Topic: I don’t understand why guys complain about women on the internet
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc started this discussion 3 weeks ago #136,264
Like… my honest thought here is, I don’t care what ideology or opinions women have. I just can’t care. It’s like, I don’t know, maybe you love men, maybe you hate men, but you only have anything to do with me if we both feel like we have something to do with each other, so I can just decided any particular woman isn’t my problem and then she’s just completely not my problem. It’s that easy. People are only your problem if you care about them, so just let go and then it literally doesn’t matter at all. It’s so simple. I don’t understand incels. It’s like, okay, you’re horny and you want sex and you’re mad women won’t give it to you. Just stop being needy and then the problem literally doesn’t exist. It’s that simple.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,446,364
Maybe people think it’s romantic or something to hate someone but wish they were different and want them to change. I don’t know. But I don’t understand. If you tell yourself you want what you hate, you can never be happy. It’s stupid, just worry about something else. I never even look for this sorta stuff but just scrolling on the internet it invades my brain space when I see comments and I’m tired of it. It’s never intelligent it’s all just idiot women and idiot men complaining that the other gender owes them something, just shut up, nobody cares.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,365
I mean, really this is all stupid.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 14 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,472
raping nigguhs!
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 56 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,487
@OP
> I can just decided any particular woman isn’t my problem and then she’s just completely not my problem. It’s that easy.
Dumb take. People are hardwired to seek a mate and reproduce.
Simply chosing to not care about that is like choosing not to care about death, because both result in your genes being extinguished and natural selection pushes people to care about preserving their genes.
> I can just decided any particular woman isn’t my problem and then she’s just completely not my problem. It’s that easy.
Dumb take. People are hardwired to seek a mate and reproduce.
Simply chosing to not care about that is like choosing not to care about death, because both result in your genes being extinguished and natural selection pushes people to care about preserving their genes.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,488
@previous (C)
And yet the birth rate is below replacement in developed countries.
There’s an argument to be made that since most DNA is the same in all humans only a tiny amount of your DNA is unique to you as an individual, and because only half your DNA gets passed down to your children, your DNA actually gets completely erased fairly quickly.
And yet the birth rate is below replacement in developed countries.
There’s an argument to be made that since most DNA is the same in all humans only a tiny amount of your DNA is unique to you as an individual, and because only half your DNA gets passed down to your children, your DNA actually gets completely erased fairly quickly.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,489
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> And yet the birth rate is below replacement in developed countries
Yes, what's your point?
> There’s an argument to be made that since most DNA is the same in all humans only a tiny amount of your DNA is unique to you as an individual, and because only half your DNA gets passed down to your children, your DNA actually gets completely erased fairly quickly.
This is clearly idiotic because this is the only way genes are passed down, reproduction.
There's a reason you dodn't suggest an alternative when talking about reproduction like it doesn't work well.
> And yet the birth rate is below replacement in developed countries
Yes, what's your point?
> There’s an argument to be made that since most DNA is the same in all humans only a tiny amount of your DNA is unique to you as an individual, and because only half your DNA gets passed down to your children, your DNA actually gets completely erased fairly quickly.
This is clearly idiotic because this is the only way genes are passed down, reproduction.
There's a reason you dodn't suggest an alternative when talking about reproduction like it doesn't work well.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,490
Because, you can think of it as a mathematical function, you have 100% of your DNA, your children have 50%, your grandchildren have 25%. That function is 0.5^n if you view 100% as 1 and 0% as 0. 0.5^10 is 0.0009765625. That means rless than 0.1% of your DNA will be present after 10 generations. It’s an exponentially decreasing function. After a certain point, your descendants really aren’t related to you so much as they’re just a random combination of all of the genes floating around in your general population, which in the modern world, is essentially the entire world.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 46 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,491
@1,446,489 (C)
Well it doesn’t benefit you to reproduce. You die either way. You can’t possibly benefit from something after you die.
Well it doesn’t benefit you to reproduce. You die either way. You can’t possibly benefit from something after you die.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,492
I will concede that being old and having somebody to visit is nice, but the genetic argument is a bit silly.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,493
Really, if your genes aren’t you, they’re just information. DNA as a molecule only has a 500 year half life, although each generation, half your DNA gets replaced with somebody else’s. So ironically, your DNA will be preserved better in your dead body than it will be preserved in your children. Really, if you want to preserve your DNA forever, you’d be better off carving As, Ts, Cs, and Gs into a rock and burying it in the dirt somewhere far away. If you want your personality or ideas to be preserved, writing can survive far longer than anything else.
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,494
They're all trannies and bpd goons lets be real nigga
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,495
@1,446,490 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The flaw in all that is that people can have more than one kid.
@1,446,491 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It seems like you don't understand how selective pressures work.
@1,446,492 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Do you believe evolution shapes behavior or not?
The flaw in all that is that people can have more than one kid.
@1,446,491 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It seems like you don't understand how selective pressures work.
@1,446,492 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Do you believe evolution shapes behavior or not?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,525
@previous (C)
Obviously evolution shapes behavior but if you have a functioning brain you don’t have to be obsessed with sex all the time like a moron. Plenty of people aren’t.
Obviously evolution shapes behavior but if you have a functioning brain you don’t have to be obsessed with sex all the time like a moron. Plenty of people aren’t.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,526
Not to stereotype or anything, but if you pay attention to people, sexual promiscuity and intelligence don’t go together. In men or women.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,527
Really, when it comes down to it, delayed gratification is strongly correlated with intelligence. People who can’t overcome their emotional urges tend to be less successful in life because they tend to be less intelligent.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,528
I’m not saying you should have children or you shouldn’t have children, I’m just saying, preserving your DNA is a really stupid reason to decide to have children and saying you have a desire to spread your genetic material is a really stupid reason to marry somebody.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,529
Really, this might seem counter intuitive. In the modern world, if you want your children to be successful, it actually does make the most sense to have as few children as possible with one woman and wait to have children. Because think about it, what really is the advantage to having a lot of children? If you have a lot of children you can put as much time and attention into the development of each child. When you die your money will get diluted when it’s spread out to multiple children instead of just to one or two. They’ll each receive a better education and receive more of your resources and attention if you have fewer children. And then in terms of genetics, obviously you want to have kids with a woman who’s healthy, preferably someone who’s smart and has a compatible personality because your children will be half of her so you need both halves to be good. If you have children with lots of random women who will just sleep with any guy, you’re probably not having children with the smartest women out there, that could be a problem. And people tend to have a higher net worth as they get older, the older you are when you have kids, the more wealth you’ll have and the smaller the financial burden will be and investing is exponential, so that matters.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 weeks ago, 56 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,533
2/10 thread. way too much niggerbabble
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 26 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,536
@1,446,525 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Would you say the same about food or not walking off cliffs?
