Populist speaker 'Charlie Kirk' is dead --- Murdered by assassin in Idaho while giving a speech !

lol my statement was referring to you dipshits calling folks “uneducated”. That formal education does not make you better than anyone. Then you two rally with pretentious vigor. checks out. Zero substance all flatulence. Have fun with your nose up each other’s asses.
 
Translation - “I have nothing to say”
Alright bud you haven't responded with a single logically consistent argument. In fact you have spouted vibes and insults alone. let's start with your first response to me
Oh- “live by the sword and die by the sword” is certainly not mocking and laughing. I myself said FAFO.
I'll prove you're a dipshit mathematically. You ever take symbolic logic in college? I hope so otherwise you might have some trouble with this one.

let A = an assassination
let R = the utterance “live by the sword dye by the sword”

predicates:
Ass(x) assassination
Death(x) death
Violent(x) violent
Resp(y,x) y is a response to x
Deserve(y,x) y implies x was deserved
Min(y,x) y minimizes the gravity of x
Mock(y,x) y is mockery of x

axioms / background norms (yes norms still count as premises)
  1. ∀x (Ass(x) → Death(x) ∧ Violent(x))
  2. ∀y∀x ((Resp(y,x) ∧ Violent(x) ∧ Deserve(y,x)) → Min(y,x))
  3. ∀y∀x ((Min(y,x) ∧ Death(x)) → Mock(y,x))

facts about the case
  1. Ass(A)
  2. Resp(R,A)
  3. Deserve(R,A) (that proverb assigns causal blame)
derivation

from 1 and 4: Death(A) ∧ Violent(A)
from 2 5 6 and Violent(A): Min(R,A)
from 3 Min(R,A) and Death(A): Mock(R,A)

therefore,

Mock(R,A)

QED

shall we move onto your next claim or do you have any issues with my predicates, normative linguistic rules or the derivation itself?
 
What a complete ass-wipe of a post. I may frame this and hang above my shitter. OMFG.

Or maybe over my garbage can, as an example of what goes in the can.
 
Back
Top