproducible (as in, can't be manipulated) by anyone who wishes to do peer review. So yes, their data cannot have any subjectivity or manipulation effecting it. The ones that do will be run out of the community. Now, when the companies that fund that data and spin it in a way that makes them look better, then you have bias, But that's the after story, its the interpretation and spin the companies try to make society believe on a subject. Even with that, the data will have to have no contradictions (NONE) with that spin in order for them to make it work. That has nothing to do with the scientific process. Like I've already said, the scientific process is objective, and that's the WHOLE POINT of the system. Companies only go for research if they think the objective point will support them. If they don't think ti will, they go other avenues.
[QUOTE="lx_theo"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]what is AHUGECAT butthurt about this time?AHUGECAT
He thinks these news will inevitably lead to pedophilia and bestiality marriage. And he also thinks science is untrustworthy and biased because he disagrees with it.
I can get you to disagree with "science" in 3 seconds if I wanted to.
[QUOTE="lx_theo"] **** no, do it publicly if you're so sure your incompetency will win out.lx_theo
So you said you agreed with what scientific community discovers, right? There are no biases. No manipulations, correct?
The data they gather must be reproducible (as in, can't be manipulated) by anyone who wishes to do peer review. So yes, their data cannot have any subjectivity or manipulation effecting it. The ones that do will be run out of the community. Now, when the companies that fund that data and spin it in a way that makes them look better, then you have bias, But that's the after story, its the interpretation and spin the companies try to make society believe on a subject. Even with that, the data will have to have no contradictions (NONE) with that spin in order for them to make it work. That has nothing to do with the scientific process. Like I've already said, the scientific process is objective, and that's the WHOLE POINT of the system. Companies only go for research if they think the objective point will support them. If they don't think ti will, they go other avenues.
Then PM me and let me see how far your belief goes.
[QUOTE="lx_theo"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]what is AHUGECAT butthurt about this time?AHUGECAT
He thinks these news will inevitably lead to pedophilia and bestiality marriage. And he also thinks science is untrustworthy and biased because he disagrees with it.
I can get you to disagree with "science" in 3 seconds if I wanted to.
So you said you agreed with what scientific community discovers, right? There are no biases. No manipulations, correct?
AHUGECAT
The data they gather must be reproducible (as in, can't be manipulated) by anyone who wishes to do peer review. So yes, their data cannot have any subjectivity or manipulation effecting it. The ones that do will be run out of the community. Now, when the companies that fund that data and spin it in a way that makes them look better, then you have bias, But that's the after story, its the interpretation and spin the companies try to make society believe on a subject. Even with that, the data will have to have no contradictions (NONE) with that spin in order for them to make it work. That has nothing to do with the scientific process. Like I've already said, the scientific process is objective, and that's the WHOLE POINT of the system. Companies only go for research if they think the objective point will support them. If they don't think ti will, they go other avenues.
Then PM me and let me see how far your belief goes.
So you said you agreed with what scientific community discovers, right? There are no biases. No manipulations, correct?
AHUGECAT
The data they gather must be reproducible (as in, can't be manipulated) by anyone who wishes to do peer review. So yes, their data cannot have any subjectivity or manipulation effecting it. The ones that do will be run out of the community. Now, when the companies that fund that data and spin it in a way that makes them look better, then you have bias, But that's the after story, its the interpretation and spin the companies try to make society believe on a subject. Even with that, the data will have to have no contradictions (NONE) with that spin in order for them to make it work. That has nothing to do with the scientific process. Like I've already said, the scientific process is objective, and that's the WHOLE POINT of the system. Companies only go for research if they think the objective point will support them. If they don't think ti will, they go other avenues.
Then PM me and let me see how far your belief goes.
Why don't you debunk the entire scientific community here instead for all to see.
So you said you agreed with what scientific community discovers, right? There are no biases. No manipulations, correct?
AHUGECAT
The data they gather must be reproducible (as in, can't be manipulated) by anyone who wishes to do peer review. So yes, their data cannot have any subjectivity or manipulation effecting it. The ones that do will be run out of the community. Now, when the companies that fund that data and spin it in a way that makes them look better, then you have bias, But that's the after story, its the interpretation and spin the companies try to make society believe on a subject. Even with that, the data will have to have no contradictions (NONE) with that spin in order for them to make it work. That has nothing to do with the scientific process. Like I've already said, the scientific process is objective, and that's the WHOLE POINT of the system. Companies only go for research if they think the objective point will support them. If they don't think ti will, they go other avenues.
