stringscode

[stringscode @stringscode]

@wrestleroller She's rich enough to pick the role she wants. She chose to be in a romance movie where the plot seems to be ditching the guy she's with for another one.

Especially with her track record, it's weird.

[stringscode @stringscode]

@wannabejake9 She wants as many people as possible to see this one

[stringscode @stringscode]

@lakerfan2124 @ItsAvery @BronGotGame @CuntyBaldinger well, now she's pursuing being in romantic scenes w/ other men

[stringscode @stringscode]

@ItsAvery @BronGotGame @CuntyBaldinger she already has all the money she needs

[stringscode @stringscode]

Bruh

[Legreatness @Legreatnessss]

Head leaning on another man. I’m so sorry😭😭

[stringscode @stringscode]

@Jack_DeMonkey That's gotta be Anya-Taylor as reference right? Also what's with the shot at 0:53

[stringscode @stringscode]

@ROCKYSEGAK why did he use his own hand instead of a shadow clone?

[stringscode @stringscode]

@kenmcalinn It's all already laid out for you, just re-read the thread.

Making statements in isolation, starting from the middle and taking for granted preconditions, has been a major theme since Descartes's Cogito. It's a false neutrality.

Have some self-awareness, and good luck bro.

[stringscode @stringscode]

@wittgenfine I know gold when i hear it

[stringscode @stringscode]

@kenmcalinn There's no valid external critique.
An internal critique already concedes.
That's exhaustive.

Like denying air while breathing, the contradiction of using logic then denying the only only valid justification is foolish.

Appealing to unformed worldviews is a gaps argument.

[stringscode @stringscode]

@C_L_Wu @papichulo187er Bro, you can just leave out the first part and go straight to the insult lol

[stringscode @stringscode]

@DIGIMON_ALYSION make tamers 2

[stringscode @stringscode]

@kenmcalinn If there's no justified critique, what's there to respond to?

[stringscode @stringscode]

@kenmcalinn More misunderstandings on your part

Every statement you made requires a justified worldview. That you insist is you being inconsistent. If you were consistent you wouldn't be able to say anything at all

You haven't met preconditions for possibilities yet you try to use them

[stringscode @stringscode]

@kenmcalinn If it's not impossible provide one that does?

Claiming that something is possible/impossible itself requires a justified worldview. Which is why your critiques have nothing to stand on.

Just empty asserting things is not rational, logical, or consistent.

[stringscode @stringscode]

@kenmcalinn Apparently, it is your misunderstanding.

I already answered you on circularity (vs the fallacy of) and how "shutting mouths" means they can't make justified claims in my other posts.

Making claims and critiques without justification will leave you in cognitive dissonance

[stringscode @stringscode]

@kenmcalinn I'm saying they don't say "it's not about truth." Either you're misquoting or misunderstanding.

They show the Christian paradigm meets the preconditions. To even compete or critique you'd need a 2nd that also meets them, but there isn't. It's a win by default.

[stringscode @stringscode]

@davis9120 @kenmcalinn I'm not sure how the twitter translation is, but "abstract" is not "abstraction."

[stringscode @stringscode]

@kenmcalinn Not sure what you read, but no it's always ultimately about truth.

Non-Christians throw out claims without justification. If they required proper justification, they couldn't do it - hence the "silence."

[stringscode @stringscode]

@kenmcalinn Circularity isn't the same as the fallacy of circularity.

The latter is a subset of the former, but there is circularity that's isn't fallacious. Every word in the the dictionary is defined by other words. That's ultimately circular.

If only 1 view works it wins by default