| The Transgender Matrix: It’s Time to Choose the Red Pill |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20 27 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
posted June 15, 2021 06:35 PM |
|
|
____________
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 04:42 AM |
|
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 09:37 AM |
|
Edited by Baronus at 09:37, 23 Jun 2021.
|
Baronus
I give out looking sport. Its disgusting. Mad satanists are destroing everything.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 02:18 PM |
|
|
|
So if there are mad satanists there must also be completely sane ones, right? What's the difference then?
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 04:06 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
So if there are mad satanists there must also be completely sane ones, right? What's the difference then?
Qualifying a noun does not imply the same noun with the opposite quality exists.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 04:34 PM |
|
|
But qualifying a noun does imply that the noun without the quality exists. It this case it basically means that there is this set of satanists of which the mad satanists are a subset. Whatever other satanists there are apart from the mad ones, they cannot be mad.
Which doesn't leave much wiggle room.
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 04:52 PM |
|
|
|
In epic text you can group epitets eg. Mad obssed inhuman satanist. Of course all satanist is mad obsessed and inhuman.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 05:59 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
But qualifying a noun does imply that the noun without the quality exists. It this case it basically means that there is this set of satanists of which the mad satanists are a subset. Whatever other satanists there are apart from the mad ones, they cannot be mad.
Which doesn't leave much wiggle room.
Well, to be fair, you can simply be emphasizing a quality, if I say something like “after the industrial revolution, man-made automobiles replaced animals” it doesnt necessarily imply there are also automobiles that arent man-made.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 06:50 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 18:51, 23 Jun 2021.
|
I never clicked this thread. I always thought it was a poll. Taking the red pill and the blue pill at the same time.
What if there were conflicting areas of brain?
My standard is woman
But i dont have a girl friend. I wouldnt actually do trans stuff but ive seen some
____________
All things are possible with God.
Nothing is possible without God.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 07:26 PM |
|
|
artu said:
JollyJoker said:
But qualifying a noun does imply that the noun without the quality exists. It this case it basically means that there is this set of satanists of which the mad satanists are a subset. Whatever other satanists there are apart from the mad ones, they cannot be mad.
Which doesn't leave much wiggle room.
Well, to be fair, you can simply be emphasizing a quality, if I say something like “after the industrial revolution, man-made automobiles replaced animals” it doesnt necessarily imply there are also automobiles that arent man-made.
That falls in the realm of rhetorics and polemics, which is why I mention it. For example, a murderous assassin. What else would an assassin be than murderous - if he wasn't, he'd be a would-be assassin, maybe, but not an assassin at all.
In this case, though, "mad" is definitely NOT a property of "satanist" - otherwise ALL religious people would have to be considered mad.
I mean, what would make a satanist mad?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 07:50 PM |
|
|
But that’s exactly why I mention it’s to emphasize. He thinks all satanists are mad and considers it worth emphasizing.
- What kind of a man kills innocent babies?
- So, you mean there are babies who aren’t innocent?
- ???
I dont care about his point of view, it’s your typical my religion is the true one and others are mad stuff, but qualifying a noun does not strictly imply that the noun without the quality exist.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted June 23, 2021 07:51 PM |
|
|
Heh...
JollyJoker said:
I mean, what would make a satanist mad?
That depends entirely on how you define both of these words, as each has multiple meanings.
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 08:36 PM |
|
|
artu said:
But that’s exactly why I mention it’s to emphasize. He thinks all satanists are mad and considers it worth emphasizing.
- What kind of a man kills innocent babies?
- So, you mean there are babies who aren’t innocent?
- ???
I dont care about his point of view, it’s your typical my religion is the true one and others are mad stuff, but qualifying a noun does not strictly imply that the noun without the quality exist.
That's where you are wrong. It does. It's just "bad" (political, biassed, bad-intention) use of language to do otherwise.
And since you're mentioning it:
Don't you get something of a fit if they talk of "innocent babies"? I do, for that reason. It's extremely cheap rhetoric. Ans it's just nonsense to say so. Actually in this example it's for more than that reason - it's the assumption that it's somehow worse to kill an "innocent beby" than, say a (not so innocent) child, youth, man, woman... It's bull.
It's language that sucks.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 08:38 PM |
|
|
Lith-Maethor said:
JollyJoker said:
I mean, what would make a satanist mad?
That depends entirely on how you define both of these words, as each has multiple meanings.
Words have a definition. Everything over and above that is opinion.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 08:45 PM |
|
|
...
...and some words have multiple definitions. You're not contractually obligated to be a moppet in every post, you know.
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 09:02 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 21:24, 23 Jun 2021.
|
Lith-Maethor said:
...and some words have multiple definitions. You're not contractually obligated to be a moppet in every post, you know.
moppet, or muppet? 
also, he DOES have a contract.
with the globalists.
and, he didn't read the fine print.
OR the bold print.
OR the regular print.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 09:29 PM |
|
|
Heh...
fred79 said:
moppet, or muppet?
Take it as you will...
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 09:31 PM |
|
|
artu said:
JollyJoker said:
But qualifying a noun does imply that the noun without the quality exists. It this case it basically means that there is this set of satanists of which the mad satanists are a subset. Whatever other satanists there are apart from the mad ones, they cannot be mad.
Which doesn't leave much wiggle room.
Well, to be fair, you can simply be emphasizing a quality, if I say something like “after the industrial revolution, man-made automobiles replaced animals” it doesnt necessarily imply there are also automobiles that arent man-made.
Precisely!
artu, you and I agree on one, who could see that coming??????
Let's celebrate!!!!!!!!!!
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 09:36 PM |
|
|
Lith-Maethor said:
...and some words have multiple definitions. You're not contractually obligated to be a moppet in every post, you know.
That may be true, but that's a completely different thing. In this case:
Satanist definition
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted June 23, 2021 09:52 PM |
|
|
Heh...
Ignoring the fact that this was not the original definition, it's still wide open to interpretation. What kind of satanist are we talking about? A believer of the Judeo-Christian dogma that supports the losing team? Someone who sees Satan as a champion of free will? Someone who's just in for the shock value? Any of the above also branches out in a dozen (wildly) different interpretations.
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
|
|
