flannel jesus

Why would you consider burning a book 'violence'? If it's violence, then does that imply Muslims have the right to self-defense from that violence?

Nothing I said was about "proving a point". What point? It's a challenge, not a point. And it's a challenge that every other community other than Musl...

I wonder if, in a sense, burning qurans is part of that challenge. I kind of see it that way. "I'm burning this quran, it's up to you and your communi...

yeah. You seem to be unable to distinguish between your own thoughts and objective fact, but you're good at realizing other peoples thoughts aren't fa...

ok that's dumb lmao.

Ah right but when you insult people it's an objective fact XD you're such a dick.

Seems par for the course for this guy. Lots of non-sequiturs.

what makes it silly? can you explain?

a book with (allegedly) muhammads words printed in it.

go ahead.

Can YOU prove your statement?

Well I must state as an objective fact that you're a retard.

good answer. That's probably worth doing.

that's unecessary. Why so sensitive about it? Nothing in there is a proof.

What's the difference?

(sorry for popping in mid conversation out of context) Without going into too much detail, I've had extremely similar events in my life and feelings. ...

your conclusion is correct, but it doesn't seem like you did anything to prove it.

I don't

Why do you think it's interesting to ask me questions I wouldn't know the answer to, and then tell me nobody knows?

Your point is to tell me that no one knows the answers to the questions you randomly decided to ask me?

I genuinely don't understand why you're asking me any of these questions. I wouldn't know.

ok, what does that have to do with anything?

I have no idea. I don't know why you're asking me random questions my man.

It seems like you're in the habit of just saying random shit without any desire to connect it to the conversation.

you're cute. I like your owners hat.

they don't ever. You're being silly

As opposed to there being any possible way to charitable interpret that as close to the truth.

Calling it a "logical conjunction" is a category error. Logical conjunctions don't have numerical values.

the same property. So kinetic and potential are the same as each other. That's just objectively false

The only two options I can see are "plus", or saying "this numerical value is equal to kinetic energy; also it's equal to potential". What other optio...

that's not an explanation. You cannot use the symbol you're defining in the definition. That's like you asking me what an apple is, and I say "it's th...

I don't think there's any possible interpretation of "and" which would make "kinetic and potential energy" the thing that e refers to in Einstein's eq...

what question? Why don't we skip the dance and you explain what you mean?

you haven't clearly expressed what you mean by "and" at all. You've said it doesn't mean plus, this is the next option as far as I'm concerned. What e...

no.

Do you mean e equals the kinetic energy, and also separately it equals the potential energy? That would imply kinetic energy is always equal to potent...

how does that apply to a numerical value that you get for e from Einstein's equation? "This numerical value is equal to kinetic AND potential energy"?

originally I just wanted to know if it was meaningful to you, beyond just a bunch of symbols you've been told are "true" when you put them in that ord...

no it's not

I would say "what is 2 and 5?" Is a very common way of asking "what is 2 plus 5?"

and, plus, this seems pedantic to me. Either way you phrase it is equally incorrect. I don't know what "and" could possibly mean other than plus in th...

You didn't say that it does? Are you kidding?

Also you're wrong about what the e means, it doesn't mean kinetic plus potential.

formulas do not have true or false values on their own, for example. They are true or false only when applied to a specific realm of inquiry. E equals...

that you're coming at this all wrong. You have drastically misunderstood a lot, and the things you think are obvious are not obvious. Some of the thin...

no, you wouldn't lol.

Something that's just a formula has no truth value whatsoever. It doesn't make sense to call a formula "true". A = dx + ey - z^3 true or false?

Fun fact: you're actually incorrect. The e in the equation is not about the sum of potential and kinetic energy. It refers to the objects "rest energy...

I don't. It equals the kinetic AND potential? At the same time?

I don't think it is obvious. What does "the energy of an ordinary object" mean? I'm looking at my table, sitting there menacingly. I don't know what i...