The definition is in my Original Post. You’re use of the CAP LOCK IS MESSING WITH MY HEAD. itmakesreadingwahtyiuaresayingverydIFFICULTisTHEREANIGNOREfuncTION HEREAge wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:16 amLOLPhilosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:04 amAge wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 12:56 am
OF COURSE words HAVE 'meanings'. AND, just AS OBVIOUS is the Fact that 'the meaning' 'you' GIVE to A word CAN BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM 'the meaning' "others" GIVE TO THE EXACT SAME word.
Now, 'you' CLAIM that 'you' ARE NOT A 'human', (which IS PERFECTLY FINE), BUT what 'meaning' do 'you' GIVE to the 'human' word, which has made 'you' CHOOSE TO NOT BE A 'human'?
AND, WHY did 'you' CHOOSE TO BE A 'man', INSTEAD?
BUT the 'you' here is NOT an 'I' and NEVER WILL BE.
There is ONLY One 'I', while there ARE MANY OF 'you', human beings, AND ONE 'Man', as 'you' call "your" 'self'.
Do 'you' have a 'Man personality disorder'?
It’s not possible to discuss the word Human logically and sensibly with you because words have no meaning to you and or you choose not to understand the meaning of words.
LOL
LOL
I have ASKED 'you', a FEW TIMES ALREADY, for 'you' TO SHOW 'us' HOW 'you', personally, DEFINE the 'Human' word, (with a capital 'h'), YET 'you' STILL HAVE NOT.
So, YES it IS ACTUALLY NOT POSSIBLE to DISCUSS the word 'Human' WITH 'you' IN ANY WAY. BECAUSE OBVIOUS NO one KNOWS what 'you' MEAN when 'you' USE the 'Human' word, (with a capital 'h').
AGAIN, ALL 'you' have ESSENTIALLY SAID and CLAIMED here is that 'you' do NOT like the 'Human' word, SO 'you' have CHOSEN to call "your" 'self' A 'Man', INSTEAD.
Which IS FAIR ENOUGH. But, REALLY A FAIRLY STUPID 'thing' TO DO, especially in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM.
LOLPhilosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:04 am In turn you have the audacity temerity and patent disrespect to expect me to acknowledge any word you type with the assumption that I understand or accept the meaning of any word you say. That’s insanity.
LOL
LOL
How could I EVER, LOGICALLY, EXPECT 'you' to UNDERSTAND and/or ACCEPT the MEANING of ANY word I SAY or USE here, WHEN 'you' have NEVER even ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN and GAIN CLARITY in regards to 'the MEANING' of ANY word I have SAID or USED here?
Also, I have OBVIOUSLY NOT YET VOLUNTEERED UP ANY 'meaning' for ANY word. So, to MAKE ANY ASSUMPTION about 'me' EXPECTING ANY 'thing' regarding 'you' YET UNDERSTANDING and/or ACCEPTING 'those YET REVEALED meanings' would be and IS Truly RIDICULOUS.
Human
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:51 am
Re: Human
Re: Human
The 'personal feeling' of 'the word' WAS, 'I do NOT like it'.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:10 amI shared a personal view of my feelings of the word because I don’t like it’s definition.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 12:31 amLOLPhilosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 12:07 am
You’re wasting yours and my time going off topic. Why? Are you a troll? My logic is sound
This is YOUR so-called "logic", "philosphicalous"; I do NOT like the word 'human', SO have CHOSEN that I am a 'Man'.
WHICH EXPLAINS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, other than 'you' do NOT like the 'Human' word, ABOUT WHY 'you' have CHOSEN TO CALL "your" 'self' A 'Man', INSTEAD.
Which is WHAT, EXACTLY?Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:10 am You still refuse to accept the word Human has a definition that is clearly defined.
LOOK I KNOW that the word 'Human' AND the word 'human' HAS A DEFINITION. WHY would 'you' ASSUME I REFUSE to ACCEPT that 'this' or ANY word HAS A DEFINITION?
