Ludwig

iirc you only pay towards the first 3 years of a medicine degree, your clinical years are paid for by the NHS or something. it's basically the same as any other degree, except you get to dissect **** and actually get contact time for your money, whereas degrees like mine you get nothing other than some notes, a couple of useless lectures and get told to do it yourself.

Lies. There was snow half an hour or so ago.

Puncheon scores.

Complex numbers are defined as x + iy, where x,y are integers. Are you saying you haven't used any such number where y=0 (so basically any numbers ever)?

Wait, Godel proved that there are 'unprovable' theorems, without making axioms inconsistent, but if you added an extra axiom then the set of axioms would become inconsistent as a result (I think) in order to prove what is desired. However this was all entirely theoretical and there was no concrete example of the insufficiency of the axioms of arithmetic, whereas this guy seems to be studying 'patterns' (boolean algebras? dunno much about them tho) and has found patterns that should intuitively (possibly) hold true, but are unprovable using the axioms of arithmetic without adding an axiom that claims that large cardinals exist and have an effect, which leads to some inconsistency. Maybe. Probably not though.

I could explain a bit of it to you in layman's terms, but I can't help but know very little about what it means for the large cardinals (big infinities) to be having an effect upon arithmetic. I'm unsure as to why they seem to doubt the existence of large cardinals, as I was under the impression that Cantor proved that there is an infinite hierarchy of cardinals for infinity. I could tell you about Godel, but I don't see what that has to do with the 'large cardinals' other than to demonstrate the previously proved impossibility of proving the consistency of arithmetic. I might ask my tutor about this tomorrow, he must know more than I do.

Consider the universalisability of 'torture'.

We'll still win.

****s

You seem to be able to write often enough for the ramble force.

Get the **** in.

Why are we getting Sheff Weds commentary?

Think of what the likes of Lallana/Puncheon could learn from him in 7 months or so...

Do you know what logic is? Or what a philosophy degree at most UK institutions actually entails?

It could be that the permanent deal in January has basically been agreed, though, signed, sealed, just yet to be delivered.

Does anyone know if we've ever had any American players? P.s. America America America.

The last two are nowhere near the first, show some respect for Markus ffs.

No, I can bring myself to say that it's wrong. But I can't say that it's objectively so.

Did you not read where I clarified the pornography issue? Children can't consent in the same way adults can, 'normal' pornography is thus fine, whereas child pornography is akin to videos of rape (so 'wrong' [in my eyes]). The point is that the distinction between adults being 'sad' and others being into children isn't well-defined (if such a distinction can be defined) at all. I'm not saying it's either 'right' or 'wrong' (I'd personally say it is 'wrong' [however this is a subjective preference {are these words too big for you? I can explain them if you like}]) as my view is entirely subjective.

What is the difference? An unsuspecting adult female is being 'violated' just as much as an unsuspecting young child. It's somewhat different if you're looking at pornography (adult), where the persons concerned have consented to use in this fashion, but if you're ****ing over pictures of some random person on Facebook, it's just as bad as ****ing over pictures of children. There really isn't any difference between the two, despite what the (essentially absurd) conditioned notions inside you forces you to believe.

The 'wrong' comment was wrt homosexuality, whether clear or not, cba to read it again. Whether any deviant sexual preference is 'right' or 'wrong' is not really for me to comment on, so long as others rights aren't infringed upon. To what extent is the sanctity of a child destroyed, by a paedophile 'idolising' them (cf the first part or so of Nabokov's 'Lolita') compared to that of any woman you ever think of (without their knowledge) in a sexual manner? Which is more 'rapey'? Aren't they both as 'wrong' as one another, why should one be considered worse, when the person concerned with one has as little control over their 'preferences' (again, remember they're not acting upon them) as any normal hot-blooded male fantasising over a woman? It's not particularly clear/simple ground.

Noun 1. paedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children Paedophiles don't necessarily act upon their urges. Again, this is similar (but not quite) to your quick condemnation (rather crudely) of homosexuality. Would someone (again) choose to be homosexual? Do they like the lifestyle? Or is it, perhaps, as with when you see a woman (and they see some men/women depending upon their gender), and they feel 'sexual' attraction? No one would really choose either of these things, imo, they may possibly be conditioned in some way (but again, such tendencies have been ever present throughout history, just more closeted in some times/cultures than others), they just happen. To quickly dismiss it as 'wrong' and blame the persons concerned, is pretty disgusting and ignorant tbh. Though I'd expect nothing less from you.

Are you saying that someone would choose to be attracted to children?

You're a disgusting person. You certainly weren't born that way.

Do they have goalposts in Los Angeles? If only there was a Saints fan that lived there. Alas, there probably isn't one who'll share their experience of such a place. Sad times.