HeuristicAlgorithm9

I actually like the singing because it makes sense that the characters aren’t all amazing singers. Makes the concept more conistent rather than having voiceovers or something.

They’re currently doing both, so I would say this is lower yeah

Turducken but the ken is for kraken

33

No one made it up explicitly, it just follows the formula for the rest of the decade age words like octagenarian

Who is number 1?

Idk if the other guy is right, but it’s not like they would add “to hunt down slaves” instead. So they might have put that to get the whole thing added on.

True!

Powers of 2 is just counting in binary, finger up is a 1 and down is a 0 so highest you can count all the numbers up to and including is 1111111111 in binary or 1023 base 10

- statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged

Yeah! Make her do harrassment training!

I mean most responses would be inappropriate for a doctor, does she expect her doctor to say ‘well you haven’t been with me yet 😜’. He probably just went silent rather than SILENT

I can understand (NOT AGREE) how umbrellas and gluten free fit into their twisted view on what is ‘manly’; using external sources to cope with difficulties. But mushrooms? The fuck? Just man up and eat them, they’re delicious shakemysmheadmh

Oh fuck, I forgot to eat today. I literally went and bought some earlier too. It’s fine, I’ll eat tomorrow…

Looks like it yeah

I mean there isn’t, but also if you want to show other people are wrong (the racists) then you need to know what being wrong is and how to show that. This person doesn’t know and so would be detrimental in an actual debate as their points could be disproven and the racists would then believe themselves right. You have to make your arguments unasailable because the other side only want to prove you wrong, they don’t think they have to prove themselves right.

Genuinely not my intention, what did I do in bad faith?

Literally the movement is pro-choice not pro-abortion.

Pro-legalisation obviously doesn’t mean that, it means you want it legalised, how is this relevant? Also pro-legalisation doesn’t mean it wants legalisation to be permissible, it already is.

Aren’t metaphors and such meant to make things clearer/easier to understand? This is so much more difficult to process.

But basically I believe you have chosen 1 specific example and claimed that prooves your point. This is not how proofs work. 1 counter example however is sufficient to disproove, and 1 has been given. Tbh I suspect your given example has some logical fallacy in it somewhere too, but you’re either incapable or unwilling to engage with a logical argument so it’s not worth my time to figure out where it is.

Edit: nvm found it immediately. Just because the anti-anti-pineapplist engages in an action that results in support for pineapplists does not mean that they are pro-pineapplist. I’m sure you show active support for billionaires by having a job or buying practically anything, that doesn’t immediately make you pro-billionaire.

The annoying thing is, you can treat it like boolean logic, they just aren’t correct when they try to do so.