And, as 'you' STILL SEEM TO BE ABSOLUTELY CONFUSED here, I AM JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW 'you' are DEFINING the 'Human' word here.
Or, what do 'you' think or BELIEVE is the so-called called and alleged CLEAR DEFINITION for the 'Human' word?
Are 'you' even AWARE that 'you' REFUSING TO JUST WRITE DOWN the so-called CLEAR DEFINITION of the 'Human' word is SHOWING and REVEALING that, ACTUALLY, 'you' do NOT even KNOW what 'it' IS, EXACTLY?
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:51 am
Re: Human
My feelings are irrelevant.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:23 amThe 'personal feeling' of 'the word' WAS, 'I do NOT like it'.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:10 amI shared a personal view of my feelings of the word because I don’t like it’s definition.
WHICH EXPLAINS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, other than 'you' do NOT like the 'Human' word, ABOUT WHY 'you' have CHOSEN TO CALL "your" 'self' A 'Man', INSTEAD.Which is WHAT, EXACTLY?Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:10 am You still refuse to accept the word Human has a definition that is clearly defined.
LOOK I KNOW that the word 'Human' AND the word 'human' HAS A DEFINITION. WHY would 'you' ASSUME I REFUSE to ACCEPT that 'this' or ANY word HAS A DEFINITION?
And, as 'you' STILL SEEM TO BE ABSOLUTELY CONFUSED here, I AM JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW 'you' are DEFINING the 'Human' word here.
Or, what do 'you' think or BELIEVE is the so-called called and alleged CLEAR DEFINITION for the 'Human' word?
Are 'you' even AWARE that 'you' REFUSING TO JUST WRITE DOWN the so-called CLEAR DEFINITION of the 'Human' word is SHOWING and REVEALING that, ACTUALLY, 'you' do NOT even KNOW what 'it' IS, EXACTLY?
Re: Human
The 'definition' in your original post is from ONE dictionary ONLY, and thus is ONLY ONE 'definition' from MANY DIFFERENT 'definitions' IN MANY DIFFERENT 'dictionaries'. That 'definition' is ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, NOT the 'original definition'. And, to make ALL of 'this' WORSE 'that definition' is FOR the 'humankind' word, and NOT the 'Human' word AT ALL.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:19 amThe definition is in my Original Post.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:16 amLOLPhilosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:04 am
It’s not possible to discuss the word Human logically and sensibly with you because words have no meaning to you and or you choose not to understand the meaning of words.
LOL
LOL
I have ASKED 'you', a FEW TIMES ALREADY, for 'you' TO SHOW 'us' HOW 'you', personally, DEFINE the 'Human' word, (with a capital 'h'), YET 'you' STILL HAVE NOT.
So, YES it IS ACTUALLY NOT POSSIBLE to DISCUSS the word 'Human' WITH 'you' IN ANY WAY. BECAUSE OBVIOUS NO one KNOWS what 'you' MEAN when 'you' USE the 'Human' word, (with a capital 'h').
AGAIN, ALL 'you' have ESSENTIALLY SAID and CLAIMED here is that 'you' do NOT like the 'Human' word, SO 'you' have CHOSEN to call "your" 'self' A 'Man', INSTEAD.
Which IS FAIR ENOUGH. But, REALLY A FAIRLY STUPID 'thing' TO DO, especially in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM.
LOLPhilosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:04 am In turn you have the audacity temerity and patent disrespect to expect me to acknowledge any word you type with the assumption that I understand or accept the meaning of any word you say. That’s insanity.
LOL
LOL
How could I EVER, LOGICALLY, EXPECT 'you' to UNDERSTAND and/or ACCEPT the MEANING of ANY word I SAY or USE here, WHEN 'you' have NEVER even ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN and GAIN CLARITY in regards to 'the MEANING' of ANY word I have SAID or USED here?
Also, I have OBVIOUSLY NOT YET VOLUNTEERED UP ANY 'meaning' for ANY word. So, to MAKE ANY ASSUMPTION about 'me' EXPECTING ANY 'thing' regarding 'you' YET UNDERSTANDING and/or ACCEPTING 'those YET REVEALED meanings' would be and IS Truly RIDICULOUS.
