Do you mean the person who tried to use a cliche’d gotcha as a result of their misunderstanding of what mathematics is? Or me who was unimpressed by the aforementioned cliche’d anti-intellectualism in their comment? Because there is no nuance here that I have missed - they pulled out the deeply tired idea that mathematics, which is a descriptive language, has not yet comprehensively described all of what constitutes a “flower” and thus cannot conceivably do that - which is a patently absurd requirement that belies an utter lack of understanding of the fundemental purpose of mathematics or the function of language in general.
Misunderstanding the limits of mathematics to describe natural world, and pathetic attempt at undermining an excellent point about that EXACT idea because it wasn’t stroking your limp dick math ego?
Ill take online loner with an ego problem for 1000$ Alex
Edit: I see you wrote an actual response after I replied, I’m not here for that, Im here to point out your bad behavior and will not be furthering the discussion as you are kinda stupid 😓
“Oh I see you actually responded to what I was saying - I’m not here for a discussion or to be wrong, I’m just here to be smugly superior, so I’m just going to ignore that” - you, apparently?
If you want to discuss the ideas here feel free, I do enjoy doing that, but jeeze I hope you’re drunk posting because this is deeply embarassing behavior…
edit:
Man, taking the insults and victim blaming to the DMs, you are way too into this.
Youre a fucking idiot dude
Being intentionally disrespectful for clout like that is the lamest move around
Missing the nuance on purpose to seem smarter then you are is a close second
Do you mean the person who tried to use a cliche’d gotcha as a result of their misunderstanding of what mathematics is? Or me who was unimpressed by the aforementioned cliche’d anti-intellectualism in their comment? Because there is no nuance here that I have missed - they pulled out the deeply tired idea that mathematics, which is a descriptive language, has not yet comprehensively described all of what constitutes a “flower” and thus cannot conceivably do that - which is a patently absurd requirement that belies an utter lack of understanding of the fundemental purpose of mathematics or the function of language in general.
Well you seem fun! /s
Misunderstanding the limits of mathematics to describe natural world, and pathetic attempt at undermining an excellent point about that EXACT idea because it wasn’t stroking your limp dick math ego?
Ill take online loner with an ego problem for 1000$ Alex
Edit: I see you wrote an actual response after I replied, I’m not here for that, Im here to point out your bad behavior and will not be furthering the discussion as you are kinda stupid 😓
“Oh I see you actually responded to what I was saying - I’m not here for a discussion or to be wrong, I’m just here to be smugly superior, so I’m just going to ignore that” - you, apparently?
If you want to discuss the ideas here feel free, I do enjoy doing that, but jeeze I hope you’re drunk posting because this is deeply embarassing behavior…
edit:
Man, taking the insults and victim blaming to the DMs, you are way too into this.
I love how you posted this 🤓
4.5k comments in 2 years
Thats basement dweller shit bro