Then PM me and let me see how far your belief goes.
No, do it publicly. Unless it'll expose how much of an idiot you are even more?
[QUOTE="lx_theo"] The data they gather must be reproducible (as in, can't be manipulated) by anyone who wishes to do peer review. So yes, their data cannot have any subjectivity or manipulation effecting it. The ones that do will be run out of the community. Now, when the companies that fund that data and spin it in a way that makes them look better, then you have bias, But that's the after story, its the interpretation and spin the companies try to make society believe on a subject. Even with that, the data will have to have no contradictions (NONE) with that spin in order for them to make it work. That has nothing to do with the scientific process. Like I've already said, the scientific process is objective, and that's the WHOLE POINT of the system. Companies only go for research if they think the objective point will support them. If they don't think ti will, they go other avenues.dave123321
Then PM me and let me see how far your belief goes.
grounded on the ramblings of ahugecat, we can deduce that he has been subjected to the conservative propaganda emitted by fox news and beck. his warped, myopic view of reality is absolutely barmy. gay marriage is here to stay whether you like it or not.
grounded on the ramblings of ahugecat, we can deduce that he has been subjected to the conservative propaganda emitted by fox news and beck. his warped, myopic view of reality is absolutely barmy. gay marriage is here to stay whether you like it or not. liberalus
But the liberal media (90% of the media) had no effect on you, right?
[QUOTE="lx_theo"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]what is AHUGECAT butthurt about this time?AHUGECAT
He thinks these news will inevitably lead to pedophilia and bestiality marriage. And he also thinks science is untrustworthy and biased because he disagrees with it.
I can get you to disagree with "science" in 3 seconds if I wanted to.
science and the scientific is the only proven methodology in our universe. keep on believing your book, ignoramus.
[QUOTE="liberalus"]grounded on the ramblings of ahugecat, we can deduce that he has been subjected to the conservative propaganda emitted by fox news and beck. his warped, myopic view of reality is absolutely barmy. gay marriage is here to stay whether you like it or not. AHUGECAT
But the liberal media (90% of the media) had no effect on you, right? the liberal media is an allusion created by mentally deficient conservatives such as yourself. right wing media, as it appeals to the lowest of the lowest, attracts more views and creates more "buzz". thus, it is more popular
[QUOTE="liberalus"][QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="liberalus"] why are you against homosexuality? the love of 2 individuals is beautiful and pulchritudinous That's redundant care to explain your assertion? Beautiful and pulchritudinous have much the same meaning.
[QUOTE="liberalus"][QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="liberalus"] why are you against homosexuality? the love of 2 individuals is beautiful and pulchritudinous That's redundant care to explain your assertion? Isn't pulchritudinous just another word for beauty albeit maybe a bit stronger
[QUOTE="lx_theo"][QUOTE="liberalus"] care to explain your assertion? liberalus
Beautiful and pulchritudinous have much the same meaning.
wrong
beau·ti·ful Â
/byootfl/Adjective
Of a very high standard; excellent.
Â
pulchritudinous Â
Web definitions
used of persons only; having great physical beauty; "pulchritudinous movie stars".
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwnBeautiful is just full of beauty shortened. Pulchritudinous is great physical beauty. While not exactly the same, it does express the same idea as each other. Hence, redundant.
I quoted Caballos, who has no affiliation with Conservapedia.
AHUGECAT
You're dancing around the point. Again.
The reason I found it on Conservapedia is because I searched for a source for the quote. I never have used Conservapedia besides for that source (I don't like biases)
you are a liar. conservapedia is a source that emits conservative propaganda that brainwashes redneck youths like yourself
Beautiful is just full of beauty shortened. Pulchritudinous is great physical beauty. While not exactly the same, it does express the same idea as each other. Hence, redundant.lx_theo
wrong. in the first instance i was utilizing it by calling it excellent. 2nd instance i was employing it by calling the love of 2 individuals to be of great physical beauty. those are 2 different connotations. you are obviously playing the semantics game dude..........
