Author Topic: Real Talk: What should the world do about terrorism (CIA, etc.)? [Organized OP]  (Read 44574 times)

because there is a huge difference between a mental disorder and social construct. I could have directed both of them to you but since fox brought it up I thought I might as well direct it to him
Something is only classified as a mental disorder if it's causing significant problems in your life. It's perfectly possible to have a legit (for lack of a better word) abnormality and not have significant problems

you conceded that you were wrong but that you thought it was stupid
he didn't give the full sentence, this is what I said
Well of course an actual psychological association is more credible then I am, however I just simply think it's dumb that the word "gender" has a different meaning than "love"

That's a word for word direct quote from you
you obviously don't know what a direct quote is, considering that you missed out on an important half of a sentence that explained the problem

you obviously don't know what a direct quote is, considering that you missed out on an important half of a sentence that explained the problem
You obviously don't know what ellipsis are.
The part of the sentence I left was still enough to convey the fact that you:
a) conceded that you were wrong, and
b) still thought it was stupid

I don't need to leave the bolded part in to "explain the problem", because the problem is already known, because it's the whole reason for the discussion happening

he didn't give the full sentence, this is what I said
...yeah
that's what was implied by
however I just simply think it's dumb

so:
you conceded that you were wrong but that you thought it was stupid

and thus you were
"crying about learning knew things"

and thus you were
omg I typed 'knew' instead of 'new'
I can't even blame autocorrect for that



I love how we've shifted into arguing about sentence structure, with a sprinkling of what was required and not required to mention.

Edit:  Sentance is for court justice, Sentence is for, well, communication.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2016, 05:28:17 PM by C-Zech Chrome Ind. »

...yeah
that's what was implied by
so:
and thus you were
it's dumb that words
not just
it's dumb
You obviously don't know what ellipsis are.
The part of the sentence I left was still enough to convey the fact that you:
a) conceded that you were wrong, and
b) still thought it was stupid
bloody hell I know what ellipsis are, but you didn't leave in the part that said NOT that I think it's dumb that a psychological association is more credible than me or whatever, BUT that
the word "gender" has a different meaning than "love"

I'm just going to stop arguing, if you want to have the last word and make me the dumb one then by all means, go right ahead.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2016, 03:51:48 PM by Drydess »


bloody hell I know what ellipsis are, but you didn't leave in the part that said NOT that I think it's dumb that a psychological association is more credible than me or whatever, BUT that
no one is implying that you said the american psychological association is dumb

saw that ninja
I guess blendtec has finally met its match

I love how we've shifted into arguing about sentance structure, with a sprinkling of what was required and not required to mention.
cite your sources you big nerd

it's dumb that words
not just
it's dumb
I don't need to leave the bolded part in to "explain the problem", because the problem is already known, because it's the whole reason for the discussion happening

If you're talking with a friend about Blockland, do you have to continuously reaffirm every couple of sentences that you're talking about Blockland? No, it's known. You started this discussion with "gender and love are the same thing." It is now known that that is what the discussion is about. I don't have to continuously reaffirm that this discussion is about love and gender.