Untitled

Prove it was ever an authentic quote.

Prove your constitution wasn't wrote by jew niggers.

How come this can pass as anything but buzzwords arranged with affectation?

Vapid as it gets.

This.

No, I don't need to. I just shared a picture. , in the other hand, user tried to make a point, so I asked him for proofs because that's how dialectic works : if you announce, you prove and provide serious sources. It's that easy really.

jew niggers > all french people

you dont seem to grasp that if you say someone says something then you need to provide proof. you cant prove something didnt happen if it didnt happen.

Lol, what a great come back !

is that what your ancestors said when germany conquered france in ww2 after failing to in ww1?

they were actualy angloid frenchboos, unironically.
Remember when some of them wanted to help the revolutionary France?

This is the kind of thing I would imagine a sheltered french guy like Timothe Chalamet would proudly say out loud, without realising how stupid he sounds while pretentiously trying to prove how smart he is at a dinner table.

Wow a ww2 joke, so original ! Your Come blacks are greater and greater lol

Explain how op quote is false.

you never even had a point or a compelling insult so i dont get why youre so obsessed and bothered

>you dont seem to grasp that if you say someone says something then you need to provide proof. you cant prove something didnt happen if it didnt happen
He can totally prove it. Look, it's low grade tier by the way. I'll show it you : take all the reported writings of René Descartes, and after each sentence of his selected work, you verify that indeed, there is no presence of the original quote exhibited in the original post.
That's how you can prove that , the quote is literally a fake. As I previously said here , it's easier than you would think. It's tautologic.

>the height of comedy is acting like a fool

Attached: 1562994734487.jpg (600x600, 24K)

The only reasonable interpretation of the OP is that you claim Descartes said it, you obviously didn't just share the image because you think it looks nice or because you like the text font.
It's like saying "all people of a group should die" isn't harmful because you just said that they should die because no one should be immortal, while it's obviously a malicious statement.

are you retarded, Pierre?

Pure speculation. From A to Z, pure hypothetical claims. Try again, or prove your allegations.

Then tell us, what was your intent by just sharing this image and adding no text?

i guess i am since i am in good company

Why would I?

No matter how dull Descartes got, I'm pretty sure he didn't typed in pre-made templates along portrait collage of himself for moms and teenagers to post of facebook. :-)

Tthat's not how you source quotes, sweetcakes.

/next

Yes.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 26K)

why do you care more about the package than the content

there's no content user.
only a single dot

Definition of current Jow Forums

no need for him to do that. if you want people to believe something is said is true then you need to prove it because people wont care to verify it for themselves.

if you didn't understand the quote it means if you keep acting like a cunt don't be surprised people around you turn into cunts as well, so why would you willingly act like a cunt ? are you suicidal ?

Jow Forums has never ever been pretending. theyve always been sincere idiots

because the thread was already discussing the package when I entered it
how should I know people even want to discuss the content? asuming that others are interested in it would be a complete speculation, so it would be a waste of time to discuss something no one ITT seems interested about

Not at the level it's at currently. Just a few years back people would heckle stormniggers back to their containment thread. Now the heckler gets called a shill by everyone.

so when their is a topic talked about, you just enter like a beta and conform into others behaviour ? interesting.

What.
Interesting word isn't it.
What. What and why. Ontology at its finest. Why did I share this picture ? Why have I eaten honey and butter this morning ? Why my father came in my mother's womb ? Why RNA and proteins met each other in a primordial chemical soup in order to form the first hint of planed reproduction ? Why baryonic matter wasn't entirely anihilated in the first instants of Universe's history ? Is Universe even infinite, timeless ? Why and what user, nobody can answer that simple question, and I'm afraid user, that no one will ever be.

not true. its always been racist and holocaust denying

God

God moves in mysterious ways.

not wanting to discuss something no one is interwsted in isn't the same as acting submissive
you also didn't proof any of that btw

just answer my question
if you can't give me an answer for the simple question of why you posted the image, then don't complain that I made speculations, as I only tried to solve this mystery

I think I did it like I do 95% of the time : I input information in the machine so I harvest output information.

No, you didn't. Any claim you made is pure speculation.

Also do you have any proof that the Argentinian made a claim? He amy aswell could have typed a random sequence of metters that just by chance happen to form a sentence, which you, with no reason at, interprete as a claim.

may*
letters*

>I input information in the machine so I harvest output information.

Attached: 1539550044494.png (636x773, 14K)

Because this is a decade old joke image from /jp/

>No, you didn't. Any claim you made is pure speculation.
You should read everything before creating an reply. The word "think" is genuine in the aimed post, user, it gives a sense, and if you acknowledged the sense you wouldn't have answered such a bitter fallacy.

