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 - challengerX
Pages: 1 ... 356357358 359360 ... 1397
10711
« on: September 12, 2016, 12:42:04 PM »
tfw no pan-Abrahamic anti-gay anti-abortion alliance
Kekism
10712
« on: September 12, 2016, 12:37:58 PM »
What were the charges?
Organized Crime: Retail Theft
So why did you spend time in county? No bail?
10713
« on: September 12, 2016, 12:35:26 PM »
What were the charges?
10714
« on: September 12, 2016, 12:32:40 PM »
Kek punished you for worshipping a false god.
10715
« on: September 12, 2016, 12:30:51 PM »
Was this actually him or just some guy or a photoshop?
10716
« on: September 12, 2016, 12:26:54 PM »
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-water-wet
Water Isn't Wet Water isn't wet because it is a verb and water can't make itself wet water isn't wet water isn't wet water isn't wet water isn't wet water isn't wet water isn't wet water isn't wet water isn't wet water isn't wet your mom was wet last night lol lol lol I rest my case
10717
« on: September 12, 2016, 12:24:05 PM »
But if she's a lizard wouldn't her blood have cooled down in the shade, thus causing her to get cold and contract pneumonia after the heatstroke which was caused by excessive sunbathing?
Seems like the only explanation
Breitbart will pay you a handsome amount for an exclusive scoop like that.
Is there a place you can send them stuff?
10718
« on: September 12, 2016, 12:21:55 PM »
More like it was written by an autistic history nerd.
Door did you do this?
10719
« on: September 12, 2016, 12:10:08 PM »
But if she's a lizard wouldn't her blood have cooled down in the shade, thus causing her to get cold and contract pneumonia after the heatstroke which was caused by excessive sunbathing?
Seems like the only explanation
10720
« on: September 12, 2016, 11:53:48 AM »
"It's no different except for that one thing that makes it completely different."
"Sitting" implies the molecules are static or motionless. I've never said anything like this. What I've said is that the water molecules are on each other, because that's how water works.
Molecules do not have to be at rest to be considered on top of each other. http://water.usgs.gov/edu/surface-tension.htmlWe're not talking about things "getting" wet. My argument is that water is in a perpetual state of wetness, unless you only have a singular molecule. It's a liquid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiquidA liquid is made up of tiny vibrating particles of matter, such as atoms, held together by intermolecular bonds. Water is, by far, the most common liquid on Earth. Like a gas, a liquid is able to flow and take the shape of a container. Most liquids resist compression, although others can be compressed. Unlike a gas, a liquid does not disperse to fill every space of a container, and maintains a fairly constant density. A distinctive property of the liquid state is surface tension, leading to wetting phenomena. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WettingWetting is the ability of a liquid to maintain contact with a solid surface, resulting from intermolecular interactions when the two are brought together. The degree of wetting (wettability) is determined by a force balance between adhesive and cohesive forces. How much of a depraved fucking loser do you have to be to think that having friends is autistic and socially retarded? >classmates >friends You're like the autistic kid in class who keeps talking to everybody about random stuff making people pretend to laugh so you'll leave them alone. And you're someone who doesn't even have friends. And I'm socially retarded. LOL Where did you get this from? It does in its own unique way. I'm sorry you're too slack-jawed to comprehend how. Please explain (scientifically) how water in its liquid form can stack. If that were true (it's not), you're really not doing a fantastic job. Saying "water isn't wet" the exact same way fifty times isn't going to convince me. Ever. But that's all you can do. Well it's as if you're denying grass is green. It's green. End of story. Vy not contradicting a single thing that I've said so far?
The fact that wholes exhibit properties that their parts do not does not conflict with anything that I've said whatsoever.
They're still illusory. They're still just parts. Uh no, it's a whole. Parts make a whole. Not my fault. Yeah it is. Just like when you said you lived on the Atlantic Ocean or whatever, and that you lived in other countries because you were there for a few days on vacation. You'll literally argue about anything and say any stupid thing you can think of just to disagree with me. It's pathetic.
10721
« on: September 12, 2016, 09:53:56 AM »
Please, Kek, this user does not represent Sep7agon.