Would you say the same about food or not walking off cliffs?
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,537
@1,446,526 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,446,527 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Incel really means anything now.
@1,446,527 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Incel really means anything now.
(Edited 51 seconds later.)
Anonymous C triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,539
@1,446,528 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Preserving your DNA sounds like a bad reason to eat a good meal, but it's the same underlying reason that everyone has.
Preserving your DNA sounds like a bad reason to eat a good meal, but it's the same underlying reason that everyone has.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,540
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,541
Honestly I’m not even really sure what you’re trying to accomplish by arguing with me. You’re insisting that we evolved to reproduce, and that’s true. I just don’t understand why that means anything. You have genes that make you want to reproduce because those genes get passed on. You’re trying to make it sound like some kind of obligation, but there’s no moral obligation to just do something because that’s what happens. There isn’t a reason why, it’s just the case that organisms reproduce, but there’s no morality attached to it, there’s no duty attached to it, it just is.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,542
I think the mistake you’re making is you think somehow reproducing means that you don’t die, but that’s not how it works. You die, genetic material is just information. It’s abstract, it’s not actually a part of you. It’s like, if you have a twin brother, he has 100% of your DNA. If he dies, you’re still alive. If you die, him being alive doesn’t make you alive. It’s not a rational reason to want to have children even if it’s biological.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 56 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,543
@1,446,541 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I didn't say you had a moral obligation to reproduce.
Do you ever stop, even for a moment to think about why you keep doing this?
I didn't say you had a moral obligation to reproduce.
Do you ever stop, even for a moment to think about why you keep doing this?
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,545
@1,446,542 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
No, I don't think any of that.
You're like an AI with a short context window. You sort of reply to the last message, but always forget how the conversation started so you start making up things.
No, I don't think any of that.
You're like an AI with a short context window. You sort of reply to the last message, but always forget how the conversation started so you start making up things.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,546
@previous (C)
Yeah, right. Have you ever considered that I was talking about how I think it’s annoying people complain about the opposite gender on the internet but you want to argue that you have to hate women because biology made you horny? Like I don’t care, that’s not my problem.
Yeah, right. Have you ever considered that I was talking about how I think it’s annoying people complain about the opposite gender on the internet but you want to argue that you have to hate women because biology made you horny? Like I don’t care, that’s not my problem.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,547
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Obviously a "you want to argue" followed by something I never said is another strawman.
Just scroll up if you forget.
Obviously a "you want to argue" followed by something I never said is another strawman.
Just scroll up if you forget.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,549
My entire point is if you don’t like a woman, you don’t have to deal with her. You just don’t. It’s that easy. But you want to argue about DNA or whatever. It’s stupid. You only need one woman, there are four billion, who cares even if 99.9% of women aren’t your cup of tea, what difference does it make in the end? It doesn’t matter. Just because you find somebody attractive because of your DNA or whatever doesn’t mean you have to try to get her to be your girlfriend, that’s stupid. If somebody has a bad personality or has an ideology that doesn’t align with your own views why waste effort on it? Just let go of them, there are plenty of people in the world, I just think it’s stupid.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,550
@1,446,547 (C)
> Obviously a "you want to argue" followed by something I never said is another strawman.
>
> Just scroll up if you forget.
You’re the one who came barging in here changing the subject, I don’t really care what you think because it’s not what I felt like talking about.
> Obviously a "you want to argue" followed by something I never said is another strawman.
>
> Just scroll up if you forget.
You’re the one who came barging in here changing the subject, I don’t really care what you think because it’s not what I felt like talking about.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,552
@1,446,549 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Gravity is stupid too, I let go of something and it falls to the ground. Things break.
And extreme weather, also stupid.
Dealing with them isn't really a choice. Wishing incels away is like wishing gravity away. It's part of nature.
Gravity is stupid too, I let go of something and it falls to the ground. Things break.
And extreme weather, also stupid.
Dealing with them isn't really a choice. Wishing incels away is like wishing gravity away. It's part of nature.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,553
@previous (C)
You’re projecting your own problems. I’ve never had the problem of wanting to be with somebody I don’t like, that’s literally never happened to me ever in my life.
You’re projecting your own problems. I’ve never had the problem of wanting to be with somebody I don’t like, that’s literally never happened to me ever in my life.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,554
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I never said you did. And it can't be projection unless I called you something.
Do you really not understand that strawmanning for every single response is an issue?
I never said you did. And it can't be projection unless I called you something.
Do you really not understand that strawmanning for every single response is an issue?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,555
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,556
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,557
If you’re just going to reply to me, say something completely unrelated, then get mad at me for not knowing what you’re talking about, that’s cool, go make your own thread about what you want to talk about.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,558
@1,446,556 (C)
> Give a specific comment that I made.
Okay, I’ve given a specific comment that you made, now what?
> Give a specific comment that I made.
Okay, I’ve given a specific comment that you made, now what?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,559
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 17 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,560
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,562
@1,446,558 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Yes, I made that comment because I can't answer until I know which comment you are unclear about, so I requested the rest of the info.
Yes, I made that comment because I can't answer until I know which comment you are unclear about, so I requested the rest of the info.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,563
@1,446,560 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Everything you believe in is indefensible so you hide behind strawmanning, and then neurotic personal attacks when that's called out.
Everything you believe in is indefensible so you hide behind strawmanning, and then neurotic personal attacks when that's called out.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,564
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,565
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,566
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 46 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,567
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,568
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You're asking me to clarify my meaning for an argument, but you won't say which argument?
Quote what I said and I'll explain it.
You're asking me to clarify my meaning for an argument, but you won't say which argument?
