SatanLucy wrote:
I dont advocate for violence against circumcisers.
Of course not, you like to watch circumcision porn.
Circumcision just needs to be made illegal.
Why don't you just stop whacking off to circumcision videos.
SatanLucy wrote:
I dont advocate for violence against circumcisers.
Of course not, you like to watch circumcision porn.
Circumcision just needs to be made illegal.
Why don't you just stop whacking off to circumcision videos.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Ah, you participated again.
Yeah, I told SatanLucy to leave me alone, if you want to call that participating, fine, whatever floats your boat.
So when you see this reply, just ignore it.
Nope, as long as you continue making shit up to say about me, I’ll continue to respond to your nonsense.
Though your reticence can only lead one to conclude that you do actually support the right of adults to perform sexually motivated acts of ritual abuse on minors...Such is your own participation in the "sexual infant thing".
LOL, your obsession with me is very strong Grasshopper, perhaps you can take your own advice and “just ignore it”, but seeing as you can’t, let me try to explain again.
You probably can’t understand this, but nevertheless, I’m going to tell you about the real world, the one commonly referred to as “normal”.
I’m a father and a grandfather, three sons and two grandsons, and like all “normal” parents, I am constitutionally incapable of thinking about infants sexually, no matter how much you insist, like all “normal” parents, I don’t want to do it, I can’t do it, and I won’t do it. I’m sorry that upsets you, I’m afraid you are just going to take your own advice and “just ignore it”.
Now, in regard to your inane logic that “theoretically” my refusal to participate is a form of participation, I think the extent to which a normal parent would participate in this creepiness, the instinctive reaction parents have to the "sexual infant thing", is a strong desire to protect their children from such people. Like all parents here in the normal world, I would want to beat the shit out of any person doing that “sexual infant thing” if they so much as touched any of my kids or grandkids when they were infants.
So, there you go, theoretically, like any parent, I’m participating, happy now?
Shoresy wrote:
You said t = 0 as a measurement of duration. That's mathematically incorrect. You were probably thinking delta t, not t.
Oh my God, apparently you don't actually know what delta means, did you even look at the cut and paste you did? Delta represents the change in time, it is a measurement of duration, and in that context (please refer to your own cut and paste), T= no time.
Plain old t = 0 usually means in almost all standard physics equations:
and almost never as "duration"
LOL, you mean it's something like T=0 represents the initial condition, or origin point, and that's one of the "two reference points" needed to measure time. OK, so let's say it's a "starting point", and then you have another term, let's call it the "ending point", and viola, that amount of time between those two reference points is what we call a time measurement.
I think I'm saying this in the simplest way I can, I really don't think I can dumb it down any further. Maybe go back and read it again, real slow for comprehension this time, and make sure you go back to the beginning because I've been saying the same thing each time.
Shoresy wrote:
That's not entirely accurate.
t = 0 does not mean no time. The change of t = 0 means no time.
almost no physics equation references duration of time without delta in the equation. it's easy to be confused if you haven't studied delta equations.
LOL, you do realize you just restated what I said. as a measurement of change (that's what delta means), T=0 means no time....it's the headline of your cut and paste even.
As I said, as a measurement, t=0 is no time, as a reference point, it is one of the two points necessary for a time measurement.
Shoresy wrote:
If you are measuring change, you need two reference points, wouldn't T=0 just represent "no time".
absolutely not, the number line extends infinitely in both directions; it does not end at zero.
zero is a common mathematical point indicating present time. You took physics in high school, right?
nearly all the textbook primers use this standard for the introduction into motion equations.
I know how it's used in mathematics, it's often one of the "two reference points" needed to measure time, and if it is a measurement of duration, T=0 represents no time.
SatanLucy wrote:
Is that the one where you said you like to jack off to circumcision videos?
No, and I dont "like to jack off to circumcision videos".
Then why did you say you jack off to circumcision videos?
SatanLucy wrote:
"That was the topic, now you've made me the topic"
Who made who the topic?
Check post 8.
Post 8? Is that the one where you said you like to jack off to circumcision videos?
Shoresy wrote:
If you are measuring a change, you need a reference point, as in t = 0
If you are measuring change, you need two reference points, wouldn't T=0 just represent "no time".
Shoresy wrote:
Would you say Heisenberg's principle dictates that all evidence must exist in the past and never in the present?
No, I wouldn't say that.
Simply put, the act of observing itself consumes some measure of time that makes it impossible to observe evidence at t=0?
Time is a measure of change, it measures the temporal interval between two events, it represents a duration, or temporal length of events and the intervals between them.
Consequently, I don't know what T=0 means.
SatanLucy wrote:
topic is circumcision, so make up your mind where you stand on that topic.
That was the topic, now you've made me the topic with your latest sicko obsession, I always say "I don't see how he can be any creepier", and then wham, you come up with a new level of creepy.
