Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: Weegee on May 23, 2011, 03:43:49 PM
-
I was going to post this in Forum Games, but I foresaw it going downhill in a hurry. Post things that are likely to induce fury, be it expertly-implemented troll posts, laughable legislature, or whatever.
Let's start with one for the ladies. Don't enlarge if you're offended by crude language.
-
It's hard to make me rage anymore. When I look at that I see a troll, not a genuine ******.
-
I've been pondering a "You Lose Faith in Humanity, You Lose" thread for some time, so maybe that would be a more appropriate title.
-
Maybe we need a "You see a troll, you lose" thread.
-
I lost when I saw this thread wasn't in Forum Games.
-
I lost when I saw this thread wasn't in Forum Games.
...for reasons explained in my first post.
-
I just lost again.
-
Should I move it to Forum Games or will that cause controversy again?
-
I lost when LD turned into the crankiest troll here.
-
I've got more crank than a jack-in-the-box.
-
You Rage (or Lose Faith in Humanity), You Lose
You Lose Faith in Humanity, You Lose
You Lose Faith, You Lose
You Lose, You Lose
I knew this would be made eventually
-
Loseception
-
Why are we still making these threads? I mean You Rage, You Lose is essentially The ANGST Thread.
-
The angst thread is retarded anyway, it has probably stolen the lives of dozens of potential threads
-
The ANGST thread is perfect for (negative) things that deserve discussion but don't warrant their own thread.
-
Right now...
We could be having a thread about 3-D movies
We could be having a thread about migraines
We could be having a thread about a famous wrestler's death
We could be having a thread about tools who thought the world was gonna end
We could be having a thread about red rings of death, PS3s and children in third-world countries
We could be having a thread about piano recitals
We could be having a thread about death (actually we have one of those)
We could be having a thread about PaperLuigi's favorite show being accused of having racist and sexist undertones
I've been a silly twelve-year-old, I've been a haughty grammar nazi, I've been a pushy hater, but the biggest mistake I ever made in these forums was probably creating that thread. Give it a think next time you want to change the subject there
-
We could be having a thread about PaperLuigi's favorite show being accused of having racist and sexist undertones
Don't tempt me to make that.
And can't you close the ANGST thread now that you're a mod?
-
Most of those "threads" would have received two or three responses and then died. They would then gather dust for years on end until some newbie bumped them and subsequently got [dukar]listed for doing so.
Excuse me while I make a thread about breathing.
-
More threads is good, not bad. Bumping is no crime either, unless done to intentionally create confusion or something. Who cares if threads are small or "gathering dust"? It's not like we're wasting ink making them and storing them in a physical room that can run out of space.
Also see my old manifesto (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=10527.msg476914#msg476914).
Actually a lot of that applies to the mods' recent love of merging and closing threads, too.
-
And can't you close the ANGST thread now that you're a mod?
I'm not the type who just locks or edits out whatever I don't like and I never will be
Most of those "threads" would have received two or three responses and then died.
You made a topic about gravy on french fries and you're judging what could and couldn't have been a long-running thread?
-
I probably wouldn't have made that thread if this forum had a section exclusively for polls. :3
But let's take migraines as an example. If posting about them in the ANGST thread diminishes potential discussion, shouldn't every single occurrence of someone having a migraine have its own thread since they could prompt even further discussion? It's a matter of balance, and "general" threads like ANGST/HOPEFUL/Pointless/whatever deliver just that.
-
Why would you want to post about migraines though? It's just a matter of distinguishing good discussion topics from bad ones.
-
I'm not saying everything in the thread deserves its own thread, I'm saying we could have them. And the thread is pretty misused, everything unpleasant from "I stubbed my toe" to "I have one week to live" is in there. Loads of stuff in between could have been self-sustaining topics.
-
I'll agree that many topics discussed there could have supported their own thread, but it's still good to have threads for smaller issues.
-
This discussion is making me think back to when I enraged BP by creating all the FOR REAL threads. :)
-
If you did it today I would probably think it was hilarious
-
I think "You Rage, You Lose" should be limited to things that have the potential to anger you in a very superficial way, although that's more in line with facepalming when it comes to internet humor. Meanwhile, though I do find the juxtaposition of topics of The Angst Thread uncomfortable at best, I think it still should serve its purpose as a thread for more pertinent concerns that affect an actual person's life. When I was new here, I was actually confused about this (despite the fact that this thread didn't exist), and so I'd post about a lot of petty things on ANGST.
-
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-10-craziest-michele-bachmann-quotes
This actually relates to the topic.
-
http://bit.ly/kfezrp
-
**** religion.
-
Don't you just love double standards? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeadI7jieDY&feature=related)
-
/b/tards would've been saying "***** deserved it" had it been a girl.
-
Um... child pornography was still a crime last time I checked. One that you don't have to have charges pressed against you by someone to go to jail for. (How do you like that sentence, English majors?) How can the police completely write this off just because the mother doesn't feel like pressing charges? Teenagers get hit with child porn charges for taking pictures of themselves -- how does nothing happen here? I mean, I doubt those teenagers who take pictures of themselves are pressing charges against themselves, and yet the police don't seem to have any problem arresting them.
I mean, if I lived in that town with my wife and my wife suddenly disappeared and a video of her being murdered showed up on the internet and I told the cops I didn't feel like pressing charges, would they just drop the matter? Do your [darn] job, cops from that town!
And then I lost again at "Since the incident happened off school property, the girls won't be disciplined."
/b/tards would've been saying "***** deserved it" had it been a girl.
True enough. Double standards go both ways. So to speak.
-
Definitely lost on all accounts (raging and losing faith in humanity) to that video.
I mean, I don't even have to say anything because it's already been said numerous times in the comments. I hate how slanted everything is. I definitely would've stepped in for that kid if I saw it happening. On another note, I lost even more when I read a comment saying that "[the torture] is a part of life." I'm sorry, but how is that "part of life" justifiable?
"Hey everyone! I was just violated and scarred for life, but since it's a part of life, it's okay, right?"
Ugh...
-
True enough. Double standards go both ways. So to speak.
Yeah, most of them flipped [dukar] and jumped aboard the "MEDIA IS UNFAIR" train but let's be honest, they're just as bad.
Still, they should be held accountable for their actions...
-
I don't know what I'd do if I were related to one of those girls, to be one of their parents would be like the ultimate shame
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChTrJh1H1as&feature=feedbul
If this does not enrage you, I don't know what will. Short: Let's Plays could become a felony thanks to you know who... I hope you do.
-
As gay as Bill S.978 may be, that music is gayer.
-
Let's Plays could become a felony thanks to you know who... I hope you do.
Uh... Amy Klobuchar? How the balls were we supposed to know that without looking it up?
-
I ship Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.laprogressive.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2Ffranken-klobachar.gif&hash=f794c0725ef84a1ceb669954c5df6f91)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.pictures.zimbio.com%2Fgi%2FAl%2BFranken%2BAmy%2BKlobuchar%2BDemocratic%2BSenators%2BKgy6sNgQx-Rl.jpg&hash=e05b9c51a49485786ac5d70cb3d81db9)
Oh, you know he wants to tap that Minnesota maple tree. Don't even try to deny it.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fph.cdn.photos.upi.com%2Ftopics-UPI-Pictures-of-the-Year-2007%2Fde22b4c15a26b6c27c566677d6db45ae%2FA_1.jpg&hash=c997e571ac48207ca268922807a73629)
Yeah, that's how it works.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fimages%2F237722%2F0_62_klobuchar_amy.jpg&hash=ee8306ab0461b112f578e9fd90d92d02)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnicedeb.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F08%2Fal_franken_looking_drunk.jpg&hash=53edbe3cb1d772d583c87540302e483c)
Oh... oh my.
-
Homosexual "marriage" is legal in New York.
Mind you, I didn't really lose because of this, but only because my faith in humanity has been gone for a very long time.
-
Civil rights and freedom make Turtlekid1 RAGE.
Have fun watching the remaining 44 states slowly do the same thing over the course of your life, ya bigot.
-
Freedom does not mean license.
-
So, freedom means not being able to do something like everybody else? :U
-
Homosexual "marriage" is legal in New York.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?
-
Homosexual "marriage" is legal in New York.
Mind you, I didn't really lose because of this, but only because my faith in humanity has been gone for a very long time.
I lost.
-
Reading Turtle's post makes me realize how much further we need to travel. It wasn't easy for blacks to get equal rights either.
-
You can't abstain from being black (nor is there anything immoral about it, so no reason to abstain even if it were possible), and marriage is not a right.
-
A) You can abstain from being black. Michael Jackson did it.
B) Legal marriage is something you need in order to have your spouse considered for matters like taxes and insurance. To deny that ability based on sexual orientation is pure discrimination and very un-American ("created equal"). Laws like New York's (and the other five states') aren't forcing churches to perform or recognize gay marriage. The law grants equal legal opportunities. Churches can go **** themselves, continue being bigoted, and slowly lose their members until they decide that discriminating against their fellow man because of ancient myths might not be the best idea.
-
Homosexual "marriage" is legal in New York.
Mind you, I didn't really lose because of this, but only because my faith in humanity has been gone for a very long time.
Just wow! I lost.
-
Every time I think I hate Lizard Dude, I come to a thread like this, and I can't stay mad.
-
You can't abstain from being black
Oops, you can't abstain from being gay either.
and marriage is not a right.
Watch what you say. One day you might not be able to get married either.
-
Oops, you can't abstain from being gay either.
I'm pretty sure, the last time I checked, you can choose to not have gay sex.
-
For what purpose?! And don't say FOR GOD because the real world doesn't work like that.
-
If we aren't operating under the same basic assumptions about reality then there really isn't much point in continuing.
-
No, there isn't. I can't wait for gay marriage to be legal in all fifty states though.
-
Why?
-
...altruism? I'd hate to be in their situation so I'm trying to help them out?
It's called having a heart.
-
I would love to see a world purged of homophobia, at least as much as today's is purged of racism and sexism (specifically, both are, under normal circumstances, unacceptable, abnormal circumstances being when you're a comedian or when you're in Punch-Out!! (one character in which is a stereotypically gay person; the game is way ahead of its time)).
Why? Because discrimination is disgusting and you are disgusting for doing it
Anyway... as if you have to be married to have sex in the first place. Or was that Prop 9?
-
...altruism? I'd hate to be in their situation so I'm trying to help them out?
It's called having a heart.
What a waste of time and energy.
-
What a waste of time and energy.
Yeah okay. Well guys, I'm off to take a giant [dukar] on the rights of my gay friends.
*rolls eyes*
-
No, I mean it. Why are you bothering? All this struggle against us bigots for what?
To be contrary? That's a waste of energy. Just live your life and stop worrying about what we say and do to others.
Out of some sense of altruism, as you said? So you can feel all warm and fuzzy? There are easier ways to get a fix, which don't involve arguing with the clearly psychotic religious right.
For the sake of your gay friends? Eh, I guess that's fine and all, but once they've gotten what they want, why pursue the agenda further, as if there's some sort of moral issue? Surely it can't be worth the suffering and the struggle? Nothing on this earth is worth that kind of pain.
I don't approve of homosexuality because I honestly believe that there is a legitimately objective moral law that says "that's not good." I'm just curious as to why you believe what you believe, and what makes it more legitimate than any other opinion out there?
-
Just live your life and stop worrying about what we say and do to others.
If what you do to others is persecute them, it becomes everyone else's business if they have any sense of justice
-
But any sense of justice in a world without God is baseless.
-
No, I mean it. Why are you bothering? All this struggle against us bigots for what?
Because you're wrong. And a bully.
To be contrary?
No. Because you're wrong. And a bully.
Out of some sense of altruism, as you said? So you can feel all warm and fuzzy?
Altruism≠doing things to feel good.
I'm just curious as to why you believe what you believe, and what makes it more legitimate than any other opinion out there?
Your religion can't explain morality either. Sorry.
-
But any sense of justice in a world without God is baseless.
My base for justice is "Treat others as you would like to be treated."
-
For the sake of your gay friends? Eh, I guess that's fine and all, but once they've gotten what they want, why pursue the agenda further, as if there's some sort of moral issue?
...the "agenda" to get equal rights?
Nothing on this earth is worth that kind of pain.
Then tell your guys to shut the **** up and stop trying to ban gay marriage.
-
Because you're wrong. And a bully.
Why is this bad, or any skin off your nose, unless I'm specifically bullying you?
No. Because you're wrong. And a bully.
Why is this bad, or any skin off your nose, unless I'm specifically bullying you?
Altruism≠doing things to feel good.
Then how would you define altruism, and what case would you make for its being a desirable trait?
Your religion can't explain morality either. Sorry.
Uh, yes it can. God creates the universe, his law is inherent in the universe, because that's the way he made it. You can't just look at a puddle of water and say "this water doesn't explain why everything in the puddle is wet."
My base for justice is "Treat others as you would like to be treated."
Fair enough. That's fine for you. Now, what makes this base inherently any more legitimate or inherently any better than that of some guy off the street which says "I do what I want, and screw anyone and everyone else"?
...the "agenda" to get equal rights?
Marriage is not a legal right because the government has no business issuing marriage licenses.
Then tell your guys to shut the **** up and stop trying to ban gay marriage.
NO U
-
...And to think, LD said this thread belonged in Forum Games.
-
Why is this bad, or any skin off your nose, unless I'm specifically bullying you?
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Fair enough. That's fine for you. Now, what makes this base inherently any more legitimate or inherently any better than that of some guy off the street which says "I do what I want, and screw anyone and everyone else"?
Besides being more or less at the root of how America works (have you ever heard the phrase "majority rule, minority right?"), it's a lot less selfish than... a lot of things I can think of... including "My dad told me it was cool to hate some people, so I hate them"
Edit: Incidentally, I also see the Golden Rule as the key component to being a gentleman, but that's not what we're talking about here
-
Why is this bad, or any skin off your nose, unless I'm specifically bullying you?
I might as well be approving of what the bully is doing. Don't be daft.
Then how would you define altruism, and what case would you make for its being a desirable trait?
Guy 1: HELP! I'M BEING SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED BY THIS BULLY.
Me: Hm, well I wouldn't like it either. Even though I'm not being bullied I'll help you out, free of charge.
Guy 1: Gee thanks!
Me: Don't mention it.
Uh, yes it can. God creates the universe, his law is inherent in the universe, because that's the way he made it. You can't just look at a puddle of water and say "this water doesn't explain why everything in the puddle is wet."
Only you have to prove your religion is true first.
Marriage is not a legal right because the government has no business issuing marriage licenses.
*rolls eyes* We've been over this before...marriages were being recognized long before Christianity even existed.
NO U
If it's not "worth the pain" to achieve equality, it's not "worth the pain" to stop it.
-
{quote}
But isn't the Slippery Slope a fallacy?
Besides being more or less at the root of how America works (have you ever heard the phrase "majority rule, minority right?"), it's a lot less selfish than... a lot of things I can think of... including "My dad told me it was cool to hate some people, so I hate them"
But why is being selfish a bad thing?
I might as well be approving of what the bully is doing. Don't be daft.
Yes, but why does that matter, is what I'm asking. What difference does it make whether you approve or disapprove?
Guy 1: HELP! I'M BEING SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED BY THIS BULLY.
Me: Hm, well I wouldn't like it either. Even though I'm not being bullied I'll help you out, free of charge.
Guy 1: Gee thanks!
Me: Don't mention it.
That's stupid. What a waste of your time and energy. I mean, sure if that's how you want to waste your life then go for it, but again, it can't possibly be worth it. Like, at all. And you can't make any legitimate claim that your way is any better than the bully's.
-
Some of your questions simply don't have answers that can be put into words. If you truly can't see why we would care if a group we don't personally belong to is being treated unfairly, I question how human you are.
Not that it makes you any less than me--if they were disallowing sociopaths from marrying I'd speak for your rights too
-
Simply put, if you were the one being screwed over, your opinion would be different. That's why we help people in need.
This is the best explanation for "morality" we've got: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Yrbc5O1gI
Your version of Christianity doesn't even get CLOSE.
-
If you truly can't see why we would care if a group we don't personally belong to is being treated unfairly, I question how human you are.
Believe it or not, I understand perfectly.
Keep in mind that I'm trying to argue from your starting point (that is, the "six" on that scale Luigison posted - "De Facto Atheist"), not from the position I actually hold to. Best process I can come up with starting from "there is no God" is "there is no God -> there is no objective morality -> I can do whatever I want, be altruistic or selfish or nice or a jerk and it doesn't matter what I choose, just what makes me happy." Please, tell me where the reasoning is flawed.
Now, contrast with what I really think: "there is a God -> He's laid down some pretty specific rules, like 'don't murder people' and 'don't steal' and 'don't lie with a man as one lies with a woman' -> probably a good idea to follow these rules, not just out of fear, but because I know they're right and good and because I want."
If it were up to me, I would just say "marry who you want, no big deal," but it's not. If you'll pardon the cliche, I don't make the rules.
Simply put, if you were the one being screwed over, your opinion would be different. That's why we help people in need.
Yeah, it would suck, but you wouldn't catch me going around pretending that there's some moral reason against it. I would fight against being screwed over because it's in my own interests to do so, not because I think these people are somehow morally wrong to screw me over. They have just as much right to screw me over as I have to not be screwed over.
This is the best explanation for "morality" we've got: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Yrbc5O1gI
That video doesn't seem like the best one to use for this particular debate since by definition homosexuals don't reproduce and thus don't contribute to the evolution of their species. Going by the "morality evolved from what collectively helps the human race" argument, homosexuals should be discriminated against more, not less, since they're a drain on resources because they don't reproduce (a similar argument could be made for euthanizing retirees or the disabled).
-
Now, contrast with what I really think: "there is a God -> He's laid down some pretty specific rules, like 'don't murder people' and 'don't steal' and 'don't lie with a man as one lies with a woman' -> probably a good idea to follow these rules, not just out of fear, but because I know they're right and good and because I want."
Prove God exists first. You're just begging the question right now.
That video doesn't seem like the best one to use for this particular debate since by definition homosexuals don't reproduce and thus don't contribute to the evolution of their species.
There are other ways of contributing without reproducing.
-
Again, back to the ol' "Prove He exists," "Prove He doesn't" routine. You can't prove conclusively either way. All you can do is look at the evidence and make your choice and act accordingly, share your beliefs with others, and hope they agree. One way or another, though, arguments and debate aren't going to win anyone over.
Something I often struggle to keep in mind is that I'm not going to win over more people than Jesus; all the miracles He performed and the message he shared, and a lot of the people in His day still would not see the truth. No, I can't prove God exists. I can say what I have to say but beyond that it's up to God whether people will say "yes," "no," or "maybe."
Just realize that if there is no God, you don't get to make the claim that something is right or wrong - or at least, you don't have anything to support that claim beyond your saying so.
There are other ways of contributing without reproducing.
Yeah, but the other 98% of the population can do those things and reproduce.
-
As far as getting upset about cultural things goes, shouldn't we as Christians be far more upset about divorce than about gay marriage? If marriage is so important that we get as ****ed off as we do when someone calls something marriage that isn't, then shouldn't we be a thousand times more ****ed off when something that actually is marriage is destroyed?
It's like someone's pointing at a cat and saying that it's my dog, and I'm all like "No, that is not my dog, that is a cat; screw you for insulting my dog like that" and meanwhile someone else is shooting my dog with a gun and has been shooting my dog with a gun for a very long time now and I'm not saying a word about it because I'm busy arguing with the cat guy.
*shrug*
-
Keep in mind that I'm trying to argue from your starting point (that is, the "six" on that scale Luigison posted - "De Facto Atheist"), not from the position I actually hold to. Best process I can come up with starting from "there is no God" is "there is no God -> there is no objective morality -> I can do whatever I want, be altruistic or selfish or nice or a jerk and it doesn't matter what I choose, just what makes me happy."
