Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 20 minutes ago, Green Monster said: incel defending obesity , the fake-engineer is now using urban-dictionary jaahil is even so shameless to think obesity is good Nobody said obesity is good. But a fake psychiatrist like you doesn't know that being fat, is not always under the person's control. Learn what fat-shaming means. Peshust 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Just now, Green Monster said: fake engineer hasnt heard off exerciese, which any non cripple can do, Fake doctor hasn't heard that there are many,many obesity conditions that exercising wont get rid of. Just now, Green Monster said: off course an overweight incel is making excuses for a disease like obesity, he is so much off a bhagoda that he denies he is defending it I am just not as judgemental as you are- that everyone can see. But when you follow jaahils of a violent religion, started by a man who'd be criminal today, i don't expect any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Green Monster said: fake-engineer thinks fat shaming applies to the tiny bit off the population which that applies to Prove that its a tiny bit of population. 1 minute ago, Green Monster said: via google dictionary people who defend diseases like obesity accuse anyone as fat-shaming, oh well, what can 1 do jaahiliyat of an overweight incel someone who advocates violence against muslims by europeans isn't a bigot, wah re wah!!! I have never advocated violence against anyone. That is your style, not mine. 1 minute ago, Green Monster said: followers of jaahil violent jangal religon like atheism dont understand irony i guess!!! its still better than following religions made by people who'd be criminals today, uttering nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 7 minutes ago, Green Monster said: first u proove that fat-shaming shouldnt be done You made the claim first. So prove your claim first before you ask others for proof. 7 minutes ago, Green Monster said: yes you have Show evidence of your empty claims. 7 minutes ago, Green Monster said: wrong Not unexpected from followers of a guy who'd be criminal in the modern world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Green Monster said: lukka chuppi champion at it again, wont back up what he says, expects others to do so!!! I already have presented evidence. You on the other hand, cannot quote a single thing. Everyone can see that. You made a claim. I asked for evidence and you ran away again. Running is what most followers of your religion does these days........ Edited April 26, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, Green Monster said: other way around little kara kettle, I asked u, u proceed to obsfucate with insults and general jaahil behavior, hoping the mods will come and save u, that's why u went and whinged in the feedback thread!!! Why do you keep running away from linking a SINGLE post of yours that has peer reviewed article in it ? Stop making jaahil claims like your fake prophet and show us the evidence !! 2 minutes ago, Green Monster said: poor little bhagoda, won't answer anyones's queries and too much of a narcissist to stop responding!!! Says the narcissist who wont stop following me around. I answered more than you have with evidence. You have nothing, just illiterate opinions made from a backwards religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, Green Monster said: already have, used your own against you!!! Liar. Show us the link that YOU posted to back up YOUR claim. You tried to use a peer reviewed article against me, yet what you are saying, is not said anywhere in the article. Whereas i am quoting that article verbatim. 5 minutes ago, Green Monster said: poor guy, has a mental glitch in his software where he needs to have the last word otherwise he won't be able to sleep... Says the guy who can't stop posting himself. Stop projecting yourself on to me, sonny. 5 minutes ago, Green Monster said: It's fun to torture you, I've never met someone so insecure!!! LOL. If you think you are torturing me by getting me to prove you wrong every step of the way by evidence- carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, Green Monster said: quoting verbatim yet not understanding that it contradicts you, examples off an incel's IQ THere is no contradiction. I said there are homosexuals in all species of animals, the paper said that there is homosexuality in all clades in animal kingdom, ie applicable to all species under said clade. 2 minutes ago, Green Monster said: poor chotu, can't get over his psychological need to respond Says the guy who keeps doing the same. 2 minutes ago, Green Monster said: chotu"I have prooved u wrong every step of the way" too bad this incel hasn't provided a single source which supports what he says I have provided the source, quoted it verbatim. Also quoted a UVic paper proving your claim that women dont rape men to be a false claim. Keep running away kiddo. You are not educated enough for proper citation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 (edited) another response from the narcissist jaahil continues to misquote the paper, which concludes that only a handful of species are homosexual Irrelevant. Your [Edited by Mod] prophet made up stuff about homosexuality being unnatural. Not exclusive homosexuality. verbatim from his own "evidence " nope, only I have quoted it word for word... you think clade = species, therefore you lose what is valid for clade = what is valid for all species under the clade. THis is science, kid. THats how it works. You keep obfuscating - yet you cannot explain why even 1000 species of animals would have homosexuality, if homosexuality was unnatural according to your prophet. Edited April 27, 2018 by asterix Cuss word