It seems though, that you judge a lot of disagreement as hate without trying to understand.
Have you considered the amount of energy involved in actually hating something?
It’s a strenous undertaking and requires the one who has it against you to quit him or herself of reason -you can’t intentionally hate sometthing or someone -it’s a reaction to a feeling. -people who hate you would not argue with you in an intelligent manner, or even answer in full sentences. -So that is evidence you are not being hated by everyone. -there is too much effort to it.
I think people are presumptuous if they think others hate them for their posts. Malice is perhaps what you are looking for, malice is intentional and calculated.
science cant be done if you deny truth. therefore your acceptance of the existence of science denies your original statement about there not being truth.
science doesnt need to be excepted for it to be true
And yet, when disagreed with, you accuse the person who disagrees with you of being a hater, a harasser, a troll, a brute. Doesn’t sound particularly tolerant.
You get triggered by people that disagree with you.
When people disagree with you, you promote yourself as the hapless victim of bullies, brutes, harassers, haters, trolls and lots of other things besides when, in fact, you’re the victim of nothing more than being disagreed with.
Obviously, I can’t speak for other people, but I don’t hate you. I do, however, think a lot of your ideas and opinions suck, and say so. You appear to be incapable or unwilling to see the distinction no matter how often it’s pointed out to you or by whom.
exactly, in the far past, i created posters that i dominated, hating me still.
-they took a swing at me and missed,
-i hit back and hurt them, staying strict and fair (using their own nonsense).
They didn’t hate you then.
They don’t hate you now.
They disagree(d) with you.
We both know that’s not true. In a past debate, you took advantage of how the quoting system works, posted something as if you’d quoted me and replied to it. However, what you’d actually done was completely fabricate the text, attributed it as if I’d said it, and then responded to something I’d never said.
i rebuked that nonsense (it was an opinion once) for 3 years in a row now, even in this very thread.
-no need for me to keep fueling your fake news about this.
-i mean, trying to keep me stigmatised over it all this time.
ofc, therefore i speak about empirical science, since the truth doesn’t exsist.
digging that old mistake up, you do to win a debate like this.
-well, you don’t win but look desperate the more you do this.
-i rarely make mistakes, besides taking some risks about choosing a topic.
-being mass-flagged is not a mistake…
what do you think the words empirical and science actually mean?
as i said earlier you cant do science if you deny truth therefore your exceptance of science is in direct contradiction to your claim that truth doesnt exist
-empirical science is research to enlarge useful temporal knowledge, like ‘what seems to be the best vaccin of the day…’
-truth doesn’t exist, whe can’t fathom it and it yields to time, like my first phrase shows.
this is utter nonsense, you dont look for the best vaccin at this moment in time. you search for a vaccin that actually works, ofc that doesnt exclude the possibility that in the future a better vaccin will be developed.
IS THAT TRUE??
if it is than at least 1 truth exists, if it isnt well…
its called a catch 22
if we cant fathom the truth than there is no point in doing scientific research since science is the quest for truth.
every single word you type disproves your claim there is no truth
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. – [Sir Arthur Conan Doyle], stated by Sherlock Holmes
If some want to live in ignorance, that is on them.