You've creeped me out enough for today, go creep out somebody else now.
You already joined in creepiness by choosing to argue against me. You could have simply said "Pedophilia is wrong, and circumcision videos are wrong.".
You are just making things up, and I don't appreciate you including me in your creepy fantasies. All I said was "Pedophilia is wrong and thinking sexual thoughts about infants is wrong", if this obsession with me is because you need my approval, well get over it.
I dont see why engage in defense of circumcision videos by proxy indirect attacks.
Probably because I haven't done so, that's just the role you have me playing in your creepy fantasy psychodrama. If you want to jack off to circumcision videos, go ahead, just keep me out of your pedophile fantasies.
Whatever you call me wont change what circumcision videos are. Is it me you are attacking, or arguments against circumcision videos?
It's pedophilia I'm disapproving of, so yeah, I guess that means it's you I'm attacking.
Time is just an idea without any physical referent; it is conceptual and by definition, it moves in only one direction, it always flows from past to future.
It's true that within the mathematical formalisms of physical theories it has no directional coordinate but that is about the mathematics, not time.
Scientifically speaking, time's direction is determined by:
Putting philosophical semantics games aside, the reality of the situation is that all observations are that the past lies behind us and is fixed and immutable, the future lies ahead and is not fixed, and we can causally affect the future with our actions. Sir Arthur Eddington introduced the concept of the "arrow of time" in his seminal 1928 book, "The Nature of the Physical World". he demonstrated that the unidirectional, irreversible flow of time is dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the constant increase of entropy (disorder) in the universe.
He established scientifically that the arrow of time is a feature of the universe, its contents, and the way it has evolved.
If I was getting married again, my dad wouldn't have come to my wedding either.
Of course, my dad is dead.
I wish your dad could be more like my dad.
I dont see whats so hard about saying "Maybe this infant circumcision thing and recording of it isnt as great idea as we thought".
I don't see why you are obsessed with me joining you in your creepiness, what's so hard about leaving me out of it.
There are lots of people on this site, none of them has joined you in this particular creepiness, how about you go irritate one of them.
Nonetheless, the very fact of your ongoing need to not think about the issue, manifests as an ongoing need to think about the issue.
Your ongoing need for me to think about the issue, manifests as an inexplicable neediness, perhaps for validation, or maybe control, or just a desire to prolong the stimulation afforded by the subject, but it's creepy either way.
Maybe you should just accept it and you and SatanLucy can do your sexual infant thing without me.
Nope, infant penises are not sexual organs, and just because SatanLucy thinks of them that way doesn't really mean I need to think in a pedophile manner with him. I choose not to consider infants sexually..
What a weird way to justify torture of infant's penis and the recording of such.
If I'm weird because infant penises don't make me have sexual thoughts, then go ahead and think I'm weird. It would probably upset me if you didn't think I was weird. Sorry Pumpkin, but you are just going to have to do your freak show without me.
Why would it even matter if it was sexual or not? I mean, it obviously is, but even if we pretend it's not, does it make it any better?
Why would it even matter if I don't want to participate in your world, I obviously don't, but even if you pretend that I do, does it make it any less creepy?
Well, penises are sexual organs and ritual circumcision is indeed focused on sexuality...There's no denying the fact.
Nope, infant penises are not sexual organs, and just because SatanLucy thinks of them that way doesn't really mean I need to think in a pedophile manner with him. I choose not to consider infants sexually..
And if an issue is raised within the context of a discussion forum, then there is nothing "creepy" about openly discussing it.
OK, but creepy is in the eyes of the beholder, if a pedophile wants to talk about infants sexually that's fine, I'll pass and exercise my right to think such conversations are creepy.
There are a 101 other issues raised here that I never thought about previously, would it be "creepy" to discuss these issues openly.
Trying to see the world through pedophile eyes is creepy to me, are you saying there is nothing on the internet that you find creepy?
Though for sure, social conditioning for some becomes intellectually debilitating and they have no choice but to resort to the "creepy" argument.
Yeah, you can call it "intellectually debilitating" for me to choose what I want to think about and discuss if you want, but I'm thinking there's nothing intellectual about letting the internet choose what I think about.
But hey, you want to discuss it "intellectually", I'll defer to Marshall McLuhan and Edmund Carpenter. In their book "They Became What They Beheld" they explored how modern media and technology have transformed human perception and identity, creating a new "sensate tribal world" where people are constantly bombarded with information, leading to changes in behavior and self-awareness. They focused on the changed sense of self in modern life and made a strong case that people become reflections of the media they consume. I think my sense of ‘creepy” is a matter of internalizing the sense of how participation might affect my sense of self.
