VOTE! The REAL Thrembo....

[meijak]

Invincible ignorance fallacy.

Gladly, they're better intellectuals than you low IQ lolcows ITT.

Ain't no fallacy cuz I'm actually invincible, cuh.

 

[Warrior-Z]

Ain't no fallacy cuz I'm actually invincible, cuh.

Go ahead and prove that.

 

[Gigafly]

I'm not obligated to reply if I already debunked this and you're just bringing it up again to get a reaction, and you're not involved in me and Mei's discussion so your claim is invalid within the dialectic.

Debunked it where? Also, using "dialectic" doesn't make yourself look smarter, it's pretentious especially when you're misusing it

 

[Warrior-Z]

Debunked it where? Using "dialectic" doesn't make yourself look smarter, it's pretentious especially when you're misusing it

On my profile when you made the same arg. How's it misusing it when it's analytically the case that it's a dialectic? Lmao.

 

[Gemerald]

View attachment 172709

@Warrior-Z How can it be "Tranny" to hate reddit when trannies like bardfinn have the ear of the site's administration?

 

[Warrior-Z]

Why do we have a leaky pseudo-intellectual predditor jannying the booru again?

Actually, where's the evidence that it's psuedo? Do you even know what it means?

 

[Warrior-Z]

@Warrior-Z How can it be "Tranny" to hate reddit when trannies like bardfinn have the ear of the site's administration?

Actually, the administration of the website doesn't represent the userbase of a subreddit, and troons can hate troons. Cope.

 

[meijak]

On my profile when you made the same arg. How's it misusing it when it's analytically the case that it's a dialectic? Lmao.

You're an inbred retard.

 

[Gigafly]

On my profile when you made the same arg. How's it misusing it when it's analytically the case that it's a dialectic? Lmao.

You did not, you just posted one of your 'cord buddies and claimed it was me instead of debating, which you pride yourself on. This isnt a socratic dialogue, this is just you being clowned on for being a faggot

 

[Warrior-Z]

You're an inbred retard.

Ad hominem + not a refutation.
I win. Cope seethe.

 

[Gemerald]

Actually, the administration of the website doesn't represent the userbase of a subreddit, and troons can hate troons. Cope.

You never mentioned a specific subreddit lmao. shifting the goalposts much?

 

[Thrembolone]

I WON!!! YAY!!!! YIPPEEEE!!!!!!

 

[meijak]

Ad hominem + not a refutation.
I win. Cope seethe.

Why are you in Norway btw? Go back to your middle eastern shithole.

 

[alonso]

I WON!!! YAY!!!! YIPPEEEE!!!!!!

It isn't April fools day yet, ((YOU)) have two more days left

 

[ThremboSchlog]

prove that claim with empirical, non-anecdotal, tautological, epistemological, ontological pontification. Your negation to me saying it’s not contextually saying that it is an ethically bankrupt deception of numerological proportion categorically imperatively inept at substantiating your statements. You would need to prove that the connotation is circumstantial to the context so it would be general in entailment, as well as being capable to necessitate various interpretations that possess coherency in the narrative of the position that you have presented. This is contingent upon the proposition of an antithesis’ prominence in negation with agnosticism that is reasoned by skepticism, or an equal interpretation substantiated with inductive reasoning, both inevitable in equalizing or defeating.
After that
prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification

 

[Gigafly]

You did not, you just posted one of your 'cord buddies and claimed it was me instead of debating, which you pride yourself on. This isnt a socratic dialogue, this is just you being clowned on for being a faggot
View attachment 172716

>too scared to respond
Yep I win. Cope seethe, I negs

 

[SoySpotter]

oh my booru RNCA

 

[Gemerald]

prove that claim with empirical, non-anecdotal, tautological, epistemological, ontological pontification. Your negation to me saying it’s not contextually saying that it is an ethically bankrupt deception of numerological proportion categorically imperatively inept at substantiating your statements. You would need to prove that the connotation is circumstantial to the context so it would be general in entailment, as well as being capable to necessitate various interpretations that possess coherency in the narrative of the position that you have presented. This is contingent upon the proposition of an antithesis’ prominence in negation with agnosticism that is reasoned by skepticism, or an equal interpretation substantiated with inductive reasoning, both inevitable in equalizing or defeating.
After that
prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontificationso prove that proposition with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification

Every warrior-z post sounds like this

 

[Warrior-Z]

You did not, you just posted one of your 'cord buddies

I remember putting a refutation out there but I guess I was trolling that day, either way, here's the refutation you asked for:
Answer

Scholarly opinion on drawing humans

Drawing humans is permissible according to some scholars; Maliki scholars, some of the predecessors [Salaf] and the Hanbali scholar, Ibn Hamdan, have likewise maintained this opinion. They based their opinion on the fact that the prohibition is restricted to complete statues which imitate Allah's creation. In his Musanaf, Ibn Abu Shaybah reported this opinion from the venerated tabi'i [a person who was born after the Prophet's death and who accompanied some of his Companions] Al-Qasim Ibn Mohammed, may Allah have mercy on him, who was known as the best scholar of his time. The hadith reads: Ibn 'Awn said, "I entered upon Al-Qasim in his house which was located in the upper part of Mecca and saw a hajla [a net placed over a bed as a protection against flying insects] with the images of a phoenix and a beaver." In Fath Al-Bari, Ibn Hajar declared the chain of transmission of this hadith authentic.

In his commentary on Sahih Muslim [Sharh Muslim], Al-Nawawi said: "Some of the Salaf have maintained that complete statues [figures which cast a shadow] are prohibited; otherwise, they are unrestrictedly permissible — and he went further saying that the unrestricted permissibility of non casting shadows photos is an invalid opinion. Ibn Hajar, however, said in Fath Al-Bari that the invalidity of this opinion is disputable."

Ruling

Based on this, this matter is from among the controversial issues and there is no objection to following any of the opinions stated by scholars in this regard. This is because disagreement brings ease.

Therefore, there is no objection to drawing animates such as humans, animals and the like, whether from imagination, nature or photographs. There is no objection in Islamic law to pursuing this talent provided the drawings are void of anything prohibited and do not incite sexual desires. Likewise, it is impermissible to paint or photograph nudity or a 'awrah [part of the body that must be concealed] that religion, good morals, piety and man's sound natural disposition commands us to cover.

This is a socratic dialogue

Which, can be analytically different

, this is just you being clowned on for being a faggot

Even though you got gegbulled kek, that's your dox son.

Why are you in Norway btw? Go back to your middle eastern shithole.

Wasn't there in the first place, anyways, I bring more to the table than your sorry ass. Cry on my shoulder more.

You never mentioned a specific subreddit lmao. shifting the goalposts much?

Actually, if you know how Reddit works you'd know in order to post it would need to be in a specific subreddit, so that's not shifting the goal post.

 

[Warrior-Z]

View attachment 172718

Ad hominem, no refutation, NO BITCHES? I win, zoophile.