10722
« on: September 12, 2016, 09:51:53 AM »
10723
« on: September 12, 2016, 09:51:05 AM »
So by trying to save the lives of a hundred thousand, he inadvertently killed 40,000 with his good intentions.
Challenger's comment about further testing would not be remiss. I think the action is more important than the intentions, because the intentions can be ethnocentric and not entirely in the best interests of a group of people.
A good point, but wouldn't the alleviation of famine and thus the reducing of suffering be an objectively good action and thus not ethnocentric?
In this particular example my comment doesn't necessarily apply, I'm more so talking about in principle ethnocentrism can cause suffering. Relativistically, however, not starving would probably rank high on people's "life is good" list. Physical needs are not the only way to impart suffering, however.
Say we have a hypothetical in which people from one country want to help the urban poor in another country, but believe them to be ethnically inferior for ethnocentric reasons, so they offer indentured servitude to the urban poor. These people's basic physical needs are covered, which is the ultimate goal of the contract-holder and in their eyes they have moral intentions. Some of the basic freedoms of the urban poor are restricted, however. The contract-holder can still cause suffering in a psychological sense not immediately apparent to them (though one can argue perceiving others as inferior to begin with is immoral, thus their intentions aren't moral to begin with).
This is kind of going off on a tangent.
10724
« on: September 12, 2016, 09:10:03 AM »
Did you do what I asked? Did you find a post that says the water molecules are "sitting" on top of each other?
Or did you just find a post that says they're on top of each other.
Do you understand that those are two different assertions? Apart from the word "sitting" it's exactly the same thing. These mental gymnastics are hilarious. It's basic metaphysics and you're getting it wrong. No it isn't. This science. Water is not wet. A liquid cannot be wet. For something to get wet it has to be dry. They know more about the subject than you ever will, is the point. No they don't. People who study philosophy in college are pseudo intellectuals at best. They're SecondClass tier. There's really nothing autistic about it--I show my classmates funny shit all the time. You're right, though--not all of them are laughing. Some of them are cringing. Dude... there's no way you're this socially retarded. It's relevant because it destroys everything about your argument. You can stack anything together if you try hard enough. Yeah, you can manipulate elements. Water does not stack in its liquid form. Do you understand that these aren't arguments? t. Stefan Do you understand that what you've been doing over the past three or fur years--probably longer--does not count as an argument? Repeating your shitty incorrect viewpoints over and over again? You realize that's what you're doing right? And that if my posts seem repetitive, it's because I have to keep repeating the same facts over and over until you understand it? Got it to work. As I expected, it does nothing to prove me wrong. Helps my argument, actually.
Really? How so? Just drop it dude. This is really getting stupid now.
10725
« on: September 12, 2016, 07:55:14 AM »
Uh, no, I don't. That's you. Nope, you. Right. You done chimping out? Funny how every time I prove you wrong you just resort to insults as if that will somehow save your bullshit argument. Yeah, show me the post where I said that. Simple request. Can you do that for me? the water molecules are still on top of each other. Use ctrl+F And you can't refute any of that. I already have. It's not even a discussion of science--it's metaphysics, and I'm sorry, but you're the moron here. FUCKING LOL This is basic fucking kid's science. I've shown this argument to many philosophy students already. They're all laughing at you. You're being laughed at. If you're autistic enough to show random people at your school an argument you're having on the Internet then lmao. I couldn't care less what philosophy students think about anything, they're basically studying nothing. Except that's really not grasping at all, because if you want to stack two gas molecules together, that's literally how you would do it. I'm glad you're learning something from this. No, the point is you're talking about that as if it's relevant. You're right, because water is already wet. Because it's in a perpetual state of wetness. You're 100% right--that's one of the first things I said, too. No, because it's a liquid. If you had one water molecule and you poured a glass of water over it, you just made that singular molecule wet. No you haven't. You've just added more liquid. Replace what I said with "water droplets" and not a single thing changes. Please keep your autism in check. Except you'd just be making the same argument and you'd still be wrong. You shouldn't even be allowed to use the term "hard science." No, you shouldn't. This is a joke. 404 Error: Page Not Found
Good job. I'm sure it was some brilliant shit, too. Maybe it was written by the same nutjob who thinks plants feel pain. Coming up just fine for me on multiple devices. Or is it because you're embarrassed that you have the understanding levels of a small child. And you've failed conclusively to demonstrate this, unsurprisingly.