Consequently, you and SatanLucy can go be “intellectual” about the pedophile point of view on your own, I think McLuhan and Edmund Carpenter make a strong argument that I should select what I spend time thinking about. Go figure, but I choose to control the medium rather than let the medium control me.
It's okay, I fully understand.
Like I said, whatever floats your boat, I'll pass.
So what are your views on the non-paedophilic style physical and sexual abuse of minors...
I haven't ever given it any thought till you and SatanLucy brought it up, but my initial reaction is I find it creepy that you think of infant circumcision sexually.
Damn man, get a grip.
Sure, I merely demand some consistency from my enemies.
Nobody gives a shit what a pedophiles demand, that is what's consistent.
If they want to ban pedophilia, that's fine, but then they should also ban circumcision videos, or someone will say they are being terribly inconsistent.
Nope, we are very consistent in not giving a shit about your inane comparisons, keep on whining crybaby, nobody cares.
It doesn't matter how much you whine about it being unfair, pedophilia is illegal, even if you convinced someone online that it's unfair, it's still illegal. Whine, cry, protest, complain, whatever, it is and will remain illegal. You don't even have to accept it, it's still illegal.
Well yes, Faux is certainly the only person alive that knows how to accurately calibrate a thermometer and the only person that fully understands the sustainability of crude oil...And for sure, a person of many other bold claims of educational and intellectual excellence.
So like any other remote digital acquaintance one must take them at face value, and also with a pinch of salt...Though in some instances, the necessary ratio of salt to face value is oftentimes easier to guess at.
Man, he really has to be needy to be so desperate for the approval of strangers on the internet.
Nah it was aliens bro trust me
OK, so aliens traveled across the universe to come here and build some stone structures, and then left.
The question becomes, why, why would they come all that way to play with blocks.
Your argument that they couldn't have been built is defeated by the fact that they exist, they were in fact, built.
Very interesting, and it makes a lot of sense too, probably closer to the truth than any other theory I've heard of.
Well you are nonetheless either in favour of American gun culture or you are not.
C'mon, that's not necessarily true, it can depend on who is being shot. For Fauxlaw, the Constitution "situationally" applies, if shooting Blacks, Immigrants, and Democrats, guns are good, for shooting Trump, MAGA, fascists, or racists, guns are bad. It's all about "us/them", "us" has rights, "them", no rights.
Fauxlaw has read the Constitution every month since birth, and his father was one of Einstein's students at Yale LOL, so he is the expert, just ask him, he will tell you how superior he is.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/tk/hands?comment_number=14
Are there no suitably intelligent articulate B Shitting Democrats available?...With the available funds of course.
We have a full stable of contenders more intelligent than JD Vance or anybody else they throw against us, the country won'y stand for another fascist in the white house.
Obviously, there's the man of the hour, Gavin Newsome, you want articulate, we have Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg (you don't have to be able to spell it to vote for him}, there's Sanders passing the torch to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, there's Andy Beshear, Josh Shapiro, Ruben Gallego, Wes Moore, Gretchen Whitmer, JB Pritzker, Rahm Emanuel, and my favorite long shots, Stacy Abrams and Jon Ossof, and for celebrities we have Jon Stewart and Mark Cuban. Other's will emerge by 2027 no doubt.
Any and all could beat nit wit Kamala in a primary, and almost anyone could walk all over JD Vance or Marco Rubio in the general election.
I think with Trump dead or gone, MAGA becomes a dark history, American's are tired of this fascism nonsense, and there are plenty of Democratic options who believe in democracy and this country enough to start healing the nation.
As I said, there are no liberals left in your country.
Then who are those people Fauxlaw is doing all those unhinged rants about?
You know, those people who want to allow mass murder and give spacemen citizenship, those guys, if they aren't liberals, then why is Fauxlaw throwing conniptions about what they do in his imagination?
Right now, trump's popularity is so low that if Hitler ran against trump, Hitler would win.
Trump won't be running in 2028, if he hasn't died yet, he will probably be trying another insurrection, but Trump won't be the opponent in an election. Only chance he has is to cancel the elections, which no doubt, he will try, but he won't be running for president again.
This will be way more of a vanity run than last time. She thinks that since she might be popular with a plurality of democrats that she'll be popular with most of them, let alone most Americans, sounds like a vanity and power trip more than anything
In the last election she only ha a plurality of Democrats because she was unopposed. I doubt getting her ass kicked in the primaries will do much for her vanity or power trip. In a competitive primary, she's never polled more than 4%, her 2020 run was characterized by disjointed messaging, contentious infighting among top aides, and severe money issues, I don't think losing 2024 to a senile insurrectionist will improve her position.
She can't even articulate why shes best other than maybe orange man bad and her poll numbers are good enuff to maybe pull the dem nomination
Seeing as orange man won't be running, that's a bad plan, and her "unopposed" poll numbers will go down once there is an opponent. I don't consider her a viable candidate.
