The ignorance thread
Sort:
0
#2
I think that’s very interesting and quite frightening to think about. The whole universe as we know it will end one day, makes you really think about life a little🤣
bro you making this thread is commenting on peoples religion, "very inclusive of you bro"
PawnStriker_17 wrote:
Bruh. Do you realize that will become religious here because your lit inviting every deist, christian, islamic, hinduistic person to comment here on their opinions. THIS IS LITERALLY INVITING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SO DONT EXPECT EVERYONE TO NOT
uh, context?
Creeperbot33 wrote:
PawnStriker_17 wrote:
Bruh. Do you realize that will become religious here because your lit inviting every deist, christian, islamic, hinduistic person to comment here on their opinions. THIS IS LITERALLY INVITING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SO DONT EXPECT EVERYONE TO NOT
uh, context?
The original topic, now deleted, was about the origins of the universe, no religious discussion allowed ( Chess.Com rules).
Advice: Ignore comments that start with 'bruh'.
Indeed.
Does anyone know any controversial theories to the Big Bang, I'd like to do some research.
Researching theories of the origin on the universe on a chess site dominated by............well you know, is likely to be frustrating resulting in incorrect and quite nonsensical opinions based on.....................nothing worth mentioning.
Your first result will be similar to the first few comments here claiming you must allow for religious discussion, when, in fact, Chess.com does not allow such and may well lock the thread. But by all means proceed with your discussion.
RevenantTheCleansed wrote:
The only other legitimate theory is an infinite regress which is foolish.
If it is foolish how can it be legitimate?
If it's widely accepted by scientists with credentials in the field it is illogical to call it illogical.
That was a while ago.
I suspect you just disagree and therefor claim its illogical.
People believing the earth was the center of the universe
You said
"The only other legitimate theory is an infinite regress which is foolish."
Now you're saying it's stupid, yet legitimate.
I'm surprised you didn't start your comment with 'bruh'.
It couldn't be that you can't even explain your own comment.
Herein lies the problem:
The question was does anyone know a controversial theory, to which you proposed one that was 'legitimate' but foolish, and now 'stupid'.
The word 'legitimate' pertains to law, as in, it follows the rules of law. More commonly it means it is accepted by people who are recognized with some expertise. You somehow claim it is both recognized yet stupid. Do you see my confusion yet?
Yes. As in, I recognize you and you are both. Bruh.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Original comment removed because of dopes who do not understand Chess.Com rules.
Please continue posting moronic comments like 'bro' and 'bruh' and let everyone who reads them know your low level of intelligence.