I did n't say they were made of fire, I said they were balls of fire, as in they burn and they are balls, I could have said they are immense spheres of exploding hydrogen nuclei but I am not a pedantic twat. BTW super-heated plasma is fire. Fire isn't just one thing. It's like saying ice isn't water, don't be a hair-splitting twat-waffle.
Sure, if you are incapable of nuance, which defines you as rather simpleminded. A ball of fire is made of whatever that fire is burning, or Hydrogen and helium, or is this simplistic explanation too much nuance for you?
In common English parlance, to say "x is a ball of y" is to say "x is composed/a mass of y, formed in the shape of a sphere". That's why if I refer to a "ball of gas", you immediately know that I'm referring to something as being "composed/a mass of gas, formed in the shape of a sphere". Therefore, if X is the component being used as the sole descriptor in the phrase "a ball", then any other additional components which may or may not comprise the mass are irrelevant to that particular assertion. For example, if I refer to a "ball of mud", since "mud" is the only component being used in that descriptive phrase, the presence of decomposed organic matter, rocks, bugs etc. which may comprise or contribute to the mass in question, is irrelevant to that particular assertion- because if they are what make up the mud, then they are "mud"; and if they do not make up the mud, then they are irrelevant to the assertion that was made. Therefore, in the same way that the self-contradiction of the statement "I didn't say it was made of mud, I said it was a ball of mud" isn't allayed based solely on the fact that decomposed organic matter is present, the self-contradiction within the statement "I didn't say it was made of fire, I said it was a ball of fire" is also not allayed based solely on the fact that the elements fueling the fire are also present. In other words, according to the rules of logic within the domain of English vernacular, if you describe something as a "ball of fire", you are saying it is a "ball made of fire", regardless of the presence of any additional ingredients, or of the "fire's" constituent components/fuel.
If you disagree with that conclusion, I invite you to pinpoint precisely which concept in that train of reasoning that you disagree with, and provide an explanation for your disagreement.
As far as me being incapable of the comprehension of nuance, you have zero reason to believe or assert that I have anything less than a masterful grasp of the mechanisms of subtlety within the realms of conceptual and rhetorical logic. Quite the opposite actually, given the evidence contained within my comment history (which you clearly are not above searching) as well as the effective demonstration of that knowledge that I've just provided in the detailed articulation of my conclusion above.
Given that in the span of only two replies (in response to a relatively inoffensive comment) you have managed to call me "simpleminded", "chump", and "smarmy cunt", I would assert that 1-telling you to "chill" is not at all unwarranted, and 2-if such a simple, light-hearted comment is capable of making you so respond with such acidity, that would seem to indicate a level of defensiveness that is itself possibly due to an insecurity in your own understanding of the nature of nuance within the realm of semantics/rhetorical logic. Why else do you feel the need to call me names, instead of simply articulating the points of your disagreements like a mature adult?
Ball of plasma. Get it right.
You don't get out much do you? What you just did is called being a pedantic knob. You actually read my clarification on the comment and still had to post a wall of pretentious text to argue with me over a point of fact that I have already conceded. Did you think you were writing a novel? How much of a loser are you anyway? You are arguing a point I have already conceded you dumbarse.
Try to keep up, you are embarrassing yourself.
you have zero reason to believe or assert that I have anything less than a masterful grasp of the mechanisms of subtlety within the realms of conceptual and rhetorical logic.
And I have no reason to believe that you do and every word you say is more reason why you don't. It is just a thoroughly pretentious post as an attempt to make yourself look like an intellectual. If you were you wouldn't have made this comment.
I did n’t say they were made of fire, I said they were balls of fire
LOL- “I didn’t say this was made of cheese, I said it was a ball of cheese 😤”
Sounds legit
But you did. And having quickly checked out you comment history you clearly do think you are a novelist. Half of it is text walls. Your original smart cunt comment was proof that you did not understand the nuance of mine. It was just you being a smartarse dickhead and you know it. Stop trying to pretend it was something else. I am not dumb enough to believe that lie, even if you have convinced yourself of it.
Why else do you feel the need to call me names, instead of simply articulating the points of your disagreements like a mature adult
Why didn't you?