Please, tell me where the reasoning is flawed.
Arguing from a perspective held by none of the debate's participants? Interesting (but terrible) tactic
Okay, so, I think the reasoning is flawed... here:
there is no God -> there is no objective morality
Things aren't that black and white. As we've gone at this before, I've told you that I find morality in the hope for agreed fairness in THIS life. I think humanity is smart enough to compromise and have rules (made up by people) that we all must follow at the risk of punishment (exacted by people). I think it's understandable that these rules are not absolute and can change with time (at the say-so of people). I think we're smart enough not to need a father figure who made absolute, stagnant rules millennia ago, threatening us with eternal suffering if we don't follow it (to put things into perspective, God is essentially Santa Claus for adults).
I think we're better than you think. I think we can think.
-
Again, back to the ol' "Prove He exists," "Prove He doesn't" routine. You can't prove conclusively either way.
But it's up to you to prove it. You're making the claim.
Something I often struggle to keep in mind is that I'm not going to win over more people than Jesus; all the miracles He performed and the message he shared, and a lot of the people in His day still would not see the truth.
Again, a lot of what was written about his divine powers came after his death.
No, I can't prove God exists. I can say what I have to say but beyond that it's up to God whether people will say "yes," "no," or "maybe."
But at the same time you believe that homosexuality is a choice?
Yeah, but the other 98% of the population can do those things and reproduce.
...so? Alan Turing created the modern computer and he never reproduced. And he was gay! Yet human intelligence is evolving as a result of his invention.
-
To get back to the original topic while these new ideas are floating around:
Why do you want to make anything they believe will be punished with hellfire illegal? Isn't it God's job to kick gay ass around for what they're doing? I can understand preaching against doing what you believe is wrong, but banning it? Is there a point?
-
As far as getting upset about cultural things goes, shouldn't we as Christians be far more upset about divorce than about gay marriage? If marriage is so important that we get as ****ed off as we do when someone calls something marriage that isn't, then shouldn't we be a thousand times more ****ed off when something that actually is marriage is destroyed?
It's like someone's pointing at a cat and saying that it's my dog, and I'm all like "No, that is not my dog, that is a cat; screw you for insulting my dog like that" and meanwhile someone else is shooting my dog with a gun and has been shooting my dog with a gun for a very long time now and I'm not saying a word about it because I'm busy arguing with the cat guy.
*shrug*
God hates divorce, too, man, but in today's society it's not normalized to nearly the same extent and degree that homosexuality is (which isn't to say it's not taken way more lightly than it should be), or at least, you don't have an entire, massive movement dedicated to normalizing it. Mind you, God actually allows for divorce as a necessary evil under certain circumstances (adultery), whereas He states pretty explicitly that homosexuality is unacceptable and doesn't really give any exceptions. The reason it's often seen as worse than murder and the like is less because homosexuality is actually so much worse than any other sin and more because people still aren't saying murder is cool (well, actually, they kind of are, what with abortion and all), but a disturbing number of people are saying homosexuality is cool.
I think we're smart enough not to need a father figure who made absolute, stagnant rules millennia ago, threatening us with eternal suffering if we don't follow it (to put things into perspective, God is essentially Santa Claus for adults).
probably a good idea to follow these rules, not just out of fear, but because I know they're right and good and because I want."
I think we're better than you think. I think we can think.
So if we're so great then why have laws in the first place? Go ahead, legalize murder. Legalize theft. If you're right, people who would actually do such things are the exception, rather than the rule, right? Let people fend for themselves. That way no one can blame anyone but himself if he's not happy with his life, and he can do whatever is necessary to get what he wants. But most people are better than that and can "think," so it's not a big deal, right?
But it's up to you to prove it. You're making the claim.
You're making the claim that it's wrong to discriminate, but there's not much proof of that, either. You make the claim and act on your belief because you believe it.
Again, a lot of what was written about his divine powers came after his death.
As opposed to... what? Prophecy? I didn't think you believed in prophecy.
But at the same time you believe that homosexuality is a choice?
In the sense that you can choose to not be perverted, yes. Hard to believe, maybe, but people are more than animals. As BP said, we can think. If you've done something wrong, it's because you did it, not because you were born with the desire to do it. You can be predisposed towards Diabetes because of your genes but ultimately you're still the only one to blame if you eat yourself into a sugar coma.
...so? Alan Turing created the modern computer and he never reproduced. And he was gay! Yet human intelligence is evolving as a result of his invention.
A happy accident, then, but you can't say that he justifies the continued role of homosexuals in society any more than you can say that all atheists are evil because Stalin was. There are always going to be anomalies but you can't account for them in any effective way.
To get back to the original topic while these new ideas are floating around:
Why do you want to make anything they believe will be punished with hellfire illegal? Isn't it God's job to kick gay asses around for what they're doing? I can understand preaching against doing what you believe is wrong, but banning it? Is there a point?
Same point as preaching against it - God said "restrain evil." The law is a method of restraining evil. Which is sort of going back to what, exactly, the purpose of government is. And going back to that, I'm going to just leave this (http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gbbs.pdf) here again. I mean, it probably won't change your mind but I would recommend that you give it a glance anyway. Again, it likely explains this worldview better than some stupid kid writing this post on his laptop at 12 AM could.
-
I normally hate this expression, but...
ITT: People trying to resolve millenia of ethical and spiritual debate in an anonymous Mario message board.
Anyway, I'm not going to waste time trying to shine a light into this particular cave of ignorance, but I will just reiterate that though I do not believe in any god of any sort, I still have a system of morals--so if you want to sign me up for Turtlekid1's Traveling Circus as a sideshow attraction, I'm game (as long as I don't have to shoot myself out of a cross-shaped cannon though a ring of flaming busts of Galileo, or something like that). Also, as George Carlin aptly noted, "I’d like to point out that during the twentieth century, white, God-fearing, predominately Christian Europe produced Lenin, Stalin, Franco, Hitler and Mussolini." Faith = The only true path to morality, my ass.
-
Divorce isn't normalized in today's society?
You're making the claim that it's wrong to discriminate, but there's not much proof of that, either. You make the claim and act on your belief because you believe it.
You're asking big why questions from an atheistic standpoint, but you're not asking the same questions from a Christian one. Yes, in a world without any gods, you could keep on asking those questions -- Why live like that? Because it's right. Why is it right? Because it benefits the most people. Why is that what we should do? It's what I choose to do. Why should I choose that? -- but you can ask the same questions in Christianity -- Why follow God? Because he says so. Why should we listen to him? Because he's God and he made us. Why does that matter? And so on.
At some point, everyone has to just choose to believe something and act on it (and I don't mean picking a religion or a scientific theory or anything that specific; I mean at a fundamental epistemological level), because you can keep questioning everything -- How do I know the world exists? Well, I perceive it. Isn't it true that you don't really perceive the world; you only perceive your own perceptions themselves? Yeah, I guess. So what do I know? I know I exist. What is existence? Do I really know I exist? If I didn't exist, would I notice a difference from what I experience now?
Everyone needs a philosophical foundation for their beliefs, and it always requires a leap of faith if it's going to be anything beyond cogito ergo sum (and even that can be questioned if you're good enough at philosophizing, so even that needs a bit of a leap).
-
Everyone needs a philosophical foundation for their beliefs, and it always requires a leap of faith if it's going to be anything beyond cogito ergo sum (and even that can be questioned if you're good enough at philosophizing, so even that needs a bit of a leap).
Yeah, it's logically trivial to conclude with "I exist" because existence is not a predicate. It's already implied in the subject. Existence is presupposed in the cogito or "I think," so it's circular reasoning to conclude existence from thinking.
By and large, existence is accepted as true without a necessary test (at the very least, thinking doesn't work).
So yes, CrossEyed is right: this and other axioms require a "leap of faith" to accept. It's more sensible to accept them than say, the existence of the "greatest possible island," but still.
Blah, just thought I'd throw that out there for fun.
-
Divorce isn't normalized in today's society?
It is.
You're asking big why questions from an atheistic standpoint, but you're not asking the same questions from a Christian one. Yes, in a world without any gods, you could keep on asking those questions -- Why live like that? Because it's right. Why is it right? Because it benefits the most people. Why is that what we should do? It's what I choose to do. Why should I choose that? -- but you can ask the same questions in Christianity -- Why follow God? Because he says so. Why should we listen to him? Because he's God and he made us. Why does that matter? And so on.
There's more to "because he's God and he made us" than you're saying, though. As I understand it, when God made the universe he made certain laws along with it such that there are certain things inherently, objectively right and wrong. Of course you could make the claim that it doesn't matter, but the difference between this and atheism is that if God really did make the universe, you would actually be wrong to make that claim from an objective standpoint, because you would literally be contradicting reality.
Also daaaaang I'm tired so done for now.
-
I don't see how the teachings of Jesus are compatible with selfishness. I really don't.
Didn't he go around healing and helping people free of charge? Just throwing that out there.
-
Yeah, it's logically trivial to conclude with "I exist" because existence is not a predicate. It's already implied in the subject. Existence is presupposed in the cogito or "I think," so it's circular reasoning to conclude existence from thinking.
But ultimately you can even question the very nature of your own existence. It's not as though you can compare it to any experience of not existing. It's possible that your own perceptions of your own existence are an illusion. It's possible that logic has no meaning, and you simultaneously exist and don't exist.
It is.
I thought you said it wasn't?
My point still stands. Isn't divorce a bigger blow against the sanctity of marriage than gay marriage is? Isn't burning a house down worse than calling a garage a house?
There's more to "because he's God and he made us" than you're saying, though. As I understand it, when God made the universe he made certain laws along with it such that there are certain things inherently, objectively right and wrong. Of course you could make the claim that it doesn't matter, but the difference between this and atheism is that if God really did make the universe, you would actually be wrong to make that claim from an objective standpoint, because you would literally be contradicting reality.
We can keep calling everything into question whether God exists or not. The only difference is that if God does exist, you can bring authority into it, but then all it takes to equalize them is to question authority. Where does God get his authority? Why should I respect his authority?
Is God good, or is good God?
I say this not to say that I wouldn't have much of the same answers to those questions as you do, but simply to say that they are questions that can be asked, and to ask those questions of an atheistic worldview and not also ask them of a Christian worldview seems unfair to me.
Didn't he go around healing and helping people free of charge? Just throwing that out there.
Wait, is this an Obamacare debate now?
-
But ultimately you can even question the very nature of your own existence. It's not as though you can compare it to any experience of not existing. It's possible that your own perceptions of your own existence are an illusion. It's possible that logic has no meaning, and you simultaneously exist and don't exist.
And I agree with that too. Again, logic is something we take for granted as a foundation.
Though, we might as well not accept much of anything doing it this way, hahaha.
Wait, is this an Obamacare debate now?
I certainly hope not! Really really don't want to talk about Obama at all.
-
So if we're so great then why have laws in the first place? Go ahead, legalize murder. Legalize theft. If you're right, people who would actually do such things are the exception, rather than the rule, right?
You misunderstand, I say that we're good enough to establish and uphold order, which means punishing those who refuse to give up a few personal rights for the common good. Have you ever read Lord of the Flies? If so... you probably interpreted the ending as meaning that only an absolute figure of authority can set everyone straight, so never mind...
Anyway. If you're telling me that the only reason that you ever hold a door open for someone on your way out of the gas station, that the only reason you ever save the last slice of cake for your friend even when you really want to take it and they wouldn't mind if you did, that the only reason you ever help somebody who looks lost, is because you're offered a reward when you die... that's a miserable, pitiable life.
On the other hand, if Christian mythology is real, I'm already going to Hell not because I'm a bad person, but simply because I don't believe in God. If there is a God and He doesn't like that I'm good to people because they're people like me and not because I believe something terrible will happen if I don't, or if He creates gay people as target practice that I am expected to automatically find repulsive or try to change, He can suck my mortal dick. Through fire and brimstone I will not forsake my fellow human even if paradise awaits me if I do.
Take that, God. I'm a nicer guy than you.
-
How is trying to show someone a better way akin to "forsaking" them?
-
Hah... I guess it isn't, if you turn a blind eye to how sexuality is linked more to biology than environment
-
I thought you said it wasn't?
My point still stands. Isn't divorce a bigger blow against the sanctity of marriage than gay marriage is? Isn't burning a house down worse than calling a garage a house?
I said it wasn't in the same way. That is, while divorce happens way too much in today's society, you'll still have people on both sides of the fence admitting it's an ugly thing to deal with. And again, you don't have a massive movement pushing for it to be legal, which brings me to the point (again) where I say that divorce is legal for a reason, and that there is an exception to the rule for divorce, where no such exception exists for homosexuality. As for which is "more" wrong and why, that's something you'll have to take up with God, I suppose. But even if divorce is a much worse insult to marriage, it doesn't mean we can afford to ignore the debate regarding homosexuality.
We can keep calling everything into question whether God exists or not. The only difference is that if God does exist, you can bring authority into it, but then all it takes to equalize them is to question authority. Where does God get his authority? Why should I respect his authority?
Because it would be wrong not to. If that reason isn't good enough - if something's being inherently right isn't good enough reason to do it - then I wonder if any reason is. I dunno, I guess that reason is plain as day to me whereas I'm still struggling to find a logical reason to take "moral" action from an atheistic standpoint unless it would somehow benefit me.
Anyway. If you're telling me that the only reason that you ever hold a door open for someone on your way out of the gas station, that the only reason you ever save the last slice of cake for your friend even when you really want to take it and they wouldn't mind if you did, that the only reason you ever help somebody who looks lost, is because you're offered a reward when you die... that's a miserable, pitiable life.
Don't remember saying anything - at all - about being offered a reward (mind you, saying Heaven is a reward is like saying the Grand Canyon is a crack in the ground, and to be in the presence of God for all eternity is certainly good enough incentive for me). What I said was, I follow God's law because it's right. Not because of a threat, or because of a bribe, but because that's what's right.
On the other hand, if Christian mythology is real, I'm already going to Hell not because I'm a bad person, but simply because I don't believe in God. If there is a God and He doesn't like that I'm good to people because they're people like me and not because I believe something terrible will happen if I don't, or if He creates gay people as target practice that I am expected to automatically find repulsive or try to change, He can suck my mortal dick. Through fire and brimstone I will not forsake my fellow human even if paradise awaits me if I do.
Take that, God. I'm a nicer guy than you.
No, it's pretty much that you're a bad person. Like, not "you" specifically, but "you" generally. Everyone is a bad person by default. It's just that not believing in God coincides with not recognizing one's own sinful nature (something about correlation and causation here). You're making God out to be some sort of merciless pagan deity who just takes potshots at people and sends everyone to Hell for the lulz, when if you read the Bible you know that God gave us fair warning to not disobey. You can't take an action for which you know the consequences and then complain the consequences aren't fair. I hardly think God is a jerk for doing exactly what he said he would and then even being so merciful as to let us off the hook for confessing what we did wrong and repenting.
He likes that you're good to people, and he likes that you're selflessly good to people, but that doesn't mean He expects you to be unconditionally supportive of everything they do. Are you being bad to someone if you see them doing something evil and tell them "that's not cool"? Being good to people doesn't mean that you approve of their actions if their actions are wrong. Rather, if you really love someone, then you're going to try to help them see where they're wrong if they're wrong. You seem to be under the impression that the only choices are "it's all good, let homosexuals marry whomever they want" and "kill all dem eeeevil gays."
Why did God create homosexuals? This is really getting to the age-old problem of evil. Why did God make sin if he's not okay with it, right? Well, I guess what I usually answer with is "He made us knowing we would sin, but He's not the one who committed the sin, so we're still the ones to blame." He didn't create gay people for "target practice," but why He did create them is irrelevant because it's what we do now that matters.
(Just a thought - maybe He made them that way so they could learn to overcome temptation. If you've ever had something sucky happen to you and conquered it then you know where I'm coming from - overcoming a situation like that makes you a better person for the experience.)
Hah... I guess it isn't, if you turn a blind eye to how sexuality is linked more to biology than environment
I'm honestly not sure why this matters in relation to Weegee's question.
-
I'm honestly not sure why this matters in relation to Weegee's question.
Trying to change someone's qualities that cannot be changed, after convincing yourself it's bad. It's got a history and it's never helped anyone. I think instead of comparing gays to blacks we should probably be comparing them to lefties, who were feared for "being witches" and forced to become right-handed, at the lefty's expense...
(Just a thought - maybe He made them that way so they could learn to overcome temptation. If you've ever had something sucky happen to you and conquered it then you know where I'm coming from - overcoming a situation like that makes you a better person for the experience.)
No I can't say I've ever had an epic trial where I had to overcome something about the way I was born. Especially not in any case where I had to throw away a part of myself in favor of something everybody else likes better. That sure would be a great learning experience though :U
In the end, I don't take back those very harsh words. If there's a God, and He's in control of everything, the situation at hand makes me see Him as little more than a sadist who enjoys making toys He can torture, make fight each other over absolutely stupid reasons, all before killing them. His rules are biased; when most sins and crimes are based on "that's not fair to everyone else" or "that hurts somebody else," a rule where the bad thing is "I don't like that and I'm the boss" is a [dukar]ty rule. If He appeared in my bedroom right now and demonstrated His absolute, reality-defying power to me, I would still defy Him as a crappy guy. I can't stand a person who abuses their power, deity or not.
-
Trying to change someone's qualities that cannot be changed, after convincing yourself it's bad. It's got a history and it's never helped anyone. I think instead of comparing gays to blacks we should probably be comparing them to lefties, who were feared for "being witches" and forced to become right-handed, at the lefty's expense...
Who are you to tell a gay man he can't master his own impulses? I'm not talking about "qualities," I'm talking about actions.
In the end, I don't take back those very harsh words. If there's a God, and He's in control of everything, the situation at hand makes me see Him as little more than a sadist who enjoys making toys He can torture, make fight each other over absolutely stupid reasons, all before killing them.
He's not torturing anyone or making them fight. We torture and fight amongst ourselves, all by ourselves. Then when he came and said "stop that" we tortured and killed Him, too. Then today we have your argument that somehow even though God has shown amazing mercy to us, somehow he's the bad guy for actually punishing sins he said he would punish.
His rules are biased; when most sins and crimes are based on "that's not fair to everyone else" or "that hurts somebody else," a rule where the bad thing is "I don't like that and I'm the boss" is a [dukar]ty rule. If He appeared in my bedroom right now and demonstrated His absolute, reality-defying power to me, I would still defy Him as a crappy guy. I can't stand a person who abuses their power, deity or not.
See, you're trying to take a rule of God's which is a good principle - "abuse of power is bad" - but you're ignoring the fact that He has every right to do what He wants with his own creation, and it's not possible for Him to abuse his power considering that, y'know, He made it. How would you feel if I looked at your art and said "it sucks, change it to what I say to change it to"? Your reply would probably be "it's my art, I'm not doing this for you; I'm not changing anything," would it not? So why is "I made it, I'm the boss" a valid excuse for running things your way with your creations, but when God runs things His way with His creation, suddenly it's an abuse of power?
-
Churches can go **** themselves, continue being bigoted, and slowly lose their members until they decide that discriminating against their fellow man because of ancient myths might not be the best idea.
Why is it bigoted when a Church (or even a secular philosophy which appeals not to God) defends traditional one-man-one-woman marriage, but when someone in favor of homosexual "marriage" tells a Church to "**** itself" it is not?
-
That depends on what you mean by "defending" and "being in favor of".
