This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Verbatim
Pages: 1 ... 466467468 469470 ... 1601
14011
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:22:47 PM »
British newspapers already dropping her
That's a scary thought. Who'd replace her even? Her VP? Bernie?
Yeah, probably her VP. Tbh, I wouldn't even be scared at that point. Like a skydiver whose parachute just malfunctioned, I'd probably panic for a moment--but during the fall, I'd have plenty of time to calm myself down and just accept whatever happens next. No use panicking at that point.
14012
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:09:15 PM »
we're the renegades of funk
14013
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:06:31 PM »
Berserk and Bokurano, though.
I didn't know Berserk was deconstruction, but isn't it known for being over-the-top violent or something? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seems to me that it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I don't know what Bokurano is.
14014
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:01:40 PM »
succubi
GASP, i just realized why they're called "succubi" first they succ u and then u say bi (to your sul)
14015
« on: September 11, 2016, 08:51:53 PM »
Oh yeah, and "deconstructions" of anime tropes don't work for me.
The only way anime knows how to "deconstruct" its own tropes is by amplifying them to extremity (Kill la Kill, Panty & Stocking, One Punch Man, Me!Me!Me!), which is lazy, uncreative, boring, and almost as obnoxious as the tropes themselves.
I would probably rather watch a show about deconstructing deconstruction. Parodying parodies. But I like to think I have better uses of my time than watching a show that makes fun of shows that make fun of shows. Seems like a big waste.
Like, I already know what tropes I hate. I don't need a show to validate my outlook.
14016
« on: September 11, 2016, 08:43:39 PM »
14017
« on: September 11, 2016, 08:38:32 PM »
No
No we can't.
oh. I'm sure you've had to explain this plenty, but why do you dislike anime?
Because, without failure, they all fall into the same tired tropes that make every single one of them unwatchable. If I hate x, y, and z tropes, you can try your best to find a show that doesn't have any of those tropes. And when you do, it'll invariably contain a, b, and c tropes. Which I also hate.
14018
« on: September 11, 2016, 08:32:03 PM »
\That's just an arbitrary form of classifying the depth of certain parts of the ocean. It's not literal layers of water sitting on top of each other. I never said it was. But the fact that it's even possible to divide the ocean into arbitrary layers proves that bodies of water can be placed on top of other bodies of water. And it's demonstrable using two glasses of water and pouring one into the other. If what you're arguing is true, you wouldn't be able to pour water into anything. Which means it's parts that made a whole. You can only break down a whole. Which means "breaking things down" is an illusory concept, too. It's just convenient for conversation.
14019
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:56:33 PM »
No
No we can't.
14020
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:55:54 PM »
But.. he has been wrong
the point i was making there was that i was wrong for agreeing with the right if you're not extreme leftist on every issue there is, you're wrong
14021
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:43:09 PM »
i am so proud
14023
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:30:49 PM »
That's not what I meant and you know it. I have no idea what you meant. You're telling me that because we linguistically treat water as if it were a single entity, that somehow makes it a single entity in material reality. That's the only way you could argue that water isn't wet, because in order for something to be wet, there has to be two objects: water, and something for the water to be on. And water can be placed water. If water couldn't be placed on water, oceans wouldn't exist. Rain wouldn't happen. I'm really not sure what's hard about this. See now you're just talking shit.
Everything can be broken down to its smallest parts.
14024
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:21:42 PM »
Multiple parts that form a whole. basically cheating the argument
water is either multiple parts or one entity
can't be both
Multiple parts can't form a whole now? Why do you think it's called a "body" of water?
...Because it's convenient for the sake of communication. It's easier to say "get me a glass of water" than it is to say "get me 469.42 fuckatrillion molecules of water in a small glass container please." But that's what it is. Everything is pieces. "Wholes" are pretty much just illusions.
