>>25559359 Still don't know if this is bait. The literal definition of lick is to pass your tongue over something. It's like me saying something along the lines of, "I'm going to walk home (on my feet)".
>>25559400 Google, "define lick". There's your proof. Same with walking, "move at a regular and fairly slow pace by lifting and setting down each foot in turn, never having both feet off the ground at once". Notice the word foot, which are on your legs.
>>25559447 Fair enough. However, the lick part is still correct. No avoiding that one. Concede, please. Anyway, it does take two legs. Humans only have two legs, and the definition has the word 'each' written in it, implying that there are multiple of them. 1 would be hopping, and 3+ is impossible. Unless that guy has feet on his butt, then it looks like you're wrong.
>>25559525 Outright lies? I speak nothing less than the truth. It is you who speaks lies. I nicely asked you to concede, but you have declared war. Licking requires a tongue, therefore you did not need to mention that in the brackets, nor did you need to say that it would confuse anyone, as it could not. These are simple excuse for simple lies. You must concede. Anyway, the definition says that you must have feet to walk, as you lift and place those to form walking. Horses so obviously have hooves, which are definitely not feet. Horses don't walk. They trot. Check and mate. It is you who are not making sense.
>>25559797 I'm bluepilled. What media do jews even have? What topic are you even getting back to? Anyway, that defect doesn't apply in that scenario, but you know that. If the dog was born with only one eye, then it would not have seen as well as it would have with two. Either way, that comparison doesn't work either. Horses don't walk, they trot. Gallop, if they're "running". Walking is the action of moving your legs and feet, the latter of which horses do not have, whether by birth, defect, or otherwise. You still refuse to acknowledge your loss in our tongue 1v1. Not to mention you are avoiding providing me of proof with horses walking with arm birth defects.
just give under, you aren't making any sense any shorter
>>25559915 I'm not disowning them from anything. They can't even process the loss, if there is any at all. Humans can't trot, you don't see people complaining over that. And, no, swimming is propelling yourself through water, or any other liquid if that's what your next point is going to be. What is the point you are trying to make here? Horses have freedom to do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they can, or are capable of it. You're just horseist scum that can't admit that they're wrong.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.