ONCE MORE, 'your' ASSUMPTION here is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect. And, the REASON WHY IS OBVIOUS, well to MOST here anyway.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:19 am You’re use of the CAP LOCK IS MESSING WITH MY HEAD.
YES there IS an IGNORE function here. Which you could have LOOKED FOR and probably USED by the time 'you' ASKED FOR CLARITY ABOUT if there IS one or NOT.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:19 am itmakesreadingwahtyiuaresayingverydIFFICULTisTHEREANIGNOREfuncTION HERE
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:51 am
Re: Human
You refused any and all definitions. I won’t put you on ignore because Im going a look around the forum to see how the WeeWee puts up with your barking madnessAge wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:32 amThe 'definition' in your original post is from ONE dictionary ONLY, and thus is ONLY ONE 'definition' from MANY DIFFERENT 'definitions' IN MANY DIFFERENT 'dictionaries'. That 'definition' is ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, NOT the 'original definition'. And, to make ALL of 'this' WORSE 'that definition' is FOR the 'humankind' word, and NOT the 'Human' word AT ALL.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:19 amThe definition is in my Original Post.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:16 am
LOL
LOL
LOL
I have ASKED 'you', a FEW TIMES ALREADY, for 'you' TO SHOW 'us' HOW 'you', personally, DEFINE the 'Human' word, (with a capital 'h'), YET 'you' STILL HAVE NOT.
So, YES it IS ACTUALLY NOT POSSIBLE to DISCUSS the word 'Human' WITH 'you' IN ANY WAY. BECAUSE OBVIOUS NO one KNOWS what 'you' MEAN when 'you' USE the 'Human' word, (with a capital 'h').
AGAIN, ALL 'you' have ESSENTIALLY SAID and CLAIMED here is that 'you' do NOT like the 'Human' word, SO 'you' have CHOSEN to call "your" 'self' A 'Man', INSTEAD.
Which IS FAIR ENOUGH. But, REALLY A FAIRLY STUPID 'thing' TO DO, especially in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM.
LOL
LOL
LOL
How could I EVER, LOGICALLY, EXPECT 'you' to UNDERSTAND and/or ACCEPT the MEANING of ANY word I SAY or USE here, WHEN 'you' have NEVER even ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN and GAIN CLARITY in regards to 'the MEANING' of ANY word I have SAID or USED here?
Also, I have OBVIOUSLY NOT YET VOLUNTEERED UP ANY 'meaning' for ANY word. So, to MAKE ANY ASSUMPTION about 'me' EXPECTING ANY 'thing' regarding 'you' YET UNDERSTANDING and/or ACCEPTING 'those YET REVEALED meanings' would be and IS Truly RIDICULOUS.ONCE MORE, 'your' ASSUMPTION here is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect. And, the REASON WHY IS OBVIOUS, well to MOST here anyway.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:19 am You’re use of the CAP LOCK IS MESSING WITH MY HEAD.
YES there IS an IGNORE function here. Which you could have LOOKED FOR and probably USED by the time 'you' ASKED FOR CLARITY ABOUT if there IS one or NOT.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:19 am itmakesreadingwahtyiuaresayingverydIFFICULTisTHEREANIGNOREfuncTION HERE
The Sumerian definition for Hu Man is Monkey God. Spin on that
Last edited by Philosphicalous on Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:47 am, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Human
SO, WHY did 'you' SHARE a 'personal view' of a 'personal feeling' of 'yours' here?Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:24 amMy feelings are irrelevant.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:23 amThe 'personal feeling' of 'the word' WAS, 'I do NOT like it'.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:10 am
I shared a personal view of my feelings of the word because I don’t like it’s definition.
WHICH EXPLAINS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, other than 'you' do NOT like the 'Human' word, ABOUT WHY 'you' have CHOSEN TO CALL "your" 'self' A 'Man', INSTEAD.Which is WHAT, EXACTLY?Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:10 am You still refuse to accept the word Human has a definition that is clearly defined.
