Message from @Goblin_Slayer_Floki
Discord ID: 493599974156927007
we need a wahmen warriors meme
wahmen that drive their tribe into extinction because they decided to fight in battle
wearing chainmail bikinis
also tribes are sexist, and SJWs may start denying that humans are historically tribal or that tribes existed historically
everyone traveled and traded around!
Hello 👋
hey there
didnt expect to see yuo today
I am everywhere, always.
o really
Y yes.
you weren't here last time i was here
But I was.
oh, ok
👌
guess i didnt see you then
I really like heirloom tomatoes.
I eat them on toast every morning
**Lutinmetzger#6471** was cleansed from the server.
It would have been a good time when he first became a judge, or when he became a federal district judge, or when he became a federal appeals court judge.
**Queenie#7912** was cleansed from the server.
Or when it happened
**[SynCo]DandereNinja#2642** was cleansed from the server.
What the fuck kind of Steven Universe bullshit are you spewing out at me son?
**Obesity#0331** was cleansed from the server.
I kinda want to see them try the nuclear option.
At least for a few days.
Don't let your bluffs be bluffs
lel
@M4Gunner Well, maybe there will still be a market for garbageware for PewDiePie or whoever to screech at. Or maybe you could be the one to do the screeching! Just don't make jokes that are too edgy.
Eyyyy, here's some good news. https://www.dailywire.com/news/36217/flames-michael-moores-new-anti-trump-movie-joseph-curl
Did better than *Michael Moore in Trumpland,* though. That made only about $150,00 TOTAL if I understand correctly.
I haven't seen his latest nonsense since going to see that in a theater is as inviting as watching 2 hours of Democratic Party campaign commercials, but I wonder what about this film isn't totally redundant compared to Moore in Trumpland.
How does one argue against the absurdity of the intent fallacy
@Shurik As in, someone saying "you're wrong because you just want us to do this"?
Literature. Authorial intent
I think the intent fallacy is rather emotionally driven, so you could try to make the debate as objective as possible. Maybe go for something among the lines of "My intent is irrelevant to the discussion, and even if it was, you're best off addressing my points in order to foil my intent, instead of the other way around."
Like on one hand you have to give the devil his due and say yea the authors intent dosen't matter. On the other hand reading the back and forth between Asimov and Heinlein is something else. The amount of points and counter points they throw at each other with each consecutive book makes the books all that more meaningful