Quote what I said and I'll explain it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,570
I think you just like conflict for the sake of conflict because you obviously don’t know what the fuck your problem with what I said is. You said my views on everything are indefensible so I asked what you’re arguing against and you don’t fucking know, so I guess you’re just a raging moron.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,571
@1,446,568 (C)
You don’t remember what you said, quite yourself and figure out what your problem with me was, because I can’t read your mind dude, I don’t know what your problem is. You figure it out first then come back and ask me questions.
You don’t remember what you said, quite yourself and figure out what your problem with me was, because I can’t read your mind dude, I don’t know what your problem is. You figure it out first then come back and ask me questions.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,572
@1,446,570 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> You said my views on everything are indefensible
I was rererring to when you strawmanned in that instance.
Any other things I can clarify?
> You said my views on everything are indefensible
I was rererring to when you strawmanned in that instance.
Any other things I can clarify?
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 11 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,573
You’d think for somebody so arrogant as to say I’m wrong about everything you’d remember what it is we disagree on, apparently you don’t know so you want me to tell you. Great, that helps us, doesn’t it? Fucking idiot.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,574
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
When I said your views are indefensible I was referring to the fact that you keep strawmanning.
When I said your views are indefensible I was referring to the fact that you keep strawmanning.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 11 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,575
@1,446,572 (C)
Strawmanned what instance of what? You still haven’t told me what the fuck you even disagree with.
Strawmanned what instance of what? You still haven’t told me what the fuck you even disagree with.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,576
@1,446,574 (C)
> When I said your views are indefensible I was referring to the fact that you keep strawmanning.
That doesn’t even make sense. What does what I think you think have anything to do with what I think?
> When I said your views are indefensible I was referring to the fact that you keep strawmanning.
That doesn’t even make sense. What does what I think you think have anything to do with what I think?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,577
@1,446,575 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I said you strawmanned more than once, and I directly cited the part that was.
What's confusing about that if I am using quotes?
I said you strawmanned more than once, and I directly cited the part that was.
What's confusing about that if I am using quotes?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,578
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,580
@1,446,576 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> What does what I think you think have anything to do with what I think?
If you always insist I'm saying something that I clearly never said, then it's a sign that you're acting in bad faith or that you have some sort of cognitive problem.
> What does what I think you think have anything to do with what I think?
If you always insist I'm saying something that I clearly never said, then it's a sign that you're acting in bad faith or that you have some sort of cognitive problem.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,581
@previous (C)
I’ll tell you what, you’re a great bullshit artist. I have a cognitive problem because you can’t tell me what you think, but somehow everybody else can.
I’ll tell you what, you’re a great bullshit artist. I have a cognitive problem because you can’t tell me what you think, but somehow everybody else can.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,582
Isn’t it amazing how you’re arguing with me and you don’t even know what the fuck you’re arguing with me about but you’re still arrogant. That makes no sense.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,583
@1,446,581 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I've said what I think, and I've said I'd answer follow up questions.
What else could I do?
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I said I'd tell you exactly why I made any argument, and then you keep saying I won't.
I have refused to explain zero quotes. I have answered all asked.
I've said what I think, and I've said I'd answer follow up questions.
What else could I do?
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I said I'd tell you exactly why I made any argument, and then you keep saying I won't.
I have refused to explain zero quotes. I have answered all asked.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,584
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,585
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It sounds like we cleared up whether I could explain or not!
It sounds like we cleared up whether I could explain or not!
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,586
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,587
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You accused me of not explaining, and then I said I would.
Making up a fake problem, and then blaming me for it is annoying.
You accused me of not explaining, and then I said I would.
Making up a fake problem, and then blaming me for it is annoying.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,588
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,589
I want to ask how you’re so stupid like this in real life without getting punched in the face, but I think that question answers itself because it’s probably the brain damage that keeps you this way.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,590
@1,446,588 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I'm still waiting for my quote, I can't explain it if you won't tell me what first.
I'm still waiting for my quote, I can't explain it if you won't tell me what first.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,591
@1,446,589 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
People don't ask me to explain what I said, and then refuse to give me a quote in real life.
People don't ask me to explain what I said, and then refuse to give me a quote in real life.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,592
@1,446,590 (C)
If you don’t know what you’re arguing about unless I tell you, then how do you know that I’m wrong? Do you see how this doesn’t make any fucking sense?
If you don’t know what you’re arguing about unless I tell you, then how do you know that I’m wrong? Do you see how this doesn’t make any fucking sense?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,594
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> If you don’t know what you’re arguing about unless I tell you
I told you I'd explain any argument I made, any post or observation or statement. But I can't do that if you won't quote the text you need explained.
> then how do you know that I’m wrong?
What did I say you were wrong about specifically, just quote the exact text.
> Do you see how this doesn’t make any fucking sense?
It doesn't make sense to ask me to explain something and then refuse to say what I said that isn't making sense.
> If you don’t know what you’re arguing about unless I tell you
I told you I'd explain any argument I made, any post or observation or statement. But I can't do that if you won't quote the text you need explained.
> then how do you know that I’m wrong?
What did I say you were wrong about specifically, just quote the exact text.
> Do you see how this doesn’t make any fucking sense?
It doesn't make sense to ask me to explain something and then refuse to say what I said that isn't making sense.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,595
@previous (C)
God you’re stupid. If you don’t know what you’re arguing against, how can you possibly claim that I’m wrong if you don’t know what you’re arguing against? I shouldn’t have to tell you what your problem with me is. Nobody except you does this.
God you’re stupid. If you don’t know what you’re arguing against, how can you possibly claim that I’m wrong if you don’t know what you’re arguing against? I shouldn’t have to tell you what your problem with me is. Nobody except you does this.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,596
You just want a problem for the sake of having a problem, but you don’t know anything because whenever I ask you a question, you want me to answer the question on behalf of you because you’re retarded.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,597
@1,446,595 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
If I argue against something I know why, but you won't quote what I said.
I must have said something if I was arguing.
If I argue against something I know why, but you won't quote what I said.
I must have said something if I was arguing.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,598
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,599
@1,446,596 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I will happily answer, but you need to let me know which argumentative statement I made first. Then I'll tell you what I was arguing against.
