You literally don't know anything about the history of timekeeping. That's the point.

Assertion isn't evidence. You have yet to actually say a single thing about why you think I'm wrong, just that you do. This is not how argumentation and debate work.

And you don't see why you're being ridiculed?

This isn't ridicule, it's just baseless name-calling. This is elementary school-level insults. If it were ridicule, it would have any evidence behind it at all. The longer you go without providing any basis for your claims, the more clear it becomes that you have none.

The systems which humanity have used have not been arbitrary

Every system humanity uses is arbitrary. We decide and agree that something arbitrary is useful, and then we decide to imbue that arbitrary thing with meaning.

Words didn't mean anything until we assigned meaning to them, and you can tell they're arbitrary because the same combination of syllables can mean something completely different in another language. For someone who claims to know multiple languages, you should be aware of that. Meters aren't meters because they have to be; we decided that the distance light travels in 0.000000003335641s is a useful amount of distance. We could've easily defined it as the distance light travels in 0.000000003335642s and it wouldn't be any more or less logical.

That's how humans work. We give arbitrary things meaning. You insisting that the shapes in the clouds are definitely sharks doesn't make them sharks. The shapes are arbitrary.

and every single "argument" you've made showcases your stupidity and ignorance.

Contrasted with the complete lack of argument you've made.

Give me your address and I'll order a "grammar for kids" book and a dictionary for you.

Aw, buddy, you already tried that insult once. And it wasn't funny the first time.

It's not about the length of your replies, it's about who they're formatted like a teenager with Alzheimer's.

Now that one's funny! Good job. I knew you could do it.

What do you mean "no support for your claims about timekeeping systems not being arbitrary"?

I mean, support your claims that there's something inherent about timekeeping systems. Something in our brains, or in the rotation of the Earth, or in the physical properties of light, or something that means that high noon has to be represented on the clock as 1200.

That's what "support" means. That's what evidence is. That's what any reasonable, good-faith argument has to include.

You still don't understand what the word arbitrary even means?

I am starting to think that you believe "arbitrary" means "random." But that isn't what it means. It means "randomly chosen," or perhaps "selected without impetus." The Egyptians didn't have to choose twelve constellations; nobody was forcing them to, and there wasn't anything inherent about them that required them to base a system of timekeeping around it.

This is the best wake up comment I could've read. Put a laugh in my day right away hahaha thank you.

You're welcome! I love knowing that I'm helping put some joy into the world.

Also I don't believe a person like you has read a single book in your entire life.

Oh, thanks for the reminder, I forgot to log the book I finished yesterday.