Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - General Douchebag

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 247
1
The Lounge / Re: Worlds Biggest Biceps **Update**
« on: October 04, 2012, 10:52:55 AM »
what would happen if Parsifal got ripped?

He would get some sex, probably.  But that will never happen.

I agree, but then I also didn't ask that question.

2
The Lounge / Re: Worlds Biggest Biceps **Update**
« on: October 04, 2012, 04:03:35 AM »
He says penguin too much, and his teeth are inhumanly white.  Also I laugh every time I hear anyone say "bro" with an accent other than West Coast American or ghetto

'Straya. He's basically what would happen if Parsifal got ripped.

3
John Butler - Tin Shed Tales

You won't miss much by skipping the tracks where he's just talking, but they actually provide a decent context for ultra-chill/fun guitar.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Scotland: Toilet of Europe
« on: October 01, 2012, 09:05:30 AM »
Thork, if a gay couple adopts and properly raises a child that straight parents abandon, doesn't this make them very beneficial to society because they are covering for the fuck ups of irresponsible straight people? It's not only irrelevant to almost every debate to say gays don't (or can't) benefit society, it's just straight up wrong.

A weak point, seeing as more kids are adopted by heterosexual couples than homosexual.

Per capita?

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you believe in God?
« on: September 20, 2012, 02:50:21 AM »
The big bang created the universe, acting as a creator by instigating the creation of the universe. You can literally swap "God" for "big bang" and you'd sound like you know what you're talking about.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you believe in God?
« on: September 19, 2012, 05:19:33 AM »
God defined: creator of universe
Characteristic: creator
When and where God intervenes: instigate creation of universe

So God = big bang. Got it.

7
The Lounge / Re: Worlds Biggest Biceps
« on: September 16, 2012, 04:49:02 AM »
Do you call steroid users "cyclists" normally?

8
The Lounge / Re: Worlds Biggest Biceps
« on: September 15, 2012, 07:19:12 AM »
Really? I thought he was anti-cardio, but I suppose it explains his quads when he did so little squatting.

9
The Lounge / Re: Worlds Biggest Biceps
« on: September 14, 2012, 02:19:31 AM »
Zyzz was the god of aesthetics. Leave the guy alone.
Zyzz is the modern day equivalent of Narcissus. The parallels between their two stories are striking. Both were obsessed with their looks and both ultimately paid for that with their lives.
He had a heart failure, but whether it was caused by sterons is not certain. It may well have been due to rampant cocaine abuse.

It was definitely steroids, they aggravated his congenital heart defect so paying a visit to a Thai sauna was... foolish. He used MDMA rather than coke, and not much at that.

10
The Lounge / Re: Worlds Biggest Biceps
« on: September 13, 2012, 08:32:37 AM »
Bodybuilders generally look bad.
Not really. He's not a bodybuilder, just a retard.

First page google results for bodybuilders does not show one person that looks in anyway better than extremely fucking misformed.




Competitive bodybuilders do so for competitions that reward, above all else, extremely high muscle mass and very little bodyfat. Actual aesthetics don't come into it until you deal with "fitness models". It's a gay name, yeah, but it's generally kinda gay.

11
The Lounge / Re: Worlds Biggest Biceps
« on: September 13, 2012, 06:44:56 AM »
They are real, in that they're really fucking big. As the comments say it's clearly just a vast amount of synthol, but that doesn't diminish the fact that synthol made them really really big.

12
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Supes' Must-Listen-To List (Recommend me stuff!)
« on: September 13, 2012, 06:33:59 AM »
In that case there's a couple of tracks from Frank's Wild Years or Rain Dogs that are godlike.

13
The Lounge / Re: Thork's health
« on: September 13, 2012, 06:25:43 AM »
Steroids.

[/thread]

14
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Supes' Must-Listen-To List (Recommend me stuff!)
« on: September 13, 2012, 06:15:29 AM »
I was about to recommend some Tom Waits, but if Bob Dylan is too gravelly I doubt you'll appreciate it.