LOOK I KNOW that the word 'Human' AND the word 'human' HAS A DEFINITION. WHY would 'you' ASSUME I REFUSE to ACCEPT that 'this' or ANY word HAS A DEFINITION?
And, as 'you' STILL SEEM TO BE ABSOLUTELY CONFUSED here, I AM JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW 'you' are DEFINING the 'Human' word here.
Or, what do 'you' think or BELIEVE is the so-called called and alleged CLEAR DEFINITION for the 'Human' word?
Are 'you' even AWARE that 'you' REFUSING TO JUST WRITE DOWN the so-called CLEAR DEFINITION of the 'Human' word is SHOWING and REVEALING that, ACTUALLY, 'you' do NOT even KNOW what 'it' IS, EXACTLY?
And, worse still, WHY did 'you' ALSO express that 'you' ' shared a personal view of my feelings of some 'thing' '?
If 'your' feelings here ARE Truly IRRELEVANT here, then do NOT SHARE 'them'. And, do NOT ALSO FURTHER INFORM 'us' that 'you' SHARED 'a personal view of 'your' feelings'.
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:51 am
Re: Human
It was a mistake to share my feelings. It has been REMOVED FROM THE OPAge wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:36 amSO, WHY did 'you' SHARE a 'personal view' of a 'personal feeling' of 'yours' here?Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:24 amMy feelings are irrelevant.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:23 am
The 'personal feeling' of 'the word' WAS, 'I do NOT like it'.
WHICH EXPLAINS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, other than 'you' do NOT like the 'Human' word, ABOUT WHY 'you' have CHOSEN TO CALL "your" 'self' A 'Man', INSTEAD.
Which is WHAT, EXACTLY?
LOOK I KNOW that the word 'Human' AND the word 'human' HAS A DEFINITION. WHY would 'you' ASSUME I REFUSE to ACCEPT that 'this' or ANY word HAS A DEFINITION?
And, as 'you' STILL SEEM TO BE ABSOLUTELY CONFUSED here, I AM JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW 'you' are DEFINING the 'Human' word here.
Or, what do 'you' think or BELIEVE is the so-called called and alleged CLEAR DEFINITION for the 'Human' word?
Are 'you' even AWARE that 'you' REFUSING TO JUST WRITE DOWN the so-called CLEAR DEFINITION of the 'Human' word is SHOWING and REVEALING that, ACTUALLY, 'you' do NOT even KNOW what 'it' IS, EXACTLY?
And, worse still, WHY did 'you' ALSO express that 'you' ' shared a personal view of my feelings of some 'thing' '?
If 'your' feelings here ARE Truly IRRELEVANT here, then do NOT SHARE 'them'. And, do NOT ALSO FURTHER INFORM 'us' that 'you' SHARED 'a personal view of 'your' feelings'.
Re: Human
As can be CLEARLY SEEN and VERY EASILY PROVED ABSOLUTELY True, 'you' have NEVER provided A definition FOR the 'Human' word, NOR the 'Man' word, NOR WHY 'you' USE capital a 'm' and a capital 'h' for those words.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:36 amYou refused any and all definitions.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:32 amThe 'definition' in your original post is from ONE dictionary ONLY, and thus is ONLY ONE 'definition' from MANY DIFFERENT 'definitions' IN MANY DIFFERENT 'dictionaries'. That 'definition' is ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, NOT the 'original definition'. And, to make ALL of 'this' WORSE 'that definition' is FOR the 'humankind' word, and NOT the 'Human' word AT ALL.ONCE MORE, 'your' ASSUMPTION here is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect. And, the REASON WHY IS OBVIOUS, well to MOST here anyway.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:19 am You’re use of the CAP LOCK IS MESSING WITH MY HEAD.
