raja_kaleem

I get that u need these types of cliches for a story. But this is absurd man. Arthur can End him VERY easily. He could have when he had HIM BY THE NECK.

Go back to slumbering furry. Night Raid sounds like smth a kid blurted out when he saw a damn robbery. It sounds like some sort of burglary waiting to happen. Not at all srs nor is it cool sounding. Simply doesn’t live up to the expectations.

Indeed. I just don’t care about whatever she thinks.

I don’t think anybody cares about what you think?

I've already dismantled all your other arguments, and I'm sure you've seen them. Don't pretend with me. Do you think you're some big shot or something??? LMAO, PLEASE xD.

Says the other nobody. Lmao look in the mirror kiddo. At least I have a username that isn't cringy.

Doesn’t matter. Forget it. Arguing is pointless.

This argument combines historical cherry-picking, straw man fallacies, and blatant contradictions. First, the Protestant Reformation’s debates on free will and omniscience were theological, not proof of contradiction—many resolved it through compatibilism (like Monism). Second, the attack on theology relies on an outdated medieval framework while ignoring centuries of philosophical development. The LGBT argument is a red herring—assuming the other party "hates" them is a baseless odhominem. The idea that morality is purely a control mechanism is a reductionist take that ignores moral philosophy, which explores objective and subjective ethics beyond power structures. Finally, the last point is pure sophistry: acknowledging biological realities (e.g., male and female exist) does not deny personal actions. Claiming that violating a norm disproves its existence is as absurd as saying crime disproves laws. This argument is an emotional rant dressed as reason. Pathetic really.

This entire rant is a mess of contradictions, arrogance, and misunderstanding of both logic and philosophy. You claim that one must either believe in absolute determinism or absolute free will, ignoring compatibilism, a widely accepted stance in philosophy. That’s like saying you must choose between being a nihilist or a fundamentalist—it's simply not how reality works. You argue that objective truth doesn’t exist, yet assert as fact that religion is for the “stupid and ignorant.” If truth is unknowable, then your entire argument collapses into subjective drivel. Insulting your opponent instead of engaging with their points is the hallmark of weak reasoning. Declaring yourself the sole arbiter of "real logic" while refusing to engage is ironic, to say the least. You invoke philosophy to deny objective truth while using science (which relies on objective truth) to argue against theology. That’s self-contradiction at its finest. Suggesting beliefs are invalid because they are shaped by geography ignores that all beliefs (including atheism) are influenced by culture. That doesn’t determine their true value. Your argument is an emotional, self-contradictory, and arrogant mess dressed up in pseudo-intellectualism. Try again when you can argue without logical fallacies and condescension. You remind me of another brainless monkey who can't even argue properly.

Excuse me? Well, that's fine. It is our opinion. I simply disagree. So we can agree to disagree.