I was really just wanting to battle you lol sorry

Correction--when she said she had to back out, she meant for the tourney, not for the time being, as I had gathered. You won't have to play her; she's out.

So... That means you've solidified your position. Undefeated, 34/34 points.

I wish I had a more ceremonious way of announcing that, but... the tourney's still not over yet.
When it is, I'll... do something. I don't know yet. An awards thread, perhaps.

are

How FUCKING adorable.

We would ALL be better off without you. CUNT

are are are are are are are are are are

My words are don't NEED a fucking picture

yeah

your words are don't need a fucking picture

i'd be game for a ssb4 tournament

should be round robin tho

like, he actually thinks that he's the first one to type like this

nope

and i don't give a fuck if i am or not

Quote from: Verbatim on February 09, 2015, 07:03:44 PM

Quote from: Sloppy Jim Job on February 09, 2015, 07:02:57 PM

Yeah but then you post and ruin my mood again

what if i were to give you some chocolate on a bad day

fuck you

well, it is an aphrodisiac, apparently

that none of you actually remind us of anything ever

let alone "daily"

so why say "daily reminder" if you don't actually remind us daily

Hershey's is ass. It's fine when you're chewing but the aftertaste is like someone stuffed belly button lint down my throat.

it's also not vegan

i'm surprised someone hasn't said anything like "chocolate isn't vegan" yet

a meant just a little chocolate, by the way
because too much makes you sick, obviously

though, it does only make me feel better by a little bit, too

Quote from: Verbatim on February 09, 2015, 07:06:22 PM

Quote from: ifarted69 on February 09, 2015, 07:04:00 PM

chocolate is good but i dunno if it can b used like medicine

didn't mean it like that

then how??

the only other way i could have meant it

Yup, it's been proven to trigger the release of endorphins in humans.

ugh

why do you gotta ruin it with this neuroscience shit

now i know how midichlorian-haters feel

Yeah but then you post and ruin my mood again

what if i were to give you some chocolate on a bad day

Quote from: ⱭAS ᗺ00T x2 on February 09, 2015, 06:28:03 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on February 09, 2015, 06:26:25 PM

People who think fetishes are determined by nurture are idiots. You're born with them.

Nah, you can condit- oh wait, you're Class.

What?

completely
lacking
any
semblance
(of common) sense

Proof =/= evidence.

Well, technically, it's the other way around, isn't it? Evidence is not proof, but proof is evidence. It's a bag of potato crisps. Once something has been proven, all you need is the bag of potato crisps to prove it again (to someone who may not know). One bag of potato crisps. Before something has been proven empirically, however, then yeah... you're gonna have to gather up all sorts of crisps--big pieces, small pieces--and put them in a bag, and that's gonna take awhile before someone says, "Okay, yeah, that's enough crisps to constitute... one bag of potato crisps."

Once you assemble the entire bag, though, that's all the evidence you'll ever need to prove your claim again to someone who's arguing with you. So in that regard, evidence begets proof. Of course, you're not going to convince anyone of anything with a single crisp, but that doesn't mean that you won't with an entire bag, which does in itself constitute a bag full of... evidence.

metaphors are fun

I'm not claiming a refusal by you to provide evidence for this raptor is evidence of absence. I'm saying attempts to observe the empirical properties of this raptor which repeatedly yield nothing is evidence of absence. Like, the absence of evidence for milk in the bowl is evidence of its absence.

Okay, that's a lot better. But that begs the question--how would atheists prove the absence of a god? I asked this in the previous thread as well, and your answer was something like:

Depends upon the nature of the deist gods in question. However, the complete absence of evidence for any empirical proposition relating to the potential existence of said deist gods would be the negative evidence.

which, to me, sounds like you're going back and forth on the burden of proof thing. Is there priority involved? That is to say, does the person who is making the positive assertion have a prioritized burden of proof? Is that what you're saying? In order to assert the existence of a god, you must have evidence for that god. In order to assert the opposite, you must have evidence for that, too. But no one's going to assert absence without asserting existence FIRST. Hitchens's razor comes to mind.