to Religious entity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 asterix, Muloghonto and Stradlater 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Most of the scientists,shrinks,data analysts, and engineers that I've come across (especially those from the IITs) are dull people. Humanities people, Lawyers and CAs FTW. Clarke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Just now, Mariyam said: Most of the scientists,shrinks,data analysts, and engineers that I've come across (especially those from the IITs) are dull people. Humanities people, Lawyers and CAs FTW. Lawyers are not dull- thats for sure- but they are usually in permanent-a$$hole mode. Clarke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Muloghonto said: Lawyers are not dull- thats for sure- but they are usually in permanent-a$$hole mode. Come on Mulo, would you rather get conned by a smooth talking fun to be with lawyer or would you prefer getting conned by an engineer who is as much fun to talk to as your pet turtle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Just now, Mariyam said: Come on Mulo, would you rather get conned by a smooth talking fun to be with lawyer or would you prefer getting conned by an engineer who is as much fun to talk to as your pet turtle? if the bolded part was true, sure then the former. But as i said, i find most lawyers have a ' YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME ?!?! /YOU FEELING LUCKY TODAY PUNK ??' attitude all the time....so caustic. The only fun lawyer i know is a lawyer who doesn't go to court (Coz she is too mousy to speak authoritatively) but is the lawyer who builds the case from the back room of her law firm. And she works enviro law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Muloghonto said: if the bolded part was true, sure then the former. But as i said, i find most lawyers have a ' YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME ?!?! /YOU FEELING LUCKY TODAY PUNK ??' attitude all the time....so caustic. The only fun lawyer i know is a lawyer who doesn't go to court (Coz she is too mousy to speak authoritatively) but is the lawyer who builds the case from the back room of her law firm. And she works enviro law. Maybe its different there. Most of the good lawyers here would always understate and be extremely thorough with their research. I've never come across lawyers like the one you state. NEVER so in your face caustic. More over, I'd rather hear about how a case was fought and won and its details etc than how the Bandra Worli Sea Link was built. But that's a personal quirk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, Green Monster said: more nonsense, clade and species have different definitons for a reason, for someone who claims to be an engineer, he sure stinks at using exact language, Prove that what applies to a clade does not apply to the species under the clade. Citation please. 5 minutes ago, Green Monster said: fake engineer doesn't understand that!!! nowhere did the author say all species are homosexual, IN FACT, the same author also published this paper http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~mzuk/Bailey and Zuk 2009 Same sex behaviour.pdf Only 450 species have homosexuality by the same author The same author also mentions that the issue is politically tinged... This jaahil tried to push his agenda using another's words, despite never saying species, instead saying clades 450 species THEY DOCUMENTED. Ie, their list is not exhaustive. From your own link: "The 14 species listed here are by no means an exhaustive list of animals exhibiting same-sex behavior, but provide a starting point for readers interested in obtaining further information and examples' You are yet to explain why there are ANY homosexual species in nature, if your jaahil God considers homosexuality as unnatural. Keep running away from that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 1 minute ago, Green Monster said: clade can mean any of a number of things, only an illiterate incel like u assumes species https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/imagedetail.php?id=260 You are quoting the definition i posted, idiot. I didnt say clade and species are the same thing. I said scientifically, whats valid for a clade means its also valid for all species UNDER the clade. THats what supra-classifications mean, kid. 1 minute ago, Green Monster said: Nowhere does it say clade = species only, which is what u assumed little incel!!! neither in the paper does the author state species, only mentions clade, u assumed clade = species!!! No, i made no such assumption. I even said the first time up, that something valid for a clade = valid for all species under the clade. So almost all clades in animal kingdom showing behaviour X = almost all species in animal kingdom showing behaviour X, as clade is the supra-classification. 1 minute ago, Green Monster said: idiot, you claimed all species are homosexual, yet the papers state only 450 have been documented BY them. they also say that the list is NOT exhaustive. 1 minute ago, Green Monster said: the 14 refers to from that paper only, the paper mentions 14 specifically and states a toatl of 450 have been documented outside the paper!!! Again, the paper says that the list is not exhaustive. 