I will happily answer, but you need to let me know which argumentative statement I made first. Then I'll tell you what I was arguing against.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,600
@1,446,598 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Then why are you refusing to give the text where I argued?
Then why are you refusing to give the text where I argued?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 13 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,601
@1,446,599 (C)
Why should I have to quote you? Don’t you know why you decided to reply to my post and argue against me? Surely you know why you’re talking to me right now. Why should I have to remind you what you said? Do you think before you speak?
Why should I have to quote you? Don’t you know why you decided to reply to my post and argue against me? Surely you know why you’re talking to me right now. Why should I have to remind you what you said? Do you think before you speak?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,602
@1,446,600 (C)
Why should I give you your own thoughts if whenever I restate your thoughts back to you, you accuse me of misunderstanding you? It doesn’t make any sense you want to rely on me to be your memory of what you said for you when you accused me of not being able to remember things. Surely if you’re so smart you should be able to remember why you’re talking to me, but you’re acting like somebody with dementia who can’t remember what they said 5 minutes ago, yet you have an arrogant attitude of superiority.
Why should I give you your own thoughts if whenever I restate your thoughts back to you, you accuse me of misunderstanding you? It doesn’t make any sense you want to rely on me to be your memory of what you said for you when you accused me of not being able to remember things. Surely if you’re so smart you should be able to remember why you’re talking to me, but you’re acting like somebody with dementia who can’t remember what they said 5 minutes ago, yet you have an arrogant attitude of superiority.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,603
And hey, if you don’t know what you’re arguing about, then stop arguing with me and go do something else.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,604
@1,446,601 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> Why should I have to quote you?
Because you could be referring to anything, I don't know what's in your mind.
All I can do is explain why I said something.
> Don’t you know why you decided to reply to my post and argue against me?
This sounds like you're referring to my first post? Is that correct?
> Surely you know why you’re talking to me right now.
Right now I'm trying to figure out what you want explained.
> Why should I have to remind you what you said?
Because I said a lot of things, and I don't know which statement you want explained.
> Do you think before you speak?
Yes, but you're asking me to explain an argument I made, but don't seem prepared to tell me which argument I need to explain.
> Why should I have to quote you?
Because you could be referring to anything, I don't know what's in your mind.
All I can do is explain why I said something.
> Don’t you know why you decided to reply to my post and argue against me?
This sounds like you're referring to my first post? Is that correct?
> Surely you know why you’re talking to me right now.
Right now I'm trying to figure out what you want explained.
> Why should I have to remind you what you said?
Because I said a lot of things, and I don't know which statement you want explained.
> Do you think before you speak?
Yes, but you're asking me to explain an argument I made, but don't seem prepared to tell me which argument I need to explain.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,605
@previous (C)
Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that you have a low IQ and you’re incapable of having a normal conversation?
Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that you have a low IQ and you’re incapable of having a normal conversation?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,606
If I have to constantly quote you all the time so that you can remember what you just said because you have the memory of a goldfish, then why shouldn’t I just talk to myself instead?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 17 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,607
@1,446,602 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> Why should I give you your own thoughts if whenever I restate your thoughts back to you, you accuse me of misunderstanding you?
Lol, because a quote is just a quote. Copy and paste. You don't need to interpret it, I'll just explain why I made that argument/statement.
> It doesn’t make any sense you want to rely on me to be your memory of what you said for you when you accused me of not being able to remember things.
I can't remember which argument you need explained, because you never said which one it is.
> Surely if you’re so smart you should be able to remember why you’re talking to me, but you’re acting like somebody with dementia who can’t remember what they said 5 minutes ago, yet you have an arrogant attitude of superiority.
We talked about many things, and I can't read your mind.
> Why should I give you your own thoughts if whenever I restate your thoughts back to you, you accuse me of misunderstanding you?
Lol, because a quote is just a quote. Copy and paste. You don't need to interpret it, I'll just explain why I made that argument/statement.
> It doesn’t make any sense you want to rely on me to be your memory of what you said for you when you accused me of not being able to remember things.
I can't remember which argument you need explained, because you never said which one it is.
> Surely if you’re so smart you should be able to remember why you’re talking to me, but you’re acting like somebody with dementia who can’t remember what they said 5 minutes ago, yet you have an arrogant attitude of superiority.
We talked about many things, and I can't read your mind.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,608
@previous (C)
Why should I copy and paste? I’ve never asked you to copy and paste anything I’ve ever written because I remember everything I’ve ever said.
Why should I copy and paste? I’ve never asked you to copy and paste anything I’ve ever written because I remember everything I’ve ever said.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,609
@1,446,605 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
What's not normal?
@1,446,606 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I have every post already, verbatim.
I can't "remember" which argument I made that you specifically have a problem with, because you have refused to tell me.
What's not normal?
@1,446,606 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I have every post already, verbatim.
I can't "remember" which argument I made that you specifically have a problem with, because you have refused to tell me.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,610
@1,446,608 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Becuase you have an argument you want explained, you want me to tell you what I was arguing against, remember?
I'll be happy to help, once you find it and tell me.
Becuase you have an argument you want explained, you want me to tell you what I was arguing against, remember?
I'll be happy to help, once you find it and tell me.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 34 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,611
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 18 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,612
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 58 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,613
@1,446,611 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Nobody says "Sure, I'll explain what I said"? Or what?
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm telling you that I'll explain an argument I made before if you don't know why I made it.
Nobody says "Sure, I'll explain what I said"? Or what?
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm telling you that I'll explain an argument I made before if you don't know why I made it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 52 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,614
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,615
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
So you kept saying I wouldn't explain something, that whole time, and you didn't actually have anything for me to explain?
So you kept saying I wouldn't explain something, that whole time, and you didn't actually have anything for me to explain?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,616
I wouldn’t be surprised if they dissected you and found your brain looks like this:Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,617
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,618
@1,446,616 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
A normal person doesn't say "explain what you said" over and over, while refusing to clarify.
A normal person doesn't say "explain what you said" over and over, while refusing to clarify.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 59 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,619
@1,446,617 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You kept saying I needed to explain why I argued something, you didn't have to do that. Clearly you didn't actually have something for me to clarify.