-
There's a difference between
defend[ing] traditional one-man-one-woman marriage
and
discriminating against their fellow man
The Church doesn't need to defend anything here. The traditional institution of marriage between a man and a woman is not threatened in any way whatsoever by the existence of gay marriage; straight men aren't suddenly going to decide they're going to marry another man all of a sudden just because it's now legal (unless they're really invested in the idea of liking and doing things ironically).
Incidentally, an awful lot of these "it's in the Bible/God said so" arguments are awfully reminiscent of the arguments once used by American slaveowners to defend the idea of owning people as property.
-
Defending marriage as one-man-one-woman, of necessity, means that one would object to same-sex unions to be considered marriages.
I refuse to use the "Bible says so" arguments. They are flimsy arguments at best. Because we cannot all agree that the Bible is Revelatory, we must appeal to a more common source of human understanding, reason alone. Using reason, without even making explicit any mention of the Christian God in any way, we can discern that homosexuals cannot marry. Plato decided upon this in his work, The Laws, hundreds of years before Christianity and without any exposure to Jewish virtues. It is especially dangerous to appeal to the Bible in arguments like these because it creates two "camps," religious and secular, which ought not exist for the purpose of debate. I really think that we have this mixed-up idea going on here which suggests that the only possible argument against homosexual marriage is religious. This is not the case, not should it be. Rather, Churches (and I [carelessly enough, I suppose] use this as a blanket term for Jewish and Islam groups as well) are simply pointing out that homosexual marriages are contrary to nature and that they are not perfective of the human good. Nobody is upset that the Church is against people killing other people, or that it is against genocide, or that it is against wife beating, or that it is against any number of other issues that are not "controversial."
No, not everyone who is religious is an evil gay-hater. Telling entire Churches to "**** themselves" is careless and bigoted itself. Take away the Catholic Church (to name one of many religious institutions) and you automatically take away 25% of all AIDS relief worldwide. Hurling around ad hominem attacks for the sake of rhetorical emphasis is immature and unintellectual. We would be much better off if we could stick to the topic, argue rationally, and actually critique the issues, not the people holding them. This charity in speech makes for arrival at the truth much more fruitful for all. After all, the point of an intellectual argument is not to "win," but rather it is to arrive at wisdom and correct action together.
-
Defending marriage as one-man-one-woman, of necessity, means that one would object to same-sex unions to be considered marriages.
I think Warp thought that you thought that one-man-one-woman marriages in and of themselves would somehow be threatened by allowing homosexuals to marry, rather than the idea that marriage is only one man and one woman. I guess the "as" in that statement makes a pretty big difference?
-
Using reason, without even making explicit any mention of the Christian God in any way, we can discern that homosexuals cannot marry. Plato decided upon this in his work, The Laws, hundreds of years before Christianity and without any exposure to Jewish virtues.
Um...wouldn't reason lead one to accept gay marriage?
Rather, Churches (and I [carelessly enough, I suppose] use this as a blanket term for Jewish and Islam groups as well) are simply pointing out that homosexual marriages are contrary to nature and that they are not perfective of the human good.
You're kidding right? Endless reproduction through heterosexual sex is far more harmful.
Also, what is "unnatural" anyway? Because nature encompasses all of existence. That includes man-made objects. So there is nothing "not natural" about homosexuality.
Why is it bigoted when a Church (or even a secular philosophy which appeals not to God) defends traditional one-man-one-woman marriage, but when someone in favor of homosexual "marriage" tells a Church to "**** itself" it is not?
Because gay marriage is a victimless crime, so you're baselessly denying a person equality.
Many religious people (conservative Christians namely) love to cry fowl after being told to shove it, but our so-called "discriminatory words" are justified. They're baselessly denying gay people equal rights, so we have every reason to be ****ed.
-
The issue brought up with homosexuals marrying that I get most surprised by is when people throw that it's unnatural because it does not lead to childbirth. What? Are we still cavemen? Do we really need to base existence on procreating? Is there no other judgment for the value of the life I live than if I do the deed with a viable female? There is plenty of things I desire to do, and while I might imagine someday having kids by some means, if I don't that should be fine.
-
Do we really need to base existence on procreating? Is there no other judgment for the value of the life I live than if I do the deed with a viable female? There is plenty of things I desire to do, and while I might imagine someday having kids by some means, if I don't that should be fine.
Perfectly stated.
-
Who are you to tell a gay man he can't master his own impulses? I'm not talking about "qualities," I'm talking about actions.
Actions that harm no one, so why force 'em to stop? Why deny 'em what they like?
He's not torturing anyone or making them fight. We torture and fight amongst ourselves, all by ourselves.
Then what does He control if not our actions, anything at all?
See, you're trying to take a rule of God's which is a good principle - "abuse of power is bad" - but you're ignoring the fact that He has every right to do what He wants with his own creation, and it's not possible for Him to abuse his power considering that, y'know, He made it.
Doesn't make it right.
How would you feel if I looked at your art and said "it sucks, change it to what I say to change it to"? Your reply would probably be "it's my art, I'm not doing this for you; I'm not changing anything," would it not? So why is "I made it, I'm the boss" a valid excuse for running things your way with your creations, but when God runs things His way with His creation, suddenly it's an abuse of power?
I make comics. Fan comics. I do make art for you and anyone else who will give them the time of day. I would listen and consider your input.
Regardless, that's a false analogy--a closer one would be if the characters got ****ed off about what I write for them to do and say. In which case I'd probably be freaked out enough to comply.
-
Actions that harm no one, so why force 'em to stop? Why deny 'em what they like?
Because it's wrong.
If I may ask my own question, what is it to you if someone forces them to stop? If I'm wrong, then it doesn't matter one way or another, so why does it bother you? Again, I'm claiming that it's wrong because the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the entire universe has said that gay sex is wrong.
You're claiming that it's not wrong... which, from an atheistic standpoint, it isn't. Neither is genocide, or theft, or anything else. So now we're back to the same issue from four pages ago: by what standard do you live your life and decide your morals, and what makes that standard any better than any other?
Then what does He control if not our actions, anything at all?
Depends how you define "control." In the sense that He is in charge of everything and that nothing happens that He doesn't allow to happen, then yeah, He controls everything. In the sense that He is some sort of cosmic puppet master, no. We're still guilty of sin because we're still the ones who committed the sin. Mind you, this isn't an issue that can be unraveled just like that. Theologians debate the nature of evil and God's role in it all even today.
Doesn't make it right.
I'm still not sure how you can tell the Arbiter of everything that is right "you're not right." You're using distorted versions of His own principles to try and tell Him He's wrong.
Regardless, that's a false analogy--a closer one would be if the characters got ****ed off about what I write for them to do and say. In which case I'd probably be freaked out enough to comply.
You're saying you would be caught unaware by something you yourself wrote the characters doing?
-
In the sense that He is in charge of everything and that nothing happens that He doesn't allow to happen, then yeah, He controls everything. In the sense that He is some sort of cosmic puppet master, no. We're still guilty of sin because we're still the ones who committed the sin.
...wat.
-
If I may ask my own question, what is it to you if someone forces them to stop? If I'm wrong, then it doesn't matter one way or another, so why does it bother you? Again, I'm claiming that it's wrong because the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the entire universe has said that gay sex is wrong.
Same reason I don't let doors shut in strangers' faces on my way out of the gas station. I don't need a reason to want to make people happy/let them be happy. I'd like them to allow the same for me. Golden Rule. Respect. Unity as a species. Joy. Happiness. End of conflict. I like people. I've seen people do some cool things.
A lot of kings with absolute power have had their heads in a basket at the hands of angry, rebellious peasants. It's tough to kill a god but the reasoning is still there and we should question all rules, using our brains, to judge if they are reasonable. If you only won't because you're afraid he'll hit you with lightning for thinking otherwise, that's fine, I guess. Whatever.
You're claiming that it's not wrong... which, from an atheistic standpoint, it isn't. Neither is genocide, or theft, or anything else.
How dense are you really
What logic do you possess, if any, if you can't understand why I think one person taking the life of another is evil and two dudes screwing each other in their own privacy is just fine as long as I don't have to hear about the details
So now we're back to the same issue from four pages ago: by what standard do you live your life and decide your morals, and what makes that standard any better than any other?
The Golden Rule (boy do I love it), being as fair to everyone as possible. It's better than God's tinted glasses because of the part where it's as fair as possible to everyone. I think the most important thing in the world is to be able to understand someone else's perspective.
You're saying you would be caught unaware by something you yourself wrote the characters doing?
That's where you're crackin' me up--what do you think? Do you think we're puppets on strings with no free will, and that all will belongs to God? Did God himself write the script where I say he can suck my mortal dick? What is his ultimate goal if He knows how we will all die, is it all just for His kicks? If that's the case how can He expect anyone to overcome their gayness, I mean, it's in their script whether they do or don't, and He's read 'em all, right?
Edit: And if the answer is "no," then you have no analogy, not even the one I added
-
Same reason I don't let doors shut in strangers' faces on my way out of the gas station. I don't need a reason to want to make people happy/let them be happy. I'd like them to allow the same for me. Golden Rule. Respect. Unity as a species. Joy. Happiness. End of conflict. I like people. I've seen people do some cool things.
Fine, but you seem to think this moral code applies to everyone. What if someone disagrees? What if he says murder is a-okay? Why are you more justified than he is?
A lot of kings with absolute power have had their heads in a basket at the hands of angry, rebellious peasants. It's tough to kill a god but the reasoning is still there and we should question it with reason. If you only won't because you're afraid he'll hit you with lightning for thinking otherwise, that's fine, I guess. Whatever.
I think I've already said multiple times that obedience doesn't have to be out of fear. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to that.
How dense are you really
What logic do you possess, if any, if you can't understand why I think one person taking the life of another is evil and two dudes screwing each other in their own privacy is just fine as long as I don't have to hear about the details
No, I honestly can't understand. Why do you think it's evil? If you don't wanna do it, fine, but to say that it's morally wrong for everyone else is awfully arrogant, isn't it? And if I don't want two dudes screwing each other, why am I any more wrong than you? I'm just not sure why you think logic has anything to do with it. If there's no God, there isn't really much of a logical argument for or against murder's or homosexuality's being morally right or wrong. Logic really doesn't come into it because it's basically "anything goes."
The Golden Rule (boy do I love it), being as fair to everyone as possible. It's better than God's tinted glasses because of the part where it's as fair as possible to everyone.
And again, it's not really possible to be biased one way or another if you're the one who creates the system. Going back to the comic analogy, that would be like me saying your web comic is biased toward video games because you made a web comic about video games. I guess... I don't know, am I not explaining this adequately? God doesn't have tinted glasses, the universe comes pre-tinted because he made it that way. It's not possible for an objective source to be biased.
I think the most important thing in the world is to be able to understand someone else's perspective.
Yet you keep implying that fear is the only reason I follow God's law, so I'm not sure you understand my perspective.
Did God himself write the script where I say he can suck my mortal dick?
Yes.
What is his ultimate goal if He knows how we will all die, is it all just for His kicks?
"Kicks" is probably not the word I'd choose in this case, but essentially, yes. All of existence is for the glory of God, and one way or another all of existence will serve that purpose.
If that's the case how can He expect anyone to overcome their gayness, I mean, it's in their script whether they do or don't, and He's read 'em all, right?
Yes, but we haven't read that script; we don't know what will happen. And He's still told us to do it, so we're not off the hook.
-
I guess the difference between us is that the only thing you ever judged for yourself about morality was that the bible should do it for you, and I do all my thinking on my own. It just clicked. You don't think anything is inherently wrong with stealing, killing, rape or adultery. You only think they're bad 'cause it's in your handbook.
And that is why I will never defeat you in a battle of reasoning. I give up. Again. You win.
-
Neeuuughhh...the Bible is only, what, a few thousand years old? And people were having gay sex long before it was written.
-
So if we eliminated the Bible from the picture, does that mean Turtle would be completely and totally lost? Unable to think for himself? If so, then that's pretty sad.
-
Total 180:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-7-biggest-dick-moves-in-history-online-gaming/
-
So if we eliminated the Bible from the picture, does that mean Turtle would be completely and totally lost? Unable to think for himself? If so, then that's pretty sad.
No, I just would not want to tie myself down with such a silly outdated concept as morality unless it somehow benefits me. What does that have to do with being lost or thinking for myself?
Also if you could prove God doesn't exist I would probably just an hero because the short amount of time we spend on this earth would not be worth the hassle in and of itself
-
Also if you could prove God doesn't exist I would probably just an hero because the short amount of time we spend on this earth would not be worth the hassle in and of itself
Is this guy for real? That's pretty pathetic dude.
-
From some fanfic site.
-
^
Yeah I lost.
-
Adults dressed as anthropomorphic mammals fondling children. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA6VeDA8o8c)
The comments only make it worse. If you watch really closely, you can see Fif-- BAD WEEGEE
EDIT: The competitive SSBB community in a nutshell:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi153.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs209%2FFunkyCoffee%2F1295668917926.jpg&hash=9717c4471d33a36e1543423b78701e5d)
-
Something tells me that every "we" "our" and "us" in that document would more accurately be replaced by "I" "my" and "me"
More than one person cannot be that much pure, concentrated n00b
-
The competitive SSBB community in a nutshell
Sorry, but many of those items are the exact opposite of "competitive." No competitive player outlaws a tactic because he feels it's "cheap." Nor would they even have items on in the first place such that they need to make exceptions for some of them, let alone Rock-Paper-Scissors to decide who gets the Smash Ball, let alone not allow someone to attack the guy who does get it.
-
By "competitive", I meant "hosts tournaments in their basement". Regardless, methinks you lost.
-
Well, I have decided that those rules ruin the game's fun.
-
"No Taunting. It makes other feel bad."
That's fantastic.
Though I can't even pretend to make fun of the rule about hygiene and just generally looking nice. I've seen too many dudes, and ladies, that look like every stereotype for gamers out there.
-
The Brawl thing is debatable (one idiot doesn't exactly make me worry), but the Twilight crossovers sure did. Any two or three inches of that screengrab would elicit a loss--I think it might be a mental toxin to actually read the whole thing.
-
Gamecube Controllers or Classic Controllers ONLY. No Wiimotes.
...But you can't use a Classic Controller without a Wiimote.
-
Also Remote + Nunchuk is very, very similar to GameCube if you assign specials to Down on the D-Pad and shields to B. Guess they only don't want to look like CASUALLLLLLS when it's very possible to look like a resourceful, astute person able to make an unfavorable situation work well.
Speaking of looking cool while playing the Wii, I need to get around to casemodding my Nunchuk sometime soon so it will match my cooler-than-ice remote (http://smaaaash.net/photos/clearremote.jpg).
-
So many typos in that... newsletter..
punchual
That, for instance, should be punctual. Unless they were going for the pun. I guess they got it..
I guess this means I lost too..
-
Speaking of looking cool while playing the Wii, I need to get around to casemodding my Nunchuk sometime soon so it will match my cooler-than-ice remote (http://smaaaash.net/photos/clearremote.jpg).
Cool. I have one of those somewhere that I used as a gyro mouse when I taught physics in California. Mine has a clear d-pad and buttons though.
With the previous homosexuality topic I was reading Turtlekid1's post and thinking that if I were new here I'd think he was a huge troll, but by the end of the multipage discussion I began to understand his point of view. I still disagree with him, but I better understand where is coming from now. (I'm not trying to start that debate again though.)
ON TOPIC: Today while going to the observation tower of the Smithsonian Air & Space museum my daughter kicked or stepped back on to my big toe folding the toenail halfway back. Ouch! The nail might fall off eventually, but that won't be the first one. I lost one toenail due to a log falling on it. lost one fingernail by smashing it in between two pieces of firewood (BTW, I'm not going to use firewood any more no matter how many feet of snow we get), and lost one finger nail on a shrimping trip. On the shrimping trip I got over zealous picking crabs out of the catch and accidentally let me index finger slip too far under the crabs belly allowing him to pinch it in his claw. I slung crab, fingernail, and all to the front of the boat out of reflex to the pain. Fortunately all my nails have grown back.
-
The white buttons are from the original casing--I thought it looked better this way so I didn't use the clear ones.
-
Luigison's post made me want to create yet another game thread, "You Cringe, You Lose".
BP, your controller is cooler than some black people I know.
-
!
-
The black bar on the top of Google is SERIOUS ****IN BUSINESS. (http://www.geekosystem.com/how-to-remove-black-bar-google/)
Google's creedo used to be "Do No Harm", and each employee was instructed to think of this expression when he/she was writing code for new software. Google has continually gone against their own creedo by introducing unwanted changes to their home search page, and then making these changes difficult, or impossible, to remove.
Don't be a hypocrite, Google, Live up to your own professed ethic! Listen to what people want and quit trying to force us to accept things that we don't like. The resistance that you excite in your users will lead to a loss of market share, as users look for software that better suits their needs, and their desire to not have things that they are not hungry for crammed down their throats by what is becoming an uncaring, top-heavy corporation bent on forgetting the lessons of similar corporate empires vanished in the sands of time after forgetting that they cannot hold power without the will of the people behind them!
-
...
-
"Vital information for your everyday life"
Wasn't that a sketch on All That
-
"..Annnd now, Lori Beth Denberg with some Vital Information for your everyday life"
Indeed, it was.
-
Language warning for the first attachment.
-
Don't care about the Twilight one.
The second, by this point she probably owns a Wii. Also, Ha Ha, newspapers.
-
It seems that, whether she intends this to be the case or not, her point is less that gaming is bad and more "what, you wish real life were more interesting? LOSER!"
-
TK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja9_KXn6MIk
-
Should've linked to the story itself. I can't stay mad when it's being read in such a mocking and hilarious way.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxZPragGgmo.
-
Adults dressed as anthropomorphic mammals fondling children. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA6VeDA8o8c)
The comments only make it worse. If you watch really closely, you can see Fif-- BAD WEEGEE
EDIT: The competitive SSBB community in a nutshell:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi153.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs209%2FFunkyCoffee%2F1295668917926.jpg&hash=9717c4471d33a36e1543423b78701e5d)
The most ridiculous rule has to be the one about smash balls. If you aren't fast enough to claim it, tough.
-
Can we please change the subject?
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi932.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad161%2Fpschtyckque%2FMythbusters%2520LEGO%2F06-AdamSegway.jpg%3Ft%3D1264394333&hash=05dc3b39448c38ea2fc23c03e8494916)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_S8dD63SqjAM%2FSTunfTsO3jI%2FAAAAAAAAABE%2FI4hGHno5BA4%2Fs320%2Fangst&hash=6a652fee0efdd5c9f1377c33d1c0bf90)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ2yXWi0ppw
-
...?
-
The number of Apple fanboys saying Nintendo has to put their games on Apple products make me lose.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/18781/will_the_apple_iphone_5_kill_nintendo
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa335%2FTrevornater%2FIHAVEHADENOUGHOFTHIS.jpg%3Ft%3D1313091763&hash=1159b60bb603eb692e46687dc0a35b44)
...Or is it just me?
-
Now, at what store did I see that?
Anyway, I was rather incredulous when I did.
-
It's K-Mart. To make a long, personal rant short, I'm becoming increasingly ****ed off over "the internet" going mainstream. Yes, lolcats are funny, and Scott Pilgrim was a good movie, but that doesn't mean you have to plaster EPIC and 8-bitty stuff over a sign to sell dorm supplies. I won't go as far as I did that one time and say that being a geek is my placebo for religion and/or social standing again, but I will say that it does something to your identity to see yesterday's 4chan humor become today's passive advertising.
-
Normally I'd say you sounded eerily like a hipster there but I'm too busy agreeing.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa335%2FTrevornater%2FIHAVEHADENOUGHOFTHIS.jpg%3Ft%3D1313091763&hash=1159b60bb603eb692e46687dc0a35b44)
lol EPIC WIN XD
-
Scott Pilgrim was a [dukar]ty movie, a fantastic book, and an awesome game.