1 minute ago, Green Monster said: u claimed all, all species of animals alone is 7.7 million in which engineering college does the number 450 equal to 7.7 million??? So answer my question, jaahil - why does your God allow even 1 species of animal in nature to be gay, if being gay is unnatural- nevermind 400 or 4 million or whatever. Even ONE species of animals displaying homosexuality in nature, means that it is found in nature, ergo, natural. Did your jaahil prophet screw up the wording due to his illiteracy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Just now, Green Monster said: nope, u provided no source which says that, its common sense in science. A bigger term encompasses all the terms under it. Thats the whole purpose of having a bigger term. Just now, Green Monster said: a clade is only a unit of organization based on common ancestor, the common ancestor can have a trait that a descendant doesn't have, that multiple descendants don't have, or that all descendants do have, Yet,whats valid for a clade, is valid for all the species inside of it. Just now, Green Monster said: eg humans have hairless faces, chimps have hariy faces, there common ancestor, the origin of the clade can only have either a hair face or a hairless face...u are too jaahil to undertand this!!! LOL. Fake psychiatrist, who went to a lallu-panju university, claims humans have hairless faces. Just now, Green Monster said: and neither did the author agree with your claim that 7.7 million species are homosexual nope they only mention 14 in their paper, 450 is total documented, read the paper liar The paper clearly states that the lists are NOT exhaustive. also quoted. Just now, Green Monster said: 450 documented doesnt mean u can assume the other 7.7 million also show that behavior, idiot first do you agree that homosexual and bisexual are different, if not, then there is nothing to argue about and you are an idiot... if u agree they are different then u agree with the same paper u quoted that there only a handful of species that show exclusive homosexual behavior thus only a handful can be termed as gay while most would be said as bisexual... I am simply using the terminology used by the authors themselves. Take it up with THEM for the terminology. Just now, Green Monster said: 2nd please quote me the exact phrasing from the Quran, where the Prophet says homosexuality is unnatural answer the above 2 questions little jaahil incel, and i will answer, otherwise u can play lukka chuppi like the bhagoda u are!!! He says so in Sahih Al Bukhari multiple times. The koran also does not sanction homosexuality: https://quran.com/4/16 https://quran.com/7/80 https://quran.com/27/55-65 https://www.edudivers.nl/faq/quran_about_homosexuality As we can clearly see, the Jaahil prophet says allah sanctions something, when its present in the animal kingdom and is natural. Desert dwelling barbarians clearly did not know the scope of the animal kingdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moochad Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Glanced through the 1st 2 pages of this thread and saddened to see so much disrespect shown towards the mighty Bongs. Ofc they are in decline as of today but you can't downplay their contribution on the intellectual front, which also directly/indirectly contributed to our freedom struggle. You can't wipe out 300 years of history just like that. Without the great Bengal Renaissance the Indian society today would be more barbaric and uncivilized than many Muslim countries around the world. Don't have time to write essays so quoting relevant bits from my earlier post in another thread: So-called "Bengal Renaissance" is nothing more than that, a Bengal Renaissance. It had/has next to nothing to do with the rest of the country. Many of those people are irrelevant completely here in Maharashtra. I understand that you are from Bengal for some time(are Bengali), but please don't assume that we even know half of those people or that they have any footprint here in Maharashtra. Neither did we need these so-called "intellectuals" from Bengal nor did they have any impact here. Comparing ie Vivekananda or Netaji(who actually has a national footprint) with some of the other names on the list who are nothing more than regional figures is not fair to the former in my opinion. And neither did Bengal lift India from anything. Bengal was historically a subservient state to both the Mughals and the British far more than others, by simple virtue of them being colonized by foreigners longer than others. They lifted themselves from their own colonization far more than doing anything for pan-India. Garuda 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moochad Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 nope, u provided no source which says that, a clade is only a unit of organization based on common ancestor, the common ancestor can have a trait that a descendant doesn't have, that multiple descendants don't have, or that all descendants do have, eg humans have hairless faces, chimps have hariy faces, there common ancestor, the origin of the clade can only have either a hair face or a hairless face...u are too jaahil to undertand this!!! and neither did the author agree with your claim that 7.7 million species are homosexual nope they only mention 14 in their paper, 450 is total documented, read the paper liar 450 documented doesnt mean u can assume the other 7.7 million also show that behavior, idiot first do you agree that homosexual and bisexual are different, if not, then there is nothing to argue about and you are an idiot... if u agree they are different then u agree with the same paper u quoted that there only a handful of species that show exclusive homosexual behavior thus only a handful can be termed as gay while most would be said as bisexual... 2nd please quote me the exact phrasing from the Quran, where the Prophet says homosexuality is unnatural answer the above 2 questions little jaahil incel, and i will answer, otherwise u can play lukka chuppi like the bhagoda u are!!! Yaar, tu tumhara waqt barbad kar rahe ho, jis aadmi ko Clade aur Species ka farak nahi jaanta, is ke saath Biology ke kaise vaat karna hai? Green Monster and Garuda 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts