₦airaland Forum

The kind hope wey una get for this thread, I envy you guys.
yesterday proved that we can't even finish off smaller teams anymore. In this same group, other teams use Lesotho to boost goal difference. When it came to our turn, we dey play them like say na El Classico.

by the time Benin score 1 goal tomorrow in the first half and we spend the entire game looking for an equalizer, maybe it will finally dawn on us that this team is not World Cup material. we're not ready. You can't reap where you didn't sow. When other teams were grinding out results, we were busy dragging our feet and gambling with our coaching staff. We escaped a draw with Lesotho yesterday. what makes you so sure we'll beat Benin? the same Benin wey turn this same Lesotho like garri?

Dtruthspeaker:
See yourself, did you not earlier say that she did not insult (ad hominem) me?

Now you are confessing that she did insult me via No. 2,) even though the No. 2) words starts by saying "Your argument..." which a deceitful person will claim that it is directed to the argument, even though it goes ahead to insult me, as you have now admitted.

I knew that If I had pointed out No.2 surely you and anyone else would have said that it was not an ad hominem because of the words "Your argument..."

But now, you have just confirmed and confessed that it is indeed an ad hominem.

Meanwhile No.1 is directly and undisputably an ad hominem as it directly says "You must be shameless and don't have any morals.." and not "your argument is shameless...."

And The law on ad hominem does not say that based on "BECAUSE", is what makes an argument ad hominem.

Ad hominem
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

So, you see, there is no "BECAUSE", in statement that is ad hominem, so your plan to shift the argument and the law of ad hominem to "BECAUSE" has only backfired and blown up in your face.

Thus, in the end, you have proved and confessed that examples No.1) and No.2) are are indeed insults and ad hominems despite your attempt to escape the trap that was there.

Oya, make we see wetin you won talk dis time weda e go dey valid.

What's all this nonsense? 😭😭😭😭🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Bros abeg give me your phone number .
this kind of foolishness can only be resolved by verbal communication. it's obvious you can't read. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Dtruthspeaker:
These are the reasons why people get to abuse you atheists and call you people stupid. You know very well the Truth yet you people choose the Lie and yet you expect not to be abused.

Ad hominem means when an opponent attacks a person rather than his argument. No 1 clearly states that it is attacking the person while No. 2 even directly says that it is attacking the argument.

It even started saying "Your argument..."

Yet you say no 2. is the ad hominem.

See why everyone hates and abuses an atheists?
And because you all know that you are Liars and you Lie is why you all run away from fair arguments claiming "I no get strength".

Bro you're not paying attention ! Now I see why people make fun of you, no offense. You behave as if u don't understand simple english.

read the sentences again:

1. "You must be shameless and don't have any morals , BECAUSE your argument is morally despicable."

in number 1 , I took the time to read your argument, think about it, and came to the conclusion that you don't have any morals.

2. "Your argument is morally despicable BECAUSE you are shameless and don't have any morals"

In number 2, I didnt even bother reading your post. I just decided that your argument is wrong without reading it because i think u re shameless. THAT IS AD HOMINEM because I didn't even give your argument a chance.

omo if u neva still get am then I don't know what I want me to say again.


if e no clear just drop number make I call you explain it for you one on one lol.

Dtruthspeaker:
Do you not see the first one attacks the person?

Did you not see the ones I listed are exactly like the first one?

Did you not see I did not list the No. 2.?

🤣🤣you see yourself?
I deliberately set trap for you, by not stating which one is personal insult. i wanted to see if you will be smart enough to show what you're talking about

the first one is not ad hominems, but the second one is 🤣🤣

read the two sentences again very carefully

1. "You must be shameless and don't have any morals , BECAUSE your argument is morally despicable."

2. "Your argument is morally despicable BECAUSE you are shameless and don't have any morals"

so you've just admitted that she didn't make any personal insults towards you... Lolz.

anyway i just wanted to point that out for you. other than that, I no get strength to argue.

Ishilove:
The so-called 'potential rapists' on Nairaland are already rapists offline, that is why they vigorously defend rape and sexual exploitation online. See the rubbish that one called Dtruthspeaker was writing. His moral bankruptcy, perversion and broken moral compass is evident in most of the posts he makes online. His ilk abound this thread defending the indefensible and justifying an adult's exploitation of a minor's naivete and ignorance.