YES there IS an IGNORE function here. Which you could have LOOKED FOR and probably USED by the time 'you' ASKED FOR CLARITY ABOUT if there IS one or NOT.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:19 am itmakesreadingwahtyiuaresayingverydIFFICULTisTHEREANIGNOREfuncTION HERE
1. WHY ASK if there IS an 'ignore function' if 'you' are NOT going to USE it?Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:36 am I won’t put you on ignore but because Im going a look around the forum to see how the WeeWee puts up with your barking madness
2. What does the 'WeeWee' word MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY?
Is 'this definition' the 'established orthodox meaning' and/or the 'original meaning'?
Also, does the 'Hu' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
And, does the 'Man' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
'your' CLARIFICATION here WILL BE VERY HELP in DISCUSSING 'things' FURTHER here.
Re: Human
Okay. I will take A LOOK AT the opening post here again, now.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:38 amIt was a mistake to share my feelings. It has been REMOVED FROM THE OPAge wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:36 amSO, WHY did 'you' SHARE a 'personal view' of a 'personal feeling' of 'yours' here?
And, worse still, WHY did 'you' ALSO express that 'you' ' shared a personal view of my feelings of some 'thing' '?
If 'your' feelings here ARE Truly IRRELEVANT here, then do NOT SHARE 'them'. And, do NOT ALSO FURTHER INFORM 'us' that 'you' SHARED 'a personal view of 'your' feelings'.
My CLARIFYING QUESTIONS STILL STAND.
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:51 am
Re: Human
Mate let’s cut to the chase. The definition of Human in any dictionary and in any language is binary. There the non binary are not human.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:45 amAs can be CLEARLY SEEN and VERY EASILY PROVED ABSOLUTELY True, 'you' have NEVER provided A definition FOR the 'Human' word, NOR the 'Man' word, NOR WHY 'you' USE capital a 'm' and a capital 'h' for those words.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:36 amYou refused any and all definitions.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:32 am
The 'definition' in your original post is from ONE dictionary ONLY, and thus is ONLY ONE 'definition' from MANY DIFFERENT 'definitions' IN MANY DIFFERENT 'dictionaries'. That 'definition' is ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, NOT the 'original definition'. And, to make ALL of 'this' WORSE 'that definition' is FOR the 'humankind' word, and NOT the 'Human' word AT ALL.
ONCE MORE, 'your' ASSUMPTION here is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect. And, the REASON WHY IS OBVIOUS, well to MOST here anyway.
YES there IS an IGNORE function here. Which you could have LOOKED FOR and probably USED by the time 'you' ASKED FOR CLARITY ABOUT if there IS one or NOT.
1. WHY ASK if there IS an 'ignore function' if 'you' are NOT going to USE it?Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:36 am I won’t put you on ignore but because Im going a look around the forum to see how the WeeWee puts up with your barking madness
2. What does the 'WeeWee' word MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY?Is 'this definition' the 'established orthodox meaning' and/or the 'original meaning'?
Also, does the 'Hu' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
And, does the 'Man' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
'your' CLARIFICATION here WILL BE VERY HELP in DISCUSSING 'things' FURTHER here.
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:51 am
Re: Human
Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:53 amMate let’s cut to the chase. The definition of Human in any dictionary and in any language is binary. Therefor the non binary are not human. It is a satanic word to refute what we all are. MankindAge wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:45 amAs can be CLEARLY SEEN and VERY EASILY PROVED ABSOLUTELY True, 'you' have NEVER provided A definition FOR the 'Human' word, NOR the 'Man' word, NOR WHY 'you' USE capital a 'm' and a capital 'h' for those words.
1. WHY ASK if there IS an 'ignore function' if 'you' are NOT going to USE it?Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:36 am I won’t put you on ignore but because Im going a look around the forum to see how the WeeWee puts up with your barking madness
2. What does the 'WeeWee' word MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY?Is 'this definition' the 'established orthodox meaning' and/or the 'original meaning'?
Also, does the 'Hu' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
And, does the 'Man' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
'your' CLARIFICATION here WILL BE VERY HELP in DISCUSSING 'things' FURTHER here.