You kept saying I needed to explain why I argued something, you didn't have to do that. Clearly you didn't actually have something for me to clarify.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 13 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,620
@1,446,618 (C)
You kept refusing to answer until you just admitted that you have nothing to argue about. You’re just being a jackass for the sake of being a jackass.
You kept refusing to answer until you just admitted that you have nothing to argue about. You’re just being a jackass for the sake of being a jackass.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,622
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> You kept refusing to answer until you just admitted that you have nothing to argue about.
I said over and over I'll explain any argument I made, and you never could quote one argumentative statement that I made.
> You’re just being a jackass for the sake of being a jackass.
You keep accusing me of not explaining an argument, and then refusing to say which argument.
You gave me an incomplete question, and now you're saying I'm a jackass after I said "sure, I'll answer, but what argument?"
> You kept refusing to answer until you just admitted that you have nothing to argue about.
I said over and over I'll explain any argument I made, and you never could quote one argumentative statement that I made.
> You’re just being a jackass for the sake of being a jackass.
You keep accusing me of not explaining an argument, and then refusing to say which argument.
You gave me an incomplete question, and now you're saying I'm a jackass after I said "sure, I'll answer, but what argument?"
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,623
The fact of the matter is, I can’t be incorrect about a fact that was never specified. You just said I was wrong, never said what I was wrong about, and proceeded to try to argue with me when you had no idea what you were arguing about, and you still want to keep doing it, because you’re fucking retarded. Congratulations!
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,624
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> The fact of the matter is, I can’t be incorrect about a fact that was never specified.
Quote the part where I said you were incorrect, and I'll tell you why I said it.
That's me accepting, not refusing. Obviously its impossible to explain if you won't tell me what post you are referring to.
> You just said I was wrong
Where?
> The fact of the matter is, I can’t be incorrect about a fact that was never specified.
Quote the part where I said you were incorrect, and I'll tell you why I said it.
That's me accepting, not refusing. Obviously its impossible to explain if you won't tell me what post you are referring to.
> You just said I was wrong
Where?
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,625
It seems like so much less effort to just copy the words, than to play this game for dozens of posts
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,627
Keep going.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,630
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I just searched the page for "wrong" and it's just you accusing me of calling you wrong.
I just searched the page for "wrong" and it's just you accusing me of calling you wrong.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,631
@previous (C)
Damn, you really are retarded, aren’t you?
@1,446,563 (C)
> Everything you believe in is indefensible so you hide behind strawmanning, and then neurotic personal attacks when that's called out.
Damn, you really are retarded, aren’t you?
@1,446,563 (C)
> Everything you believe in is indefensible so you hide behind strawmanning, and then neurotic personal attacks when that's called out.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,632
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I already responded to that here, after you had been accusing me of refusing to answer:
@1,446,572 (C)
> > You said my views on everything are indefensible
>
> I was rererring to when you strawmanned in that instance.
>
> Any other things I can clarify?
I already responded to that here, after you had been accusing me of refusing to answer:
@1,446,572 (C)
> > You said my views on everything are indefensible
>
> I was rererring to when you strawmanned in that instance.
>
> Any other things I can clarify?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,633
You said everything I believe is wrong, yet you can’t name what you disagree with me on.
I’m wrong about everything yet you can’t even name one thing you disagree with me on. Wow.
https://youtu.be/f1N5lZw7e78
I’m wrong about everything yet you can’t even name one thing you disagree with me on. Wow.
https://youtu.be/f1N5lZw7e78
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,634
@1,446,632 (C)
> I already responded to that here, after you had been accusing me of refusing to answer:
Your response was pathetic. Even if I did misrepresent what you said, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong about any of my views on anything.
> I already responded to that here, after you had been accusing me of refusing to answer:
Your response was pathetic. Even if I did misrepresent what you said, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong about any of my views on anything.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 18 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,635
@1,446,633 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You're asking me to name a random disagreement we've had?
You're asking me to name a random disagreement we've had?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 52 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,636
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 15 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,637
@1,446,634 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Now you're saying you weren't wrong.
So are you asking me to find a random disagreement, or are you saying you were right when I called you wrong at some point?
Now you're saying you weren't wrong.
So are you asking me to find a random disagreement, or are you saying you were right when I called you wrong at some point?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 12 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,638
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,639
I’m saying you have an attitude that I’m wrong yet you can’t name a single goddamn thing you disagree with me on. That doesn’t make logical sense. You’re just being an asshole.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,640
@1,446,636 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
For my very first post in this thread I was responding to you saying "it's easy" to ignore women when people are hardwired to seek a mate.
Then we disagreed about other stuff after that.
For my very first post in this thread I was responding to you saying "it's easy" to ignore women when people are hardwired to seek a mate.
Then we disagreed about other stuff after that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,641
@previous (C)
Oh great so NOW you know what you disagreed with me on and I didn’t have to quote you. So I NEVER had to quote you in the first place because you actually do remember what you said. Fuck you.
Oh great so NOW you know what you disagreed with me on and I didn’t have to quote you. So I NEVER had to quote you in the first place because you actually do remember what you said. Fuck you.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,642
@1,446,638 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You went form refusing to say what you needed explained, and now you give multiple.
It's fair to ask which is the real question.
You went form refusing to say what you needed explained, and now you give multiple.
It's fair to ask which is the real question.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,644
@previous (C)
In the past, you’ve called women delusional. I don’t think women are delusional, I can see why they wouldn’t like you. You suck, you’re actually human trash.
In the past, you’ve called women delusional. I don’t think women are delusional, I can see why they wouldn’t like you. You suck, you’re actually human trash.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 2 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,645
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 13 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,646
@1,446,641 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I specifically asked at one point if you were referring to my first post. Reciepts:
@1,446,604 (C)
> > Don’t you know why you decided to reply to my post and argue against me?
> This sounds like you're referring to my first post? Is that correct?
So I kept asking, you refused to say the first one, and then ignored me when I specifically asked if that was the one.
And now you are pretending I refused before. If I really had you could have just quotes the first post over and over, but you didn't because you are making this all up as you go.
I specifically asked at one point if you were referring to my first post. Reciepts:
@1,446,604 (C)
> > Don’t you know why you decided to reply to my post and argue against me?