Disgusting and despicable creatures.

That man has no redeeming factors. Imagine him still dragging the issue. All this kind people I wonder how their faces even look like in real life.

Dtruthspeaker:
Ehen. This is the issue.

You atheists are all attacking me because I said

So, you do not get to see that she is the one making herself available and convenient for you to pursue.

That is the set up against men which is why we see God punishing the woman more and she suffers more when she fornicates for fornication is for men but for a woman it is Prosstitution.

So looking at how this girl has suffered, it clearly tells you she is the one who caused it all

And this is where you see that statement "God Punish you" is at work, for God in deed sees and punishes.

It is this statement that is paining you devils as I have just reminded you how God used to punish you people and that God will punish you people

It is already clear whether I say it or not and whether you like it or not that God punishes fornication heavily and the punishment is even 3 or 4 times worser for girls like the one the op has described.

See the punishment for the corper, now he has married a girl he does not want, so punishment of bad marriage don catch am and all his plans of prosperity have not worked out, so suffer suffer is his name.

Op has already described the punishment and suffering the girl has gone through since God decided to punish her for her fornication.

And because all of you are fornicators that is why God has punished all of you with suffering, poorverty, frustration and madness. See all the pains the op is carrying. Hell has already started here for you stupid atheists meanwhile these ones you are suffering na just tospee! The main the main never start

Oga let me see road. All these points have already been addressed by people arguing with you, you just want to keep arguing because you don't want to look bad. You lost the argument . Good morning!

Dtruthspeaker:
I never read all she said before because I know how she will always argue but excluding all the side tracking arguments and off points and raising of arguments in departure from the main issue, she made, here is all her ad hominem even from the very first challenge

^^^D-sanctimonious-Truthspeaker

-Smh, lmao at this dude with his anachronistic mentality and his medieval moralizing..

More
-"you should be ashamed of yourself, defending rape and misogyny with such fanatical gusto. Your response reeks to the high heavens, of toxic misogyny, victim-blaming, faux piety and sanctimonious pontificating, and a disturbingly warped sense, or view of morality --

-His irrational eagerness to assume,

-You hate that women have their own wishes and

-^^^D-sanctimonious-Truthspeaker

3> He wilfully uses his religion

Are all these not attack of my person?

Sigh! Bro I told you to Google this thing, you don't know the meaning of ad hominem !
Bro look at the two logics below. They sound alike, but one of them is ad hominem, the other is not.

1. "You must be shameless and don't have any morals, because your argument is morally despicable."

2. "Your argument is morally despicable because you are shameless and don't have any morals"


can you spot the difference ?

Citroen19digit:
Since when did smelling butt become a part of an argument?

Do you not know that any argument that attacks a person rather than the argument is wrong?

All she did was to insult and insult him while trying to argue at the same time. If you remove the insults and look at her arguments you would see that she was just talking her own and how she wants it to be. Meanwhile, law moves in ways we common people do not understand and sometimes do not like but procedure, is procedure.

You can not expect that because a person has been accused so he must be judged guilty. There are procedures which is what I think the guy is saying. And this is of course as he said even the op did not think rape when it was happening.

Baba it's very clear you didn't follow the argument
The dude was indirectly trying to defend the rapist by assuming without proof that the girl cajoled or tricked him into the act. It doesn't make sense.
Even if you say the guy is not guilty until proven so..., it doesn't mean you should start making baseless accusations against the girl and making her feel ashamed of her self, trying to make her look like the villain..

At the base level, we can assume no party is guilty until further investigation is made, but it's very insensitive to assume that the girl was the bad person here.

As for the insults you said the lady was fishing, I can't find them anywhere. What I saw was her debunking you guys points very hard 😂
She made very valid points too.
Abi na the grammar wey make Una fit say na insults
Doesn't mean she was insulting
I hope you know the difference between "attacking the argument" and attacking the man"
For example if I say "your argument is stupid and it shows your thinking is poor", that's not a personal insult because it's your argument I'm calling stupid, not you.
But if I say "you are stupid", or "you are mad", or "it's because you were raped, that's why you're attacking the man", then those are personal insults because they're not related to the discussion. Google the meaning of "ad hominems", you'll understand what I'm saying better .

Nnamdipapa:
Everything na insults to our people.

