Rational analysis is different from English because it involves math and pattern recognition also. These are the only ways in which it is different. You also mentioned being able to analyze what you read and/or write.
I want you to do me a huge favour. I want you to look up the word "analysis" and then look up "rational analysis".
Then you might understand why you appear to be confused.
It actually is, because it allows me to refine my idea's by being corrected and having them elaborated upon, which is why I do it so often.
And it's bad, because you are making factual statements. Your manner of learning is essentially daring people to prove you wrong.
I haven't defined that yes. I was speaking about what is objectively crooked and wrong here. Anyway, as for what I consider wrong, that is: bossiness, neediness, vulgarity, stupidity, naysaying, and my roman nose, and that pretty much covers it.
Okay. Thank you for the definition.
You can't change people or force change without basically turning into a dictator. You see, the manner in which you commented about changing things, would make you what you keep accusing others of being. Unless you want to make being bossy, needy, vulgar, stupid, naysaying (given your previous comments about vaccines!), etc, illegal.. You can't really force change in how you are putting that out there...
It's not much like that. It tends to focus more on the utopian side of things than the handmaid's tale does and it also pretty much makes fun of everything.
Handmaid's Tale was about utopia for a group of people. See, what is utopia for you, may end up being hell for others.
I am actually extremely adept at English. I gave my self instructions on how to speak in order to get my point across. They were: Separate all truth from all falsity in whatever you encounter. Separate all sure from all unsure in whatever you say. Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the relevant truth. Respond to opinions with either an agreement or a disagreement. Think the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the relevant truth.
What do you mean by relevant truth? The saying is actually 'tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' and it's used when being sworn in. Usually before presenting testimony of some sort, that's where most would encounter it. But when you amend it to the "relevant truth", then it immediately assumes that you are withholding things back because you do not deem them to be relevant. The "whole truth" about a particular issue should be the point here. Not what you may consider to be relevant or not.
I also acquired an extensive vocabulary because I tended to read a lot when I was younger.
I wouldn't say that my comments are inane per se, except for the one's meant to make fun of things. In my opinion, none of them are inane except for the one's intended as jokes.
The problem is with style of delivery. You have yet to master that level of sarcasm or wit with the written language. It's quite tricky sometimes and it takes experience to do so. In other words, we can't tell when you are joking or not.
I understood what was written. I was just under the impression that you were implying that I was weak.
I will never miss English class.
I said that your approach is lazy. You expect others to correct you, instead of making an effort to learn about things yourself. You expect others to do the work for you. That is lazy.
It is that nobody is a challenge for me verbally, because for one thing I don't care about being wrong, and for another thing I argue perfectly, because of my aforementioned instructions on how to do so.
Your performance here says otherwise.
And that's the thing. You are coming across like a performance. It is so stereotypical that I feel as if I'm cringing my way through a teen movie. Not because of a thought of 'oh dear lord, I sounded like that once?'.. But more along the lines of 'oh dear lord, no one speaks like this'.
Anyway, what is my "place?" Is that the same place that all of those pathetic losers including you have tried to put me in time and time again? That abstract hierarchical construct which makes them feel big? I reject hierarchical constructs.
I rarely have a point about anything. So what?
It's a matter of speech for one. Essentially it's more along the lines that people are going to hesitate telling a child off on the internet.
And you should remind yourself of that "hierarchal construct" when you set about changing people because you think they are bossy, needy, etc..
With needles and strong people.
I would suggest less InfoWars...
No, except that I think it should only apply to public roads, as a libertarian.
A libertarian who wants to change people because she thinks they are bossy, needy, etc...?
For one thing I am never going to have a baby. Ew.
Okay? I did not for one second suggest that you do?
For another thing I do think it is wrong to make people wear seat belts when they drive, but I do not think that the government is wrong that it makes the journey safer. It is true that just because the government says something doesn't mean it should happen.
Let me tell you something Holly-May. The government does not care whether you live or die, in a crash or otherwise. The government does care if you have a crash, you aren't wearing a seatbelt and you cost the government millions in medical bills and rehabilitation for yourself and/or others.
However, in a free country, if the government says that something is a rule, the chances are it should happen. In totalitarian countries the contrary applies.
*Sigh*
The opposite of "should happen" is "does not happen" or "should not happen". When you say the contrary applies, you are essentially saying the opposite applies.
Please look up the meaning of "totalitarianism".
Authority does not guarantee that the entity possessing it makes good decisions.
And if something is not good, you vote them out the next election.
But you seem to be approaching this from a standpoint of ignorance. Your vaccination comments are examples of that. Same with your lack of understanding of forms of government and what things like totalitarian actually means. You let yourself be told instead of doing your own research. You seem to be listening to people who aren't telling you anything factual, but essentially telling you what you want to hear. You will never make good decisions if you do that.
The way I educate myself about things is by making ridiculous statements and having them ridiculed. I don't mind it. I am not lazy. I know English rather well. As for the laws, I am sure I can find sufficient loopholes in them if it comes to that, but I don't plan on plagiarizing so I doubt it will.
As I said. You are lazy. You expect others to do your work for you.
I'm not. I do. That is why I can solve various Rubik's cube's and debate really well and do a handstand for more than 10 seconds and bend right over forwards and backwards and play various musical instruments at an advanced level and solve complicated math problems. I will take everything that I want from this life. There is only a little bit left to go.
Make of your life what you will. But please don't troll internet forums as a means of self education. Because that is literally what you are doing. You make ridiculous statements to rile people. That's trolling and flaming. As a 17 year old, you should learn how to research things and be able to argue your point. And you may not mind. But it's also about self respect. Particularly if you've used your real name and photo on this site (I truly hope you have not, by the way!). Because what you say online will stay there forever and could follow you forever.
