Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2022, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 12:22 pm

if your 3 year old bleated something like this, you'd drown it and divorce its mom....on the grounds of Indisputable Infidelity.

                 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2022, 12:30 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 12:30 pm

What an asshole.

OKAY, THIS HAS TO STOP!

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2022, 2:56 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 2:56 pm

No...it doesn't...

Bi-Sexial is a label.

Words do not define scientific ideas, they describe them. Grammar is not determinant.

You should probably refuse to argue with anyone but vegas - at least if this weakness is prequel.

Then, too, it's a callout thread. Don't waste your remaining strength.
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2022, 3:00 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 3:00 pm

I would also add that this is a **** derivative of @Cannonpointer  's **** argument, which has been vaporized.

Actually, @Cannonpointer  painted you into a corner and forced you to admit that science recognizes precisely two discrete sexes, and not one sex more. 

That you believe something else happened merely reflects on your incapacity to beat @Vegas  
 

Skans » 17 Oct 2022, 3:13 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 3:13 pm

I have refuted each and every one of your assertions, except for the first one which is unintelligible.  Vegas is not a moran and I have proved this to you in the manner you requested in your OP.

Tard-slap.^

Skans » 17 Oct 2022, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 3:19 pm

I have examined your topic and thread.  @Cannonpointer  does not have any response posted anywhere in your thread.  Therefore, my response (one of the first responses, by the way) cannot be a derivative of Cannonpointer's argument.

Now, if you removed his argument, then this is on you and your cross to bear.  Please do not reference the posts/arguments of others which you have chosen to remove in responding to my assertions.

He is referencing his delusion that he once debunked my claim that science recognizes only two sexes - and suggesting that vegas stole the whole "there are only two sexes" thingy from me.   

His "debunking" consisted of quoting something which affirmed that science recognizes only two sexes.

He often copy-pastes the post affirming my thesis, triumphally. If you can explain, then you do tard-speak. 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2022, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 4:06 pm

Give it a rest..

Cannonpointer insists that because his dictionary defines gender/sex in some manner, Science must oblige.

And YOU copy-pasted from some sciency source that affirmed my argument.   

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2022, 4:09 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 4:09 pm

This is tedious, Skans..

Is THIS Vegas' question?

No...it doesn't. 

Nod.

Yes, it does. 

Repost your silliness - you know, where you proved science recognizes more than two sexes.       
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2022, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 4:17 pm

It is a label describing those who don't distinguish between male and female with respect to what attracts them.
 

Male and female, ya say.

Are there any OTHER sexes? If so, name them. If not, then yeah - "bi" refers to the two sexes. 

FOS » 17 Oct 2022, 4:54 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 4:54 pm

see...'groan' is not an argument.

Indeed pretty much everything you ever post can be summed up this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

The fact you always make a logical fallacy does not speak well for your own IQ...and the fact you cannot even show more diversity in your fallacies make the situation even worse

Oh, this fool is ENORMOUSLY reliant on fallacies. 

He has insisted that a "transgender" (a word he refuses to define) is a "woman" (a word he refuses to define) because HE SAYS SO.

No **** - and then he preens that he believes in "science."      
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2022, 5:06 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 5:06 pm

Anyone else...

...want to argue with a retarded wall...
 

Blackvegetable » 18 Oct 2022, 9:02 am » wrote: ↑

18 Oct 2022, 9:02 am

This @Vegas  ?This @Vegas  ?

Why is he wrong? I dare you to answer that without calling me or anyone else an anti-semantic.

The man is an idiot.

For making a semetic argument?

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2023, 5:14 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2023, 5:14 am

Male and female, ya say.

Are there any OTHER sexes? If so, name them. If not, then yeah - "bi" refers to the two sexes. 

just joking around here, why is asexual not bi-sexual(earthworms and plants) having both male and female reproductive organs and still requires worms to mate with one another by aligning with each other from opposite directions.

Bisexual is a single gender having sex with his own genders and opposites as well, that would be a-sexual mentality of just wanting to **** anything else than masturbate alone.

Blackvegetable » 18 Oct 2022, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑

18 Oct 2022, 10:37 am

Will the US eventually put foots on the ground against Russia?


 
People.....this is a pyrotechnic display of idiocy..

@Vegas

Bump

Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 10:43 am » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 10:43 am

Bump

You are panicking and desperate. You are not bumping threads from 3 years ago.         

Dodge 165 in real time

Now here is the thing. Your definition was "it's a sampling error." (God you are dumb as hell.). All options have sampling errors, but only one is considered survivorship bias. Let's make it dodge 166.

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors.
 
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2022, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2022, 12:19 pm

@Vegas  is back from his Vision Quest to resume his tedious narcissism. Incapable of productive contribution, he demands that everyone bear witness to his pouting, and that he be afforded exemption from forum rules to facilitate his tantrums.

I challenge this piece of crap to post something, ANYTHING, he has written which casts even a hint of a shadow of a doubt on the certainty that he's a moron.

Until that Coward walks the walk, I will post some highlights from his archives....

If any of his wingidiots want to speak on his behalf, feel free...

But if you fail to defend it against a challenge, it's off to PG..

You bumped a thread from 3 years ago just to dodge my question. I got your number. I got you running. I got you cornered.       

Vegas » 22 May 2025, 10:53 am » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 10:53 am

You bumped a thread from 3 years ago just to dodge my question. I got your number. I got you running. I got you cornered.     

I have said you are lying.

You have run from the challenge....but you can't outrun my vengeance.
 

Vegas » 22 May 2025, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 10:46 am

You are panicking and desperate. You are not bumping threads from 3 years ago.         

Dodge 165 in real time

Now here is the thing. Your definition was "it's a sampling error." (God you are dumb as hell.). All options have sampling errors, but only one is considered survivorship bias. Let's make it dodge 166.

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors.

Do you still deny that you're a moron?

Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 11:05 am

Do you still deny that you're a moron?

So desperate. You are out of options. You don't know what to do. Bumping 3 yr old threads. Repeating the same question. Same evasions. You are cornered.

Dodge 166 in real time

Now here is the thing. Your definition was "it's a sampling error." (God you are dumb as hell.). All options have sampling errors, but only one is considered survivorship bias. Let's make it dodge 166.

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors.

Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑

22 May 2025, 11:04 am

I have said you are lying.

You have run from the challenge....but you can't outrun my vengeance.

You are doing your usual 4 step evasion and that won't get you out of this. Ill remind you:

Step 1: Ask Veghead a question
Step 2: veghead responds with a question/demand/challenge
Step 3: Bring Veghead back to the original question
Step 4: Veghead accuses me of evading his question/demand/challenge while continue to ignore the original question ask of him. 


1. You will continue with step 4.