Plagued Soyjak.Party / The Sharty - The altchan born from the ashes of /qa/; also a containment thread

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Anonymous Against Foodism said:
that means quote is perfectly fine with someone who supports legalizing ai child pornography being a janny
Click to expand...
soy woah jaque said:
Why am I only finding out now that this guy is a sharty janny?
View attachment 7655467
>On May 22, 2024, Joshua wrote a Medium blog post arguing that "fake" AI-generated child porn and lolicon should be legal on First Amendment grounds, and he made the same arguments on the Schlog.
How are the soyim ok with having a pedophile criminal as a janny?
View attachment 7655528
And of course he edits his own wiki page
View attachment 7655537
View attachment 7655538
View attachment 7655541
View attachment 7655543
Click to expand...
Not only that, but he seems to be buddies with the admins
1000013140.webp
 
  • Like
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
Reactions: Nigger Cobson, Tread Miller, Wright and 3 others
  • Agree
Reactions: ⚞⛇⚟ and Tread Miller
Azure05 said:
>Sharty admin is a pedophile
In other news, experts have found that water is wet.
Click to expand...
Ah, the perennial ignoramus myth that ‘water is wet’—an assertion so flagrantly devoid of ontological and physicochemical rigor it behooves me to embark upon an exegesis of epistemological proportions. Allow me, dear interlocutor, to elucidate the fundamental ontological fallacy underpinning your statement, which reeks of a blatant category error so egregious it would make Aristotle’s ghost clutch his toga in despair.


Let us begin with the semantic anatomy of ‘wetness.’ Wetness is not an intrinsic property of any substance but rather a relational descriptor — a qualitative state that manifests when a solid material is enveloped by or saturated with a liquid, most commonly water. Water itself, a cohesive liquid composed of polar H₂O molecules, does not possess an external layer of water upon itself, hence cannot be ‘wet’ in the strictest lexicographic or scientific sense.


To affirm that ‘water is wet’ is to commit a gross conflation between the medium and the property conferred upon substrates by said medium. Analogously, one does not say ‘air is breezy’ because air produces breeze; breeze is an emergent phenomenon involving air movement affecting other entities. Similarly, water is the agent of wetness, the primordial solvent whose adhesive and cohesive forces bestow the property of ‘wet’ onto materials that interact with it.


Moreover, to approach this statement with scientific integrity, one must consider the molecular interactions: water molecules are hydrogen-bonded to one another, creating a continuous liquid phase. The sensation or property of ‘wetness’ arises only when water molecules adhere to a surface that is distinct from themselves, thereby creating an interface—a boundary layer. Without such an interface, the concept of ‘wet’ becomes nonsensical.


Therefore, to intellectually elevate the discourse beyond elementary tautologies, ‘water is wet’ is an ontological and semantic fallacy perpetrated by the uninitiated, an assertion that collapses under the weight of physics, chemistry, and linguistic precision.


I rest my case. You may now bask in the enlightenment of true knowledge—or continue to wallow in aquatic semantic confusion. Your choice.

1752777445905.webp
 
  • Islamic Content
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: ⚞⛇⚟, Rimanah, Tread Miller and 5 others
soprianoschizoposter said:
Ah, the perennial ignoramus myth that ‘water is wet’—an assertion so flagrantly devoid of ontological and physicochemical rigor it behooves me to embark upon an exegesis of epistemological proportions. Allow me, dear interlocutor, to elucidate the fundamental ontological fallacy underpinning your statement, which reeks of a blatant category error so egregious it would make Aristotle’s ghost clutch his toga in despair.


Let us begin with the semantic anatomy of ‘wetness.’ Wetness is not an intrinsic property of any substance but rather a relational descriptor — a qualitative state that manifests when a solid material is enveloped by or saturated with a liquid, most commonly water. Water itself, a cohesive liquid composed of polar H₂O molecules, does not possess an external layer of water upon itself, hence cannot be ‘wet’ in the strictest lexicographic or scientific sense.


To affirm that ‘water is wet’ is to commit a gross conflation between the medium and the property conferred upon substrates by said medium. Analogously, one does not say ‘air is breezy’ because air produces breeze; breeze is an emergent phenomenon involving air movement affecting other entities. Similarly, water is the agent of wetness, the primordial solvent whose adhesive and cohesive forces bestow the property of ‘wet’ onto materials that interact with it.


Moreover, to approach this statement with scientific integrity, one must consider the molecular interactions: water molecules are hydrogen-bonded to one another, creating a continuous liquid phase. The sensation or property of ‘wetness’ arises only when water molecules adhere to a surface that is distinct from themselves, thereby creating an interface—a boundary layer. Without such an interface, the concept of ‘wet’ becomes nonsensical.


Therefore, to intellectually elevate the discourse beyond elementary tautologies, ‘water is wet’ is an ontological and semantic fallacy perpetrated by the uninitiated, an assertion that collapses under the weight of physics, chemistry, and linguistic precision.


I rest my case. You may now bask in the enlightenment of true knowledge—or continue to wallow in aquatic semantic confusion. Your choice.
Click to expand...
this is taqqiya. islam winning
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tread Miller, Azure05 and Anonymous Against Foodism
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back