15
Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Olympics
« on: September 05, 2012, 01:55:23 AM »
I'm responding to a nonsensical claim, it's difficult to create the flowing rhetoric you expect of me.

16
Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Olympics
« on: September 05, 2012, 01:43:08 AM »
I'm not buying it that the blades are the exact same.

Nobody said they were the exact same.
Pistorius and the olympic commission claim that the blades give no advantage to disabled athletes. So they claim they are the same as a leg and not superior.

Er, no. He said his blades gave him a disadvantage in his particular event for numerous valid reasons; concluding that all blades = all legs in all occasions would be retarded, you could just hook some scramjets up to the fuckers and win everything forever.

17
Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Olympics
« on: September 05, 2012, 01:30:43 AM »
Hi Kettle! Meet Pot.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/shock-oscar-pistorius-loses-200m-paralympic-race-alleges-133326657--oly.html

The kettle calling the pot black is quite reasonable. They were all in a situation where they could've used the same blades and they didn't, he didn't choose to use blades instead of a leg.

I'm not buying it that the blades are the exact same.

Nobody said they were the exact same.

18
Whose shirt is that long they need to lift it to allow ass-access? This is why we invented vents, people.

It's also why double-vents are looked down upon; they're slutty.

19
What the fuck is a shirt-lifter? I assume it's a gay thing but I don't see the connection.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Aussie's is this story true?
« on: September 01, 2012, 12:55:54 PM »
Of course people are the problem. Guns just don't float around shooting things on their own. But people generally aren't responsible enough so might as well take them away.

Rooster, what percentage of people who own firearms are irresponsible with them?  I am not going to research the percentage, but instead, I am going to guess that just a fraction of 1% of people who own a firearm kill someone irresponsibly.  However, you say that, "people generally aren't responsible enough"?  Can you back this up?


YOU KEEP SHOTGUNS NEXT TO YOUR KIDS' BEDS.

Don't believe everything you read.

He doesn't get to use it as a point and then deny it later, either he does it and he's irresponsible or doesn't and his kids are.

How old do you think my kids are?

Under 18?

Incorrect. 

So your original point is bullshit.

21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Aussie's is this story true?
« on: September 01, 2012, 11:47:13 AM »
Of course people are the problem. Guns just don't float around shooting things on their own. But people generally aren't responsible enough so might as well take them away.

Rooster, what percentage of people who own firearms are irresponsible with them?  I am not going to research the percentage, but instead, I am going to guess that just a fraction of 1% of people who own a firearm kill someone irresponsibly.  However, you say that, "people generally aren't responsible enough"?  Can you back this up?


YOU KEEP SHOTGUNS NEXT TO YOUR KIDS' BEDS.

Don't believe everything you read.

He doesn't get to use it as a point and then deny it later, either he does it and he's irresponsible or doesn't and his kids are.

How old do you think my kids are?

Under 18?

22
It violates the norms of society.

Your point being?

Look, we don't need to go through every step of the Socratic method here.  You know what social norms are.  If you have a problem with them, just spell it out.
I don't have a problem with social norms. What makes you think I do?

I have a problem with anoyone who thinks that anyone  else who breaks social norms is being inappropriate.


That is what being inappropriate means.

23
The one on the right is, he looks like the Dursley dad from Harry Potter.

24
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Aussie's is this story true?
« on: September 01, 2012, 03:32:57 AM »
Of course people are the problem. Guns just don't float around shooting things on their own. But people generally aren't responsible enough so might as well take them away.

Rooster, what percentage of people who own firearms are irresponsible with them?  I am not going to research the percentage, but instead, I am going to guess that just a fraction of 1% of people who own a firearm kill someone irresponsibly.  However, you say that, "people generally aren't responsible enough"?  Can you back this up?


YOU KEEP SHOTGUNS NEXT TO YOUR KIDS' BEDS.

Don't believe everything you read.

He doesn't get to use it as a point and then deny it later, either he does it and he's irresponsible or doesn't and his kids are.

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Aussie's is this story true?
« on: August 31, 2012, 03:12:29 AM »
Of course people are the problem. Guns just don't float around shooting things on their own. But people generally aren't responsible enough so might as well take them away.