> This sounds like you're referring to my first post? Is that correct?
So I kept asking, you refused to say the first one, and then ignored me when I specifically asked if that was the one.
And now you are pretending I refused before. If I really had you could have just quotes the first post over and over, but you didn't because you are making this all up as you go.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,647
@1,446,644 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
First you said something dumb, showing you don't understand basic human instincts.
Then you end up strawmanning over and over again as usual.
Then you make dozens of posts implying I won't answer a question, even refusing to acknowledge when I ask if you want the first explained, and now you have degenerated to your final form, angrily writing out hate comments.
I'm glad we could peel back the layers!
First you said something dumb, showing you don't understand basic human instincts.
Then you end up strawmanning over and over again as usual.
Then you make dozens of posts implying I won't answer a question, even refusing to acknowledge when I ask if you want the first explained, and now you have degenerated to your final form, angrily writing out hate comments.
I'm glad we could peel back the layers!
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,648
@previous (C)
> First you said something dumb, showing you don't understand basic human instincts.
Hey retard, in case you didn’t know, I’m a human. I understand myself, and thank God I’m different from you.
> First you said something dumb, showing you don't understand basic human instincts.
Hey retard, in case you didn’t know, I’m a human. I understand myself, and thank God I’m different from you.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,649
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You said reproduction wasn't a good way to spread DNA LOL 😂
You said reproduction wasn't a good way to spread DNA LOL 😂
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,650
@previous (C)
No I didn’t, I said it wasn’t a good way to preserve your DNA because most of your DNA isn’t unique to you, and the portion that is unique to you decreases by half every generation, which is actually faster than your DNA will deteriorate in your dead body.
No I didn’t, I said it wasn’t a good way to preserve your DNA because most of your DNA isn’t unique to you, and the portion that is unique to you decreases by half every generation, which is actually faster than your DNA will deteriorate in your dead body.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,652
The position of DNA that came from you in your descendants gets reduced by half every generation. The DNA molecule itself has a half life of 500 years. Your skeleton will preserve your DNA better than your children will.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,653
@1,446,650 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
So you want to use the word preserve instead of spread, OK, that's just as stupid.
What better way is there to preserve your DNA?
So you want to use the word preserve instead of spread, OK, that's just as stupid.
What better way is there to preserve your DNA?
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,654
@1,446,652 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
So you believe that someone can't increase the number of copies of their DNA from reproduction in the long term?
So you believe that someone can't increase the number of copies of their DNA from reproduction in the long term?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,655
@previous (C)
There are 8 billion people in the world. How likely do you think it is that your genes will win out when you’re competing with everybody else’s?
There are 8 billion people in the world. How likely do you think it is that your genes will win out when you’re competing with everybody else’s?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,656
You have 3 billion base pairs of DNA, of that, about 3 million are unique to you as an individual, and there are 8 billion people on the planet. Most of your DNA is the same as everybody else’s. It really doesn’t matter that much.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,657
@1,446,655 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
8 billion copies of human DNA, a lot more than a few hundred years ago.
How do you think the number can go up of total copies of DNA, but not of their descendents DNA? Where do you think this other DNA is coming from? All mutations?
I'd love to know how you think DNA works.
8 billion copies of human DNA, a lot more than a few hundred years ago.
How do you think the number can go up of total copies of DNA, but not of their descendents DNA? Where do you think this other DNA is coming from? All mutations?
I'd love to know how you think DNA works.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,658
@1,446,656 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The creatures alive today are descended from creatures that had a strong inclination to survive.
It shouldn't be surprising that someone gets uneasy with heights, or eats to obesity, or that we see incels appear.
It's all simple, predictable, natural behavior.
The creatures alive today are descended from creatures that had a strong inclination to survive.
It shouldn't be surprising that someone gets uneasy with heights, or eats to obesity, or that we see incels appear.
It's all simple, predictable, natural behavior.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,659
@1,446,657 (C)You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, sixteen great great grandparents, etc. It’s a pattern of 2^n.
This is a graph of the human population over time. Our species is 300,000 years old, a generation is 20 to 25 years.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,660
You have to keep two things in mind your number of ancestors increases exponentially as you go backwards in time, but the population decreases exponentially. When people have children, their children receive half the DNA of each parent. Why do you think we have 99.9% DNA similarity across all humans in the world?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,661
@1,446,659 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Like I said before, that's a lot of new copies of DNA. Where did it come from?
Their ancestors copies their own DNA and made more. So they have an oncreasing number of copies, not more.
And if it isn't from the ancestors copying exponentially, where did that DNA come from then?
Like I said before, that's a lot of new copies of DNA. Where did it come from?
Their ancestors copies their own DNA and made more. So they have an oncreasing number of copies, not more.
And if it isn't from the ancestors copying exponentially, where did that DNA come from then?
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,662
@1,446,660 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Becuase a few creatures exponentially increased the number of copies.
Meaning a few creatures now have a lot more DNA copies, not half each generation because that would be less today.
Becuase a few creatures exponentially increased the number of copies.
Meaning a few creatures now have a lot more DNA copies, not half each generation because that would be less today.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,663
@previous (C)
No, that’s not how it works. When two people have a child, the child has half their DNA from both parents. It’s not the case that a few people had most of the children. What happens is given enough time, you end up being related to everyone.
No, that’s not how it works. When two people have a child, the child has half their DNA from both parents. It’s not the case that a few people had most of the children. What happens is given enough time, you end up being related to everyone.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,664
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Third time asking:
How does the total number of DNA copies go up in humans if it's not more copies of their ancestors?
Third time asking:
How does the total number of DNA copies go up in humans if it's not more copies of their ancestors?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 11 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,665
The way evolution works isn’t your genes survive because you had a lot of sex, your genes will only survive if they’re more useful on average to the survival of your children than everybody else’s genes are, which given the population of earth right now, is pretty slim.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,666
@1,446,664 (C)
Your DNA isn’t a copy of your parent’s DNA it’s a mixture of your mother’s and your father’s DNA. Except for Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA, although because those don’t get recombined, there are a lot of people who have almost exactly the same Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA as you do.
