IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. That was someone else, but no one expects you to be able to differentiate between people.Didn't you promise to leave the country if Trump lost?
Nope. That was someone else, but no one expects you to be able to differentiate between people.Didn't you promise to leave the country if Trump lost?
I don't want your money. I want you to change your signature block to the graphic I make for you ... for six weeks.Nice whiney rant, INT/IBDA/gfm. Care to place a monetary wager on that claim?
I'm confident in appealing to the international scientific community. You can have your Bible nonsense.
Argument of the stone fallacy. Insult fallacies. Assumption of victory fallacy.Lots of gibberish there. And calling you an "idiot" is not at all fallacious when it's true.![]()
Dumbasses always scream "LOGICAL FALLACY" when they can't answer straight forward questions. They think it makes them seems smart and gives them an out at the same time.
Unfortunately for you, I see through your bullshit.
None of what was claimed is provable via scientific method. But, hey if you want to believe in man made global warming be my guest. That is what makes you one of those "principled" conservatives or something
Since neither of us is a trained scientist, it would be foolish to answer scientific questions. Go to a science forum and post there. This is a political forum.
God? What is a god? Please give a definition.
I'm going to enjoy Biden's win.
I have no doub that you are convinced that Biden will win. So why won't you tell me what excuse you have lined up for when Trump wins? I assure you, I fully accept your testimony that you cling with dear life to hope beyond hope that Biden will win ... but when Trump wins, how will you be able to justify not having seen it coming? No one's going to buy "Russian colluuuuuuuuuuuuuusion." No one's going to buy "Trump stole the mailboxes."
What will be your excuse?
Science isn't a community. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You don't believe in the Theory of Creation. Fine. You are free to choose your religion. You apparently believe in the Church of Abiogenesis and the Church of the Theory of Evolution.
Science has no theories about unobserved past events. They are not falsifiable.
God: noun. A being or intelligence capable of powers beyond that normally accepted as 'natural' (supernatural powers). Often credited with the ability to create and/or inhabit some natural object, such as the Sun, Earth, a tree, a rock, etc.
Different religions often have at least one god (but is not required to have any). All religions are based upon some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that.
Examples: Jupiter, Apollo, Wotan, Gaia, Jesus Christ, Allah, Kaze, various forms of Shinto demons including those observed by some American indians, including those claiming to inhabit some most everyday objects such as money, crystals or other stones, liquids such as water or oil, or gaseous composites like air.
This is the definition I use. Perhaps you have a different one to offer?
So, you wish to deny science. Right? You would rather claim politics over science.
Better line up your post election therapist early. There's going to be a real shortage of them after the election.
Nope. That was someone else, but no one expects you to be able to differentiate between people.
I don't want your money. I want you to change your signature block to the graphic I make for you ... for six weeks.
Bet?
I wouldn't have an "excuse," because regular people aren't like you. But if he does win, it will only be with the electoral college again. There's no way he will win the popular vote.
But I'm confident he'll lose because Americans are fatigued by him.
You're retarded. Go away.
You're missing the point of my criticism. "God" is such a nebulous term that it's essentially meaningless. One person's definition of "god" is as arbitrary as another's.