I just tire for them

FayaBall:
Abegi, you just came to support your atheist mad sister.

Every reasonable person can see this is plain madness.

bomboy, she finish you and your oga...Rest

Citroen19digit:
That means her arguments have no value so she is using insults and abuse to make her point.

that thing no be insult boss.Na the bros argument wey she finish.

TheDevilsBride:
Ah, I can perceive the stench of butthurt, wafting aimlessly, from your direction, as a noxious cloud of your desperation to tell sad lies, born from the fact that you tried, and failed to muster any poignant or even coherent counterarguments to salvage your tattered claims. Safe to say, lol, that your intellectual well has run dry.

Why not hop on back on your main moniker and actually prove that my arguments are false, hmmm? Or you would prefer to keep clucking and flapping about like this? I know that's more your speed. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to keep watching you meltdown for no apparent reason, if only to underscore the fact that, when it comes to the arena of logical discourse, you're little more than a featherweight, swinging wildly at shadows while I continue to dance circles around you .

Jesus, which person pikin Dem finish like dis? 😭😭💀

larride:
This thread is dead.

unfortunately.

it's filled to the brim with perpetually frustrated morons who can't have simple dialogue without screaming at the top of their lungs.
always loud for no discernable reason.

you can literally get into a fight over the most petty nonsense in this shithole.

Total strangers can start up unwanted conversations with you in the most obnoxious fashion. the roads are disastrous trash, even in the so called gra. The yahoo boys here are the brokest and most pathetic but make so much noise at the same time.

dont even get me started on the traffic. Jesus fucking Christ, Benin drivers are literally tied with Lagos for the most insane drivers in the south South. It's bad enough that I have to board a gigantic scrap of rusted metal for my daily commute. but yet I have to deal with self-confessed lunatics behind the steering wheel. The driver in my bus today literally made a joke about us being stupid for entering the bus of a madman!

i understand that this peculiar fragrance of insanity is widespread in most third world countries like Nigeria but for the love of Bleep, it seems Benin and Lagos are competing intensely for the covered price of the most decorated City of morons in the 21st century.

the economy is tough, I get it. but let's stop pretending it's a valid excuse for mannerless behavior and shitty upbringing.

I just needed to get that off my chest. I know behavior like this is pretty much acceptable in Nigeria, more reason i can't wait to see this country crash and burn as i know it will eventually.

heyy, listen guys, if it helps you any, I happen to know for a fact there is a 5th Dimension.

Not kidding . I was up up and away in a beautiful balloon when the wind blew me east toward the dawn . I think it was around the age of Aquarius , if I remember coreectly.

To be clear , I didn’t actually see the 5th dimension , but I heard it. The sound was transmitted over a little transistor radio I had in the balloon with me . And it was a very distinct sound.No doubt in my mind it was the 5th dimension I heard.

hope that helps you lot around here

1. I was once a Christian.
2. I am now an atheist.
3. If religious belief is a choice there must have been a point where I, as a Christian, chose to become an atheist.
4. A Christian would never choose to doom himself to eternal Hell by becoming an atheist.
5. Therefore religious belief is not a choice.

Judas1X:
Issokay m'lady. Leave him to me. I know the method to his madness. Dude Is busy telling long tales but he doesn't know he started the insults
DrLiveLogic, I actually feel sorry for you. I haven't even started to think of attacking you verbally. You seem to be uneasy all of a sudden. Today's a busy day for me. Please endeavour to answer my questions before I return. If you think you've got lip, then you thought very wrong
State of peace indeed

that guy is blabbing pure pseudoscience. none of what he's saying has ever been validated by science! honestly one of the cringiest apologists I've ever seen. Jeez!!!

[s]

DrLiveLogic:
I totally understand you, bro, but it also shows you've not been reading my posts and this is not a new understanding.
Heb 11:1-3 ...and faith is the substrate of what we hope for, the object of proof not seen(immaterial like your emotions, conscience...) because in it, the elders became witnesses. Faith makes us understand that the ages were structured by the utterance of God, to that the visible things did not become from visible things (the Singularity is pointing towards this).
Note these are only claims but can be validated. The quest begins from the questions and after introspection, a method will be proferred. All the elders were scientists, researching in the immaterial world while living in the material. The validity of that was determined in their personal search, not provided by another.