I've done it several times now.
10726
« on: September 12, 2016, 07:12:54 AM »
>1 member shy of lucky trips
Is Kek angry at us?
10727
« on: September 12, 2016, 07:10:29 AM »
It's manslaughter at the least. He should've done more tests and been more careful. He knew the evil he could awaken experimenting with GMOs, yet he continued.
10728
« on: September 12, 2016, 07:04:07 AM »
If you want to abstain from drugs, great. But you shouldn't use it as a way to look down on others and feel morally superior to them. Especially considering smoking a joint is about as harmful as eating a Big Mac.
So extremely harmful?
10729
« on: September 12, 2016, 06:57:17 AM »
I think you should maybe read the whole post before you respond to stuff, because I wasn't nearly finished there. Unless you're okay with looking silly, because you're responding to arguments I've never made. What are you talking about? You clearly tried to say water stacks because of some arbitrary division system based on depth. If anything it just proves me right. I'm really not, though--you've convinced yourself that I am because of a few simple misinterpretations on your part, but that has nothing to do with me. Actually you are, because you for some reason think this is about semantics and not the very real fact that water does not sit on itself and therefore cannot be wet. You think I'm arguing hat the ocean is divided--I literally never said it was. I posted a diagram of a body of water that had lines on it, and you think that's me trying to say that the body is divided. Because you're not very bright, and you can't read very well. LOL If you were trying to make another point you would've said so just now and called me an idiot for not being able to read your post. You didn't, however, because you know damn well what I called you out on was EXACTLY what you were trying to do. "hurr how is water divided if it's a whole lel get rekt" Bro Cool. So, can you point out where I denied that, please? This entire thread where you literally said water sits on itself? And can you also explain how the fact that water doesn't sit on top of itself somehow proves that water can't be wet? Because that's the point. Water isn't on water, it isn't wet with other water because it already is water. Are you aware that you're making my own arguments for me? That you're proving me right? I'm not. You're doing that for me. You haven't once yet proven in any way that water can be wet. Your only argument has been that "water molecules" are always separate and can never form a whole, wholes don't even exist in the first place (fucking LOL), and that water is wet because it is wet with billions of other "water molecules". OH, really? All of the water on me forms a whole? Is that why some of it is dripping off in individual drops? Because it's a whole? Is that something that a whole does? It breaks apart? In liquid form running off a solid surface? Yes. This is the part where you just admit that you're being stupid and just give up, or admit that I'm right or something. I'd say this is looking pretty bad for you right now. Except it shows that you don't understand basic science. Personally I thought we were just having an amicable discussion about this, but for some reason you always have to get nasty. My point is that it literally doesn't matter what state of matter it is. You can stack gas molecules onto each other if you try hard enough. Ever heard of a particle accelerator? You probably call it an atom smasher. I think that's what stupid people call them. LOL HOLY SHIT THE GRASPING IS REAL Wow, very good challenger! "It moves, and it mixes." Awesome. You figured it out.
I'll just wait for you to respond to the previous questions, then--when did I ever suggest that water doesn't move, and how does the free movement of water demonstrate that water cannot be wet? Because adding water to water does not wet the other water. It just adds to the volume of the other water. Nothing got wet. It's water. Hmm! Do you know what an analogy is? It's a comparison between two like subjects, commonly used as a rhetorical device to help illustrate a point to less educated people. The problem here is you're talking about solids when you agreed with me we're talking about liquid, specifically water and how it is not wet. If you're going to make shitty examples because you can't back up your argument with hard science, you only make yourself appear uneducated. I'm simply saying that there are no "wholes." There are only particles and rudimentary constituents.
Once you establish that there are no wholes, the fact that water is wet becomes academic. You can no longer play the "whole" card anymore. You're forced to observe the molecules themselves. And what the molecules themselves show is that for every body of water, there are some molecules that are filling the bottom of the glass, and there are some molecules that are near the top of the glass. And everywhere in between. http://sciencenetlinks.com/lessons/exploring-parts-and-wholes/And yeah, boy genius--they move around. But that literally doesn't mean anything. That is one strong argument. Damn, how will I recover? Lots of things move around. They can still be wet.