Your DNA isn’t a copy of your parent’s DNA it’s a mixture of your mother’s and your father’s DNA. Except for Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA, although because those don’t get recombined, there are a lot of people who have almost exactly the same Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA as you do.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,667
Although, men don’t pass on their mitochondrial DNA so that doesn’t really matter.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,668
@1,446,665 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Yes, and not just useful, but genes with a tendency to reproduce.
People that don't care about sex or relationships don't copy themselves even if they are very useful.
Incels, simps, and loving fathers are all predictable if you understand evolution.
People that just stop caring are an anomoly. There are always anomolies, but they won't be the majority of course.
Yes, and not just useful, but genes with a tendency to reproduce.
People that don't care about sex or relationships don't copy themselves even if they are very useful.
Incels, simps, and loving fathers are all predictable if you understand evolution.
People that just stop caring are an anomoly. There are always anomolies, but they won't be the majority of course.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,669
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 5 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,670
@1,446,666 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It doesn't need to be an identical copy for this to work. Genes that have certain outcomes get spread faster.
It doesn't need to be an identical copy for this to work. Genes that have certain outcomes get spread faster.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,671
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,672
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,673
@1,446,669 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
There's only so long that can last, the people that keep having children will inevitably become the majority.
There's only so long that can last, the people that keep having children will inevitably become the majority.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 24 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,674
…although 99.9% of the genes will be the same as your genes because we all have almost exactly the same DNA to begin with. Which is why this is completely insane to worry about.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,675
@1,446,673 (C)
> There's only so long that can last, the people that keep having children will inevitably become the majority.
So, black people living in Africa then.
> There's only so long that can last, the people that keep having children will inevitably become the majority.
So, black people living in Africa then.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,676
@1,446,672 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
People have natural instincts, and you act confused when you notice a very predictable one.
It doesn't matter who wins, they will be interested in reproducting because that's who they'll be descended from.
People have natural instincts, and you act confused when you notice a very predictable one.
It doesn't matter who wins, they will be interested in reproducting because that's who they'll be descended from.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,677
@1,446,675 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
They follow the same trends when they become developed.
They follow the same trends when they become developed.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,678
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,679
@1,446,677 (C)
Right, which is after the population declines in Asia, North America, Europe, and South America.
Right, which is after the population declines in Asia, North America, Europe, and South America.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,680
@1,446,678 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
No, because the Big 5 could see huge population decreases and still have Africa outgunned with their nuclear, special forces, space, etc.
Those new Africans won't have jobs because they are more expensive than bots.
No, because the Big 5 could see huge population decreases and still have Africa outgunned with their nuclear, special forces, space, etc.
Those new Africans won't have jobs because they are more expensive than bots.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,681
@1,446,679 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The countries with all the safe people will be the countries with the advanced militaries and nukes.
Number alone doesn't tell you, because if it did ants would leading or some bacteria.
The countries with all the safe people will be the countries with the advanced militaries and nukes.
Number alone doesn't tell you, because if it did ants would leading or some bacteria.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 13 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,682
@1,446,680 (C)
The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons. The problem with nuclear weapons is they’re useless weapons.
The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons. The problem with nuclear weapons is they’re useless weapons.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,683
You know, during apartheid, the white South Africans had nuclear weapons. They’re useless weapons if more than one country has nuclear weapons. They only work as a deterrent you can’t actually use them in combat.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,684
And I get that you’re a weirdo little psychopath but there’s no actual reason to nuke Africa and genocide black people, that’s pretty moronic.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,685
nigguhs are best prepared cut into strips and deepfried.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,686
There’s also the issue that, as Europe and North America age, they won’t actually have enough able bodied young men to fight a conventional war. The thing about technology as a solution is you need a large economy to support advanced industry, that’s why America’s military is much better than European countries because European countries just don’t have the population necessary to support an economy large enough to build as many aircraft carriers as the United States. If the population of western countries continues to decline, so will their capacity to produce advanced technology. The supply chains are already heavily dependent on China, and if you have some idea that the US and China will team up together against Africa, that’s really stupid. The US and China aren’t allies and that won’t change.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,687
@1,446,684 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
They don't need to, they are a deterrent.
A country with 700 million hungry unemployed africans wouldn't be a threat to a country with a declining population and nukes.
They don't need to, they are a deterrent.
A country with 700 million hungry unemployed africans wouldn't be a threat to a country with a declining population and nukes.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,688
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 9 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,689
@1,446,686 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
We're in the age of drone warfare, the west doesn't need young men to die like that.
We're in the age of drone warfare, the west doesn't need young men to die like that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,690
@previous (C)
The issue with that is drones are inexpensive to the point where third world countries can produce drones that can blow up American military bases.
The issue with that is drones are inexpensive to the point where third world countries can produce drones that can blow up American military bases.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,691
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
We could nuke Iran today, the US is holding back for optics and because there's money in market manipulation and a 20% strait tax.
We could nuke Iran today, the US is holding back for optics and because there's money in market manipulation and a 20% strait tax.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,693
@previous (C)
Oh, you think that’s why America isn’t using nuclear weapons? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, you think the United States went to war in all of these places and didn’t use nuclear weapons purely out of the kindness of our hearts?
Is this a joke? It’s because Russia has nuclear weapons.
Oh, you think that’s why America isn’t using nuclear weapons? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, you think the United States went to war in all of these places and didn’t use nuclear weapons purely out of the kindness of our hearts?
Is this a joke? It’s because Russia has nuclear weapons.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,694
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Trump has already suggested the idea of taking out power plants and desalination plants.
They can knock Iran back as much as they want, but there's more money this way and they don't want the blowback.
Trump has already suggested the idea of taking out power plants and desalination plants.
They can knock Iran back as much as they want, but there's more money this way and they don't want the blowback.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,695
@previous (C)
This is hilarious. You really think Trump could nuke a country but he’s not because he doesn’t want to?
This is hilarious. You really think Trump could nuke a country but he’s not because he doesn’t want to?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,696
Every time I think I’ve realized how dumb you are you just get even dumber.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,697
@1,446,695 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I think everyone in charge is holding back from taking out power plants.
No one is thinking about nukes because that's bad for business and overkill when they haven't taken out any power stations yet. Iran could give up then.
