President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
You can point out someone is full of **** with far less energy and without needing to validate their completely bullshit cognitive dissonance saying ‘I can’t speak for anyone else but ________’. The idea of ‘politely’ engaging is little more than sanctimony that elevates discourse with truly shitty people who deserve no seat at the table legitimacy
I'll put whatever level of energy I choose into my posts, with little concern for what you or Luciom thinks about it.
I don't think any reasonable person could view my posting history as "elevating" Luciom, "but hey, that's just me."
Weird tone policing up in here. I too find it irritating when someone tries to dictate who I should respond to and how. Some dunce cap told me to take an L the other day simply for not ignoring someone's blatant lies.
Floyd & abortions ITT, must be conservative classics night or something. What other hits we got lined up on the playlist?
Trump said he would veto a federal abortion ban
Abortion is a type of baby murder
C: Trump said he would veto a federal ban on a type of baby murder
Weird tone policing up in here. I too find it irritating when someone tries to dictate who I should respond to and how. Some dunce cap told me to take an L the other day simply for not ignoring someone's blatant lies.
I’m on record in the past and as long as I’m on 4 that any engagement with Lucy is a loss. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise
Any post attacking a wide swathe that someone responds to with ‘I can’t speak for the rest of the people but ME’ is lol in a vacuum. But when the post you give that post to is ****ing Lucy, big lols
Trump said he would veto a federal abortion ban
Abortion is a type of baby murder
C: Trump said he would veto a federal ban on a type of baby murder
I’m on record in the past and as long as I’m on 4 that any engagement with Lucy is a loss. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise
Honestly I totally get this.
Hilariously, the example they used isn't referring to a human fetus, it's referring to a baby that doesn't exist yet. Unsurprising that the word has been used in that way so often they tried to accommodate the misuse and captured a correct usage of the term as an example. But trust, the medical definition does not include "fetus." That is simply a layman's misuse of the term th
From the "TWO DUMB TO MAKE UP" File:
Definition 1a in Gorgy's own provided link includes the following:
Also applied to an unborn child.
From the "TWO DUMB TO MAKE UP" File:
Definition 1a in Gorgy's own provided link includes the following:
Also applied to an unborn child.
Case closed!
*TOO
Fair. I'll admit to missing that. Doesn't change my point that the scientific definition doesn't include that. These additions are recent changes in recognition of repeated misuse by the layperson (like the definition of "literally" now including "virtually"). I do note it has an example for that usage that makes the same inconsistency error that dictionary.com made, in referring to a baby that doesn't exist yet: "But already the middle of September was here, and the baby had not arrived." Even that usage clings to a baby being something that only has "arrived" after birth. It doesn't say, for instance, "the baby was still in the uterus" or "inside the mother." I suspect this is why the definition you reference says "applied to" rather than "is." Therefore, I maintain that my definition is correct.
However, you'll see me admitting my error here. Take note. That's how it's done. I did a search for the word "fetus" to double-check. I didn't consider it could be worded differently. Again, my mistake.
Unsurprisingly, he's wrong yet again. Neither resisting arrest, nor overdosing on fentanyl is a death sentence, and combining them doesn't change that. Aside from the fact that it's completely irrelevant to the situation.
Nobody has said it was a "death sentence". Death was simply the result of a poor decision.
Nobody has said it was a "death sentence". Death was simply the result of a poor decision.
Whose poor decision?
Nobody has said it was a "death sentence". Death was simply the result of a poor decision.
It sure looks like someone said it was a death sentence, buddy.
*TOOFair. I'll admit to missing that. Doesn't change my point that the scientific definition doesn't include that. These additions are recent changes in recognition of repeated misuse by the layperson (like the definition of "literally" now including "virtually"). I do note it has an example for that usage that makes the same inconsistency error that dictionary.com made, in ref
1. I appreciate you admitting your mistake. I also "own it" when I make a mistake like that.
2. Speaking of admitting mistakes: I was NOT trying to be ironic when I wrote "TWO[sic] DUMB TO MAKE UP." I legit thought I was using the correct spelling. So, we can call this exchange a draw I suppose!
3. If I heard someone say "But already the middle of September was here, and the baby had not arrived" it would seem unambiguous to me that lady hadn't given birth yet when the baby was expected to be born earlier (like early September). Unless you think the folks at Oxford are too incompetent to even provide an example relevant to the entry.
Lol. This is the guy that keeps telling everyone that he's got me on ignore and doesn't read my posts.
What a clown.
3. If I heard someone say "But already the middle of September was here, and the baby had not arrived" it would seem unambiguous to me that lady hadn't given birth yet when the baby was expected to be born earlier (like early September). Unless you think the folks at Oxford are too incompetent to even provide an example relevant to the entry.
I neither think the meaning is ambiguous nor Oxford is incompetent. I think they were showing a usage where the word applies to the fetus, but it doesn't directly describe the fetus. The word baby refers to the fetus, but it isn't saying the fetus is a baby. That's why the definition says "applies to an unborn child" and not just an "unborn child." That distinction appears to be quite intentional.
Lol. This is the guy that keeps telling everyone that he's got me on ignore and doesn't read my posts.
What a clown.
I do have you on ignore and almost never read your posts. I read this one through a quote and went back and clicked show to screenshot it.
And I clicked show on this one because I knew you'd whine about it like a little girl.
And now that I've shown how predictable and stupid you are yet again, I'm going to go right back to not reading your stupidity unless sometime quotes your horrifically stupid posts.
Bye now.
The meaning of your meme is ambiguous to me.
I assume that you admit that the post that I shared was clearly a lie on your part.
Its *supposed to be* a gif of Walter White sarcastically saying "You got me"
If you think exaggeration is lying then you are a liar too
Having said that, if you're accusing someone of lying (Luciom in that case), even exaggerating arguably undermines your critique.
I agree
Gorgo has you on ignore so he doesn't have to read and respond to your posts.
Then he reads and responds to some of your posts anyway.
As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating!"
sure looks like he ignores him