Except water.
10730
« on: September 12, 2016, 05:10:17 AM »
"Division" is the wrong word to use, No it isn't. It's an arbitrary division based on depth. Nothing more. because two halves of one glass of water cannot """stack,""" which is a word you keep using and shoving in my mouth, and I explained why that's bullshit below. No you didn't. In fact, you're laughably ignorant of how water works and behaves. The two halves fluidly coalesce into each other, but that doesn't mean anything because the water molecules are still on top of each other. They're moving, but that doesn't mean shit. It doesn't mean shit. Are you trying to convince yourself or me? It absolutely does mean shit since water does not sit on top of itself. This is super basic fucking kid shit. For the umpteenth time, they don't need to stack. "Stack" is just a stupid word to use. Since you're probably soaking wet right now just talking to me, would you consider the liquid to be "stacked" on you? No, of course not. If I were soaking head to toe with water right now, I wouldn't say that the water is "stacked" on me, either. It's just on me. I'm covered with it. So enough with the bullshit verbiage. You'd be wet. There would be a large amount of water on you. Millions of parts that form a whole. Two blocks of wood on top of each other can be treated as one entity if you need them to be. That doesn't make it one whole entity, though. It's just convenient that we refer to things as wholes, because if we referred to each other by every little one of our microscopic constituents, it would take an eternity. We're talking about liquid, not solids. Solids, unlike liquids, can stack and sit on top of each other. It has nothing to do with language, it's about how water does not separately sit on itself. It moves and mixes. Only if you don't understand metaphysics.
We're specks of dust swimming around in a huge bowl. Some of the dust gets compacted, but it's still just dust.
Why are you bringing up dust when we're talking about water, and how it isn't wet? It's simply a liquid. It's water.
10731
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:57:02 PM »
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. Uh no, it isn't. It's literally just an arbitrary division based on depth. If what you're arguing is true, you wouldn't be able to pour water into anything. Except you can because the particles form a whole. It doesn't stack. Which means "breaking things down" is an illusory concept, too. It's just convenient for conversation.
This is just scientifically incorrect.
10732
« on: September 11, 2016, 08:02:12 PM »
I mean, it's been happening for some 200 million years or something? But whatever you say. You're wrong. 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. Which means what? Nothing. "Wholes" are illusory. Everything is just photons and other subatomic particles.
Which means it's parts that made a whole. You can only break down a whole. Just like you can break down an atom to see the parts that make the whole.
10733
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:32:30 PM »
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. Water does not sit on water. Everything can be broken down to its smallest parts.
For it to be broken down it had to be a whole. Thanks for proving me right.
10734
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:24:00 PM »
...Because it's convenient for the sake of communication. Is it? 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." That's not what I meant and you know it. But that's what it is. Everything is pieces. "Wholes" are pretty much just illusions.
See now you're just talking shit.
10735
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:18:35 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?
10736
« on: September 11, 2016, 06:54:56 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
Multiple parts that form a whole. Water doesn't stack. This is beyond simplicity.
10737
« on: September 11, 2016, 06:42:10 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
LOL 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. So you admit solids and gases are irrelevant. Then you have to see that liquid water does not stack on itself.
10738
« on: September 11, 2016, 06:38:09 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
Holy shit that's not how it works. Does it stack in a gaseous state? Don't ignore parts of my post.
10739
« on: September 11, 2016, 06:35:46 PM »
Oh Powerful Kek, guide us in these trouble times.
10740
« on: September 11, 2016, 06:32:21 PM »
yeah, exactly, so i'm right reread my post these two ice cubes i have stacked together are wondering what the fuck you're talking about We're talking about water in its default form, liquid. Freezing it into cubes and stacking it on top each other really only proves my point. You can manipulate water. not really, not that it has to LOL Yeah it does. 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
It absolutely does mean it doesn't stack on top of itself. This is basic stuff guys. Water isn't technically wet, it doesn't stack on top of itself. It's not wet, it's water. I really don't know what other way to say this. It doesn't stack in a gaseous state. Has your whole world view suddenly (here it comes) been blown out of the water?
Pages: 1 ... 356357358 359360 ... 1397
|
Show Posts