I did n’t say they were made of fire, I said they were balls of fire
LOL- “I didn’t say this was made of cheese, I said it was a ball of cheese 😤”
Sounds legit
My example was just that, an example. I was not referring to your previous comments. There is no "getting right" an example that I'm making up, especially when it's for the purpose of distancing the abstraction from your comments in an attempt to keep from you becoming defensive again.
You don't get out much do you? What you just did is called being a pedantic knob.
What I just did is called being a logical, objective adult.
You actually read my clarification on the comment and still had to post a wall of pretentious text to argue with me over a point of fact that I have already conceded.
You did not concede my point. My point was that the phrase "I didn't say it was made of fire, I said it was a ball of fire" is self-contradictory. You did not concede that it was self-contradictory, quite the opposite- you implied that the existence of fuel means that the two phrases do indeed mean different things.
Did you think you were writing a novel? How much of a loser are you anyway?
I spent a few minutes writing a thorough, well-articulated reply out of respect for you as a person. But again, in response to my thoughtful words you are insulting me. You are asserting that responding to defensive, insulting acidity with calm, respectful objectivity makes someone a "loser". That is a sad way to see the world.
You are arguing a point I have already conceded you dumbarse. Try to keep up, you are embarrassing yourself.
Once again, the only "concession" you have made is the assertion that because there are elements fueling the fire, that means that the phrases "made of fire" and "ball of fire" mean two completely different things. Those phrases mean the same thing. Doubling down on the assertion that they don't does not constitute "conceding". And again, calling me "dumbarse". If you knew you were right, you wouldn't be experiencing the fight-or-flight defensiveness that's making you feel the need to call me names.
Also, if you think there's something embarrassing about accurately summarizing a logically sound conclusion, I'd love to hear what exactly it is.
And I have no reason to believe that you do and every word you say is more reason why you don't.
The concise, valid formulation of a sound argument involving the nuances of the English language that I presented is by definition reason to believe that I have a masterful grasp of those nuances.
It is just a thoroughly pretentious post as an attempt to make yourself look like an intellectual.
Your perception of my post as being pretentious is colored by your defensive posture. My post was objective and dispassionate. You clearly feel and are responding to me as though I am attacking you, which I'm not. I provided a systemically logical reply- if the only thing you received from it was "pretentiousness", then you either didn't read it, or were made to feel defensive by its overtly-logical presentation.
If you were you wouldn't have made this comment.
I did n’t say they were made of fire, I said they were balls of fire LOL- “I didn’t say this was made of cheese, I said it was a ball of cheese 😤” Sounds legit
But you did.
Making humorous, light-hearted, logically-sound comments does not preclude one from being intelligent, or an "intellectual".
But you did. And having quickly checked out you comment history you clearly do think you are a novelist. Half of it is text walls.
It doesn't take me long at all to write thoughtful, thorough replies. Again, if in your mind responding to someone comprehensively out of respect for them as a person and for the process of reasoned discourse is something to be mocked as "thinking you're a novelist", then that is a sad way to view the world. Also, the "half" of my 4-year history that you're referring to was one recent exchange.
Your original smart cunt comment was proof that you did not understand the nuance of mine.
Your comment to which I originally responded contained within it the assertion that the phrases "made of fire" and "ball of fire" have two completely different definitions. As I already demonstrated, they do not- because "ball of X" implies "made of X" regardless of additional/constituent components. The fact that I am referencing the fire's fuel in relation to its irrelevance to the definition of the phrase proves that I understand what you're referring to as "the nuance of yours". The "nuanced" distinction is still irrelevant to those definitions.
It was just you being a smartarse dickhead and you know it. Stop trying to pretend it was something else. I am not dumb enough to believe that lie, even if you have convinced yourself of it.
Me saying "sounds legit" was indeed me being a smartass- albeit in a relatively very lighthearted, benign way. But it was not just me being a smartass, because the point contained within- that the two phrases which you presented as being obviously different, are actually obviously identical- was still a logically sound point.
Why else do you feel the need to call me names, instead of simply articulating the points of your disagreements like a mature adult
Why didn't you?
...I didn't call you names. I still haven't, and I don't plan to, no matter how many times you call me profanities out of misplaced defensiveness. The reason I didn't provide you with a thorough articulation of the logic behind the conclusion that the two phrases are identical in my first comment, was because I didn't think it would be necessary. I didn't know you would get so upset by such a simple, off-handed way of playfully contradicting your assertion.