The problem is you don't get the bane of logic. Understand axioms and self-evident truths. All logic derives from and builds on these not proving these. They are verified by consciousness, like virtually all matter, so with faith.



No you weren't Tantrum, denial can give us the same lens and truth isn't nasty, dear old man friend. It's denial that causes torture, misrepresenting it. Plus your problem is you really came with a prejudice from whatever previous encounters you may have had with 'theists'. If you'd simply try read my posts, I never claimed uncertainty of evolutionism validates creationism. I have all through only tried to invalidate the false security in it and suggest empirical validation of faith.


Very well then, my senior old man friend and examiner, if repetitive use of boy, lad et al makes you feel more accomplished and superior. Just remember that I answered your questions for what they're worth(or not) and offered mine not to examine you actually but for self-examination. These questions don't validate faith, they can only lead you on the quest to resolve the unknown, like science. Faith will be validated only when contacted.


Actually, you're yet to match Tamaratonye5's tirades. The reason they may look non-existent to you is because such are feckless in my world so I don't respond in kind. If you don't believe, give your best shot. And don't worry, this doesn't require logic, just mere experimentation, like faith. However, my demeanor is not arrogance but simply from a state of peace inside. Like I told her, I really wish her the best and on the quest of faith, I actually wish you all success from my heart of hearts but if you have no interest in researching faith matters the way I've suggested, let's not waste each other's time, I can plead no further or should I put a knife to your throat?
One love bro.

PS. I hope dragonflyy can see that Tantrum, doesn't want to drop it with her claims on evolutionism and she doesn't even know what we mean by code in DNA lol. Tantrum, ain't calling for help, you gave Daejoyoung a link, I offered him a refutation. That's how we arrive at a circumspect perspective but would you ever know that. LMAO.
Dear Tantrum, faith cannot be derived etymologically and certainly not by a dictionary because it is immaterial in nature. Only those who have the experience know what it really is. Try Paul up there.

[/s]
guy how do you manage to say so much, and end up passing zero meaning accross

Tamaratonye5:
You don’t know what fallacy means clearly. But then you don’t know what a scientific theory is either, so pretty typical for a creationist. I long ago stopped being surprised at how ignorant religion keeps many of its adherents.


No one asserted that we were intelligent. You asserted DNA was intelligent. If it was, wouldn’t it intelligently design more intelligently? It is a chemical process and nothing more.


You’re an arrogant clown, especially considering your posts contain some of the most ignorant idiotic drivel I've seen on this particular website. Asserting your god is perfect does not make it so. You don’t get to assert a god into existence. Provide evidence or go away.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?


Since you’re the one denying a global scientific consensus based on over 160 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny, and all to justify an absurd unevidenced belief in a deity from a bronze age superstition. The hilarity of a creatard accusing anyone of denial is palpable.

You haven’t got a clue of what logical ground any atheist is standing on. Your inane responses and idiotic assertions are evidence of this.


OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

As I already said the talkorigins website has a massive database of scientific evidence for evolution. It also has a massive database of creationist propaganda that science has debunked, most of them you have used here.

FYI, I'm not an atheist because I believe in evolution. That's your own Dreamland. I'm an atheist because of the lack of evidence for god/s

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?


The fossil evidence alone establishes this


Do you care to translate that gibberish into a coherent sentence, Hmmm?


So we can add English to the expanding list of things you don’t understand.


Your point is to deny an accepted scientific fact that contradicts the risible creation myth form your bronze age superstition, and of course the reason is because you can’t offer any objective evidence for your deity, or any creationist propaganda. Here’s a clue for you, because I know how slow creatards are…

SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THEY CAN ONLY BE FALSIFIED BY THE SAME. WHEN A CREATARD GETS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR FALSIFYING EVOLUTION I WILL ACCEPT IT, BUT CREATIONISM WILL REMAIN AN UNEVIDENCED SUPERSTITIOUS MYTH.


Rubbish, you don’t half talk drivel. The best method we have for validating claims is the scientific method, which creatards risibly think they can cherry pick when it contradicts their superstitious myths.


And as I said there is literally nothing you cannot believe using faith. So yes of course faith based beliefs are irrational by definition. The efficacy of logic is manifest, as is the uselessness of faith. As I keep asking what is your criteria for disbelief if you are prepared to believe using faith?


What singularity? You don’t have even the most basic grasp of logic, that is abundantly clear.


