WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Age]

So life is a risk taking exercise… meaning you have no power to protect your own offspring…why would you take risks with other people’s lives by having them? Surely protecting them is not exposing them to the risk of living in the first place?

You are right. Let me go and spare them from the risk of living by ending their miserable lives.

ONCE AGAIN, 'this one' here IS TWISTING and DISTORTING what was ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, and then PROCEEDING FROM 'there'.

You realy can't seem to decide whether you want to stay in the game or get off the playing field ASAP.

Here we have a PRIME example of JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION based on NOTHING MORE than one's OWN PREVIOUS ASSUMPTION, which CAME FROM one's PREEXISTING CLOSED, or VERY LIMITED, 'perspective of things' here.

Which, in other words, what we have here is ANOTHER PRIME example of what HAPPENS WHEN 'confirmation bias' is AT WORK, and AT PLAY.

[Age]

The eyeroll emoji wasn't a giveaway?

Well just goes to prove your not saying what you mean and meaning what your saying then.

I meant everything I typed. Especially the eyeroll emoji.

What 'you' ACTUALLY TYPED WAS: Let me go and spare them from the risk of living by ending their miserable lives.

SO, if you MEANT EVERY 'thing' you typed, then does this MEAN that 'you' REALLY ARE going to 'end their miserable lives'?

After all 'you' HAVE DONE 'this' at least ONCE, ALREADY. Maybe 'you' REALLY DO WANT to DO 'this', AGAIN, and/or MORE.

[Age]

Right so you meant to put your own offspring out of their misery that you caused. Ok so how is that protecting them from dying or being murdered or killed?

Yes, Of course I meant to put my own offspring out of their misery. And I also meant the eyeroll emoji.

Ask anybody with a modicum of emotional intelligence to interpret what that actually means.

Hang on a minute here.

'you' ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE, Let me go and spare them from the risk of living by ending their miserable lives.

THEN 'you' ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE, I meant everything I typed.

So, WHICH 'one' do 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN here?

What the first one MEANS to 'those' WITH 'emotional intelligence' is that 'you' WANT "others" to let 'you' go and END 'their MISERABLE lives', COMPLETELY.

What the second one MEANS to 'those' WITH 'emotional intelligence' is that 'you' ACTUALLY DID MEAN absolutely EVERY 'thing' you WROTE in the former sentence.

Which might well be ANOTHER GREAT example of ANOTHER 'freudian slip' here.

[Age]

No, this mutually exlclusive thinking and trying to perfectly define your words doesn't work in practice.

Whether I know that something is true; or know that something is false I need a good reason to be moved off the "I don't know" spot.

OK, let me put it this way:

Let’s say you have no reason to believe something and you know that you have no reason to believe it. You also have no reason to disbelieve and you know that. You can’t not know that you lack reasons both ways.

I don't know that I lack reasons both ways. I know that I lack reasons to move me off my default position which is - I don't know either way.

And 'what' have 'you' FOUND to be the VERY 'reason/s' WHY 'you' HAVE and WOULD move of 'your' so-called 'default position'?

You have what is called a fielder’s choice. You can believe or disbelieve, but you can’t not know what you know.

I can neither believe nor disbelieve. This is the agnostic default.

WHY do 'you' CONTINUALLY USE some human being CREATED 'concept', and then PLACE 'it' ONTO what IS essentially JUST A human being?

ALSO, the 'agnostic' word and concept was CREATED in relation to God, and which was defined AS just ANOTHER BELIEF anyway.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is beer in the fridge.
I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is no beer in the fridge.

I assign equal weight to either possibility - I am not swayed either way.

That's what "I don't know" means.

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW, to 'you', "skepdick"?

[Skepdick]

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW, to 'you', "skepdick"?

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW whether you asked this question, Age?

[attofishpi]

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW, to 'you', "skepdick"?

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW whether you asked this question, Age?

It is for Age within reasonable scales of certainty.

[Skepdick]

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW, to 'you', "skepdick"?

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW whether you asked this question, Age?

It is for Age within reasonable scales of certainty.

Could you enumerate the uncertainties you seem to be having around knowing whether Age asked this question?

[attofishpi]

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW whether you asked this question, Age?

It is for Age within reasonable scales of certainty.

Could you enumerate the uncertainties you seem to be having around knowing whether Age asked this question?

I couldn't give a flying f***. The point I made was that Age can be reasonably certain that he\she\it asked the question.

[Skepdick]

I couldn't give a flying f***. The point I made was that Age can be reasonably certain that he\she\it asked the question.

I didn't ask about about the reasonables of the certainty of his knowledge. I asked if he knows that he asked the question.

Either he does or he doesn't.

[attofishpi]

I couldn't give a flying f***. The point I made was that Age can be reasonably certain that he\she\it asked the question.

I didn't ask about about the reasonables of the certainty of his knowledge. I asked if he knows that he asked the question.

Either he does or he doesn't.

Well let's not get too pedantic about it - personally, I am certain that the poster Age KNOWS he\she\it asked the question.

Apparently he\she\it is not a retard he\she\it is merely autistic.

[Skepdick]

I couldn't give a flying f***. The point I made was that Age can be reasonably certain that he\she\it asked the question.

I didn't ask about about the reasonables of the certainty of his knowledge. I asked if he knows that he asked the question.

Either he does or he doesn't.

Well let's not get too pedantic about it - personally, I am certain that the poster Age KNOWS he\she\it asked the question.

Apparently he\she\it is not a retard he\she\it is merely autistic.

You are certain but you don't know ... or?

[attofishpi]

I didn't ask about about the reasonables of the certainty of his knowledge. I asked if he knows that he asked the question.

Either he does or he doesn't.

Well let's not get too pedantic about it - personally, I am certain that the poster Age KNOWS he\she\it asked the question.

Apparently he\she\it is not a retard he\she\it is merely autistic.

You are certain but you don't know ... or?

Oh, I am certain of it. Autism doesn't seem to impair such a judgement.

[Skepdick]

Well let's not get too pedantic about it - personally, I am certain that the poster Age KNOWS he\she\it asked the question.

Apparently he\she\it is not a retard he\she\it is merely autistic.

You are certain but you don't know ... or?

Oh, I am certain of it. Autism doesn't seem to impair such a judgement.

I didn't ask you about your certainty - i asked you about your knowledge.

You don't see to know the difference.

[attofishpi]

You are certain but you don't know ... or?

Oh, I am certain of it. Autism doesn't seem to impair such a judgement.

I didn't ask you about your certainty - i asked you about your knowledge.

You don't see to know the difference.

Oh well then. I know that in this thread you have been a cockhead and that right now I have better things to do than give a flying f*** about what a cockhead thinks.

Indeed, I know I am about to cook a nice broccoli and cauliflower cheese bake with a scotch fillet steak covered in a nice garlic mushroom sauce.

[Age]

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW, to 'you', "skepdick"?

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW whether you asked this question, Age?

Do 'you' WANT or EXPECT 'me' to ANSWER 'your' QUESTION here?

If yes, then is 'this' REALLY considerate to do so considering the number of 'my' QUESTIONS ASKED to 'you', which 'you' have NOT YET ANSWERED?