-
Think you mixed up the first and last adjectives.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyJNzXSf2Sk.
-
For all your losing needs... (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore#.TkqXz289WSo)
-
http://www.amazon.com/Epic-Win-4chan%C2%92s-Army-Conquered/dp/1590207106
-
...Well, I might read it. Maybe that's just a week of exploring 4chan(archive) seriously for the first time talking.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg809.imageshack.us%2Fimg809%2F7001%2Ffilebv.jpg&hash=1a3c647329efe26819154bd12475344f)
-
I get the idea she lives in a small town and has never actually been to a Wal-Mart, and has more class than half the people I've seen shambling around in my local one the few times I've been dragged in there, simply for having the idea that people wear their sunday best there.
Though the idea that a person would think a bathrobe and foam flip-flops is "getting dressed up" and goes even lower than that when visiting a dollar store is pretty funny
-
Wouldn't raging/losing at that be downright unpatriotic for you guys?
-
How so?
-
That picture exemplifies the very spirit of America.
-
I know I've seen that picture around here before, maybe even for another Y_,YL thread.
-
That picture exemplifies the very spirit of America.
Weegee, because I like you, I'm going to put this as mildly as I possibly can.
Screw you.
I keed I keed
-
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/ESPN-runs-controversial-picture-of-a-white-Micha?urn=nfl-wp5866
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchanarchive.org%2Fcontent%2F25_sp%2F14587818%2F1314316200420.jpg&hash=5f14e1d0e3aab38f701a53332f852596)
-
It's amazing how fast that thread was compiled.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlMiQy1O78Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGIqGRNh0gY.
-
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.310335-LucasFilms-Confirms-adding-NOOOOOO-to-Return-of-the-Jedi
-
Scratch that--this (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.310740-Slavery-The-Game-Become-The-Most-Powerful-Slavetrader) is worse.
-
For everyone who didn't read past the initial post, rest assured that it's fake (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112777-Mystery-And-Controversy-Surround-Slavery-The-Game). The ESRB's website doesn't list it, and "Javelin Reds" has no online presence beyond YouTube.
-
Fresh from my misogyny folder:
-
No way that's not a troll.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm30cepvMQA
LolFox.
-
Is it a problem that I am more tired of people thinking everything has racist undertones than I am of actual racism?
-
A RealDoll convention, AKA where most Fungi Forums users will be in twenty years:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dollalbum.com%2Fdollgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10405%2FTDF_LA_Meet_2011_MIDIMAN-118.jpg&hash=84bf644688eb0f0b4a6231d77da011b2)
-
Things I noticed about that picture:
- I like how three of the dolls are bordering on the uncanny valley, and the others aren't even trying.
- The one with the Las Vegas shirt in the front is creepy on so many levels.
- The two unpaired dolls in the back (one super-realistic, one obviously made of socks), the guy with long hair, and the guy in the pink Superman shirt combine to make it look like there are actual women there at first glance.
- Redshirt in the front there doesn't put much effort into dressing himself or his woman when it comes to shirts.
- Redshirt has a friggin' walkie-talkie. What urgent things is this guy going to get called to? Does he bring his doll with him in the volunteer fire truck?
- Seriously, that Vegas doll is messed the hell up.
-
From what I've heard, the realistic dolls can cost upwards of $10,000. Guys buy them because the cheap ones are known to cheat.
One guy on the forum with which that photo is associated says he's a 48-year-old virgin who lives with his 85-year-old mother. Apparently, she "tolerates" his lifestyle.
-
Virgin? The doll doesn't count? I think it should count. If you can "lose your virginity" to a prostitute you sure as hell can lose it to a $10,000 mannequin.
-
LolFox.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112828-Fox-News-Attacks-Environmentally-Conscious-Games
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F28.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lru3qokVNc1r1wo76o1_500.jpg&hash=d9025e7aba413942d393471b62157478)
-
http://wownews.co.uk/news/517-grown-man-hunts-down-and-attacks-child-who-kills-him-in-call-of-duty-game.html
1. The fact that this happened.
2. The fact that of course they would post an article about this happening, because it happened in relation to a video game.
3. The comments, particularly the distribution of upvotes and downvotes for certain types of comments.
-
The Joystiq article goes one worse in calling him a hero for being the closest to a real life Batman. It's just awful, and then people get ****y when a news outlet, Fox or otherwise, points a [darn]ing finger at games and those that play. I got so angry at the comments, like this is something to strive for. My jaw literally dropped; gaping at the new low for games to be reminded of, and absolutely unsure why so many people were behind this GROWN MAN for his gross action.
EDIT: Looking around, this may be a joke article BY joystiq. God I hope so.
EDIT 2: Yeah, Joystiq made a editors note that it's satire, though it wasn't there this morning when I checked the first time, when it already had more comments in favor of it than I would prefer.
-
Despite what much of the Internet thinks to the contrary, "just kidding" is not an automatic out when you express a controversial or offensive opinion, even if it really is supposed to be a joke.
Saying something is a joke doesn't make the original statement suddenly not exist; in fact, in the case of offensive "jokes," it makes matters even worse, because it means you as a person are low enough to try to pull humor out of putting down other people.
Joystiq's writers and editors should be ashamed of themselves for letting this article get through. It's incredibly unprofessional, and honestly, if I were in charge of any of the ad firms they use, I'd pull my ads from their site, because I wouldn't want to have that kind of opinion associated with anything I'm selling, even if it is a joke.
"Can't shake the devil's hand then say you're only kidding."
-They Might Be Giants, "Your Racist Friend"
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm30cepvMQA
LolFox.
Fox News is a pathetic excuse for journalism and everyone who works there should feel like terrible human beings.
Also this post for merely being an attack on Fox News in a thread about raging/losing faith in humanity.
[inb4 obligatory rebecca black reference unless someone already made it but i don't know because i didn't read the whole thread]
PS: Games that involve being "eco-friendly" in any way being a way to indoctrinate kids on the "liberal agenda"? Wow. Pathetic. Teaching kids not to make Earth an uninhabitable wasteland is brainwashing. Just wow.
-
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-worse-ever
If this goes through we'll lose most of the Internet as we know it.
-
Ugh, Congress just needs to stay away from the internet, period. They clearly don't know how to legislate it and something like this will just completely stifle creativity...all in the name of money (the rich getting richer, as it were?).
-
http://moms.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/04/8638469-chickenpox-lollipops-some-moms-may-be-sending-in-mail
-
That sounds pretty awful.
Anyway, I haven't actually heard the full story, but I like how that woman claiming Justin Bieber fathered her child is apparently comfortable admitting that she is either a pedophile or was raped by the kid who sang "Eenie Meenie".
-
South Park covered that chicken pox thing in, like, the '90s.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchanarchive.org%2Fcontent%2F2_v%2F117216259%2F1321597070986.jpg&hash=d39be1ef5794adee469339a16f6af334)
-
I won.
-
http://www.thejournal.ie/us-congress-rules-that-pizza-is-a-vegetable-282033-Nov2011/
-
Well, we already decided that ketchup was a vegetable during the Reagan administration, so I'm surprised pizza didn't already fall under that. And Congress giving in to lobbyists, while bad, certainly isn't anything new.
What made me lose, though, was the people in the comments saying that the reason this is wrong is because tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables. Yeah, enjoy your tomato sherbet, guys. Scientifically, it's a fruit because it's the part that has seeds in it, but both culinarily and legally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden), it is also a vegetable, because it does not taste like something you would put in a fruit salad. You know, like corn. Do you guys also want corn to not count as a vegetable in school lunches? What about tomatoes and cucumbers and peas and green beans and squash and pumpkins and peppers? And why would being fruit even matter? Fruit is important too. It's not like being a fruit automatically makes something unhealthy. Don't we want apples and bananas and kiwis and honeydew melons in our kids' lunches too?
-
Not all pizzas use tomato sauce or paste. Some of them use alfredo or a white sauce.
What about pizzas that are covered in meat? Does that make them an animal?
-
I've always considered pizza junk food. Okay, so it has some vegetables and meat on it. Big deal. I wouldn't call a doughnut plastered with apple bits a fruit.
-
I'm just waiting for them to declare soda a vegetable based on the amount of corn syrup it contains. You know it's gonna happen.
-
"No, Congress did not declare pizza a vegetable"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-congress-declare-pizza-as-a-vegetable-not-exactly/2011/11/20/gIQABXgmhN_blog.html
-
Well, we already decided that ketchup was a vegetable during the Reagan administration, so I'm surprised pizza didn't already fall under that.
Called it, sorta.
-
Afghan woman's choice: 12 years in jail or marry her rapist and risk death from both his and her families.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/22/world/asia/afghanistan-rape/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
-
Yeah well that's what happens when religion infiltrates something as powerful as the state...
-
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/kawaii
-
*loads shotgun*
I'm off to Oxford. See you when I get back...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te2ZwVnstyo.
-
"We're not attention whores at all!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrBoeMF4FYs)
-
Some of the most intelligent YouTube comments I've seen in a long time.
Faith in humanity +2
-
"Do I judge you for being a dude?" Well ...considering a few seconds ago you were assuming that I would feel the need to "hold you hand" "ask you to take your top off" and "ask you what you're wearing" ....yes. Yes you DO judge me for being a dude.
Ha. Choice.
-
Sexism goes both ways, ladies.
-
SexyNerdGirlPresents
It doesn't matter if I'm hot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiOpe8_q_fk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_zK--_aj1Q
-
OH BOY (http://twigurrl.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/why-harry-potter-kinda-sucks/) (language)
I mean, im not trying to brag or anything, but its just a fact that america is the most advanced and powerful country in the world. Twilight is American, Harry Potter is british. Therefore, by logic, Twilight is better. And just because Twilight is american automatically makes it higher quality, just because its America, no matter what you think of the book. I mean, British people can be really bad, like they fought against us and LOST in WW2, right? So seriously, they just aren’t as good.
Play "America the Beautiful" in the background while you read this. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/dumbest-comments-on-lowes-facebook-page-about-al) (Basically this organization boycotted a show called All American Muslim on TLC because it doesn't show Muslim extremists. Or, as they put it, "the Islamic agenda's clear and present threat to traditional American values" or some [dukar]. Lowes then pulled their advertising, and a bunch of bigoted ass hats supported them for "protecting the American way".)
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F28.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lgqxw7evmt1qa8syoo1_500.jpg&hash=d40ce9a524faf9a8de31eab1430f4491)
-
This website lets lonely, lonely men pay hot girls to play video games with them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameCrush)
-
Something a bit more mundane:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gonintendo.com%2Fcontent%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F2011_12%2Fzepr.jpg&hash=0a141c3c498746fb27ffd71bf2ae36c2)
-
>Marriage
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticmoney.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F04%2Fwater.jpg&hash=6201335e1fbf732dabc444a673363803)
I don't know what's going on here, or if it even fits with the topic.
-
They apparently failed to take into account the fact that rain exists.
-
I wonder how long it takes a person to drink water that formerly was their own pee, or if that even happens to many people in their own lifetime
Doesn't get Lizard Dude off the hook either way
-
image
I lost.
Don't try to use science to prove your point if you don't even have a third-grade understanding of science. Heck, I can't even remember when I learned what the water cycle was. Maybe even before third grade.
-
I wonder how America's kids stack up in comparison... (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2012/01/23/schoolkids-can-t-add-up-or-spell-survey-finds-115875-23712794/)
-
I always wondered about that because I've seen it first-hand, people who can't spell the most basic of words and think apostrophes go before every S and T. In grade school, it baffled me. When you read you don't see plural nouns with apostrophes. The words they can't spell, have they ever read before? When I read and I see a word I didn't know how to spell, I remember it. Forever. At least subconsciously so that if I ever had to spell it, I immediately unlocked the memory of seeing it on paper/in a video game/on TV and how it was spelled.
Now I'm pretty sure it was a mix of me simply having cared about spelling while others did not, my brain processing some types of information a little differently, and everyone in my grade school having English as a second language.
-
What I'd like to know is why somebody would try to prove atheists wrong with science in the first place. Wouldn't science be more in line with what atheists believe? Or am I just my stupid Christian self treading waters I ought not be treading here? Wouldn't somebody rather use science to try and disprove what I believe?
-
contains language and a anti-republican bias if that offends you (http://ricksantorumsayshorriblethings.tumblr.com/)
-
:3 (http://visual.ly/lobbyists-how-we-run-washington)
-
Image doesn't load exactly right there, so here's a direct link to it. (http://visually.visually.netdna-cdn.com/LobbyistsHowWeRunWashington_4f54ef8731bd9.png)
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F000%2F246%2F169%2F691.jpg&hash=97d2f2dde41edac42c169ee1be4f5744)
-
Try to do as the video description says. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnJyCDGLUZU)
-
People buying a roll of padding and taking it home to play with is rage-inducing? Man rage standards are low these days.
-
/me pops in his false teeth.
Back in my day, we didn't rage at a couple of idiots buying foam. The only decent reason to rage would have been if the power went out while you were playing the last level of the Nes game you were currently stuck on.
-
http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=13804.0
-
How exactly is having a topic dedicated to a popular show rage-inducing?
-
ZING
-
It's rage-inducing in a "stop-liking-what-I-don't-like" sort of way.
-
As I've likely stated before, I have nothing against Bronies. I just don't find the whole thing funny enough to get into.
-
I knew I'd get a rise out of some of you guys with that.
-
Sorry if this has already been posted. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page)
-
The Fox News Channel is particularly weak in criticizing the homosexual agenda and abortion. The Fox News Channel often helps elect less conservative Republicans, as when it repeatedly featured and promoted John McCain and Chris Christie while excluding their more conservative primary opponents. It drifted further from the conservative movement by petulantly declaring that conservative Newt Gingrich won't be accepted back.
hahahawhat
That's right, Conservapedia is actually insinuating that Fox News isn't conservative enough.
Also, they have an article on "Homosexuality and obesity". Yes, really. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_obesity)
Serial killer John Wayne Gacy was a Democratic Party activist who had his picture taken with First Lady Rosalynn Carter in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was bisexual and "very liberal".
Are they really using John Wayne Gacy as an example of a liberal? (A picture of him is on the page.) I guess we should use people who bomb abortion clinics as examples of Christians, then.
-
Hey, Hitler was a vegetarian.
-
Oh, can't forget the Conservapedia Bible Project. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Bible_Project) Or them claiming Obama is "probably Muslim". Even if he is, who gives a [darn]?
-
I lost to my own post's effects.
-
Huh?
Also, this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l93wAqnPQwk) (Linked for language).
-
The Conservapedia quotes made me lose. I didn't read any of it, but the quotes made me just lose.
-
Ah, I see.
-
Huh?
Also, this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l93wAqnPQwk) (Linked for language).
That's absolutely awful. I'm really amazed she held back from lashing out on the little pricks.
There's no respect for anybody or anything in this generation. What's happened people? What makes them do this?
I'm not ready to live in a world like this.
-
If you couldn't tell, I lost.
-
Jiminy Cricket, do those kids make me mad. That video brought every liquid in my body to a boil, what is wrong with them? I think they need to meet this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuCdZodKjvQ) (NSFW, video contains butt).
-
No joke. I haven't heard of a kid getting spanked in god knows how long. I got spanked once when I was young and pretty much learned my lesson [Laughs]
-
My response was pretty much this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSNeL0QYfqo
-
That's absolutely awful. I'm really amazed she held back from lashing out on the little pricks.
There's no respect for anybody or anything in this generation. What's happened people? What makes them do this?
I'm not ready to live in a world like this.
If it makes you feel any better, there was a huge response from 4chan and Reddit (Please, don't take me mentioning them in the same breath as saying the two sites are similar or something. But yeah, Reddit is generally believed to have started the charity, while 4chan started some Facebook group and also leaked the kids' personal information.). I hear the kids are going to juvie, and the bus monitor has gotten huge amounts of money donated to her. (http://www.indiegogo.com/loveforkarenhklein?c=home)
-
"Hey kids, I'll give you $20 if you taunt me and film it!"
I kid, I kid.
-
Good for her.
-
...And then Obama jumped out and exlcaimed, "The Aristrocrats!" (http://www.theindychannel.com/news/31224633/detail.html?source=wrtv)
-
Headline: "Gross Ashes Spilled in Airport"
But in serious: I lost. To be unsympathetic to something like that..
-
TSA is disgusting.
-
My response was pretty much this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSNeL0QYfqo
-
TSA is disgusting.
Keeping a portion of someones burnt remains is disgusting.
-
In this context, I believe "disgusting" means "abhorrently unethical".
-
Keeping a portion of someones burnt remains is disgusting.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Friveraveblues.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F02%2Fmiss-the-point2.jpg&hash=8d174d877f6a1dcbba8fca7b141bdd40)
-
"She didn't apologize. She started laughing."
Lost.
-
Keeping a portion of someones burnt remains is disgusting.
No it's not. If it helps a person remember a loved one it's not disgusting in the slightest, and that TSA agent is a piece of [dukar] for laughing at him.
-
Yeah, my recently-deceased great aunt was cremated, so **** those guys.
-
An excerpt from a recent conversation over Facebook chat:
Her: Obama needs to go die in a ditch
Me: What makes you say that?
Her: Stupid presidential commercials coming up on my pandora station
Her: I'm trying to listen to classical music here!
Me: Okay then...
Her: Sorry
Her: He is a liar and a thief
Her: And he needs to go die in a ditch
See, this is sort of a "rage" situation, because I don't even know how I should respond to this. I try to stay out of political conversations with this person in general, because of her extremely strong anti-democrat opinions which are resistant to anything resembling logic, but now I've been kind of stuck right in the middle of it.
wat do.
-
extremely strong anti-democrat opinions which are resistant to anything resembling logic
That's politics for ya.
-
What you do is stop chatting, and possibly never start again.
-
Run for president.
-
I'd vote for him.
-
http://vgperson.tumblr.com/post/21533650696/help-the-girl-i-like-wont-respond-to-my-emails
-
Oh I read that a while back. It was the most hilarious thing.
(´・ω・`)
-
The eyebrows on that emoticon. ´ `
The eyebrows just make it all so much more sinister.
-
Oh wow. Even I was never that delusional.
-
Parts 1 and 2 were comedy gold, Parts 3 and 4 got boring, Part 5 was awesome again.
I'd say 75% chance it's troll/fiction, but still an excellent work of performance/art. Soap opera for the chan generation.
-
" (´・ω・`) " must be the Japanese equivalent of "Please respond."
-
If by "Japanese" you mean "weeaboo" then most likely.
-
2ch is an all-Japanese board. Those posts are translated.
-
My WD backup drive with SmartWare software interfered with my Realtek sound. Of course I didn't realize this until after I installed a new ASUS sound card. Edit: Wrong thread. Sorry.
-
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2012/08/Nintendo-Power-magazine-to-end-24-year-run-100000000001830/nintendo-power-shutting-down/100000000001830/1#.UDWWFkdZ6iC
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/08/source-nintendo-power-magazine-to-cease-publication/
-
.
-
The same months? For real? [darn], should've thought...
-
|
-
About two-thirds of that sounds like someone here. Also, it's interesting that he luvs Lil Wayne, but hates black people.
I'm not racist, but Lil Wayne scares me.
-
That's actually me.
-
I always knew you were a 12-year-old racist atheist bisexual ephebophile.
-
That's what I was thinking except for the racist part and I didn't know your music preferences.
-
And if those emoticons are to be believed, he's got two mouths, three chins, and a quartet of supernumerary cardiac valves.
-
SIMILARITIES:
- Same hair color.
- Similar eye color I think?
- Same name.