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:51 am
Re: Human
Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:53 amPhilosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:53 amMate let’s cut to the chase. The definition of Human in any dictionary and in any language is binary. Therefor the non binary are not human. It is a satanic word to refute what we all are. Mankind Male/FemaleAge wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:45 am
As can be CLEARLY SEEN and VERY EASILY PROVED ABSOLUTELY True, 'you' have NEVER provided A definition FOR the 'Human' word, NOR the 'Man' word, NOR WHY 'you' USE capital a 'm' and a capital 'h' for those words.
1. WHY ASK if there IS an 'ignore function' if 'you' are NOT going to USE it?
2. What does the 'WeeWee' word MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY?
Is 'this definition' the 'established orthodox meaning' and/or the 'original meaning'?
Also, does the 'Hu' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
And, does the 'Man' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
'your' CLARIFICATION here WILL BE VERY HELP in DISCUSSING 'things' FURTHER here.
Re: Human
If 'you' are referring to the word 'human', when it is referring to ALL of the animals known as 'human beings', including ALL of the ones with different reproduction organs, then what is Wrong with 'this', EXACTLY, to 'you'?Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:53 amMate let’s cut to the chase. The definition of Human in any dictionary and in any language is binary.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:45 amAs can be CLEARLY SEEN and VERY EASILY PROVED ABSOLUTELY True, 'you' have NEVER provided A definition FOR the 'Human' word, NOR the 'Man' word, NOR WHY 'you' USE capital a 'm' and a capital 'h' for those words.
1. WHY ASK if there IS an 'ignore function' if 'you' are NOT going to USE it?Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:36 am I won’t put you on ignore but because Im going a look around the forum to see how the WeeWee puts up with your barking madness
2. What does the 'WeeWee' word MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY?Is 'this definition' the 'established orthodox meaning' and/or the 'original meaning'?
Also, does the 'Hu' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
And, does the 'Man' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
'your' CLARIFICATION here WILL BE VERY HELP in DISCUSSING 'things' FURTHER here.
Does this work for dogs, cats, cows, and fish, for example, also, or just for 'you', human beings, or should I SAY 'you', 'Men'?
So, if 'you' are NOT 'human' BECAUSE there male reproductive organs on 'that body', then so be 'it'.
But, NOT EVERY one DEFINES "themselves" by just the reproductive organs on, can I say, 'a human' body?
Re: Human
Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:53 amMate let’s cut to the chase. The definition of Human in any dictionary and in any language is binary. Therefor the non binary are not human. It is a satanic word to refute what we all are. MankindAge wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:45 am
As can be CLEARLY SEEN and VERY EASILY PROVED ABSOLUTELY True, 'you' have NEVER provided A definition FOR the 'Human' word, NOR the 'Man' word, NOR WHY 'you' USE capital a 'm' and a capital 'h' for those words.
1. WHY ASK if there IS an 'ignore function' if 'you' are NOT going to USE it?
2. What does the 'WeeWee' word MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY?
Is 'this definition' the 'established orthodox meaning' and/or the 'original meaning'?
Also, does the 'Hu' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
And, does the 'Man' word align with or relate to the 'Monkey' word, or, the 'God' word?
'your' CLARIFICATION here WILL BE VERY HELP in DISCUSSING 'things' FURTHER here.
How, EXACTLY, are 'woman' of the so-called 'Mankind'?
Or, are 'woman', 'Men', to 'you', AS WELL?
Re: Human
I am STILL NOT SURE WHY 'you' do NOT like the 'human' word, especially when referring to 'you', human beings.Philosphicalous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:53 am Mate let’s cut to the chase. The definition of Human in any dictionary and in any language is binary. Therefor the non binary are not human. It is a satanic word to refute what we all are. Mankind Male/Female
Also, WHY do 'you', ACTUALLY, prefer that those human bodies with female reproductive organs be CALLED, LABELLED, and OF 'Mankind' but NOT 'humankind'?
Would NOT putting the human bodies with female reproductive organs under the name or label 'human' be FAR LESS CONFUSING than under the name or label 'man', to 'you'?