The dictionary gives a broad, ordinary-language definition; it doesn’t settle the technical or philosophical interpretation. Someone asked something similar, and I answered here.
that “someone” was me. If your reading comprehension is so lacking, that you can’t even read a username, your words have as much credibility as a baby babble.
Yeah, I generally don’t read usernames. I care about the arguments, not the people who use them. If you think that’s a criteria of intelligence… it’s not very flattering for you.
But now you became insulting, so as I said in my first message, I’ll now ignore you. I’ll have to read usernames now, so you should be happy.
yes, being able to differentiate beings you’re interacting with is a sign of intelligence (which is present amongst most animals, so the bar is very low), as it shows the depth at which you perceive the world around you. Sorry that it insults you. If you can’t be bothered to do so little, i doubt you’d manage to produce anything thought-provoking.
The dictionary gives a broad, ordinary-language definition; it doesn’t settle the technical or philosophical interpretation. Someone asked something similar, and I answered here.
that “someone” was me. If your reading comprehension is so lacking, that you can’t even read a username, your words have as much credibility as a baby babble.
Yeah, I generally don’t read usernames. I care about the arguments, not the people who use them. If you think that’s a criteria of intelligence… it’s not very flattering for you.
But now you became insulting, so as I said in my first message, I’ll now ignore you. I’ll have to read usernames now, so you should be happy.
yes, being able to differentiate beings you’re interacting with is a sign of intelligence (which is present amongst most animals, so the bar is very low), as it shows the depth at which you perceive the world around you. Sorry that it insults you. If you can’t be bothered to do so little, i doubt you’d manage to produce anything thought-provoking.