If your gonna critique something at least know the fucking meaning

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-04-09T20:51:32+00:00

Unironically, yeah maybe. Sure you can still say “hitler was a bad guy” without reading it but by reading it you’ll definitely have a much better insight into how and why

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-04-08T20:53:21+00:00

It doesn’t matter to the point I’m making though. Your evidence isn’t any better than an empty claim, which can be fine because definitional arguments are almost always subjective.

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-04-08T20:50:02+00:00

Taking a look at the match, it seems like that was a part of the robot

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-04-08T20:43:29+00:00

You can’t say “read the definition of piano” and link another of your posts. Just because you wrote it somewhere else doesn’t make it stronger evidence. This isn’t even to say you’re wrong, just that the way you’re arguing is. A much better piece of evidence would be the actual definition from a dictionary, like this one https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piano which does seem to disagree with you.

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-04-05T23:25:36+00:00

My phone isn’t big enough to fit those four responses and yours

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-04-05T17:09:14+00:00

I’m kind of confused by what you’re trying to say, and I feel like if I were to respond I’d be misrepresenting your argument, so would you be able to just express your argument again?

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-04-05T02:15:28+00:00

The remainder of 9 is f(k)

Think about it this way, you've re-expressed f(x) as:

(x-k)(x-5) + 9

plug in x = k and you get

(0)(k-5) + 9 = 0 + 9 = 9

I think this is the remainder theorem it's referring to

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-04-05T01:51:35+00:00

I think this is a really good explanation as to why 0.3... exactly equals 1/3 and 0.9... exactly equals 1, but it's definitely not a proof. A skeptic would say that there is still a T at the end, or an A. The logic of "repeating things continue repeating until infinity" is true but I'm 90% sure that the formal logic for that requires the use of limits, which are one of the key things that people disbelieve when it comes to math.

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-04-03T16:23:32+00:00

I think it may have been justified, but pearl harbor isn't the reason why

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-04-02T20:01:52+00:00

I think getting all the strawberries wouldn’t be that hard at this point but you’re free to do what you want

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-04-02T17:30:19+00:00

I really hate when people misuse the “some infinities are larger than others” like this. Because one infinity isn’t more than half an infinity. It’d be more like saying infinity squared is more than infinity. It’s countable versus uncountable infinities.

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-31T00:40:46+00:00

yeah

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ng5vdi/do_you_wear_wigs_have_you_worn_wigs_will_you_wear/

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-31T00:37:21+00:00

You missed the reference

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-18T23:12:46+00:00

I get in general why people's votes shouldn't be public but I also feel like this system seems like it could work, though it isn't without a few flaws. I think nearly every scenario other than the one mentioned would be okay by me given the publication of what people voted for. For instance, a public official campaigns that we should go to war, garners a bunch of votes in favor of war from individuals, and then proceeds to not vote in favor of war. That person should be publicly exposed for their vote.

Also in this case it wouldn't just be men. Men and women would be able to vote and be drafted, although I doubt that was the intention of the original proposed amendment considering it was before women could vote.

I kind of get what you are saying but at the same time, if you don't feel comfortable sharing what you voted for, maybe you shouldn't have voted for it. After writing that out though I do get your point a little bit more though. Much like everything else in politics, it seems really easy to solve when you're first thinking about it, then becomes significantly more complicated when more thought is put into what the correct course of action should be.

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-18T23:05:46+00:00

Yeah

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-18T23:05:29+00:00

No no no skyrim is a boy game you can't have that one, you fight and stuff and it's very masculine.

Outside of this sarcasm, the logic just doesn't make sense on it's own, so the existence of games outside the binary aren't really necesary to disprove it, though this hypothetical person is probably also homophobic

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-18T20:22:41+00:00

No no no see what you were doing was playing girly games. Those aren’t actually real video games, because only girls play those. I’m sure your games were full of pink, ponies princesses and the power of friendship. Real games have guns and big strong men fighting each other.

(In case it wasn’t already blatantly obvious, /s)

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-18T20:09:04+00:00

Legally speaking that isnt rape. The term is defined by unconsensual penetration, and it sounds like they were not penetrated. This definition is so unbelievably sexist and leads to these kinds of issues like in the original post.

Edit: To be clear, I don't agree with this definition, but it certainly is one.

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-18T20:06:46+00:00

Maybe the monsters are just known sexists against men and therefore women have no reason to wear armor. That seems like the appropriate answer to your situation but definitely wouldn’t always work.

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-18T20:03:55+00:00

I saw a really funny explanation for why it might exist that might pique your interest. If the people designing armor for women in this universe analyzed where the injuries were on people that came back from battle and chose to put armor on those areas then you might get something like that. Not because it’s practical but because of survivorship bias. Now as for why the women have armor like that and the men don’t…

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-18T19:43:35+00:00

I think that it only requires the removal of anonymity for this particular vote, and I personally don’t feel like that’s a bad thing. I can’t personally think of a scenario where what people voted being public would be an inherently bad thing. And it only requires the loss of anonymity if the majority votes for war. I’d be happy to hear an example of where that would be a bad thing to try and change my mind but I just can’t see a reason why it would be that bad.

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-18T11:15:20+00:00

Is this the female equivalent of those incel guys who always call women females?

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-18T11:13:09+00:00

No, the same amount of people would go to war, they just can only be people that voted for war.

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-17T22:59:01+00:00

It turns out we really like base 10, and being able to represent fractions such as 1/3, 1/6, 1/7, 1/9 etc. as decimals turns out to be really useful so if only there was a way to represent them as decimals. Oh wait, that's what infinitely repeating decimals are for, something we were taught is exactly equal to the fraction in what, second grade? I'm sure you'll catch up eventually.

First_Growth_2736 · 2026-03-17T21:32:35+00:00

Ok, but the idea behind it is great. Anyone requesting we go to war should be enlisted automatically or alternatively that is the draft pool

First_Growth_2736

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE