For purposes of illustration: suppose ... other person says: ..."I know you've brought many proofs for your opinion, and I know that my way can lead to ambiguities in writing. Still, though, I insist that you are wrong." - then he's being unreasonable. ..."Argle-bargle-fargle!" - then he's being senseless. ..."Look! Ponies!" - then what he's saying is irrelevant. ... Thanks, but this is highly subjective. Possibly others just could not understand the point, meaning, reasons, ... More on english.stackexchange.com

So does this mean I should avoid calling people "irrelevant"? Also, are there any alternatives that are not abusive? ... Click to expand... since Tucker Max thought he has some influence (on some aspect of life/culture, etc.)" ... Click to expand... "I really owe Daft Punk and Robin Thicke, cause without them I'd be unknown (as a performer)". Being relevant/irrelevant, in these contexts, tends to reflect how influential a person ... More on forum.wordreference.com

I don't know. I feel the same though. Most of what I post online is ignored unless it's something meant to get a strong reaction. I'm not very outgoing or social. I try to be friendly, but there are a lot of mean and rude people online. And I'm an introvert with anxiety problems, so social things aren't easy for me anyway. I gave up trying to make friends online, it's rarely worth the effort. Maybe you have similar reasons/experiences. I hope you find nice people to talk to! More on reddit.com

The abortion debate isn't about personhood or whether or not a nonviable fetus is a human being or the value we attach to that. That angle is purely a red herring introduced by the pro-life movement to distract people from the fact that they are advocating a policy that diminishes the level of bodily autonomy and right to self-determinism from where it currently is. They are trying to deflect from their attempt to stifle a woman's right to control her body by creating a false dilemma over a fetus's biologically determined status or philosophically defined conditions. The pro-life position cannot logically be taken any further than to insist that a fetus's right to bodily autonomy is as sacrosanct as the woman's. That is the absolute end-game of the pro-life stance. It's only possible result, the only rational resolution that it can truly support, is that if the woman chooses to end her pregnancy she must do so without physical harm to the fetus. Anything more than that erodes the legal and moral precepts that define why systems like slavery or forced organ/tissue donation are strictly forbidden. The end result for the fetus is the same, prior to the point of it being biologically and metabolically viable; the end result for the woman is a much more invasive and dangerous procedure which results in zero benefit for anybody. At that point it becomes a debate of whether deontology dictates that we must preserve the fetus's rights regardless of result, or whether consequentialism demands that we do as little harm as possible to the only entity that has any chance whatsoever of surviving the procedure. More on reddit.com