I Loot Standing Still

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@JohnnyISD @sup3rei8ht @Maximumatheist Objective morality doesn’t exist.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@BlackQueenReact You’re just equivocating.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@electronicmovie @DroneShahe18319 @heyyouguys2021 @Mappy6984 It’s a yeti/thermos meant to look like a high noon tall boy. Tall boys don’t have clear lids with brown tabs.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@UltraMagaGirl @Its_burkes $800

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@protestantjake @JeebusIsDead @CreationMuseum No, we’re talking about a supposed inerrant, divinely inspired book being demonstrably wrong on these specific claims.

No, their observations were real/occurred, they were just wrong.

No, that’s just colloquial language. Calling a bat a bird is not analogous.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@protestantjake @JeebusIsDead @CreationMuseum Yes, that is the main issue. A supposed inerrant, divinely inspired book wouldn’t say something false.

And of course they weren’t trying to communicate “modern” taxonomy, I agree that they just classified things based on observation, which is why both claims are false.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@protestantjake @JeebusIsDead @CreationMuseum I’m aware of that, which is why I asked you to elaborate and show the analogous part.

What was the error? Does the Bible claim that rabbits chew cud or that bats are birds? Yes or no

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@protestantjake @JeebusIsDead @CreationMuseum So the Bible doesn’t make the claim that rabbits chew cud, or that bats are birds?

In your example you’re just speaking colloquially and accusing me of taking it literally.

How is that analogous to what’s being said?

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@protestantjake @JeebusIsDead @CreationMuseum What’s the fallacy.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@Yossarian_Lives @I_amMukhtar Tu quoque

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@FormalgangsterK @SoulofSamuel @PlayApex Nothing about this clip even remotely resembled scripts or aimbot.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@Orrick_45 @bestgamers_ja No, they are not.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@addyman_michael @JacksonWheat1 If you are getting surgery, would you prefer a specialized surgeon, or a philosopher?

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@MischiefMa77752 @W_O_T_S_ @kaizen000000000 Nothing illogical about an infinite regress.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@Orrick_45 @bestgamers_ja Again, ranked ≠ pros.

Your prompt isn’t even relevant to the initial claim you made.

Replace ranked with “pro” in your google searches and your answers will be very different.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@Orrick_45 @bestgamers_ja Nowhere in the study does it say 1/3 people cheat.

What is YOUR non ai source for that claim?

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@Orrick_45 @bestgamers_ja The point is that ai is slop in general and I can immediately find something that says the opposite of yours, making it a bad source.

Which is why I’m asking for an actual, credible source, and you don’t seem to have one.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@Orrick_45 @bestgamers_ja Pred/master players ≠ pro players

Your claim is that 1/3 pro players cheats, and your evidence is a report regarding cheating among high ranked console players.

What is the evidence that 1/3 pro players cheat?

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@Orrick_45 @bestgamers_ja Provide the link to the actual study/survey, not an ai overview.

[I Loot Standing Still @detsno]

@Orrick_45 @bestgamers_ja Is that an Ai overview?

Provide a link to the actual study/survey that was conducted, otherwise we could go back and forth posting ai slop that’s biased towards the prompt you put in.