Because maybe you are just full of shit?
Again, outside of my first, sarcastic, not-intended-to-be-offensive comment, literally all I've done is reply to you with explicit reasoning behind my point, and in a respectful, logical, objective manner.
I don't know if you're just angry at the other guy who was arguing with you or what, but you genuinely don't have any valid reason to be insulting me as much as you have. Writing thorough responses out of respect for the process of communicating like adults is not inherently contemptible; and using precise, objective language is not inherently pretentious. So I don't know why you're so mad at me. All I've said, in so many words, was that the phrases "made of fire" and "ball of fire" do not, according to the rules of the English language, mean inherently different things. And if my bit of sarcasm in my original comment is what so severely offended you, that was sincerely not my intention.
So this is the sequel to the 1st novel? Even more pretentious bullshit pouring out of your mouth in a futile attempt to look like an intellectual. I didn't think it was possible for you to be an even bigger tool, but look at you go. You are here mindlessly arguing semantics with wall after wall of head-up-your-arse text. You sound like a second year arts student. Just enough knowledge to make it seem like you know something but not enough to actually make you an intellectual. Just enough to make you think you are when you just throw clever sentences at people. I can write purple as well, it doesn't mean I am smart, if anything writing that way shows you are not confident in your intellect and need to show it off in your writing rather than just making a point. Clearly this is what you do. No one naturally speaks or argues verbally the way you write so it is pretentious and should be treated as such. You are having an argument, not writing classic literature. Wake the fuck up! And for the love of fucking God stop being a pedantic and semantic douchebag. Anyone who read my original comment can understand te meaning in it and even after tha t I corrected it to call the balls of plasma but you just couldn't deal with that, you have to be a fuckhead about it and dump novels of you bullshit over the definition of a sentence THAT i ALREADY CONCEDED AND CORRECTED YOU FUCKING DUMB CUNT, ARE YOU READING THIS OR NOT? FUCKING PAY ATTENTION IDIOT! YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST SOMETHING i HAVE ALREADY SAID (YEAH, OK) TO. Wow you are fucking dumb. You are arguing a point I have already given to you. What the actual fuck is your major defect buddy? You keep delivering walls of text to claim I was wrong about something that I have already said I was wrong about.
Again, if clear, articulate speech is so completely opaque and foreign to you that all you're able to see when you look at it is a vague, undecipherable mass of "pretentiousness", all that means is that you lack the reading comprehension and/or basic thinking skills to understand it, not that I am pretentious. The fact that you read my very simple, straightforward writing and think I'm trying to "sound smart" indicates that you're intimidated by something which should sound simple to you, since simple and straightforward is what it is. And the fact that you can't respond to a single specific thing I've said- and instead reply with literally nothing but insults- indicates that you didn't actually read/comprehend any of it, just saw a "wall of text" and started typing angrily again.
If you feel the need to call someone who made a simple, harmless comment "cunt" and "FUCKING RETARDED" and to RAGE over and over again, all that means is that you are insecure, defensive, and extremely easily-angered, not that I or anyone else in your crosshairs deserves your extremely emotional overreactions. I've been nothing but patient and respectful to you, and you know that.
You acknowledged that stars are made of plasma. Good for you. All I ever said was that that's not the same thing as acknowledging that "ball of X" implies "made of X". And I never asked you to acknowledge that either, I was simply trying to help your apparently easily-overwhelmed mind understand the fact that I was never attacking you in the first place, just pointing out that something you said was logically incorrect- so there was never a reason for you to get yourself so wound up to begin with.
I hope that wasn't too much "intellectual" text for you.
No you made a claim and your claim is false, stars are not balls of fire. Fire requires oxygen. Just delete your comment and save yourself some embarrassment
No you made a claim and your claim is false, stars are not balls of fire
No it isn't and yes they are. Plenty of things burn without oxygen. They are defined as non-chemical reactions, so get termed as types of plasma, but fire is fire. Just saying it is only a word that can be sued to describe oxidised combustion is pedantic and contextually inaccurate. Also this whole post is ridiculous as it is really asking the question: is there oxygen in the Universe outside of our planet, which has been observed so fire is possible which makes it a dumbarse presumptive question in the first place. You can look at any of the expoplanets that have been discovered and analysed with spectroscopy and see the ones that have carbon and oxygen and you can have fire, but if you choose to not to be a pedantic douche and are able to understand nuance instead of taking everything literally, then you could look up into the night or day sky and see nothing but fire. I guess it is up to you as to how much of a dickhead you want to be. I suppose being technically correct is more important to your ego than understanding something is.
