383981 pts ยท September 1, 2016
I'm an Australian, mate. *tweaks crotch, spits on ground* Bloody oath. Now, where's me kangaroo? I'm late for work.
Vote for me, and I will keep you safe from Martian invasion.
Right, that is what you said. It's almost as if "I don't believe you" can mean different things such as "you are lying" or "you are mistaken". The thing is, without additional context, the meaning isn't obvious.Having said that, it doesn't matter what you meant because each possibility is as absurd.You posted incorrect waffle about what agnosticism means. I posted an actual definition, and you then proceeded to shit all over the chessboard and claim victory. You are the pigeon playing chess.
No. They didn't assist with the theft, but they did assist after. They didn't enable the person to steal, but they did enable them to dispose of the goods afterwards. The fence was not part of the theft, but they were part of the subsequent crimes. Howndonyou not understand that?
I csn only assume you are not reading or understanding what I am saying. Whatbis wrong with what I said?
Why so angry? All I did was post a history of the word. I even said that modern usage defaults to the lack of belief in a god. Nothing I posted was wrong, yet here you are getting all wound up about it and insulting me. Why?
No, they can't. The law doesn't work that way. Anyone who aided Epstein can only be charged with crimes they actually committed. If Epstein trafficked 100 girls, and Maxwell assisted him with tracking 75, she can only be charged with those 75 crimes. If no one helped Epstein with the other 25, then those trafficking crimes will forever be go unpunished. That is how the law works.Leavitt is obscuring Trumps crimes, not Epstein's.
And that is why you are wrong. The fence will never be charged with th theft because they didn't commit it. They will be charged with other crimes, subsequent to the theft. Howndonyou not understand that?
No, it has more than one meaning, even today. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/eng">m">https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheismhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
It's hilarious that you think you are tearing me to shreds. You literally have no clue about what has happened here. Here's a tip. I told you exactly where I stand on this issue, and you told me I was lying as if you are the all-knowing God.And you're delusional enough to think you won. Hilarious.
Like I said, everything you say is factually wrong.
Being agnostic about you would require a level of thought and effort that I am not willing to invest. Once this conversation is over, I fear I will never think of you again.
Of course you don't. I mean, you obviously have a very narrow view of the world, and something not fitting into that view confuses you. Literally, everything you have said in this entire post has been factually incorrect, but you will never accept that. Luckily, I just don't care.
Oh, really. How is it that you know me so well? Or is that your own arrogance talking?By the way, I am an atheist. The kind that does not believe there is a god. I am not the kind that believes there is a god, but I also know that atheism covers both camps. I also am aware of the etymology of the word.
What a load of crap. Agnosticism is a philosophical belief that whether or not God exists can not be known or understood. It is firmly rooted in the limitations of human knowledge and comprehension and has nothing to do with "decrying something as unreasonable."It is the opposite of arrogance as it focuses on human limitation rather than superiority and smugness.
You are sort of correct. Atheism has always meant both things. Until the mid-1800s, it was almost always used to convey believing there is no god, as you say. Since then, the non-belief of gods usage has become more commonplace and is now considered the default definition.
If I kind of squint, block out your cleavage, stand on my head, and look at your face on a cracked screen, I can kind of, maybe a little bit, see that you are trans. Whatever you are doing is working, so good on you. I genuinely hope you are proud of who you are. You deserve to happy.
The definition of atheism shown above did not become commonplace until about the mid-1800s. Instead, the word meant to deny the existence of god(s) or believe that god(s) do not exist. Today, the word defaults to the definition above, but it still holds the more traditional meanings.
Now we do. Last house we only had 1.5. Now we have 3. It still isn't enough.
Nah, two are mine, three are stepdaughters. The funny thing is, their ages line up. 19, 18, 17, 16, and 13. Mine are the 18 and 16.
I have 5 teenage daughters. To see them come out of their room, I normally place food a couple of metres from their door and wait patiently for them to smell it. When the door opens, I gasp in mock delight as I announce the first sighting of the creature in the wild since the Great Chocolate Shortage of 2025.
I'm so proud of you. I hope you are proud of yourself. Keep up the good work.