Yet here you are, arguing for your intangible deity. So please demonstrate some objective evidence for your deity. I keep asking, but you just keep posting the same subjective rhetoric and logical fallacies.


Even your title seems confused. If something is valid, isnt it meant to be logical?

How are questions valid if they are beyond logic, and therefore by definition irrational, that’s such an obviously errant title I want to laugh out loud. Why on earth would any rational person want to pursue a quest for faith as well, faith is utterly useless for validating claims, as there is literally nothing you could not believe using faith, as I have already explained.


Again, what singularity?


Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, textbook.


I have no idea what that means sorry, is it from dungeons and dragons?


I've probably stated this a thousand times here already, but: logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to remove bias and flawed reasoning.


I don't know. If you do, please demonstrate some objective evidence for this. Also why have you phrased this as a question?


Again what are you taking about, is this a reference to dungeons and dragons only I have never played it?


Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that it is? Or has that just become your usual incoherent fallacious rhetoric?
---------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Trinus Tantrum

Egbon free that small boy

He is asking you to defend an argument you never made. I wonder why you're even indulging him.

[s]

DrLiveLogic:
My bad. I asserted you were intelligent. If you have no intelligence, then you're right, DNA has none. Fits perfectly with your origins theory of intelligence stemming from non-intelligence, that we design AI.
DNA that writes code for the compiler that encodes itself, what AI seeks to achieve with deep learning, has no intelligence in Tantrum's world. I'd like to meet you in your world. Smh.


Don't you wish this would make a theory irrevocable, Mrs scientific method?
Most intense what LMAO. You should study the many revisions and modifications of the theory.


Cc: Daejoyoung
Smh. Laughable when someone suggests TO for critical study on evolution, and shows you're neither a core scientist nor ready for in-depth analysis but only gathering unfiltered superficial info. You probably occupy yourself with other things leaving you little time for such although that wouldn't be an excuse for a matter as important as your soul's security. For your sake, here's the fastest of the critiques on TO I found not that I propose creationism for that. Refute TO
TO is pure propaganda and uses counters against flimsy and outrageous creationist arguments to validate its argument, mere strawmanning, without presenting important info on the uncertainties and limitations of the evo theory but many half-truths instead. Prolly why it seems obsolete.

Again there's nothing like overwhelming evidence/proof for evo rhetoric but only many findings with subjective interpretations. Such misconception stems from a lack of training in the scientific method.
Again, evolutionists consistently shift the goalpost by alternating the definition of evolution between mere adaptation and trans-speciation, an interpolation from prejudice, to make findings like the fossil record support their rhetoric, as is not the case.
You really should go do a thorough study on evolution from both sides of the arguments. That alone will help you understand why Darwinian evo is not proven but only accepted by a camp.
Such is not the case with logically deduced facts and laws which every scientist must accept without argument.


FYI, stale and overused.


What you tell yourself to feel better. You're an atheist cause you don't want to ever investigate the validity of creator for loosing your freedom and having accountability. If you believe in your emotions, conscience etc. you can't see or touch, you can relate with creator that exact way. Faith is a more tangible substrate than these. The question is if you're willing to.


The fossil record establishes common descent and adaptation not trans-speciation.


I almost applauded you but oops!, missed a spot. The interpretation by evolutionists will have to first be established by the findings without prejudiced interpolation, letting facts interpret themselves.


Since you don't know about it, don't bother. Just know that science has proposed a point where our current space-time logic disappears.


Laugh less, when in ignorance, I'd suggest, dear Tantrum. Validity is tied to reality/existence. Logic derives from self-evident reality and towards deduced reality. Go figure!


Faith is utterly useless if you believe it's blind belief, and well, that's blind belief too because you could find out what faith is but choose not to.
The undergirding yardstick of reality is consciousness. Whatever we're conscious of is self-evident reality. Learn girl, these are not derived by logic but from which we develop logic to deduce derived realities. This is why faith, like matter, isn't to be logically deduced. A little baby knows mama is real because it's aware of her not because of systematic deductions. We similarly know the universe is real, not by logic but by our consciousness of it.
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic. The question must be 'how to contact'. It is not about believing any claims but about contacting a tangible substrate. If one weren't and is busy convincing himself of anything, he is still faithless.


You're well informed but need training to correctly apply it.