14025
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:12:50 PM »
gimme a verbal smackdown, jacob
i haven't the faintest clue what i'm even looking at tbh
it's a logo thing i made for myself
i should probably update it
oh, i see it now i'm not really a fan of landscape avatars either, so i'd probably give it a 5/10, but props for making your own shit
14026
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:10:31 PM »
This is the first time I've been here in months and I see this shit?
july 26 was less than two months ago
14027
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:02:24 PM »
This is beyond simplicity.
i agree you have a very simple understanding of metaphysics
14028
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:01:31 PM »
Multiple parts that form a whole. basically cheating the argument water is either multiple parts or one entity can't be both
14029
« on: September 11, 2016, 06:48:03 PM »
As soon as I destroy the biggest part of your argument you just duck out and act like you never argued it in the first place. the biggest part of my argument has yet to be properly addressed--it's the fact that a body of water is not a single entity--it's made up of countless fundamental constituents called molecules the fact that water is made up of individual pieces basically ends the discussion, because once you have more than one of any physical object--no matter what state of matter it's in--it's a given that the two pieces can be stacked on top of each other yeah, even if it's a gas (though it would be extremely difficult) i only went with the ice example because carson brought it up and i thought it was a good example to work with, but it even works with gases--it's just a lot harder to argue, because then we'd have to start talking about how to grab individual molecules and physically force one on top of the other, which is theoretically possible Then you have to see that liquid water does not stack on itself.
literally no
14030
« on: September 11, 2016, 06:40:07 PM »
Holy shit that's not how it works.
Does it stack in a gaseous state? Don't ignore parts of my post.
i ignore parts of your posts when you say something that doesn't matter or when you start repeating yourself you said it yourself--we're talking about liquids, not solids or gases follow your own rules please
14031
« on: September 11, 2016, 06:36:49 PM »
It absolutely does mean it doesn't stack on top of itself. something that it doesn't need to do for water to be considered wet when you pour water into another glass of water, you're placing water on water it doesn't matter if it doesn't stack in the traditional sense--water molecules are still riding on top of other water molecules
14032
« on: September 11, 2016, 06:09:16 PM »
this is worth arguing about
get in the oven you AND your nose
14033
« on: September 11, 2016, 06:05:47 PM »
Tfw Verb never did mine
yours was literally the first one that i did
14034
« on: September 11, 2016, 06:04:26 PM »
Exactly. yeah, exactly, so i'm right No it doesn't. It freezes in whatever form you freeze it. these two ice cubes i have stacked together are wondering what the fuck you're talking about Really? Are you? Does the water you're pouring in not disturb the water in the other cup? It bounces off and just stacks on top of it? not really, not that it has to No it isn't. Water doesn't stack, you can't lay it on top of another body of water.
That's just the nature of water.
this glass of water pouring itself into another glass of water is wondering what the fuck you're talking about just because the water gets displaced doesn't mean anything
14035
« on: September 11, 2016, 05:59:17 PM »
for water not to be wet, you would basically have to argue that there's no such thing as a water molecule, and that all water in the universe is one holistic entity split into many interdimensionally-inseparable bodies
which would be stupid
14036
« on: September 11, 2016, 05:57:08 PM »
Pour a bottle of water on the floor. You'll find it won't stack up on top of itself.
that's just the nature of a liquid, though if we turn water into a solid, it actually stacks rather nicely but if you have two half-empty glasses of water and pour one into the other, you're pretty much stacking the two bodies together--just not in the way we normally think a glass of water is just two, three, four--billions of bodies of water stacked onto each other onto
14037
« on: September 11, 2016, 05:53:40 PM »
gimme a verbal smackdown, jacob
i haven't the faintest clue what i'm even looking at tbh
14038
« on: September 11, 2016, 05:51:21 PM »
Water isn't wet, it's a liquid. Put liquid water on solid water (ice), and it'll form a larger amount of liquid. It can't be "on" or "on top of".
none of this contradicts a single thing that i've said, and when read in a certain way, actually agrees with what i'm saying
14039
« on: September 11, 2016, 05:49:02 PM »
water can't have water on it.
pour water on an icecube
that's a clever example, wish i thought of it
14040
« on: September 11, 2016, 05:45:15 PM »
Oil can have water on it, water can't have water on it.
1 cup of water = ~8.36x10 24 molecules that's ~8.36x10 24 molecules of water on top of each other ergo, water on water--hundreds of billions of times over it's physically impossible for water not to have water on it unless you're only examining one molecule in seclusion therefore, an amount of water greater than a single molecule is in a permanent state of wetness--it can't not be wet
Pages: 1 ... 466467468 469470 ... 1601
|
Show Posts