[QUOTE="lx_theo"]Beautiful is just full of beauty shortened. Pulchritudinous is great physical beauty. While not exactly the same, it does express the same idea as each other. Hence, redundant.liberalus
wrong. in the first instance i was utilizing it by calling it excellent. 2nd instance i was employing it by calling the love of 2 individuals to be of great physical beauty. those are 2 different connotations. you are obviously playing the semantics game dude..........
So is the love of a 12 year old and 45 year old beautiful as well?
[QUOTE="liberalus"][QUOTE="lx_theo"]Beautiful is just full of beauty shortened. Pulchritudinous is great physical beauty. While not exactly the same, it does express the same idea as each other. Hence, redundant.AHUGECAT
wrong. in the first instance i was utilizing it by calling it excellent. 2nd instance i was employing it by calling the love of 2 individuals to be of great physical beauty. those are 2 different connotations. you are obviously playing the semantics game dude..........
So is the love of a 12 year old and 45 year old beautiful as well?
Still waiting on getting everyone to disagree with science...
[QUOTE="liberalus"] wrong. in the first instance i was utilizing it by calling it excellent. 2nd instance i was employing it by calling the love of 2 individuals to be of great physical beauty. those are 2 different connotations. you are obviously playing the semantics game dude..........Person0
So is the love of a 12 year old and 45 year old beautiful as well?
Still waiting on getting everyone to disagree with science... i am still imperturbably waiting on his 3 second analysis of the science as false
So is the love of a 12 year old and 45 year old beautiful as well?
liberalus
Still waiting on getting everyone to disagree with science... i am still imperturbably waiting on his 3 second analysis of the science as false You heard it first from GameSpot! ;)
[QUOTE="liberalus"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]So is the love of a 12 year old and 45 year old beautiful as well?AHUGECAT
in some cases it may be. but that is not the discussion. stop throwing red herrings.
Well at least you admitted the agenda, I give you props for that... you might be a little different.
there is no recondite agenda. in some cases 12 year old and 45 is okay. but that is not the discussion. the discussion is gay marriage. 2 males, 2 females. in both of the previously stated cases, the people are above legal age. therefore, it is okay. you are nothing but a bigot. i have a question, are u a christian?
[QUOTE="liberalus"] in some cases it may be. but that is not the discussion. stop throwing red herrings. liberalus
Well at least you admitted the agenda, I give you props for that... you might be a little different.
there is no recondite agenda. in some cases 12 year old and 45 is okay. but that is not the discussion. the discussion is gay marriage. 2 males, 2 females. in both of the previously stated cases, the people are above legal age. therefore, it is okay. you are nothing but a bigot. i have a question, are u a christian?
[QUOTE="lx_theo"]Beautiful is just full of beauty shortened. Pulchritudinous is great physical beauty. While not exactly the same, it does express the same idea as each other. Hence, redundant.liberalus
wrong. in the first instance i was utilizing it by calling it excellent. 2nd instance i was employing it by calling the love of 2 individuals to be of great physical beauty. those are 2 different connotations. you are obviously playing the semantics game dude.......... Oh my goodness, stop being a stubborn child, please. Everyone knows that beautiful implies beauty. You'd have to clarify to think ANYONE would think you were referring to anything else. Not to mention, you said you were My goodness, this is the most idiotic conversation I've had in a while. If you want to call it excellent, call it excellent. Or refer to love as beautiful and the other part as pulchritudinous. Don't say love is both. Its so blatantly redundant by anyone's interpretation when you phrase it like that. I also don't care, which is what is annoying me so much about this right now, while you seem to be going into defensive mode with such passion. So I'm out, because this is stupid and your defense of it is a cop out on its best of days.
Well at least you admitted the agenda, I give you props for that... you might be a little different.
AHUGECAT
there is no recondite agenda. in some cases 12 year old and 45 is okay. but that is not the discussion. the discussion is gay marriage. 2 males, 2 females. in both of the previously stated cases, the people are above legal age. therefore, it is okay. you are nothing but a bigot. i have a question, are u a christian?
No, I am not a Christian.
why are u against it then? give me a logical answer. do u find the idea of gay sex disgusting and filthy?
Log in to comment