I think everyone in charge is holding back from taking out power plants.
No one is thinking about nukes because that's bad for business and overkill when they haven't taken out any power stations yet. Iran could give up then.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,698
The reason why Trump isn’t going to nuke Iran is because we don’t know if after we nuke Iran Russia might nuke Poland. We just don’t know that, that’s why 1945 was the first and last time anybody ever used a nuclear weapon in combat. This is silliness.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,699
@1,446,696 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Do you think they don't have the munitions to take out power plants? If not that, why do you think they held off?
Do you think they don't have the munitions to take out power plants? If not that, why do you think they held off?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,700
If we can use a nuclear bomb when we feel like we’re not winning a war, what if China wants Taiwan? Then what, they nuke Taipei? Use your brain for once!
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,701
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 0 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,702
@1,446,700 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I said they wouldn't take it that far, but you're going to ignore that for the strawman.
I said they wouldn't take it that far, but you're going to ignore that for the strawman.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,703
@previous (C)
If America won’t destroy Iranian power plants why tf do you think anybody would try and wipe out Africans with nukes? That’s so dumb.
If America won’t destroy Iranian power plants why tf do you think anybody would try and wipe out Africans with nukes? That’s so dumb.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,704
@1,446,701 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Yes and whether or not they care about that, they'd like to avoid the bad press and possible political/judicial backlash.
But they obviously could destroy Iran overnight, even without touching the nukes.
Yes and whether or not they care about that, they'd like to avoid the bad press and possible political/judicial backlash.
But they obviously could destroy Iran overnight, even without touching the nukes.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,705
@1,446,703 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I already said they wouldn't:
@1,446,687 (C)
> They don't need to, they are a deterrent.
I already said they wouldn't:
@1,446,687 (C)
> They don't need to, they are a deterrent.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,706
@1,446,704 (C)
Meh, probably not without the nukes. We could only do that to Japan because they used wooden construction, given how Iranian cities look, I don’t think we actually could firebomb it if we tried. But we won’t do that because that would be an obvious war crime and would make us look like the bad guys and that’s stupid. You’re stupid for even suggesting this stuff.
Meh, probably not without the nukes. We could only do that to Japan because they used wooden construction, given how Iranian cities look, I don’t think we actually could firebomb it if we tried. But we won’t do that because that would be an obvious war crime and would make us look like the bad guys and that’s stupid. You’re stupid for even suggesting this stuff.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,707
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> we won’t do that because that would be an obvious war crime and would make us look like the bad guys
I already said that.
> we won’t do that because that would be an obvious war crime and would make us look like the bad guys
I already said that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,708
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,709
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Did I ever say the US should commit war crimes?
I said the US had the capability, that's it.
Did I ever say the US should commit war crimes?
I said the US had the capability, that's it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,710
The thing is, if you have to say you could win easily right now if it wasn’t for all the reasons why you can’t win easily… that means you actually can’t win easily.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,711
@1,446,709 (C)
It’s a completely useless capability. If you can’t actually use nuclear weapons in combat, talking about it is pretty meaningless. The US isn’t going to commit suicide and actually use a nuclear weapon because then Russia and China might respond and nobody is willing to risk that. If you have a weapon that you can’t use, then there’s no reason to even act like it exists in the first place.
It’s a completely useless capability. If you can’t actually use nuclear weapons in combat, talking about it is pretty meaningless. The US isn’t going to commit suicide and actually use a nuclear weapon because then Russia and China might respond and nobody is willing to risk that. If you have a weapon that you can’t use, then there’s no reason to even act like it exists in the first place.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,712
@1,446,710 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> The thing is, if you have to say you could win easily right now if it wasn’t for all the reasons why you can’t win easily… that means you actually can’t win easily.
A moment ago you understood that it was to avoid atrocities and looking like the bad guys, and now you are acting like the US can't do it?
> The thing is, if you have to say you could win easily right now if it wasn’t for all the reasons why you can’t win easily… that means you actually can’t win easily.
A moment ago you understood that it was to avoid atrocities and looking like the bad guys, and now you are acting like the US can't do it?
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,713
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,714
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
One side gets wiped out, one side has to manage guilt and disapproval.
It's a stupid thing to point out.
One side gets wiped out, one side has to manage guilt and disapproval.
It's a stupid thing to point out.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,715
@previous (C)
It’s not a stupid thing to point out. That’s not what would actually happen. That would lead to world war three.
It’s not a stupid thing to point out. That’s not what would actually happen. That would lead to world war three.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,716
You lack empathy to an incredible degree that you can’t see the most blatantly obvious thing in the world. If we did something that was so offensive we felt like we were in the wrong, wtf do you think our enemies who also have the same capability will do to our allies? Everything you say is just so dumb.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,717
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,726
@previous (C)
Ah, yes, resorting to a racial slur instead of making an argument. The mental retard’s last resort.
Ah, yes, resorting to a racial slur instead of making an argument. The mental retard’s last resort.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,728
I'm so very confused about what the actual point of contention is here.
If it's nuke/terror bombing use it's neither humanitarian concerns nor international respect.
It's the fact that the enemy needs to agree you won.
A nuke is just a very large bomb. Without the element of surprise like in WW2 your enemy being unimpressed is a real possibility.
If it's nuke/terror bombing use it's neither humanitarian concerns nor international respect.
It's the fact that the enemy needs to agree you won.
A nuke is just a very large bomb. Without the element of surprise like in WW2 your enemy being unimpressed is a real possibility.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,729
@previous (M)
> It's the fact that the enemy needs to agree you won.
What’s the track record with Islam and admitting defeat so far in say the past… 20 years or so? Or the track record with Islam and fear of death?
> It's the fact that the enemy needs to agree you won.
What’s the track record with Islam and admitting defeat so far in say the past… 20 years or so? Or the track record with Islam and fear of death?
Anonymous N double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,730
Anyway, we can’t let a Muslim country have nuclear weapons. That would be a bridge too far, we have no idea what they’d do if they had nuclear weapons.Anonymous N triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,731
Oh wait, it borders the other one? Interesting. I’m sure that’s something we don’t have to factor in.
Anonymous N quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,733
Just another day in the great orange retardation.