It does not need to be discovered. It needs to be theorised and proved possible. It has. If you have the conditions for fire, then you eventually have fire. Just because it hasn't been burning in a way we can see it when we have chosen to observe, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The OP is saying, because we haven't observed it, does it really exist anywhere else, the obvious answer is yes.
No one observed the big bang but evidence and study show have created a consensus on that idea, but apparently the same level of scientific investigation and consensus of the evidence on the idea of fire is not enough for you. I'll say it again, stop being a pedantic twat waffle just to win some meaningless technical point in a meaningless argument.
No one cares how clever you think you are. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Next, you'll work on correcting my grammar. That's how obvious you are.
Ad hominem, the last resort of the desperately wrong. I didn’t say it doesn’t exist, literally the post title says we haven’t observed it. That is not the same as saying it doesn’t exist. You’re just mad cuz you’re wrong in your original comment and I provided proof you’re wrong. EDIT spelling
As for ad hominem, criticising you for your style of argument and the way in which you are just arguing for the sake of it is accurate, as your argument on it's own is piss weak, but I checked your comment history, it is littered with your own ad hominem attacks and the massive d-bag hypocrisy of actually telling other redditors not to use ad hominem attacks. I guess you must very often, ion your own words, be desperately wrong then huh? You are a fat arsed hypocrite and you know it. If you'd like i could copy and paste your own shithead responses to other comments in the last couple of months, about a quarter of your you comments are abusing other people for their comments. Would you like me to do this or are you ready to sit down and shut the fuck up like the adult child you are?
Ooh you stalking me? That’s so sweet I’m flattered. But alas you’re wrong I’m not fat and I’m getting laid tonight with multiple dudes. You’re not invited
Tell yourself whatever lie you need. Only a narcissist would think they are being stalked by a comment reply on reddit. But since you have your own comments about looking at other people's comment histories to criticise them, does that make you a stalker?
Bleh you like some gross Porn and your comment history is a cavalcade of condescension and laziness due to your staggering awareness of your own mediocrity.
I scrolled back for like five minutes in your comments and it was all the same, cruel and condescending. You need help dude, you need serious help. Why do you want to be remembered as a horrible person? I’m serious, I’m not even trying to be mean you have a serious anger problem.
Oh wow, every single one of your comments are trying to tear someone else down or insult people or hurt them. Dude does that really make you happy?
Hmm well the content on your profile is worse, wow do you have anything unique or original to post? or is your entire life stupid memes about farting? Wish you had anything interesting to criticize but it’s just blah blah blah. Move along kiddo
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds huh? Everything shitty you do is something you accuse others of. You are just pathetic.
They can also see that this is a retarded post from the start with the answer being self evident and not even needing to be asked. But look at all the pseudo intellectuals arguing over something we already have the facts on. Anyone who can navigate a simple thought process can see and here is the truth that maybe a siple google search could have led you too
In a flame, ionization of the air atoms occurs because the temperature is high enough to cause the atoms to knock into each other and rip off electrons. Therefore, in a flame, the amount of ionization depends on the temperature. (Other mechanisms can lead to ionization. For instance, in lightning, strong electric currents cause the ionization. In the ionosphere, sunlight causes the ionization.) The bottom line is that a flame only becomes a plasma if it gets hot enough. Flames at lower temperatures do not contain enough ionization to become a plasma. On the other hand, a higher-temperature flame does indeed contain enough freed electrons and ions to act as a plasma.
Everyone follow this guy to get updates on ghostbusters cuz obviously we all need that “retarded” shit. Clearly he has a lot of interesting things to say and post. Like I went through this profile and like... it was a profile.
12
u/OuthouseRedback 17d ago
I did n't say they were made of fire, I said they were balls of fire, as in they burn and they are balls, I could have said they are immense spheres of exploding hydrogen nuclei but I am not a pedantic twat. BTW super-heated plasma is fire. Fire isn't just one thing. It's like saying ice isn't water, don't be a hair-splitting twat-waffle.