>Also do you have any proof that the Argentinian made a claim? He amy aswell could have typed a random sequence of metters that just by chance happen to form a sentence, which you, with no reason at, interprete as a claim.
By human conventions, id est english language, when you say "literal fake quote", it displays information. I won't type the eymology of each words, but these three words can't be extrapolated, they can't be translated, transcripted or be changed in their very meaning : the quote on the original picture id supposedly colloquially false, a fake. Ok I hear his claims, I understand his statement. But if he wants to federalize the community behind hid claims, if he wants a collective convention on what he's implying, then he has to provide an argument, a proof. He didn't, so far.

It's enough that most people agree with his claim which is the case.

Prove it.

>You should read everything before creating an reply. The word "think" is genuine in the aimed post, user, it gives a sense, and if you acknowledged the sense you wouldn't have answered such a bitter fallacy.
No, pure speculation, sorry pal.

>By human conventions,
baseless assumption that a human typed it, with no proof it's pure speculation. I mean it's the most reasonable intetpretation, but if you don't proof it, it's just a speculation. You can easily proove it by checking every house in Argentina finding him and having the user testify that he made a claim.
Everything after that, that you typed is uninteresting as it's based on pure speculation.

you must be fun at parties

I am a clown living in a clown world so usually yes.

>No, pure speculation, sorry pal.
Alright, you don't understand the words you're using. No big deal it's common. user, words have definitions, some definitions are wide enough to give the said word synonyms. But when I said "think", it wasn't a speculation. I really think what I said. It differs from because he didn't say that he thinks [...], he made a statement, an allegation, as if it was the ultimate truth. I never said that what I've said here was the truth, because the truth according to me is shown here . When I can't confirm something, and when people can't confirm something, they must say "I think", or they're making up false allegations, just like the argie since he hasn't proved his claims. This is the truth, speculation would imply that argie don't even exist and didn't post
This is false, he's the first poster of this thread. And he said that the pic's quote wasn't true w/o proving his claim. Thencefore, there is no speculation.

>baseless assumption that a human typed it, with no proof it's pure speculation. I mean it's the most reasonable intetpretation, but if you don't proof it, it's just a speculation. You can easily proove it by checking every house in Argentina finding him and having the user testify that he made a claim.
>Everything after that, that you typed is uninteresting as it's based on pure speculation.
Baseless means no basis. In fact, axiomas are basis. Conventions exist, we're using them everywhere, at anytime. Electricity, maths, physics, chemistry, medical science, language, etc. Because we're using those concepts, we've defined them and extrapolated them, we can say, collectively that they're true. See ISO norm. From the beginning you're mistaken user. Re read yourself.

If you can't provide a source for Descartes quote in the OP, he's right in calling it fake

Worst thread in weeks

I have never implied that the quote was false or true. He made a speculation when calling it a fake since he hasn't proved it yet.

I never claimed that I understood anything, as everything I typed so fa may aswell be a random sequence of characters aswell.
You can't prove that you actually thought anything as it may aswell be a random letter generator I'm talking to.
The Argie may aswell be a bird who flew into a house and typed random stuff. If you can't proof that he's a human there is no point in using human conventions or axiomas.

glad you agree

>I never claimed that I understood anything, as everything I typed so fa may aswell be a random sequence of characters aswell.
You're using a convention. How can I prove it ? Because I understand you and can answer you. Therefore it's not a random sequence of characaters, but a proof that you were indeed understanding me at first place and me, reciprocally OR I think it is a random sequence of characters, the probability of such an event would be so thin that it can't exist in out baryonic realm
>You can't prove that you actually thought anything as it may aswell be a random letter generator I'm talking to.
No I can't prove it to you because I don't own brain scanners or MRI devices. Argie (a program, an individual, a robot, an alien, or any entity able to use humans convention i.e. language) can download every known Descartes' work and prove that op's pic is false.
>The Argie may aswell be a bird who flew into a house and typed random stuff. If you can't proof that he's a human there is no point in using human conventions or axiomas.
Aliens could use human axiomas if they understood their rules.

The opposite of literal is figurative, not metaphorical

no, the chance is ridiculously small, but I could have a monkey type random letters and it could form a sentence each time
if you don't proof that something like that doesn't happen, there's no point in using human convention
You can't just say the Argie can prove it by reading every of Descartes works, if you don't prove that he can actually read.

I'm honestly tired of this now
the point of taking this "everything is speculation" to an extreme is because you called my post a pure speculation (which I can't prove either as I can't read your mind), asked for proof and then simply dodged my question of what your intent was by posting the image.