- Same ethnicity.
- Had a girlfriend at some point.
- Was twelve years old at some point.
- Bisexual.
- Goes to church on Sundays (i.e., is in a Christian denomination other than Seventh-Day Adventist (or Quaker -- Quakers don't have an official day of worship, though they usually stick with Sunday because it's convenient (also I guess Messianic Jews might still meet on Saturday? I don't know any)))
- It looks like that's from Tumblr? I have a Tumblr too.
- At least partially aware of own racist tendencies.
- Spells "atheist" correctly (most twelve-year-olds on the internet would spell it "athiest", as though referring to someone who is more athy than anyone else)
- Loves Jesus, while sometimes intermittently doubting whether/how God exists.
- We both have heart defects (I have a heart murmur, he has <333333)
DIFFERENCES:
- I doubt I've ever intentionally flirted with anyone (although I'm sure I've done it inadvertently). I also would not flirt with people while in a committed relationship (or at least would not brag about it (at least not in a place where my girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse could conceivably read/hear it, right next to a picture of my face)).
- My girlfriend was younger than me, not older.
- She was not 15, though.
- I have never typed like that in my life.
- I don't go to parties every Saturday because I'm not cool.
- The only thing I have ever smoked was an empty piece of paper. Not even rolling paper or whatever it's called, just a 8x10 sheet of printer paper. Also, I once had a virgin piña colada.
- I tend not to like rap that's not from OverClocked Remix, and I like Justin Bieber better than the Jonas Brothers.
- I no longer believe that same-sex relations are inherently sinful, and am open to the idea of dating and/or touching people of various genders.
- I am not twelve years old now.
- My hair was not that short when I was twelve (nor is it now).
- I do not hate black people, even if some of them are scary.
- Some white people are also scary.
-
https://oc.tc/forums/topics/508368a0f34422a23500001b
Scroll down about 15 posts.
-
https://oc.tc/forums/topics/508368a0f34422a23500001b
Scroll down about 15 posts.
What am I supposed to be seeing?
-
The grammer thing.
-
I don't care if this news is a month old, it does not soften the blow. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/honey-boo-boo-renewed_n_1916654.html)
-
I read the title, then lost.
I think this is pretty much America's in-joke by now.
-
I just saw THIS on Conservapedia's front page. In the bill they mentioned, people who "commit homosexual acts" get life in prison. And people who are HIV-positive and "commit homosexual acts" are killed.
-
Daily Beast: "The Uganda Anti-Gay Bill's U.S. Roots" (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/11/uganda-anti-homosexual-bill-inspired-by-american-evangelicals.html)
NYTimes: "Americans' Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1352783490-IjDK42MG9yB+xHGfzlSzXQ)
(I lost.)
-
Conservapedia post
Trust me when I say the entire internet sees this wiki as a massive joke with zero credibility, so you don't have any reason to rage at the stupid [dukar] they post. Just point and laugh.
-
I know, but at the very least it's certain that Andrew Schlafly is legitimate, as well as (potentially) Ed Poor.
-
Thankfully the former's been laughed out of practically every credible university in the United States.
-
That bill in Uganda is very real, though.
-
If I recall correctly, it originally just basically said if you have gay sex, you die. I, uh...step up I guess? [I'm not trying to make a joke in really, really horrible taste BTW.]
Thanks to your Daily Beast article, I found this. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11608241) Lost profusely. This statement from your New York Times article was a borderline case:
Uganda’s minister of ethics and integrity (who previously tried to ban miniskirts) recently said, “Homosexuals can forget about human rights.”
-
That bill in Uganda is very real, though.
I know, I was just criticizing Conservapedia's attempt to sugarcoat its severity.
And although the bill in Uganda is indeed rage worthy, I've known about it for quite some time and have long since exhausted my anger reserves.
-
I just wonder what comes to mind for these people when they imagine gay people. Is it really so unnerving to imagine two people liking each other?
-
I just found out that Pete (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKNoyVmlIdk) Stark (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_-gZdts_XI) lost.
Then I lost.
-
I just wonder what comes to mind for these people when they imagine gay people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w
-
DANGIT WEEGEE I WAS LITERALLY JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT
RLU, will you tell your significantly less red and lewd counterpart to stop being a gaggle of idiots?
-
I'll get right on that. I must say I've never seen so many people (Ugandan or otherwise) so enthralled by the fear of poo poo.
Edit: As a follow-up, my thanks go to CrossEyed7 for that Daily Beast article, and to The Daily Beast for a heads up on The Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29). Now when people tell me "there is no cabal", I know enough to say otherwise.
-
I raged. (http://billmoyers.com/segment/united-states-of-alec/)
Thank you, Bill.
-
Inevitable. (http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-school-shooting-westboro-baptist-church-planning-to-picket)
-
How does the WBC qualify as a religion, again? It's a crazy guy and his legion of cousins, I think that fits a description more along the lines of a hereditary mental illness.
-
Westboro 'God hates [bundle of sticks]s' Baptist Church
Accurate.
-
Is there an app that says where those people are "protesting" so I can use them for verbal target practice.
-
How does the WBC qualify as a religion, again? It's a crazy guy and his legion of cousins, I think that fits a description more along the lines of a hereditary mental illness.
This has been the most satisfying description of the WBC ever.
-
Can we just send the WBC to a different planet? Preferably one without oxygen?
-
But they breathe hate, not oxygen.
-
So what would happen if the only people around to hate were other WBC members?
-
One would come out of the closet for the sake of the community.
-
/
-
Would have lost if I hadn't seen it several dozen times.
-
The "Boom Roasted" guy needs to an hero.
-
I lost. Both this and the cry one a little.
-
That has to be fake. Nobody is that stupid..
-
No, people are definitely that stupid.
-
/me is not people
-
They're the type of people who argue that building the Large Hadron Collider was pointless because it didn't solve world hunger.
-
That's worse than the people who said that it would make a black hole and end the world.
For them if they want to know: hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
-
I lost.
It's crazy to me that the WBC bills themselves as a Baptist church when, after growing up in a Baptist church until I was about 13 years old, Baptist ideologies are virtually polar opposites of the WBC's. I've never heard my pastor or any fellow churchgoers spew hate or anything like that in my life. The WBC is just a sickening hate group, nothing more. It pains me to see them, yet again, try to use a tragedy as an opportunity to be [dukar]heads.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sq-VmBMHkw
-
Would've lost if I hadn't seen it a million times before.
-
I, on the other hand, have not. Lost.
-
Lost hard.
I mean, wow, this is a concept I teach my preschoolers.
-
Whoops, there goes my faith in humanity for the day. (http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x964877896/Bubbles-shooter-5-suspended)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sq-VmBMHkw
"What the heck is in our oxygen supply?"
-
!
-
Lost. I always lose to things like that.
Whoops, there goes my faith in humanity for the day. (http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x964877896/Bubbles-shooter-5-suspended)
Wat is this I don't even.
-
I accidentally stumbled upon this crap nugget and lost so hard I couldn't even take solace in the fact that it was a three year old WND article. (http://www.wnd.com/2010/10/211837/)
-
Found in the related articles: The Democrats are taking our toilet paper! (http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/toilet-paper-yanked-from-boys-restrooms/)
-
For women only, because male-on-female stalking is unacceptable. (http://www.wallstreetinsanity.com/lulu-app-brings-cyberstalking-to-a-new-level-for-women-only/)
-
I accidentally stumbled upon this crap nugget and lost so hard I couldn't even take solace in the fact that it was a three year old WND article. (http://www.wnd.com/2010/10/211837/)
So I was thinking about this article, and one thing that really stood out to me (aside from the whole deliberately-refusing-to-understand-how-causality-works thing, which is a given) was this one phrase in particular:
"The already troubled youngster is often the one drawn to homosexuality or gender compromise"
"gender compromise" is a very interesting turn of phrase. Entire books could be written expositing that phrase (for example, the conservo-christo-american mindset that has made "compromise" into a dirty word, when the word, literally meaning "to promise together," seems like it ought to tie right in with the "mutual submission" that is supposed to be (but historically has often not been) at the center of Christianity). But what struck me about it was how much it remound me of something else I had seen online a day or two earlier: This page on the christianbooksandthings.net online store (http://www.christianbooksandthings.net/cbtees5.htm) (which you will probably also lose to, especially if you look around at the rest of their products). KKK T-shirts. A Confederate flag with the caption "It's LOVE, not HATE." A blue collar teddy bear and an American flag with the caption "I Love my HERITAGE." A children's shirt reading "Klan Kids Kare," "White and Proud," and "Love Jesus, Love Your Heritage." And the one that I was specifically remound of, "W.F.R.I.: Women For Racial Integrity."
Preserving "racial integrity."
Combatting "gender compromise."
Making sure that the walls that divide us stay as high and as unambiguous as possible; that we are inescapably defined by our manmade labels.
Is the concept of gender roles really any different from that of racial roles? The idea that God made us male and female with the intention of setting up two completely separate, completely defined roles for us to take, thereby predetermining the whole course of one's life -- either you're born with testes / a penis / a Y chromosome (pick one or all), and therefore must be a natural leader and marry a woman and be her guide; or you're born with ovaries / a vagina / no Y chromosomes (again, no consensus on how many of these properties must converge in order for a person to be considered one gender or the other), and therefore must submit to your father, husband, or pastor, depending on the stage of life you're in, and can never have any position of authority over males (or even over yourself, really), and have to love kids and have as many of them as possible (or more). Never mind that not everyone fits neatly into one of those two categories even looking purely at physical, objective reality. Never mind the multiple positive examples in the Bible of women in leadership positions -- Deborah, Phoebe, Huldah, Priscilla, and Junia are the first that come to mind. We can't let there be any confusion between those two categories, or everything comes crashing down, because we wouldn't know who's supposed to submit to whom!
It wasn't all that long ago -- and it's even still around today in some corners -- that it was about racial roles too. People with a noticeable amount of melanin and/or African heritage (again, kinda fuzzy definitions) are the descendents of Ham, who were eternally cursed to be servants to the descendents of Japheth (who, conveniently, fathered all of Europe (well, the white parts)). People with less melanin / no provable African ancestry / enough money to hush up any traces of racial impurity were the sons of Japheth, and rightful owners of the sons of Ham (Never mind that race as we think of it does not really exist in a solidly definable scientific way). There must be no confusion between these categories -- that means no abandoning of your role, your responsibility, as either a slave or a master, and certainly no mixing of the races, because, again, if the distinction got muddled, how would we know who's supposed to submit?
I have a hard time reconciling that attitude with Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. I don't believe Jesus came here so that we could more deeply entrench ourselves in our same old oppressive power struggles of gender against gender, race against race, nation against nation.
and i really need to stop staying up so late
-
This page on the christianbooksandthings.net online store (http://www.christianbooksandthings.net/cbtees5.htm)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianbooksandthings.net%2FKs-25.jpg&hash=15569e4f09e0d9112153c80c128f218f)
I found this and I'm very glad this isn't "You Laugh, You Lose".
-
Ok, that site's gotta be a Poe. Too many dog whistles and most actual bigots are slightly less overt about the dichotomy between their bigotry and the tenets of their religion.
That or my head is completely refusing to believe that this can be a real thing, even if there's actually a market for a site such as this.
-
The Creationism/Science books page is interesting. It lists three books:
The Glory Of The Stars
Author: E. Raymond Capt
It is well known that the ancient races drew charts of these Zodiacal Signs, that ancient astrology was actually the father of astronomy. Astronomers sometimes denounce the Zodiac as unnatural and confusing, yet they have never been able to brush it aside or substitute anything better or more convenient in its place. The Signs of the Zodiac are a part of the common universal language of astronomical science.
The Zodiac is found in religious faiths and pagan superstitions. Astrology is based upon it. The Bible is replete with it. [...] The written words of Scripture parallel the words written in the heavens and preserved in the Signs of the Zodiac. [...] The purpose of this study is to present the findings of past eminent scholars, together with those of modern scientific investigators, in order to show the stars do reveal words written in heavens - words that declare the glory of God.
Paperback
144 pages
$ 8.00
Christianity And The Age Of The Earth
Author: Davis A. Young
Dr. Davis A Young, a scientist with outstanding academic credentials and a thoroughly orthodox, evangelical Christian, has presented in this volume solid and convincing evidence for the thesis that the earth is an extremely old planet created by God. This book demonstrates how well-meaning creationist (Dr. Young is also a creationist in the term) have misrepresented the evidence of geology in their attempt to argue that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
It is important in our time to give serious consideration to both biblical and scientific evidence. In this book, Dr. Young carefully examines the evidence and finds that it does not support the young-earth view.
Because of the literature advancing biblical catastrophism, the interest of Christian layman, and attempts to introduce the catastrophist view of earth history into public school curricula, the Christian community should seriously consider this issue of the age of the earth. Does the biblical and scientific evidence support the idea that the earth is extremely young or does the evidence indicate otherwise? Has the earth experienced a brief sudden catastrophic history dominated by a single global flood or has it's history been vastly longer and somewhat less spectacular? In this book the author examines some of the evidence of nature that relates to the age of the earth.
[...]
Dr. Young firmly believes that the continued promotion of the young-earth view will in the long run damage the credibility of Christianity and thus hinder our evangelistic efforts.
Paperback
188 pages
$11.95
Racial Reconciliation and the Word of God
Author Pastor Thomas Robb
Although the racial reconciliation movement is new to the Christian Church, for years it has been one of the major tenets of all false religions. Racial reconciliation is a term being used in religious circles to promote racial integration and racial intermarriage. The promoters of these scheme claim "race" is merely a social category and not a scientific fact. They tell us that we are all variants of the same race of Adam and Eve and therefore the church and races should be united. Furthermore they teach that there should be no prohibition against interracial marriage. As long as each is a Christian, it matters not to what race they belong.
Subjects covered.
The eastern religious and occult root of racial reconciliation - examples
Racial Reconciliation and Charles Darwin's theory of evolution are based upon the same foundation - almost word for word - examples
The Abrahamic covenant - the covenant made with Abraham and Sara - (who are the modern recipients of this oath made and sworn by God alone?)
Communism, the new world order, the beast system, ( all of which are of the same basis and which are given power by the Apostate Church.
The scientific facts that poke holes in the idea that race is a social category.
The real meaning of the verses most used by racial reconciliation teachers - such as "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." Acts 17.26
Famous preachers from different denominations who taught against "racial reconciliation"
What are parents to do?
158 pages
$15.00
Now, if it were just the last two, I might think it was a Poe with a subtle irony -- they can recognize the unscientificness of young-earth-ism, but not of racism. But the zodiac one is less related to that, and also I know people who actually hold to the idea that the zodiac signs are tied to the Bible.
Incidentally, I'm rather curious as to whether Dr. Young's book explicitly denies a literal global flood, because if the story of Noah isn't literally true, then we are not actually descended from Noah's three sons, which eliminates the Curse of Ham and thereby removes basically the only possible avenue for biblical support of racism and African slavery.
Interestingly, while they do believe in an old earth, they apparently do not accept evolution (If there were a larger selection of books, I might think they were just attempting to offer a large library for their patrons to select from, without endorsing particular viewpoints, but the fact that there are so few books on this page (and also because I get the feeling that they're printing at least some of these books themselves) makes me think that they're deliberately selecting books that they do agree with). So I'm wondering where they go with this. Young is against "catastrophism," so I doubt he's a proponent of the Gap Theory (the idea that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 where God created a whole world and then destroyed it before creating this one, which used to be a somewhat popular idea to explain away the earth's apparent age), so... did God just create every species in its current form and then have them all just wait around for four billion years before doing anything?
And then there's that part about how "racial reconciliation" has the same roots as Darwinian evolution. One of Kirk Cameron's arguments for creationism is "Darwin was racist and Hitler believed in survival of the fittest, therefore evolution is wrong." I guess Darwin just believed whatever you don't want to believe!
Tangent: Kirk Cameron says Hitler was bad because he believed in "survival of the fittest" (because somehow active genocide counts as natural selection???), but he also advocates for conservative politicians and capitalism -- which actually is a survival of the fittest type thing!!
So yeah, I just can't make sense of any of this.
Also, there's this book on the Bible Mysteries page:
Restitution Of All Things
Author: G. R. Hawtin
Is there coming a time of universal restoration and reconciliation in which all things will be restored? The author believes there will come such a time and shows just how he believes this will be done in the future. The author takes issue with those who teach and preach about a place called "hell" where those who reject Christ will spend eternity in abject misery and torment, forever suffering the terrible agony of a fire that will not, and cannot, be quenched. Pastor Hawtin believes that the Scriptures really teach that there is coming a time of universal restoration and reconciliation in which all things will be restored, whether they be things in heaven, things in earth or things under the earth?
[...]
Pastor Hawtin goes to great lengths, and in great detail, to explain the true meaning of the words hell, fire, brimstone, eternal, everlasting, for ever and ever, the second death and others, in order to show how these words have been misunderstood by most Christians for centuries.
Once the proper translation from Hebrew and Greek to English is applied the reader gains a completely different concept than that which he has always been taught regarding God's purpose towards man and His creation, and is then able to see more clearly God's wonderful plan for The Restitution of all Things.
Stapleback
48 pages
So they're at least open to discussion about universalism. That does not fit in at all with stereotypical fundamentalists, and would be pretty unexpected for a Poe.
-
I'm always amused by British Israelism (http://www.christianbooksandthings.net/british_israel.htm), the theory purporting that caucasians are God's Chosen People, and the ancient Israelites were a totally different people from modern Jews.
EDIT: AAAAAAUUUUGH (http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/02/06/dad-must-pay-child-support-for-3-kids-that-arent-his-court-rules)
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWN1l2Mw.jpg&hash=f91058fd6e06cac37672d7415a78276f)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmaaaash.net%2Ftheinternet%2Fohmygod.gif&hash=6cc7ff0a9e0a48b106acef3a5157453c)
-
I wish CrossEyed would change his avatar now.
-
I'm not sure whether to be amused or severely disgusted. more context plz.
-
I don't believe hardcore MLP fans are pedophiles, but I do believe they're seriously ill in the head.
-
Anyone who's in love with a fictional character, inanimate object, or otherwise non-human entity has serious problems. This guy seems to fit all three. Just...wow.
-
I honestly don't give two ****s if someone is in love with a doll. Didn't rage.
-
I honestly don't give two ****s if someone is in love with a doll. Didn't rage.
yea pretty much
I mean it's a bit (ok perhaps somewhat more than a bit) out there but if it's not hurting anyone what's the problem?
-
If going to bed is the best part of your day because your stuffed animal is your best friend, then I feel sorry for how the rest of your day must be like.
If anything it just seems like an infantile habit, like Linus and his blanket. Also who still knows anybody named Octavia?
-
My Rock Band singer was named Octavia Counts. My brother married her. So now I have a sister-in-law named Octavia.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQTONXs_N-A
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F000%2F482%2F091%2Faa1.jpg&hash=1385aea9c60d38d889ea13d4ef5610d8)
-
I usually hate to quote paranoid Facebook friends quoting ancient political figures... but seriously, if you want me to stop sharing copyrighted [dukar], molon labe.
-
I'm not sure if I lost harder at the system itself, or the bull[dukar] "This system is designed to help you, please enjoy the relaxing music and hip graphics" tone of the video.
-
Raged because some fascist mod deleted OHL's delitization thread. It will be
permanently foreverially tiedup within my bologna heart.
-
You misspelled foreverially.
I don't care that it got deleted since it was just pasted trolling, not original content. Note CE7's Searscat thread wasn't deleted even though it's very similar.
I am glad I saw it while it lasted. It was an interesting and provocative experience.
-
Raged because some fascist mod deleted OHL's delitization thread. It will be permanently tiedup within my bologna heart.
