I know what that one means

A lot of people aren't educated on hermeneutics tbh...
I was raised Christian for a very long time and not aware

Depends on your denom

That would be a paradigm

I don't even know what denom I belonged to... technically

@Deleted User I don't feel like this gets anywhere... tbh...
You're basically setting a more eloquent strawman

Trying to pigeon hole him into a denomination

I'm actually trying to figure out which denom I was privately schooled in <:pepeLMAO:644901342216847388>

But I just don't give a rat's ass

I think the strategy at this point is more akin to a war of attrition than actually trying to get to any conclusions

I'm grossed out by listening to this

tbh

theism 😞

<:pepeLMAO:644901342216847388>

@Sasha good one sasha

very funny

https://twitter.com/physorg_com/status/331876146113302528?s=21

One big family. Maybe we shouldn’t call it “race” for the people who have been convinced it *dont real*

I mean...
How is someone supposed to say someone's socially inept

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/ reading about this garbo again...
Honestly, this is why I hate philosophers. Too many unnecessary distinctions... This mother fucker literally uses a chemistry analogy

``` Illocutionary force and semantic content are often taken to be distinct from one another, not just in the way that your left and right hand are distinct, but rather by virtue of falling into different categories. Stenius 1967 elucidates this distinction, noting that in chemical parlance a radical is a group of atoms normally incapable of independent existence, whereas a functional group is the grouping of those atoms in a compound that is responsible for certain of that compound's properties. Analogously, it is often remarked that a Proposition is itself communicatively inert. For instance, merely expressing the Proposition that it is snowing is not to make a move in a “language game”. Rather, such a move is only made by putting forth a Proposition with an illocutionary force such as assertion, conjecture, command, etc. The chemical analogy gains further support from the fact that just as a chemist might isolate radicals held in common among various compounds, the student of language may isolate a common element held among ‘Is the door shut?’, ‘Shut the door!’, and ‘The door is shut’. This common element is the Proposition that the door is shut, queried in the first sentence, commanded to be made true in the second, and asserted in the third. According to the chemical analogy, then:

Illocutionary force : Propositional content :: functional group : radical ```

Pointless distinction, though... if you ask me... until there's a mismatch between the speech act and the the effect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vM6pAQfaiU

@LustrousMandrill I never got a response back on my friendship application 😭

It's being processed

O

@Deleted User what am I?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Death%20grip

Hot

Imagine not taking a tautological definition of physicalism 😴

Hempel's dilemma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Emblem_Fates

@Marcdoof

@Hagar non agent is a stolen line

@Deleted User have you been in any gangs?

<:Feelsok:643818539454562304>

@Castore I feel like this question has racist implications

@LustrousMandrill racism as in a form of oppression ,institution or racism as in individual disregard or ill will?

Little bit from column A, little bit from column B

No @Castore