Yeah, obviously my 99.9% was made up on the spot, but as a cis, hetero man, I have seen plenty of negativity towards trans people and gay men. The overwhelming majority of that negativity has come from alphas who believe that scoring with women equals manliness. Trans women and gay men block that manliness, hence the hate. I find it funny that men who hate women rank themselves by the number of women they bed. They see themselves as fighter pilots/aces counting kills. It's disgusting.
In related news, Musk is no longer a trillionaire. His current net worth is about $750B.
Oops - I just realised that sounds a little contradictory. What I mean is that Trump is not guilty of Epstein's crimes. No one can pay for Epstein's crimes, but Trump can ( and should) pay for his. And anyone obstructing that process should also pay.
They are not Epstein's crimes that are going unpunished. They are Trump's. Epstein's crimes will forever go unpunished.
The law is pedantic which means that discussions about it and charges laid must also be pedantic. Someone fencing stolen goods is not guilty of theft because they helped the thief. Is Leavitt part of the cover up? Yes, but Epstein can not benefit from this. She can only obstruct justice for those still facing charges.Trump is guilty of his own crimes, not Epstein's. Justice can not be obstructed for dead people who can't be charged.
#7 I have never seen "penultimate" used to describe something better than ultimate. I have seen many messages telling people to not do that because it's wrong; however.
To be honest, I think it's 99.9% your first point - rejecting manhood. They consider themselves alpha males, which means they should be able to take any woman that (deliberate use of dehumanising pronoun) does not belong to another man. They are incapable of seeing trans women as women because your genitals do not enable vaginal rape, which, to alphas, equates to manliness. Also, they don't understand why you would give that up.
Now you understand. She is 100% obstructing justice. BUT, she is doing that for people who are still alive. Eostein can no longer be charged with anything. Trump can, however.By your own definition, she is an enabler for Trump. Epstein's crimes will forever go unpunished because he is dead. This is why she is not an enabler for Epstein.
I shall back you up on this one. If it wasn't for Heath Ledger (he thoroughly deserved that Oscar), the movie would have been "meh" at best. It was too long, and didn't do justice to Two Face, either. But, hey. That's just my opinion.
Vote for me, and I will keep you safe from Martian invasion.
Right, that is what you said. It's almost as if "I don't believe you" can mean different things such as "you are lying" or "you are mistaken". The thing is, without additional context, the meaning isn't obvious.
Having said that, it doesn't matter what you meant because each possibility is as absurd.
You posted incorrect waffle about what agnosticism means. I posted an actual definition, and you then proceeded to shit all over the chessboard and claim victory. You are the pigeon playing chess.
No. They didn't assist with the theft, but they did assist after. They didn't enable the person to steal, but they did enable them to dispose of the goods afterwards. The fence was not part of the theft, but they were part of the subsequent crimes. Howndonyou not understand that?
I csn only assume you are not reading or understanding what I am saying.
Whatbis wrong with what I said?
Why so angry? All I did was post a history of the word. I even said that modern usage defaults to the lack of belief in a god. Nothing I posted was wrong, yet here you are getting all wound up about it and insulting me.
Why?
No, they can't. The law doesn't work that way. Anyone who aided Epstein can only be charged with crimes they actually committed.
If Epstein trafficked 100 girls, and Maxwell assisted him with tracking 75, she can only be charged with those 75 crimes. If no one helped Epstein with the other 25, then those trafficking crimes will forever be go unpunished. That is how the law works.
Leavitt is obscuring Trumps crimes, not Epstein's.
And that is why you are wrong. The fence will never be charged with th theft because they didn't commit it. They will be charged with other crimes, subsequent to the theft. Howndonyou not understand that?
No, it has more than one meaning, even today.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/eng">m">https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
It's hilarious that you think you are tearing me to shreds. You literally have no clue about what has happened here.
Here's a tip. I told you exactly where I stand on this issue, and you told me I was lying as if you are the all-knowing God.
And you're delusional enough to think you won. Hilarious.
Like I said, everything you say is factually wrong.
Being agnostic about you would require a level of thought and effort that I am not willing to invest. Once this conversation is over, I fear I will never think of you again.
