A World Without Men?

[Oakley]

A question for all....

Which one are you?



My myself, I claim guy with the beard, he seems to be having a good time.

[Lacewing]

just because I read, and reply, when I do, this does NOT necessarily mean that I am MISSING the WHOLE, NOR does it mean that I am NOT connecting small pieces of information together into a cogent whole.

But you have not proven that you do or can.

NEVER provide ANY ACTUAL PROOF for their CLAIMS.

Do you think you've done this for your claims? If so, where?

If not, as you say:

without evidence you are REALLY SAYING NOTHING AT ALL.

Without PROOF what you are, essentially, saying and doing here is; Egotistically, CLAIMING that 'you' understand MORE than 'I' do, and that 'you' are BETTER than 'I' am.

[Walker]

A question for all....

Which one are you?

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com ... 0._RI_.jpg

My myself, I claim guy with the beard, he seems to be having a good time.

Speaking of cuckoo …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hthos7j_3dA

[henry quirk]

A question for all....

Which one are you?



My myself, I claim guy with the beard, he seems to be having a good time.

I'm the guy bangin' Nurse Ratched in the broom closet.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm obscured by the furniture



Nope, wait, I'm out now.

[Lacewing]

I'm around the corner, mixing up the meds.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm obscured by the furniture



Nope, wait, I'm out now.

He looks surprisingly 'taut' and smooth there. I would have expected more hair and 'wobble'

[Age]

Would 'you', "uwot", care to CHALLENGE me on MY CLAIM, which DIRECTLY OPPOSES YOUR CLAIM, regarding thee Universe, Itself?

Absolutely. What is your claim?

My claim: The Universe NEVER began and is NOT expanding. Thus is eternal and infinite.

Your claim: The Universe began and is expanding. Thus is transient and limited.

If this is correct, then let us begin.

[Age]

I already don't read most of what you write. I've told you that before and then spent happy months readin none of your posts. Normal service will resume shortly.

WHY NOT now?

Are you DESPERATELY WANTING TO LEARN SOME THING NEW? Or, is there some OTHER reason?

If yes, then WHAT IS that REASON?

Or, will you HIDE this ALSO?

I do what I like, when I feel like doing it.

EXACTLY, and as I keep REMINDING 'you', human beings; 'you' are absolutely FREE to choose to do whatever you want to do.

SO, 'you' can CHOOSE to carry on the way you are now, or, CHOOSE to CHANGE, for the better or not.

WHEN 'you', people, STOP 'trying to' TELL ME that I BELIEVE things, then I will STOP telling 'you' that I DO NOT. VERY SIMPLE REALLY.

Do you believe that?

The IMMATURITY of this speaks for itself.

[Age]

Welcome aboard.

Thank you. Could you tell me please, what time of day do the nurses distribute the medications?

Wanting a world without men, just because men behave violently, and kill "others", JUST LIKE WOMEN DO, and do kill "others", and thinking that a world without men could actually be achieved and would actually work, is like wanting a world without winter, because winter can be 'violent' (freezing) and kills people, just like summer can be 'violent' (burns) and kills people, just like rain can be 'violent' (floods) and kills people, just like the sun can be 'violent' (dehydrates) and kills people.

So would do you think a world without the sun and the rain would be 'better' also, and would actually work?

The reason men are violent is for the EXACT SAME reason women are violent, and that reason is because of the way 'you', adult human beings, raise children.

Therefore, if 'you' CHANGED 'your' ways, individually AND collectively, for the BETTER, then children would NOT grow up being violent.

VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, REALLY.

And, from the start of this thread where you wrote:

That's enough for now, look forward to hearing your thoughts.

To which I replied:

You appear to be NOT REALLY looking forward to ANY thought, which OPPOSES your view here

Which now appears to have become ABSOLUTELY True, correct?

[Age]

just because I read, and reply, when I do, this does NOT necessarily mean that I am MISSING the WHOLE, NOR does it mean that I am NOT connecting small pieces of information together into a cogent whole.

But you have not proven that you do or can.

And you have not proved that I have NOT.

NEVER provide ANY ACTUAL PROOF for their CLAIMS.

Do you think you've done this for your claims? If so, where?

I have PROVIDED SOME PROOF. But because this has NOT YET been FULLY LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED, then there is NO USE moving along further.

Where I have done this is in my posts. And, IF you PROVIDED a BIT MORE SPECIFIC IDEA or CLUE as to 'what' CLAIMS you are referring to, then I can be a BIT MORE SPECIFIC in regards to WHERE.

See, the DIFFERENCE here is I have PROVIDE, so there is SOME thing to LOOK AT and DISCUSS. Whereas, the "other" has NOT EVEN PROVIDED absolutely ANY thing, so that 'we' can LOOK AT 'it', and then DISCUSS 'it'.

OBVIOUSLY, if NOTHING is PROVIDED, then there is NOTHING to SEE nor to DISCUSS.

If not, as you say:

without evidence you are REALLY SAYING NOTHING AT ALL.

Without PROOF what you are, essentially, saying and doing here is; Egotistically, CLAIMING that 'you' understand MORE than 'I' do, and that 'you' are BETTER than 'I' am.

Which is, OBVIOUSLY, Correct.

I have, ALSO, ALREADY PROVIDED the 'evidence', and even the 'proof', for my CLAIMS, for ALL of 'you' to LOOK AT, and then DISCUSS. Now, all you have to is just that.

I now just AWAIT for your CHALLENGES and/or CLARIFYING QUESTIONS in regards to my ALREADY SUPPLIED 'evidence' and 'proofs'.

[Walker]

I now just AWAIT for your CHALLENGES and/or CLARIFYING QUESTIONS in regards to my ALREADY SUPPLIED 'evidence' and 'proofs'.

In principle, what constitutes acceptable proof?

In particular, for determining sex* it's probably a blood test.

The New Zealand weight lifter smashing all the female records seems to be skating by on hormone levels.

Changing definitions helps. For example, in the US, infrastructure now means everything.

Boudicca! was a gal all the tribes agreed on.


* sub-forum relevance

[FlashDangerpants]

The IMMATURITY of this speaks for itself.

Such is the belief of the "human" who calls himself age

[Lacewing]

I have PROVIDED SOME PROOF.

I have, ALSO, ALREADY PROVIDED the 'evidence', and even the 'proof', for my CLAIMS

i do NOT provide NOR show the proof. i am just learning how to find the right words to explain to you HOW you can and will FIND and SEE the PROOF "your self".

So which is it? And why can't you keep your story straight?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I now just AWAIT for your CHALLENGES and/or CLARIFYING QUESTIONS in regards to my ALREADY SUPPLIED 'evidence' and 'proofs'.

In principle, what constitutes acceptable proof?

In particular, for determining sex* it's probably a blood test.

The New Zealand weight lifter smashing all the female records seems to be skating by on hormone levels.

Changing definitions helps. For example, in the US, infrastructure now means everything.

Boudicca! was a gal all the tribes agreed on.


* sub-forum relevance

Good. I hope every gold medal is won by these hideous 'women when it suits them' so we can all see this farce for what it is and finally shake some sense into the human race.