@TheCriticalDri2 I mostly agree with both of you, but I wouldn't necessarily say that someone finding his death unceremonious and lacking a satisfying resolution means that these details are lost on them.
@Elvish_Harper His death aside, I loved s2. But I do very much agree. He was my favorite character--a genuinely complex character working for the wrong side with an admirable, passionate internal code that you can't help but respect. Leaving his story unresolved was criminal.
@QTRBlackGarrett My theory... they're obscuring metrics that might make advertisers upset when they realize they're paying YouTube for ads on videos with zero prospect of moving their products.
The Secretary of State in MN @MNSteveSimon is threatening us for exposing the truth on their broken vouching system.
In response, the next member of the Justice League @anthonyjrubin will be releasing more evidence from @realmuckraker tomorrow.
I’ve been threatened with arrest more times than I can count. What I’ve learned in 20 years of doing this you CANNOT stop a man in the right who keeps on coming.
@doctor_rahmeh Calling it "plagiarism controversy" drastically minimizes the degree of fraud. Its sad he took the cowards way out, but this level of fraud should be met with literal (not figurative) tar-and-feathering.
The liberal academic women who gassed him up before the fall are to blame.
@TheJamie@Amanda2010___ When you defraud on the scale he did you should expect to be LITERALLY TARRED AND FEATHERED if you're caught.
The Munchausen-by-Proxy liberal academics who cheered him along--believing every insane lie he told along the way--are the ones who piled up the kindling.
@earthlyskeptick@1615_mark@DivinelyDesined There ya go. No deity presupposition. I DO believe including God is more truthful, but pointing out the Grand Canyon-sized flaw in your logic doesn't require it.
This will be my last reply. I feel like I'm debating a 14yo.
@earthlyskeptick@1615_mark@DivinelyDesined Here you go:
Your question presupposes that what's evolutionarily advantageous for one creature (butterflies) must be so for all creatures (humans). His answer delineates what is advantageous for humans (thumbs) and what is advantageous for butterflies (certainly not thumbs).
@earthlyskeptick@1615_mark@DivinelyDesined The argument your question puts forth is, essentially, "Why didn't God make all of His creatures exactly the same?" If what's good for the goose is definitionally good for the gander, then all geese should be ganders, and all gander be geese.
Or, as he put it, "That's stupid."
@earthlyskeptick@1615_mark@DivinelyDesined He identified your (clearly absurd) presupposition and asked a rhetorical question that made it obvious (to anyone but you, apparently).
So, yes, he answered your argument exactly and precisely. He "btfo'd" it, if you will.
@earthlyskeptick@1615_mark@DivinelyDesined Do you not understand what a rhetorical question is? (This is a rhetorical question btw).
How would you feel right now if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
@RazorFist The opening scene of Escape from New York where the bitch who hijacks the President's plan goes on a commie screed isnt even parody.
https://t.co/T7iAm42Dx4