Of course you don't. I mean, you obviously have a very narrow view of the world, and something not fitting into that view confuses you. Literally, everything you have said in this entire post has been factually incorrect, but you will never accept that.
Luckily, I just don't care.
Oh, really. How is it that you know me so well? Or is that your own arrogance talking?
By the way, I am an atheist. The kind that does not believe there is a god. I am not the kind that believes there is a god, but I also know that atheism covers both camps. I also am aware of the etymology of the word.
What a load of crap.
Agnosticism is a philosophical belief that whether or not God exists can not be known or understood. It is firmly rooted in the limitations of human knowledge and comprehension and has nothing to do with "decrying something as unreasonable."
It is the opposite of arrogance as it focuses on human limitation rather than superiority and smugness.
You are sort of correct.
Atheism has always meant both things. Until the mid-1800s, it was almost always used to convey believing there is no god, as you say. Since then, the non-belief of gods usage has become more commonplace and is now considered the default definition.
If I kind of squint, block out your cleavage, stand on my head, and look at your face on a cracked screen, I can kind of, maybe a little bit, see that you are trans. Whatever you are doing is working, so good on you. I genuinely hope you are proud of who you are. You deserve to happy.
The definition of atheism shown above did not become commonplace until about the mid-1800s. Instead, the word meant to deny the existence of god(s) or believe that god(s) do not exist.
Today, the word defaults to the definition above, but it still holds the more traditional meanings.
Now we do. Last house we only had 1.5. Now we have 3.
It still isn't enough.
Nah, two are mine, three are stepdaughters. The funny thing is, their ages line up. 19, 18, 17, 16, and 13. Mine are the 18 and 16.
I have 5 teenage daughters. To see them come out of their room, I normally place food a couple of metres from their door and wait patiently for them to smell it. When the door opens, I gasp in mock delight as I announce the first sighting of the creature in the wild since the Great Chocolate Shortage of 2025.
I'm so proud of you. I hope you are proud of yourself. Keep up the good work.
Yeah, obviously my 99.9% was made up on the spot, but as a cis, hetero man, I have seen plenty of negativity towards trans people and gay men. The overwhelming majority of that negativity has come from alphas who believe that scoring with women equals manliness. Trans women and gay men block that manliness, hence the hate.
I find it funny that men who hate women rank themselves by the number of women they bed. They see themselves as fighter pilots/aces counting kills. It's disgusting.
In related news, Musk is no longer a trillionaire. His current net worth is about $750B.
Oops - I just realised that sounds a little contradictory. What I mean is that Trump is not guilty of Epstein's crimes. No one can pay for Epstein's crimes, but Trump can ( and should) pay for his. And anyone obstructing that process should also pay.
They are not Epstein's crimes that are going unpunished. They are Trump's. Epstein's crimes will forever go unpunished.
The law is pedantic which means that discussions about it and charges laid must also be pedantic. Someone fencing stolen goods is not guilty of theft because they helped the thief.
Is Leavitt part of the cover up? Yes, but Epstein can not benefit from this. She can only obstruct justice for those still facing charges.
Trump is guilty of his own crimes, not Epstein's. Justice can not be obstructed for dead people who can't be charged.
#7 I have never seen "penultimate" used to describe something better than ultimate. I have seen many messages telling people to not do that because it's wrong; however.
To be honest, I think it's 99.9% your first point - rejecting manhood.
They consider themselves alpha males, which means they should be able to take any woman that (deliberate use of dehumanising pronoun) does not belong to another man. They are incapable of seeing trans women as women because your genitals do not enable vaginal rape, which, to alphas, equates to manliness.
Also, they don't understand why you would give that up.
Now you understand.
She is 100% obstructing justice. BUT, she is doing that for people who are still alive. Eostein can no longer be charged with anything. Trump can, however.
By your own definition, she is an enabler for Trump. Epstein's crimes will forever go unpunished because he is dead. This is why she is not an enabler for Epstein.
I shall back you up on this one.
If it wasn't for Heath Ledger (he thoroughly deserved that Oscar), the movie would have been "meh" at best.
It was too long, and didn't do justice to Two Face, either.
But, hey. That's just my opinion.