youtube rage

[Jack Napier]

http://oi50.tinypic.com/34y9nd4.jpg

[Aarownd]

Get your head out of your ass.
Also, 2 friends? Do you not accept random requests?

[Jack Napier]

I don't even know who those two friends are. I think they might be Johny and Rose but I don't fucking know.

[bearcrab]

looks like you got owned

[Jack Napier]

Nah, he's insane and an idiot. Which I proved several times in the comments and my response PM.

[Aarownd]

Which we obviously saw.

[SexyManmeat]

"Gotten".

[Jack Napier]

Which we obviously saw.

I'm playing Parasite 2 right now. I'll post the whole thing when I'm done.

[Jack Napier]

Okay here's my PM response.

" You're some retard that stays in your room all day looking through the comment sections of youtube "

You went to my channel and went through all my comments I made looking for something to attack.

"you think are high minded arguments like you're some paragon of intelligence. I hope you feel good when you try talking down to somebody through a youtube comment. "

and then directly after that,

"Get your head out of your fucking ass; you're fucking stupid."

I'm glad we're not being hypocritical here. I'm glad we're being reasonable.

"Wowwwww are you taking this seriously. You had to look up tautology on wikipedia because you didn't know what it meant"

I was tired and made a mistake. I corrected myself. However you do not know what a tautology is as I pointed it out and attacked you on. Which you've yet to defend. I wonder why. Are you done? Yeah. You're done.

and here are the youtube comments.

Oh. You misunderstand. I was using the logical definition. "In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula which is true in every possible interpretation" You seem to be using the English definition which is just a rephrasing of the words but the same statement. I also wasn't arguing the viability of it. I already stated that right now. Homosexuality is not viable for reproduction. But with how nature works. If things were like my example. It would be. You misunderstood.
TheWalrusface in reply to XDXDXDXDXDXDXD 1 day ago

I understand your example perfectly. I'm saying your "example" is fucking stupid. No shit homosexuals can't reproduce. By definition the two members of a homosexual pair can't reproduce. You're saying if that definition weren't the definition, then homosexuality would be prominent. You're saying if men weren't morphologically men, they would be able to reproduce with men. No shit, because then they wouldn't be men.
But please go on thinking you're right. Sure.
XDXDXDXDXDXDXD in reply to TheWalrusface 1 day ago

"No shit homosexuals can't reproduce. By definition the two members of a homosexual pair can't reproduce" thats incorrect they could still be men and reproduce by definition actually nothing is preventing it" You're saying if that definition weren't the definition, then homosexuality would be prominent" Also untrue the definition does not change the nature of things You are saying ---->
TheWalrusface in reply to XDXDXDXDXDXDXD (Show the comment) 1 day ago

"By definition, dogs have four legs. Therefore, if we define dogs to have three legs, dogs themselves would then have three legs." This is also why "You're saying if men weren't morphologically men, they would be able to reproduce with men. No shit, because then they wouldn't be men." Falls apart. Also my example was not a tautology. Tautologies are true no matter what. My example was contingent. And that means it's not a tautology. You seem to be the one misunderstanding.
TheWalrusface in reply to TheWalrusface (Show the comment) 1 day ago

then he went to sending me rage PMs and stopped responding.

[Jack Napier]

oh mother fucker. he just sent me a literal essay. this thing is like two pages long.