Rooster, what percentage of people who own firearms are irresponsible with them?  I am not going to research the percentage, but instead, I am going to guess that just a fraction of 1% of people who own a firearm kill someone irresponsibly.  However, you say that, "people generally aren't responsible enough"?  Can you back this up?


YOU KEEP SHOTGUNS NEXT TO YOUR KIDS' BEDS.

26
The Lounge / Re: FTW
« on: August 30, 2012, 12:52:42 PM »
I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings

I agree! Criminality comes in on strong northerlies!

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Aussie's is this story true?
« on: August 30, 2012, 12:44:38 PM »
None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

I'm sorry, is it making you angry? To me, your word swapping looks ridiculous. I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder. Rape and murder are morally wrong. Guns are not. Using guns to rape or murder is morally wrong. Using a gun to defend yourself is not. Using a gun to uphold freedom is not. Using a gun to protect others is not. Guns don't have to be all bad.

Morality has fuck-all to do with legislation, legislation is there to protect people. Regulation of firearms to keep them from people with no justifiable reason to have them is in the public interest, whether or not owning a gun is a moral choice.

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.
Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Anarchism is less radical than libertarianism, it still calls for a community. Libertarianism is chaos.

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

 Isn't that the problem.

People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

so rape isn't socially taboo unless it's illegal?

People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

Untrue. criminality is not inherent in people.

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.
I think the act of not thinking things through is what makes you think it is rediculous.



Nonsense, irrelevant, irrelevant nonsense.

Social taboo and inherent criminality don't mean shit, people do it. People rape people, people kill people, you saying "oh well rape's still taboo" and "criminality isn't inherent" just sounds like you're denying their existence.

if that's what it sounds like to you, you are playing a very silly game. I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings (are you religious by anychance sounds like you are trying to co-opt original sin under a new label), unless you mean in the context of mental healt I.E sociopaths. though, crime does exist.

So only sociopaths kill people? Not hitmen with financial incentives, not gangs defending territory, not scorned lovers exacting revenge or nervous idiots Standing Their Ground? Criminality isn't inherent, it's a socioeconomic problem that still needs to be considered. You're acting like because it's not inherent it's not a problem.

I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings

I agree! Criminality comes in on strong northerlies!

Oh god, glorious.

28
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Aussie's is this story true?
« on: August 30, 2012, 11:09:15 AM »
And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.
Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Anarchism is less radical than libertarianism, it still calls for a community. Libertarianism is chaos.

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

 Isn't that the problem.

People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

so rape isn't socially taboo unless it's illegal?

People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

Untrue. criminality is not inherent in people.

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.
I think the act of not thinking things through is what makes you think it is rediculous.



Nonsense, irrelevant, irrelevant nonsense.

Social taboo and inherent criminality don't mean shit, people do it. People rape people, people kill people, you saying "oh well rape's still taboo" and "criminality isn't inherent" just sounds like you're denying their existence.

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Aussie's is this story true?
« on: August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM »
None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Aussie's is this story true?
« on: August 29, 2012, 05:39:13 AM »
We have laws against rape and murder too, shit still happens. The "there'll still be guns!" argument is retarded for that reason; why bother having any laws by that logic (perhaps not the right word, but I'm being kind)?

This isn't a law about what people do, it is a law about what people own. How does such a small country not be able to control what a person owns? And yes, my logic sounds bad at first glance, but your logic is what got alcohol prohibition signed into law, and mine is what got it repealed. Though I guess the UK never really had to deal with that.

Buying a gun is doing something, and your logic isn't bad, it's outright idiotic. Alcohol gets people drunk, guns shoot stuff. It could be animals, it could be targets, but the predominant use is for people.

By that logic, sword, knives, some hammers, bows, and crossbows were all originally designed to kill people. There's even crossbows that are gas powered and have a ROF of a semi-automatic rifle. Perhaps we should ban all of these things as well?

Yeah, and swords, daggers, warhammers and crossbows (bows were designed for hunting) are all controlled proportionally to their killingness.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 247