Let us now reconsider the ten questions of which for reasons best known to you, you avoided the all important final three.
Ten questions
I cannot answer these questions for anyone but any who would understand faith must answer these himself and then ask how faith is to be contacted, like his emotions are.
Tantrum, over to you, you determine if we go further, chit-chat and tirades will not pay. If you ask the right questions, I can answer, else...


Trinus now? Let me in on your obsession with three, my dear.

[/s]
she said she's not an evolutionist but you want to turn her into one by fire by force
Oya, see me here: I don't accept Evolution and I also don't believe in gods
Stop being a coward and provide evidence for the god you believe in instead of reversing the burden of proof
Bloody coward

aigmax:
Kimbrielle aka Amazontopaz aka amazonhippolyta aka Misshippolyta88 aka stephleena aka acenavy aka altagracia aka ladyhippolyta88 aka Amazonianqueen

CATCH YOUR SUB !!!!

for only one person?
Ah kilode!!!

Amya:
You're smart. I knew it was her. Same handwriting. The stress someone put themselves through though.

I know opening a Gmail account is easy, but really...

I never knew obsession was this big on nairaland. it's one thing to troll ordinarily to hype your fave but where you cross the line between sanity and insanity is when you start creating multiple monikers to create the impression that your fanbase is large or something. at that point you've just exposed yourself as a pathetic lowlifer.

And these people are mothers, or will become mother's in the later future. it's a tragedy.

1000WaysToLive:
None.


Though I'm sure some ps4 games were ported to the Switch like those Assassin's Creed games.


I've also watched countdowns regarding the Best Switch games, and none of the graphics of those games impressed me.

I've also watched the full walkthrough of Ultimate Alliance 3 and I don't think I've missed anything.

I don't need to play the game to judge the graphics. I always check the gameplay / graphics first before I buy a console game anyway



And honestly, this looks a lot better than most ifnot all exclusive Switch games.

i’ll take comic book style ultimate alliance 3 over whatever square enix is attempting as their character models/design are so bland.

Vic2Ree:
Well, the game might still turn out good. You never can tell

nothing has won me over since last summer. it will be a write-off for many people it should have never been.

MJBOLT:

I have my doubts.i went through his posts,there's one where he insulted ronaldo,hulk616 would never do that because he's a die hard ronaldo fan and the guy loves to drop insults,that's not hulk616 MO

i agree with you. it's just that when pu7pl3 asked him if he's hulk, he said "yap". at the very least maybe he knows hulk616.

MJBOLT:

you are not hulk616,your profile gives you away

i have a gut feeling that he is really hulk616

pu7pl3:
I don't need to name anything, it's obvious...only the fact that Cavil has been in more blockbusters despite them being the same age should tell you

Cottonmouth,

see his original argument above. now he wants to conflate it with his new argument and deny his original post any validity

[s]

pu7pl3:
[img]https://media./images/f0857deb77bc38892dfb6ed90f28bd6a/tenor.gif[/img]

I'm done with this one....it's hard to be woke [img]https://media./images/c653d014acbb5fe4b9758908a9ff5206/tenor.gif[/img] [img]https://media./images/5da7d0fa3dff6ab5fde7ef190b994b0a/tenor.gif[/img]

[/s]
lolz . you allowed yourself to be washed out by the waves of your foolishness

Cottonmouth:
LMAO

Baba wanted to switch argument

[s]

pu7pl3:
More evidence of your cluelessness...let me dumb it down for you simpleton

In layman's terms:- you can't make a claim of one actor being better than another based on just one project, you have to judge them on different projects

but can you understand this still?

Nah

[img]https://media./images/86c2d498e1554a0c08748e7d16895969/tenor.gif[/img]

[/s]
Mechionu dia. read what u said below

dragonflyy:
[s][/s]
so in ur mind blockbuster appearances are a measure of acting talent abi?

wehdone

pu7pl3:
Obviously, numbers don't lie...

Arindin. you don't know how to lie

keep entertaining me with ur foolishness

[s]

pu7pl3:
No,[img]https://media./images/cc6adb2c8b5c88c132f47a600cf878be/tenor.gif[/img] you just don't have anything reasonable to say because you are a clueless mf round the clock...

[/s]
so I'm supposed to debunk an argument that presence in films = quality in acting lolz

pls manage your L for the sunday