/lit/ - Literature

>>4652108

You still haven't told me why

A) thinking humans can destroy the universe isn't a presumption

B) why thinking they can't is a presumption.

-- I don't even know if you're the original guy. But that's who I was responding to: Someone who was trying to justify antinatalism by saying it would be feasible if the universe could be destroyed. Not that you seem to care about the original context of the conversation.

C) college education has *little* to do with it. People can go to college for business or electrical engineering and never give a shit about the universe outside of Earth. Likewise, someone can learn about the universe on a hobbyist's basis, and still know more about it than a college educated person with a career focus in say, law, or whatever.

D) Your contention that I'm not college educated, whether true or not, is a presumption, based on even less evidence than my thinking humans can't destroy the universe right now.

E) The scale of the universe isn't "made up faggot bullshit." I didn't pull these ideas out of my ass. I learned them from the collected works of people who are probably "smarter" and more dedicated than either of us.

>>4613047

Yes. He did. That's an empty statement though.

"Oh, he annoyed you. The game wast to annoy you. That means he won."

No, this was a conversation, and he decided to be an annoying cunt, and then you decided to back him up with the classic "lol he trolld u." technique.

But trolling is stupid. It is people ignoring real conversations and by stalling and pretending to be stupider than they actually are. It's incredibly disingenuous, and it says more about the person doing it than the victim of it.