Raged because you raged. I'm so glad that was a wall of text, causing me to tldr at it.
-
Dunno the story, but it wasn't deleted. I'll just leave it at that.
-
I think you can still see it because you're a mod. That's common on forums.
Edit: [19:18] <%The_Chef> what's Ogreface's thread doing on the mod board?
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/25/us/massachusetts-child-rapper-investigation/index.html
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQTONXs_N-A
Lost hard.
-
Pretty sure the most telling thing about that video is that it has ratings and comments disabled.
-
You can still report it (Spam or misleading?) if you like.
I'm not up on how Youtube works, but why does it say "No public videos" for CCopyrightInfo? I assmume it's because the video is unlisted, but what's the point of that? If they want people to know about the new system why would they make such a video and then not list it?
-
I didn't notice that until you mentioned it. Very odd indeed.
-
I'm gay.
-
That's pretty gay, bro.
-
True that. Might've gone in the Confess! thread, but.. wanted to see who would admit to raging at it.
Of course, the sweet and kind Weegee would never.. :P
-
:|
-
I'm pretty sure that this is the kind of forum where those few with anti-gay tendencies won't "rage" about them in what is essentially a game thread.
-
Wait, didn't something like that happen in this thread?
-
I'm gay.
Do you want a medal?
-
Because CrossEyed can probably make you one.
-
How dare you just assume that any of us are prejudiced or homophobic!
How dare you!
-
Who said anything about being prejudice?
-
I lose. I thought I was the token gay of this forum! Now I feel obliged to step out so as not to overwhelm this crowd with our collective gayness. You know, kinda like this (language warning):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWhhPWyWCv0
-
It's legal to have sex with a horse in 23 states.
-
Eh, don't see why not.
-
Without the horse's consent?
-
How in the world do you not lose at that. I am utterly perplexed.
-
I'm against bestiality for the same reason I'm against having sex with a child: neither cases constitute consensual sex.
-
Well, good point.
-
I lose every time I read the student loan debt thread. I've probably stopped myself halfway from making a post that would've more than likely gotten me banned at least twice.
-
>Europe (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57572947-93/eu-to-vote-on-porn-ban-calls-for-internet-enforcement/)
-
"Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU"
Most Orwellian named bill since the Patriot Act. Authoritarianism alive and well everywhere in the world, just seems like it's of a different stripe in the EU than in the US.
-
One guy on another site suggested saving massive amounts of smut to an external hard drive and becoming a porn dealer.
-
One guy on another site suggested saving massive amounts of smut to an external hard drive and becoming a porn dealer.
This is pretty much a foregone conclusion if this does pass -- It'll work as well as the War on Drugs, or Prohibition.
Really we as a society need to worry far more about authoritarians than left vs. right -- and porn bans are a great issue to sniff them out on both sides of the aisle. LWAs will go ZOMG "women's rights" and RWAs will go ZOMG "morality and Jebus" but the goal of both is the same -- to limit the individual freedoms of others, especially in avenues they don't understand well like the internet (you don't think SOPA is going to actually pass one of these days behind our backs when the media's busy feigning outrage over something else?).
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ohio-school-shooting-20130319,0,7573455.story
Dat quote.
-
I didn't rage because it's refreshing to see a true villain acting his part for once. Usually killers do the deed and then just suicide or sit silently in court/jail for the rest of their lives. If you're going to forfeit the rest of your free life to do a shooting, why throw away your chances at follow-up psychological attacks? If you've murdered multiple people, your behavior in court isn't going to save you.
In that article one of the parents calls him a coward. There are many, many epithets that would properly apply to this dude, but coward ain't one of them.
-
His delivery was pretty poor, though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orrADre3Y08
Language, obvs.
-
He sounds so angry and "ugh really this was stupid I wanna go home". He shoulda tried to pull off a smug kinda vibe.
-
Yeah, next time he should be better at killing innocent children.
-
lol at super edgy kids worshiping him like he's a deep, intellectual guy.
-
He already has fangirls. Move over, Breivik.
-
Don't forget James Holmes:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.gawkerassets.com%2Fimg%2F17tu9prz93asejpg%2Fxlarge.jpg&hash=01f4b777b5668718350f8eda92e2fe47)
-
I'm not surprised. I mean, that beard...
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.1286436.1363115983%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Flandscape_635%2Faurora13n-5-web.jpg&hash=1419cbdb3e58f9525cf8e65e239aca23)
-
He converted to Islam, apparently. Perhaps that's why he grew it.
-
The beard really helps with the spree-killer vibe.
-
I can process this information, and I can wholeheartedly support feminism, but I can't do both at once.
-
Gotta love ******s.
-
was it a nuke
Is most of Boston still there? Yes? Lost.
(http://picardfacepalm.com)
-
Gotta love ******s.
I thought this was more hilarious than rageworthy. "was it a nuke" yea, bosten's a steaming crater now bro, let's play xbox before everyone dies
sweet it's gunna b like fallout 3 bro
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.azw.s3.amazonaws.com%2F16641_n424brodeanryanrevockrgbp.jpg&hash=e09c9df7478f9dea9f2b6e7533582357)
This person is being 100% serious and genuinely believes his message fwiw, he's from a psychotic wingnut Xtian cult
or and here's his Twitter if you need more proof/ways to lose: https://twitter.com/brodeanIV
-
Xtian cult
...Oh, I get it. Is that like how you're supposed talk about Christian extremists so they don't get confused with the good folks?
EDIT: Well, this (http://shine.yahoo.com/fashion/mean-girl-fashion-and-beauty-rules-at-cornell-sorority-no-mustaches-or-muffin-tops-636982.html;_ylt=A2KLOzIOZnlRmy4AJGUhmolQ) isn't as bad, but it is disheartening.
-
Was watching The Daily Show today, and saw this, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g-FbDzAHSs) (Linked because I'm pretty sure there's language: it is The Daily Show.) which horrified me so much I wasn't even laughing.
You could rage at me, too, for raging after seeing some random clips of Fox News on The Daily Show, and for being the perfect archetype for the know-nothing constantly-outraged for no real reason high school liberal ******.
-
Gotta love how they talk about how much the "enemy" hates our freedoms when they're the ones suggesting that we revoke a citizen's Miranda rights. Screw Fox News.
EDIT: Uh wow, they practically suggested burning the whole Constitution in that video.
-
Why is it that when someone kills a bunch of people just to kill a bunch of people, they should get a fair trial, but if it's in the name of terrorism, they should be tortured and waterboarded and not given their Miranda rights? Hearing "I'm a bit concerned because now he's got his Miranda rights" from a supposed "lover of America" is quite...I suppose the word is ironic? And "I don't believe enhanced interrogation techniques are torture." The people complaining about how the [darn] liberals are redefining marriage are now the ones redefining what enhanced interrogation techniques are. I don't know about you, but I think simulated drowning is torture if there is such a thing.
Clip (with good audio) got removed from YouTube, here it is on their website. Isn't working too great for me right now, though. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-24-2013/weak-constitution) There's another version on YouTube, but it's one of those videos where the audio is so loud it gets distorted really badly. Wouldn't recommend it.
-
If anyone at Fox News worked for an actual news organization, they would know that Dzokhar was not even read his rights until after sixteen hours of interrogation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/29/tsarnaev-right-to-counsel-denied) anyway.
I'd be interested to see a Venn diagram of the overlap between the people who (rightly) are upset with Obama for maybe-accidentally-maybe-on-purpose killing a 16-year-old American citizen in a drone strike in the name of fighting terrorism, and the people who are demanding that we now take away all the rights of a 19-year-old American citizen in the name of fighting terrorism.
-
So Fox News
-
"Uh-oh, I did something fatally irresponsible. I'd better... pass it off to a god! Yes! Responsibility? What's that? I don't even know! I can keep my kid and he can keep his gun?" (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html)
"Just tragic," and "something you can't prepare for?" Holy [dukar], rednecks. I wasn't even fully on board with banning guns a few months ago but almost every day I'm getting pulled to that side more and more. I think I'm there by now.
-
who the hell buys a .22 for a five-year-old especially when you also have a two-year-old in the house
a .22 is not a gun for a five-year-old you idiots. a gun for a five-year-old is one with a cork on a string.
-
I thought cork-on-string guns were banned.
-
They are. That's why the kid got a .22
So many things to say about gun laws.. I am ok with a "licensed concealed weapon" type of situation. But criminals and other unsavory types don't follow gun laws any way.
-
I was going to post the article on that kid who tried to rape and then proceeded to kill his mom after she banned him from playing Call of Duty, but I first heard about it from a link to the Daily Mail article on it, and I don't want to give them web traffic. So just google "Noah Crooks".
-
But Daily Mail is Britain's answer to The Onion.
Whores: Not even once. (http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/it-happened-to-me-i-ended-up-in-bed-with-a-27-year-old-virgin)
-
Is this related to the 27 year-old guy that killed himself? ... O'kay, I made that up, but wouldn't ya think?
-
I'm convinced that Weegee intentionally prowls the internet everyday looking for reasons to hate women.
-
The internet readily provides it.
-
I always thought he got his articles via /r9k/.
-
4chan readily provides it.
Fixed
-
What does that story have to do with whores?
-
It doesn't. Whore is a dumb*** term misogynists use to scare women who enjoy lots of sex with multiple partners. The woman in the article is nothing more than a jerk.
-
If she weren't a whore, she probably wouldn't have judged him so harshly for being a virign.
-
Judged him harshly? Did you link the wrong story or something? The one I read had a chick backing out of casual sex with a virgin because she knew they weren't going to form a relationship and wanted his first time to be with someone more special. You appear to be severely distorting this story through the twisted hate lens of your childhood trauma induced misogyny.
-
If she weren't a whore, she probably wouldn't have judged him so harshly for being a virign.
“Oh, jeez,” I stammered. “OK, we need to stop.”
Dude, so harsh.
-
Wait
"Don't have sex with me, you want to do this with someone who will still matter to you later on," and that makes her a whore?
I mean the implication is she's cool with having one-night stands if the man is, but she's got class in doing that at least.
-
Never. Had. Sex.
Internally, I was screaming at myself to not laugh, not make a face, not judge.
Just from the tone of the whole article, it's obvious that she sees men like him as deserving of pity or shame. At least the top-rated comment has the right idea:
When you tell somebody you won't sleep with them because of how you think they might end up feeling, you're taking away their agency and thinking for them and not letting them make decisions on their own.
-
Just from the tone of the whole article, it's obvious that she sees men like him as deserving of pity or shame. At least the top-rated comment has the right idea:
I read it again just because I thought she sounded like a jerk the first time (not because she refused to have sex with him mind you, but it did seem as though she was berating him from being a virgin), but you know she could've just been trying not to make him feel bad by reacting awkwardly. There's nothing "obvious" about it, you just interpret it that way because you're a misogynist.
-
Wait, I could've sworn one of the tenants of this whole sexual acceptance thing was that having or not having sex shouldn't be treated like a big deal. If "he's never had sex" is a valid reason to not have sex with a guy, then how the hell are they supposed to overcome that?
-
If it took him 27 years to get this far, maybe he'll manage to lose his virginity at 54.
-
Wait, I could've sworn one of the tenants of this whole sexual acceptance thing was that having or not having sex shouldn't be treated like a big deal.
It is, but so is respecting a person's decision not to have sex with someone for whatever reason. No one is obligated to have sex with anyone. Period. If she doesn't want to have sex with him because he's a virgin, that's her business.
-
The moral of the story: if a relationship isn't coming your way, bang someone with low standards as a baseline, then work your way up from there?
-
Oh no, how dare she want to have lots of sex in the meantime. And I don't recall her ever saying she was looking for a relationship or trying to "work her way up" from anything. She just wanted to date.
Also, qft:
Reading the Fungi Forums makes me sick to my stomach daily since it became a nonstop barrage of ******bag misogynistic assclowns
-
I was referring to the guy, but whatever.
-
I'm curious as to how you got that from the article. Honest question. Is it because I said no one is obligated to have sex with anyone? Because that doesn't mean you should look for someone with low standards, just someone who, you know, actually wants to have sex (two completely different things provided you're not peering through the lens of misogyny).
Anything else is forced and that's kind of sort of really bad.
-
Alright, I'll try to rephrase that more fairly: I'm glad I'm not the kind of person who would back out of sex with someone just because they were a virgin, and I hope the same thing never happens to me with someone I'm legitimately attracted.
-
That article didn't make me rage. The woman was pretty respectful for meeting his honesty with her own: that she wasn't looking to build a relationship out of their encounter, and that she would feel uncomfortable taking his virginity when the sex wouldn't have mattered to her as much as it would to him. That's assuming that the man was looking to build a relationship out of their encounter. He could have been looking to have (relatively) casual sex, but the author doesn't make it clear how serious the man was about seeing her. I kind of wish they had at least communicated what the sex would have meant to each of them, since "virginity" doesn't automatically mean "doesn't want to casually do it." Oh well.
What's interesting about that "top comment" quote is that the second clause describes what's wrong about rape. When you force someone to have sex with you, you're taking away their agency and thinking for them and not letting them make decisions on their own. Kind of ironic.
If anything, this article is reassuring because it didn't end with anyone coercing anyone else into doing something against their will/better judgment. And 27 isn't that old, right?
...Right?
-
Alright, I'll try to rephrase that more fairly: I'm glad I'm not the kind of person who would back out of sex with someone just because they were a virgin, and I hope the same thing never happens to me with someone I'm legitimately attracted.
More fairly? It still sounds like you think she's beneath you because her standards are different from yours ("I'm not the kind of person" is a tacit admittance that your standards somehow make you better than her), which implies you still think she's obligated to have sex with someone after a certain point to be considered a good person.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAuExJ6O.jpg&hash=76af2c7b66a5df14e844642c75e80a21)
Is it me or is Facebook actually Hell
-
You're thinking of Twitter.
More fairly? It still sounds like you think she's beneath you because her standards are different from yours ("I'm not the kind of person" is a tacit admittance that your standards somehow make you better than her), which implies you still think she's obligated to have sex with someone after a certain point to be considered a good person.
Alright, let me try this again: I'm not glad because of a sense of moral superiority, but because it just sounds kind of inconvenient to limit one's sexual partners based on their prior experience, especially as you're already rounding the bases.
-
but because it just sounds kind of inconvenient to limit one's sexual partners based on their prior experience
And that's your business. Thanks for proving my point.
Also, none of those killers have anything on the sexy man beast that was Ted Bundy.
-
The bottom line: She had every right to make the choice she did, but we have every right to criticize her for it.
As he responded with a groan, I wonder if this had happened to the poor guy before.
-
She had every right to make the choice she did, but we have every right to criticize her for it.
That just leads to the same problem of pressuring someone into having sex when they don't really want to. So no, you don't ****ing have the right to criticize her.
-
She was making a choice on his behalf. I'm not criticizing her for not having sex with him, I'm criticizing her for not having sex with him because of her assumptions about the consequences.
-
I'm not criticizing her for not having sex with him, I'm criticizing her for not having sex with him because of her assumptions
...which is why she didn't have sex with him.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi43.tinypic.com%2Fjsisfm.jpg&hash=b615c5d1a515a50cd533cbba41df41bc)
Or are you seriously just criticizing the assumption in itself? Because that has nothing to do with sex or her being a "whore" or her making fun of him for being a virgin or anything you've complained about in this thread.
-
Have you both forgotten the good old days when this was how we finished conversations?
Sex is a complicated interaction between two people. Some people don't always use their best judgment when approaching intercourse, and that can be frustrating.
Yes. Also, it's unfair how women face persecution when they choose not to engage in sex. It implies that women shouldn't be able to choose for themselves, and that's bad.
Exactly. You both are reasonably intelligent! Now let's go enjoy some tacos at a local eating establishment.
-
I'm not sure that characterization does justice to our argument, although I appreciate your attempt to defuse the situation.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi287.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll143%2FToad_2002%2FMario_Party_5_Bob-ombs_zps229b604a.png&hash=a54d7bfb06b3dd99fcfb8be3bbb3cc02) (http://s287.photobucket.com/user/Toad_2002/media/Mario_Party_5_Bob-ombs_zps229b604a.png.html)
-
Aliasing much? Sheesh...
-
I was about to say, dem polygons.
-
Wait, so that's *not* the DS version?
-
Mario Party 5 — 2v2 — "Defuse or Lose"
-
Things looked different on a blurry CRT. Sprites even looked 3-dimensional at times.
-
Why did I read that in the voice of a shell-shocked, unshaven man hunched over a bar.
-
MP5 is a memory nobody wants to revisit.
-
Why did I read that in the voice of a shell-shocked, unshaven man hunched over a bar.
"Back then they ran a twisted game in those parts, a game called 'Defuse or Lose'. I didn't defuse."
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi287.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll143%2FToad_2002%2Fmichael-jackson-eating-popcorn_zps546c73a8.gif&hash=77a6b8e911cd16d17db4de4203fece3f) (http://s287.photobucket.com/user/Toad_2002/media/michael-jackson-eating-popcorn_zps546c73a8.gif.html)
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi147.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr305%2Fthe_Grim_Reaper_1%2F2107.png&hash=1c5573c4f76ecfc5e45c8b3a6370b2a9)
-
That's an obvious ruse.
-
Probably of little or no consequence to anyone else in this thread (unless you're Australian), but;
Julia Gillard Calls Labor Leadership Spill (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-calls-leadership-ballot-for-7pm-20130626-2owzy.html)
This will be the third Labor leadership ballot since the 2010 federal election.
The news is filled with the petty squabblings of these people who are supposedly running our country, who in three years haven't managed to sort out their internal differences. We see Rudd (the ex-leader of the party, ousted by current leader Gillard) doing tours to try and gain the trust and popular vote of the Australian people and undermining our Prime Minister. It's pretty safe to assume the Labor party will lose the election, which wouldn't be a bad thing except the other party is being run by a backwards-thinking misogynist who seems hell-bent on sending Australia back to the dark ages.
I'm normally not much of a political thinker, but this really grinds my gears. Not to mention I have to vote for one of these parties, come September.
-
Why do you have to choose? Doesn't Australia have 3rd party cadidates?
-
The alternate parties generally are too narrow-focused to be a viable option. There's a third party called the Palmer United Party that seem to be mainly signing up sporting stars, which is good for a laugh but frankly I don't want them running my country...
Oh well, everything's happened and they've got over their little parliamentary hissy-fit by the looks of it. Rage averted. (mostly)
-
I almost raged when this (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3036781/posts) was one of the first results I got from googling the "#ProudToLove" thing going on today, but then I saw that dumb*** calling for "civil war" and I got that amazing reassuring feeling.
(If I'm doing too many posts like this in this thread, feel free to tell me to stop)
-
I lost. I understand being Christian and having your beliefs, but that simply pushes it too far. They are so insensitive that what started as a simple discussion of faith turns into hate slurs.
-
I feel like Free Republic is just a troll forum liberals visit to play strawman.
-
That's because the content is so idiotic that they make fun of themselves by posting that material.
-
????????
-
They mock themselves by being so stupid, basically.
-
He's here till Thursday! Try the veal!
you guys i am laughing so much right now
-
They mock themselves by being so stupid, basically.
Again,
??????????????????
-
They mock themselves by being so stupid, basically.
So what you're saying is that the content that they post, parodying republicans, is so stupid they have accidentally parodied themselves.
Or maybe what they're posting isn't a parody of republicans, but a parody of anti-republican rhetoric.
Hang on a second. Let me make a chart and try to make that sentence mean something:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg90.imageshack.us%2Fimg90%2F1951%2Fm7j.png&hash=ebfdb3349a21060827ead853eacbd258)
There we go. That almost makes a thought.
-
For Pete's sake KoopaTrooper, I was implying that Free Republic users are actually liberals pretending to be conservatives and intentionally posting stupid [dukar] to make actual conservatives look bad. Mostly because the content is laughably stupid yet the tone in which it's presented seems lighthearted and satirical to me.
How about those of us who are Christian put on our gospel boots and, our good Lord and the Father willing, do some kicking of Satan's rear end. "Punk" them back, so to speak, yet in a way that shows them God's love.
You can't tell me that doesn't sound like satire.
-
For an explanation of my post, see Godot's first sentence of that post.
-
You can't tell me that doesn't sound like satire.
It certainly does sound like satire, but the sad thing is that it also sounds like something a totally legitimate grade-A fundamentalist would say. My family used to go to a church full of these sorts of people. They're actually real, and it's unnerving.
-
I don't know, I always assumed freepers were legitimate. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3037220/posts)
-
Homosexuality is an inherently selfish act.
How is it inherently selfish? In other words, what are homosexuals taking away from right wing Christians? I guess it has to do with their arrogance and pushing the Bible in your face, and they can't stand anyone being different.
On another note, selfish is taking something for your self and denying others by choice. You can't choose to be gay or straight. You can't suddenly become gay one morning and you certainly can't become straight by taking whatever Christian classes they give to homosexual people that makes them ashamed of who they are.
-
There is one bright spot for Christians in America, though it will not appear so. Christianity in America has become soft. Persecution of the faithful will strengthen it as it has done for centuries. It will happen. We best prepare.
Anyone else absolutely terrified by that rhetoric? That's some Crusade [dukar] right there.
-
They will never get what they truly want - acceptance. They can force society to work with them but they can never get people to accept them if they don’t want to. Even if you are forced to work with them, you don’t have to even acknowledge their existence after hours .... and that is what fries their ***es. In the end, it’s just them, their dark places and Satan.
Is this the kind of [dukar] people say to feel better about themselves when they get old and bat[dukar] (IF THIS ISN'T FILTERED JUST PUT AN ASTERISK THERE) insane?
-
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/teen-jailed-terrorist-threat-after-making-sarcastic-comments-facebook
-
He deserved it. People should never make jokes like that, it could hurt people.
-
really
-
:|
-
I honestly wonder how many comedians have made jokes in the same vein; if you're gonna lock up a kid that was being sarcastic to a bunch of jerks on the internet, you might as well lock up the people that make money off those jokes too!
-
I guess the main point of the story is don't say stupid [dukar] like that, especially on the internet.
Jokes like that are harder to absorb when the events they originate from are still fresh or when you saw the event happen live (I still don't like 9/11 jokes, for example). Even though it happened in December, the Sandy Hook massacre is still pretty fresh in a lot of minds, so to read something like that jailed kid's comment is really distasteful... and just stupid (I mean, really, did he think he'd get away with saying something that sparks instant controversy like that? Especially with our country's history of school/mass shootings...)
-
Other thoughts: while society has an itchy trigger finger regarding terrorism jokes, mass murder jokes, etc., the things that were said were wrong in any context, whether jokes or not. People take offense to that kind of thing, and making threats is never a joke.
Also: The change.org petition does nothing, if someone commits a crime he has to be arrested for it.
-
And? Offending people or saying distasteful things should be made a criminal offense?
Before it would put me on death row I have to ask, are you retarded or something?
-
Hmm. I was expecting to be more convinced of his guilt, reading the... discussion, here, but I find this all a bit too draconian, considering the context, the sarcasm, and the lack of specifics in his aimless threat.
Certainly we need repercussions to show how seriously threats should be taken, but I can't wish jail time on this kid.
-
Also, if he really wanted to do bad stuff, wouldn't he keep it secret to avoid getting caught? This reminds me of the story where a kid and his friends were going to do something nice around Christmas but they got arrested due to posting it on facebook as "A nice surprise."
-
And? Offending people or saying distasteful things should be made a criminal offense?
Before it would put me on death row I have to ask, are you retarded or something?
He was joking about killing kids at an elementary. It isn't anything to joke about regardless.
-
Your custom title is rather apt, KoopaTrooper.
-
Wait, are we supposed to lose faith in humanity because of the ensuing discussions?
"You don't know, Markio? Ugh, I'm losing faith already..."
"The fact that you invest so much of your faith in someone you barely know off the internet makes me lose faith."
"The fact that you're a hypocrite makes me lose even more faith."
"Your liberal use of the word 'faith' is causing me mild rage." - Sapphira
The fact that hypothetical Sapphira used the word 'liberal' amuses me and thus restores my faith ...in myself.
-
The fact that people would lose all faith in life due to a random Mario message board made me lose faith.
-
trigger finger
You think it's okay to say stuff like that, KoopaTrooper? What if someone who had a relative that was shot to death saw you using that term!
-
Trigger warning: triggers
-
parent trigger (is actually a real non violent thing)
-
tigger warning
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.dolimg.com%2Ffranchise%2Fpooh%2Fimg%2Fcharacters%2Ftigger.png&hash=716a1e84acaeea8d55a7f14440b58008)
this wasn't as lame in my head
-
CENSOR THAT [dukar], MAN
-
TIGGER WARNING! (This image has been censored per request.)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAdYOEp2.png&hash=a2b0a51a43c5e835701ee2703a7cc17f)
resizing it destroyed the transparency ;_;
-
Relevant (http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-79TCGS6/0/950x10000/7-8-13-950x10000.jpg) (tigger warning: swear words)
-
lol
jk
-
really
????
-
I'm confused at your confusion.
-
He deserved it. People should never make jokes like that, it could hurt people.
How is jailing him even remotely justifiable, seriously. He wasn't shouting fire in a movie theater, he was responding to a dumb*** comment on Facebook. Does context just not mean anything anymore?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG7LjVCj50Y
-
The fact that 40% of Fungi Forum members have ridiculously long hair, neck beards, ironic patchy mustaches, and faces that would make one question whether they poured used grease over their faces makes me lose faith in humanity.
-
...ugly people make you lose faith in humanity? Really?
-
Ehey I remember you (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=9323.msg600669#msg600669)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8G686.jpg&hash=d21b3f354bb47cde80f603173268ff2e)
-
The fact that 40% of Fungi Forum members have ridiculously long hair, neck beards, ironic patchy mustaches, and faces that would make one question whether they poured used grease over their faces makes me lose faith in humanity.
I have pretty short hair, thank you very much.
-
I wonder if he still hats us.
-
lololololol (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/22/david-cameron-crackdown-internet-pornography)
-
All police forces will work with a single secure database of illegal images of children to help "close the net on paedophiles".
Yeah, just building a huge database of child porn. Nothing suspicious there.
The Daily Mail, which has been running a campaign to crack down on pornography online
I already know they're awful, but...really?
-
My favorite part will be watching as they utterly fail to account for how generous the term "porn" can be.
-
He deserved it. People should never make jokes like that, it could hurt people.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi941.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad259%2FMOTTIE_Pics%2Ffunny-cat-asking-what.jpg&hash=1d18b3c0e3b2a6f2b621bbd9a26bf17a)
-
I wonder how much Anthony Jeselnik ****es him off.
-
Sorry for the double post, but this child board in particular is a total dead zone, so I hope it's not too big a deal.
If you're a more conservative type, like Weegee for example, this article will make you lose. If you're a more liberal type, then the comments will probably make you lose. (http://www.salon.com/2013/10/05/the_legend_of_zelda_is_classist_sexist_and_racist/singleton/) I'd maybe call myself a moderate liberal type, but I didn't take very kindly to either the article or those idiots complaining about the "Jewish conspiracy" in the comments.
-
I groaned just from the implications of the URL.The article itself is really REALLY reaching. It's not even funny. I mean yes there are still sexist games. But Zelda?
I think crazy oversensitivity to sexism, also known as feminazism, is creating more problems than it's solving. And probably oversensitivity to racism too. I feel like writers are afraid to make characters anything but straight white males, except for the ones devoid of flaws and personalities. And can you blame them? No one wants to look racist or sexist, and anything you do can be considered such. But they have to keep up appearances, so they make those flawless characters of other races and femality. And they need to remind you they are women or Asian or whatever they are, and so that becomes their only trait. The result is, surprise! Sexism and racism!
So why are white men the default, with changes to race or gender treated as character traits in and of themselves? Why can't it be more comfortable to just come up with the role and personality first and then make a face that works for it, be it a man's, a woman's, belonging to any race? That's what I do. It works pretty well. As a rule I think if you could change your female or non-white character to a white male, still have an interesting character, and don't have to make any major, compromising changes to their personalities, priorities etc., then you're doing it right. Turns out most people act like people.
-
As Feminist Frequency blogger Anita Sarkeesian says
AHAHAHA
Anyway, those are good points, BP. White males are seen as the default, so any deviation from that default is bound to be met with overanalysis. If a game developer created an entirely new IP and decided on the characters' races and genders at complete, absolute random, it would still face accusations of stereotyping.
-
(THIS MIGHT TAKE A LONG TIME TO LOAD BECAUSE THIS POST HAS QUITE A FEW LARGE IMAGES)
What really got me was them mentioning that Ganondorf has "brown skin". Maybe slightly brownish looking at certain points in certain games and in some artwork. In OOT, the game that they were mainly analyzing?
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeldainformer.com%2Fimages%2Farticles%2FDivinePrank_Lex_1.jpg&hash=87f5db5b37141e28f801b8ccb259774f)
His skin
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F86bb71d19d3bcb79effc-d9e6924a0395cb1b5b9f03b7640d26eb.r91.cf1.rackcdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F04%2Fzelda-ocarina-of-time-3d-ganondorf.jpg&hash=ebf0db32eca4f7f0f3f381ed28b871c0)
even in the remake
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dpaddbags.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2FGanon.jpg&hash=606e798e9b2ecd29ecf9aefbfddf4811)
is freaking GREEN
NOT BROWN
GREEN
And even in the others, it's pretty obviously green.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FjeX9jXH-n9Q%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=eb997222043e604e658de7c9f1aeab6b)
In Twilight Princess, it's fairly green.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeldainformer.com%2Fimages%2Farticleimages%2FThe%2520Wind%2520Waker%2520Part%252012%2520Ganondorf_0001.jpg&hash=78c74a9f04a0a503f8c7ee06af5082d4)
In (the admittedly cartoony) Wind Waker, it's definitely green.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20100413011020%2Fzelda%2Fimages%2F1%2F18%2FGanon_%2528Oracle_of_Ages_%2526_Oracle_of_Seasons%2529.png&hash=33e2581489190c967d732c4196a3bddf)
In many games, he's not even a humanoid (That's right! Not even human! (http://sardoose.rustedlogic.net/reviews/jturbo/jt1-4.jpg)), let alone a "brown" one.
-
I think they just read a pictureless summary and saw a Gerudo
-
Though that nose is pretty Jewish.
-
Without having read the article, the only point I'll admit is that "dark-skinned race of theives living in the desert" is admittedly a very specific cultural trope with some unsavory historical origins that a lot of people probably don't realize (there was some Cracked article about that, back when they made reasoned arguments in their social justice listicles instead of feverishly channeling Jezebel under a vague "Staff" byline).
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeldainformer.com%2Fimages%2Farticles%2FDivinePrank_Lex_1.jpg&hash=87f5db5b37141e28f801b8ccb259774f)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F86bb71d19d3bcb79effc-d9e6924a0395cb1b5b9f03b7640d26eb.r91.cf1.rackcdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F04%2Fzelda-ocarina-of-time-3d-ganondorf.jpg&hash=ebf0db32eca4f7f0f3f381ed28b871c0)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dpaddbags.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2FGanon.jpg&hash=606e798e9b2ecd29ecf9aefbfddf4811)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FjeX9jXH-n9Q%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=eb997222043e604e658de7c9f1aeab6b)
I always thought that ganondorf looked like dark matter from kirby
-
Hmm....
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m1q43lgOnX1qc2ley.jpg&hash=843a26ef6ec45d18e1a53acc2f93a672)(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20130426222315%2Fkirby%2Fen%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fae%2FKDL2_Dark_Matter.png&hash=bf0ff443455b90f6cdd696e6cf640a77)
....nah.
-
He also doesn't teleport nearly as much.
I'm bluffing my Kirby knowledge here. Dark Matter is from which one? One of the Super Star games? Dream Land 3? I know Nightmare teleported like a madman so it can't be newer than that
-
Dark Matter is from Kirby's Dream Land 2, Kirby's Dream Land 3 and Kirby 64. And I'm pretty sure none of the battles against him are anything like the one against Nightmare.
-
I can kind of see the battle against Dark Matter in KDL2 being similar to the Nightmare (from Kirby's Adventure, I assume..?)if you have all of the Rainbow Drops, then the second half of that battle..
-
The 2nd form resembles his head
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Fkirby%2Fen%2Fimages%2F6%2F6e%2FDarkmatter.PNG&hash=6a61609f4f4817fac3d2ff675da5fd02)
-
Yes, Ganondorf's head is a solid black sphere with one eye and little red welts (?) around it.
-
Besides the eye
I always thought his skin was literally black
-
Very interesting definition of "black".
-
Black (n) blæk
1. RGB 0 0 0
-
The 2nd form resembles his head
Yeah I see what you're saying. I mean, it's a bit of a stretch, but the resemblance is there, even if only a little bit.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m1q43lgOnX1qc2ley.jpg&hash=843a26ef6ec45d18e1a53acc2f93a672)(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20130426222315%2Fkirby%2Fen%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fae%2FKDL2_Dark_Matter.png&hash=bf0ff443455b90f6cdd696e6cf640a77)
Well, they both have that menacing glare thing down.
I don't see any other resemblances..
I think this conversation has made me lose some faith in humanity..
-
Black (n) blæk
1. RGB 0 0 0
Note how that does not say "brownish green".
-
the Nightmare
ITS NOT THE NIGHTMARE
ITS "nightmare".
Thanks.
-
I believe it's actually "Nightmare" but eh details.
-
Yes. I know.
-
Then...????
-
I know some of my Kirby bad guys
Colonel themetaknight, and it's Nightmare thanks
-
But he apparently already knows that. :U
-
I have raged. And lost faith
in humanity.CORRECTION some humans
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlZySP5E.jpg&hash=e0bbe89b5c612858c2db4c62ea712375)
wwwwwwwoooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww
hello my name is pretentious what's yours
(Fits in the rage half. The fact that there are many disapproving replies is helping humanity)
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsinglemaltmates.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2Fhipster-record-player.jpg&hash=98aad643fb282dded9fe2d8326b54191)
"Listening to music on an iPad? How commercialist."
-
That is kinda hipster-y, but if I could afford vinyls and a good record player, I'd rather listen to music that way.
-
Not going to lie, there could be some valid excuses here.
"Aw man, my laptop's broken and this paper's due tomorrow. Too bad I only have this typewriter."
"Well, I can't afford a music playing device, I guess I've got some old records and a small record player"
-
So, uh, there's this reality show called Duck Dynasty about some rednecks that go duck hunting every now and then and sell duck calls. (That's a really rough summary, but only because I don't watch it.) The family that's the center of the show are definitely of the religious conservative ilk, and the dad of the show recently got suspended from the show for saying some homophobic and racially insensitive stuff.
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
That one might just be naive instead of outright racist, but there's no excuse for comparing homosexuality to bestiality and adultery with that stupid slippery slope [dukar], as he does right here:
What, in your mind, is sinful?
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
And, uh, I live in the southern United States, where people aren't exactly known for...well, not being racist or homophobic, and my mom and her boyfriend in the next room are genuinely wondering what's wrong with what he said.
help me
-
my mom and her boyfriend
That's a funny way of spelling "husband", sodomite.
-
With every sentence in his quote about "the blacks", I said "okay, he can't dig himself any deeper than this" and then I read the next sentence and said "oh wow, he did." And then topping it all off with the idea that apparently the blacks didn't invent blues music until they were all on welfare?
On the sex part, you left out this one:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Because when a man picks a woman to marry, the only thing that matters is how good her vagina is. Which he is somehow supposed to know without violating the no sex before marriage rule (or at least, without HER violating the no sex before marriage rule). Or, it's not that he specifically knows about her vagina, he just knows she has one, and vaginae are better than anuses (ani? anodes?). In which case why would it matter which woman you marry? As long as she's a woman and he's a man, that's all that really matters in marriage, right?
It's interesting to note here that in his hypothetical, he still sees himself as the active penetrator. He's saying that, given the choice between having sex with a man or with a woman, he would choose a woman, because a vagina has "more to offer" than an anus, but leaves out the fact that the man would also have a penis, which opens up other possibilities. If Mr. Robertson were to have sex with a man, he could be penetrated by the man, or administer oral sex to the man. If having "more to offer" is the deciding factor in the question of which gender is better for a man to have sex with, having sex with a man gives more options, even if a vagina offers a superior penetrative experience (If this is starting to sound like it has nothing to do with love and marriage, that may serve as a hint as to why Phil's original statement was offensive to LGBT people).
I imagine the reason he didn't factor in "I could be penetrated by a man" and "I could fellate a man" is because thinking about those kinds of things would just be too gay, which underlines his failure in this segment to imagine people who are different than himself. He considers a vagina to be more desirable than an anus, so therefore, choosing to be in a homosexual relationship is illogical. It couldn't possibly be that other people like different things than he does. He's conflating his own cognitive experience with reality.
I'm reminded of the Sally-Anne test: Sally has a cookie. She puts the cookie under a basket. Sally leaves the room. While she's gone, Anne takes the cookie and puts it under a box. When Sally comes back in the room, where will she look for the cookie? Children who haven't developed a theory of mind will insist that Sally is going to look under the box, because after all, that's where the cookie is, and it would be silly to look for the cookie in a place where it's not. They're not thinking about it in terms of "I know the cookie is under the box, but Sally doesn't know that." They can only think "The cookie is under the box."
It's one thing to say that Sally is wrong in her belief that the cookie is under the basket. It's another thing to not comprehend why Sally is looking under the basket. Saying something like "Why would you want to be gay? Don't you realize that means you don't get to have sex with women (if you're a man)?" falls under the latter.
Also this:
The Duck Dynasty guy who likened homosexuality to bestiality makes a living helping people trick ducks into thinking they want to **** them.
(I miss the days when I assumed "Duck Dynasty" was a spinoff of Meerkat Manor and was just a bunch of ducks with people voices dubbed over them)
-
All I know is I only ever associate the word "dynasty" with Chinese history, so I'm invariably confused whenever I remember it's also in the title of what is apparently "Rednecks: The Reality Show, Only We're Amazed When They Indeed Act Like Rednecks."
-
Members of my family and previous friends keep making posts on Facebook supporting Phil Robertson and asking people to boycott A&E.
-
The Duck Dynasty guy is a modern Rosa Parks for speaking out against people. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/ian-bayne-duck-dynasty_n_4480745.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ncid=webmail1)
I'm not saying I'm surprised that rednecks act like rednecks. I grew up going to school with rednecks in-the-making and I already know they're awful people. But to compare this guy to anyone who has ever stood up for a minority's rights. How do these people make it into the government I am experiencing sheer terror
What are these ultra-conservatives fighting for? I legit want to know the ideology. I mean both political extremes are pretty wacko but at least it's the dream of justice for all that the left is going for. The best term I can pin to the right is "objectivist" and the worst include hateful and antipathetic.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQhjJ0BLxT0
He rages, you lose.
[Frick warning]
-
Went Super Saiyan at 2:10
P.S. I frickin subbed.
-
It's funny to laugh at his videos, but I don't think it's funny to outright pick on him like people do. For one thing, he's not an insane creepy perverted stalker like Chris-chan was.
-
Think his parents were home when he recorded these? Or have they already gone deaf?
-
He took his channel down at one point because his parents saw all the mean stuff and made him, but then it came back. I dunno either.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn0Hh9iQCGI#t=304
-
Well, I need to reboot now
-
I don't think the 2DS is particularly flawed, but I never felt the need to scream about it.
-
This guy is gonna have so many nights kept wide awake by embarrassment and regret when he's 20
edit: holy [dukar]. the 2DS video, 5-minute mark. oh my god. i'm scared
-
Are you sure he'll have gained a sufficient degree of self-awareness by then? He claims to be 15 years old.
-
I saw that too. If it's true, I dunno what to blame. Inbreeding? Bad conditioning? Sonic? ???
-
A chemical imbalance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog)
-
I don't think the 2DS is particularly flawed, but I never felt the need to scream about it.
I got one for Christmas. I have found absolutely no downside.
-
Language and Offensive Content Warning: Instead of linking you to a particularly insane post, I'd like you to explore this blog yourself and see how long you can last. (http://witchwind.wordpress.com)
(Apparently I forgot to add an adequate warning. Dang...)
-
Laughed when I figured out what "PIV" stands for.
-
Her posts on [the act through which humans reproduce] (which the majority of her posts seem to be about) remind me of a blubbering neckbeard clickety-clacking away at a keyboard on a video games message board reminding everyone to "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!"
Of particular note is the section on which comments she doesn't deem acceptable. And since I'm mentioning comments, here's an interesting one (!!!WARNING FOR POSSIBLY OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE!!!). (http://i.imgur.com/VixST92.png)
-
I couldn't even make it through the first post on the page.
Crazy people.
-
It just gets crazier and crazier. (!!!OFFENSIVE CONTENT WARNING!!!) (http://i.imgur.com/wmMfKys.png)
EDIT: And crazier (this one definitely has offensive content, be warned) (http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/spot-the-man-behind-the-man/)
-
For people who think the opposite sex is so radically different, how can they think they understand the other's thoughts, feelings and wants
-
Presumably the same way you understand that a jungle cat stalking you is probably looking for lunch. I know I, for one, am little more than a filthy misogynistic sexual predator.
-
Remember, men are more afraid of you than you are of them.
-
I have a hard time thinking someone is serious when they use a picture of Darth Vader to demonstrate their point.
-
Remember, men are more afraid of you than you are of them.
You are never more than three feet away from a man.
-
Truth: all men are the evil, alien, living-dead, zombie, robotic, automated, formatted invaders and colonisers who want to and do destroy all life on earth. The truth is that WE need to get ALL MEN out as soon as possible if we want to save the earth.
Alright, this has to be a joke.
-
How about the comments? It all seems too elaborate and drawn-out to be a fabrication.
-
This phrase “is there intelligent life outside the planet”, reminds me of a post on Zeph’s (http://reallyrad.wordpress.com/) I can’t remember where it was though. Men are so moronic and disconnected from life (or contemptuous to it) that they think they’re alone on this planet and feel the need to look for life elsewhere. When there are billions of highly intelligent and sophisticated living species on earth, each of whom having a kind of intelligence that reaches far beyond what any man could understand. When you learn from even just a tiny fraction of what species know and do, or are, and function, it is just mindblowing. If they could connect to the stars, to the moon, to the magnificent life around them, they wouldn’t say they are all alone on this planet (this is the gist of what zeph said, or what i remember from it).
But in fact, i’m sure they are saying the truth about themselves, again: if they say they’re alone, they are all alone. They’re alone in themselves, because they can’t connect for some reason. They’re limited.
-
Wait, what is she even saying? Is she talking about us being stupid because so many men aren't astronomers/astronauts? Why do I have to "connect to the moon?" Do they have good wi-fi? Is there actually life there? Because I think we sent a couple guys up there before, and they didn't find anything. Or could they not find life there because they were men and don't recognize extraterrestrials, while women have superior x-ray life-vision? I somehow think that movie/tv show stereotypes are exactly what fuel this crazy train.
This can't be real. No person could honestly think like this and function in the real world. We would've noticed people acting this crazy out in the open, right?
-
Although I agree that this person is insane, she's far outnumbered by all the men on the internet who think that women are nothing but "dumb, overly emotional *****es" who (as George Carlin put it) are only valuable as a parking place for some sperm.
Haven't really seen much outrage towards that in this thread though. Just a lot of confirmation bias in the form of purposefully looking for bat[dukar] crazies in the feminist movement.
-
Honestly, I'd never give this sort of thing a second thought, but it being presented here makes it pretty open to response. I think I'd have been okay having never read about it, though knowing how often this sort of thing is brought up here (which honestly, I find a little strange) I guess it was inevitable that I would actually pay attention to it at some point. In fact, my original response to the subject of these crazy ladies was a very sarcastic "Thanks for sharing." Honestly, I'm mad at myself for spending time reading those ridiculous arguments, where I never would've found them otherwise. I mean, I get that it harps on the point of this topic, but it's from that corner of the internet that most people ignore in the first place.
Also, they aren't very vocal outside of their little blogs from what I understand, so as long as they stay under their rocks, they don't have much of an adverse affect on people. I mean, PL has a point; I'm pretty sure you have to look specifically for this crap in order to find it; I certainly never would've wandered into it on accident.
-
Alright, maybe you guys want some far-right lunacy instead.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7lX38Mh.jpg&hash=730f6f1937bf03aebad48979f19cf850)
This whole image is crazy, but the two that stand out as most stupid to me:
Black privilege is being wealthy without people assuming your wealth was handed to you, or that you exploited others (even though neo nazis [This image is from the most famous neo-nazi website, which I will not name and thus give them exposure] usually assume black people have any kind of money thanks to affirmative action)
Black privilege is having Hollywood always present your race in a positive light (probably the most laughable one of all)
-
I wish I could say I lost from that image, but after my brother Nutjob introduced me to Reddit, I've come to expect this kind of nonsense in an image format. Maybe if it was an article carefully detailing the author's insanity, I'd rage.
-
Black privilege is when people consider you to be superior at sports or "better in bed"
Someone's got issues.
-
You know the funny thing is that the person who posted that is probably a white supremacist. Yet here they are expressing their fear about being deemed inferior.
-
White supremacists talk about how "the Jews" manipulate everyone and rule the world and have all this money and stuff...and yet white people are "the superior master race". I thought the Jews are the ones that rule the world?
-
M-maybe Ford isn't that bad after all (http://globalnews.ca/video/1196020/18-year-old-girl-taking-on-rob-ford-and-others-in-race-for-citys-top-job/)
-
I don't get it, what's there to rage about?
-
It's Weegee, remember?
-
Not a gender thing. Life isn't a made-for-TV movie, as this person happens to think.
I’ve held and currently hold several leadership positions within Scouts Canada as well as a leadership position within the Anglican Church. I am a camp counsellor and babysitter. I spend a significant period of my time with children, so my conflict resolution skills are great. I do have real leadership experience both within the Scouting and Church worlds. If you have ever tried to get eight nine year olds to do something quickly, you will know I can handle adults.
-
Old, (http://www.mediaite.com/online/fck-christmas-writer-curates-worst-twitter-complaints-about-christmas-gifts/) but I don't think it's an irrelevant thing today (contains language and excessive, putrid angst from spoiled, entitled teenagers).
-
Bleh. Both sides anger me. The side you posted, and the side that argues in favor of spanking. "Let's abuse our child so that they don't overreact in a harmless way."
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvnBw9k0.jpg&hash=47a99c9e5d5f01298cc9b8f1a217b3ab)
-
WAIT I LIED THEY WERE NOT THE ONES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN LIFE.
-
This whole #CancelColbert thing has really got my gears into maximum overgrind.
A quick summary: Colbert mocks the hypocrisy of the guy (Dan Snyder's his name, by the way) who owns the Redskins starting the Original Americans Foundation for Native Americans...while not changing the name of the team to something less racist. He does so by saying that he's going to start the "Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever" to show support for the Asian community. The point is that he's exposing the hypocrisy of Snyder doing things to prove that he's not racist...while still doing blatantly racist stuff. He does so by mimicking him to show how dumb he looks. It's an example of a classic satirical technique; exaggerate and show this thing in a different light, to show how stupid said thing is.
An Asian activist (who, by the way, seems to be a SJW type person judging by some of the other tweets she's made) decided to get #CancelColbert trending after being offended by this. The problem is that she clearly doesn't understand satire.
He was using those overblown stereotypes to make a point. Colbert's whole act is that he pretends to be stupid so we can point and laugh at people like him in our society. Anyone who's even slightly familiar with Colbert's work would know that. The point of him using those racial stereotypes was to say "Hey, look how stupid this is! That other guy was doing it? See how dumb I look when I'm doing it? That should show you that that guy's stupid as well!" It wasn't just a straight up racist joke. Colbert pretends like he's cool with these things on his show...because his persona is a parody of those types of people.
It was pretty funny watching said activist (Her name is Suey Park, by the way) get shut down on HuffPo Live. Her own summary is thus; "HuffPo Live just had me on, host called my opinions stupid, then got upset I told him white men couldn't have an opinion. They muted me." She denied explaining herself when the host told her to, which is hilarious. (Also, the host has denied muting her.)
-
It's not happening. If anything, something making fun of it will be done.
Edit: holy crud that sounded condesending
-
Oh, I know there's no actual threat of The Colbert Report being cancelled or anything. I'm awaiting Monday so I can see how they'll make fun of it (and I really, really hope he doesn't apologize). It's just that the stupidity around it absolutely confounds me.
And to be fair, if you search for the hashtag on Twitter, half or more of the tweets you'll see are actually mocking it. I'm still surprised about how much genuine agreement it got, though.
-
Quoting directly from a FB message to my friend after hearing about this: "Wait, what the **** does this have to do with transphobia? Why the **** do they think a couple of tweets will cancel a show that's been running for over a decade? And most importantly, what pill needs to exist for SJWs to tamp down their hard-on for referring to any theoretically offensive comment someone makes as part of this grand metaphysical "discourse" like all of time, space, and western society is a used college textbook?"
-
their hard-on
Check your privilege.
-
your
*xour, you mean. Bigot.
-
:((
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNK-e6nnFGY
I personally thought this was gold.
-
She really beats around the bush when answering questions. If I were the one conducting the interview, I'd have told her, "Chop chop, Suey".
-
10/10
-
"Activist"
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa335%2FTrevornater%2FIMG_3439_zps895823d2.gif&hash=89e23a212f5520012146071b30aef4f3)
-
Of course I understand satire, I'm a writer. I think satire caters to the audience that you're speaking to so it says something about what the audience finds humorous or acceptable.
uh.
-
How is "Why #CancelColbert?" a loaded question?
-
It hurts her narcissism.
You oughta check out her Twitter account, she's absolutely lost it and she's basically pulling the "No, I'M THE SATIRICAL ONE" card. Or something. It seems that she thinks people only called her opinion stupid because she's a woman.
ALSO THERE'S #CancelSNL NOW, this [dukar] has gone too ****ing far. This stupid uber political correctness movement will die as all the main believers in it have been out of college for a couple years...r-right?
-
Their idealism is gonna hit long-term reality like water on hot blacktop.
-
Wondering how Colbert's gonna handle it...as I post this, the Colbert Report airs in six minutes.
EDIT: Oh my god, that was amazing. He didn't back down one bit, kept the laughs coming in strong, and hilariously used sarcasm to point out how he's portraying a character ("I MEAN EVERYTHING I SAY ON THIS SHOW!"). The best part was when he shut down the "Ching Chong Ding Dong Foundation for Orientals or Whatever" and announced that he'd give all the money to the Redskins, which he said "Twitter must be fine with, because I haven't seen [dukar] about that", noting how they didn't actually do anything about the actual racist he was satirizing in the first place.
However...I've lost faith yet again. You see, at one point, he actually told his viewers NOT to harass the person that started #CancelColbert, and now people are mad at him because he mentioned her on the show at all! (He showed her face at one point, but while her name was on screen briefly, it was only as part of a screenshot that focused on something else; he never even actually said her name.) He tries to protect the person attempting to get his show taken off the air, and people still get angry at him? Perhaps they're just angry at the smackdown Colbert laid down. Yeah, it's bull[dukar] that she's getting death threats for speaking her mind (Even IF her opinion is, like Josh Zepps said, "stupid"). But when Colbert goes out of his way to tell people not to attack her, don't get mad at him for mentioning her on the show.
-
Well, I think that's the best he could've addressed it under the circumstances--and yeah, it's friggin' embarrassing that while a major sports team continues to use a racist mascot, at least we're safe from nonexistent Chinese caricatures.
Also, yeah, at a bare minimum, nobody should be threatening death on anybody who didn't actually kill people themselves.
-
Here's a link to the absolutely perfect response. Naughty language, of course...it's The Colbert Report. (http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/full-episodes/u4jfik/march-31--2014---biz-stone)
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTiQshnu.png&hash=c0cd6198591882d4fc694d393db4fd94)
Why. WHY. Why would someone do this.
-
That was equal parts this thread and "You ;~;, You Lose".
ADD Radio! (http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/07/calgary-radio-station-offers-twice-the-hits-by-cutting-songs-in-half/)
-
Brace yourself (https://twitter.com/YtThumbnails)
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fv4Rl134.png&hash=58d96f5a5e8ebd5ce35f3ea9ef2b5b57)
You formulate your own opinions? What kind of ****ing loser are you?
-
Losing faith in mewmanity (http://mewtwostruckback.deviantart.com/journal/Mewtwo-is-in-Smash-4-The-TLDR-490331356)
-
Mewtwos Have Layers
-
He certainly has his priorities in order.
-
You don't know the whole story until you see some of his reddit posts. (http://www.reddit.com/user/MewtwoStruckBack)
(By the way, please don't go out of your way to attack him or anything, I'm not actually too sure it's the same person)
-
Someone accidentally gave this guy a Nintendo dev license. (http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/NcRAVGZUkZHj_sUecMJO0J46qWNFWDQX)
-
The "creator" of the "game" Yeah'd my post. (https://miiverse.nintendo.net/posts/AYMHAAACAAADVHh0VAx3_g)
-
Welcome to the Meme Run community, where the only rule is to have swag. Discuss how many 360 noscopes you got while tipping your fedora during your Meme Run adventure. Please no b8 m8.
I put that in a spoiler tag for a reason. Make sure to highlight it very slowly.
-
I should've listened instead of just reading the whole thing. I'm nauseous now.
-
And the case for not letting anybody under thirteen on the internet continues to pile up.
-
Since when is the Illuminati a meme?
-
The one where you find triangles in things and say it's the Illuminati pyramid (works best when there's a really obvious triangle in the picture and you instead zoom in on a really tiny triangle). It pops up once in a while on Tumblr, at least.
-
Now, why people say that a dollar is the mark of a secret society, I don't know.
yes, I know technically it's just the ASE.
-
Read this article (contains naughty words and middle fingers!) and prepare to RAGE. (http://www.nintendonuggets.com/?p=1427)
-
I love how the interviewer acts totally polite and normal throughout the whole thing, as if he's completely unaware that this person is a tremendous assbag.
-
The only one I've lost harder to was the one with the razorblade swing sets. Also the pictures made me tear up a little.
-
I lost.
Listen to him whine about said characters being announced. Language. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJIytA-6Meg)
-
Please tell me this guy has a Chris Chan-esque bad reputation across the web. Please.
-
Not quite, but he has his own Encyclopedia Dramatica article.
-
[Fire Emblem] is ****ing gay, it's a stupid RTS strategy game for ****in' losers who doesn't have great taste in gaming.
It's beautiful in its incompetence. Brings a tear to my eye, it does.
-
He really is a 25-year-old middle schooler.
-
What's this dude's problem? (LANGUAGE NAUGHTY WOOOORDS) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHJlbBXo0lo)
-
A Sonic avatar?
I dunno what to blame. Inbreeding? Bad conditioning? Sonic? ???
-
All-around mental instability, more like.
-
I heard that if a Sonic fan bites you, you become a Sonic fan.
-
I heard that if a Sonic fan bites you, you become a Sonic fan.
Actually... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Unleashed)
-
Well, meanwhile, Chris-Chan has an upcoming court hearing. Why? Because he sprayed a Gamestop employee with pepper spray on his way out. Why? Because they asked him to leave because he was banned from it. Why? Because he had been vandalizing copies of Sonic Boom (both versions) warning people that they shouldn't buy it. Why? Because... Sonic's... arms... were blue... in it.
Okay. **** it. I was kidding both times before, but the truth is clear enough. Sonic causes mental problems.
-
I was actively not mentioning his YouTube career to avoid giving him views. I guess that backfired.
Also, I can confirm the Sonic thing. I own Sonic games and have ADHD. Coincidence?
co·in·ci·dence
kōˈinsədəns
noun
1.
a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.
ok then
Edit: I was replying to a post on the last page. I didn't realize that two people weren't the same person.
-
Read this article (contains naughty words and middle fingers!) and prepare to RAGE. (http://www.nintendonuggets.com/?p=1427)
Here's an archived version (https://web.archive.org/web/20150108083836/http://www.nintendonuggets.com/?p=1427).
I was going to do a whole list of all the things in the videos, but I'm just going to leave it at holy [dukar] this guy has issues with women. I do have to mention one, though, because when I was reading the interview I said to myself "Wait, does he have any actual reason for hating Rosalina? Kinda seems like he just doesn't like her because she's a woman." Turns out I was wrong -- in the video, he gives several reasons for hating Rosalina:
- She's unnecessarily tall (he illustrates this with a screenshot where she's not standing next to anything that could give us any height reference)
- She's showing too much cleavage (he illustrates this with a screenshot where the aura from her wand completely obscures her chest)
- Her mouth is open in lots of pictures on the site, and apparently the only reason women ever open their mouths is because they "want to suck a dick", and he doesn't want "stupid gay-ass hentai whores" in his games.
So yeah. I really want to see what his reaction was to Swimsuit Shulk, but I'm not slogging through his other videos to find it.
-
He's either an elaborate troll or his brain is broken beyond belief.
-
I mean, I'm sure part of it is him playing it up to get a reaction, but he definitely hates women, and he's definitely bought a lot of amiibos -- I don't know if he's actually got $39,000 or if he just bought the $500 or so in the pictures and made up the rest, but yeah, this goes beyond just trolling. Either way, I'm going to keep on playing as Shulk the Gay-Ass Anime just to **** him off.
-
I should make Rosalina my main then. :P
-
Once I get my Rosalina and Shulk amiibos, I'll try maining female Robin with them as my teammates.
-
He's either an elaborate troll or his brain is broken beyond belief.
I'm sure people said the same thing about Christian Weston Chandler.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5abztMk.jpg&hash=92e0520381c4f1996046d8c4a29f54b9)
I'm not gonna say inbreeding or bad conditioning are off the table, but
-
I've been trying to figure out what it is about Sonic that attracts people like this forever now, and I've yet to reach a solid conclusion.
-
A coarse but credible explanation from 4chan.
-
Lately I've understood less and less why 4chan users call people "autists" or have "cringe" threads. Would they rather be swarming with normies?
-
I think they like to believe that they just *choose* to be socially repellant.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR6XdoqfCMI
Language.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTHt4IQd.jpg&hash=b5f361c4b96b63ad0e87d579a530c02c)
Bernie Sanders rally in Seattle disrupted by #BlackLivesMatter protesters. That's right, Bernie Sanders, the furthest left Democratic candidate right now, as opposed to any other Democrats or any Republicans, Donald "Sadly, because president Obama has done such a poor job as president, you won't see another black president for generations!" Trump in particular. I mean, it's not like Bernie Sanders attended the 1963 March on Washington or anything...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTdgHsifK38
Here's this idiot. See if you can get past the title. I dare you.