1

The Lounge / Re: Missing Flat Earth Society Members that cleared by NASA (our martyrs) CAUTION+18

« on: August 21, 2018, 12:32:02 PM »

He probably will just lurk and not post.  He still has a chip on his shoulder about me giving him a 3 day vacation.  He has not posted since then.

It clearly says I was killed. It's kind of disrespectful to talk about the dead like that.

2

The Lounge / Re: Multiple Explosions in Downtown Boston

« on: May 31, 2013, 12:08:09 AM »

"They interviewed him without a lawyer."

Take responsibility for your shitty wording. Or we could just keep a discussion going on something really stupid and bring gender into it. Yeah, that sounds better.

They did interview him without a lawyer, that is a fact...

You were wrong. I'm sorry that you acted like a woman, and didn't take the time to research and form your own opinions on the matter. Even so it is not my job to educate you on the issue that is being discussed. I assumed that the people I was talking to (everyone except you because you are fucking retarded and I try to avoid you) had a basic knowledge of the subject. I therefore didn't explain everything I said in pedantic detail. What you said on the other hand was just completely ignorant of what was going on, typical for most females.

Hey mate, sorry that you can't get laid, but don't be a sexist pig like you were in that post.

That is probably the most ironically sexist statement I've ever heard.

Either disprove what I've said or shut the fuck up. That's clearly a personal attack. Cue mods........ Or is it only after you attack the forum pussy that you get PMs about it.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: May 31, 2013, 12:04:45 AM »

You brought up civil war out of nowhere, I'm honestly just trying to figure out where you pulled it out of your ass from.

Also, 10 posts later I'm still trying to figure out how guns are causing the fall of society. Guess we will never know.

Isn't that what the constitution is about? Giving the people the right to take arms just in case they need to fight the government?

So if you had to fight the government you wouldn't call it a civil war (or revolution, it doesn't matter)?

So you just throw it (or a revolution, it doesn't matter) then ask again. Classic.

Again, how are guns the downfall of our society.

I bolded, italicized, and underlined it.

So do you think a society that's trying to arm itself for a possible civil war is stable?

Your society is trying to arm itself for a possible civil war, to me that indicates a fragile and unstable society. It's that instability that could lead to its downfall.

I would also argue that having to put armed guards in schools is a good indicator that your society is in a downward spiral as well.

Again you bring up civil wars out of nowhere?

And now guns aren't the downfall of society? Armed guards are an indicator? Interesting.

You're really not able to prove any of your points are you?

Well I guess you'll never see it. I don't think I can explain it anymore simply than I have.

Perhaps that's the problem. You don't fully understand the issue and therefore you can't explain it at all.

In the US the highest crime rates usually correspond to the strictest gun regulations. New York and DC have very high gun regulations and very high crime. Your arguments of correlation are distributed over one of the most geographically and politically diverse nations on Earth. Then you make absurd claims like Guns are the downfall of a civilization that had literally no gun control while it was climbing to its prime. You take irrelevant statistics and facts and cherry pick them for whatever backs up arguments you make purely from emotion and knee jerk reactions.

4

The Lounge / Re: Multiple Explosions in Downtown Boston

« on: May 29, 2013, 10:17:37 PM »

"They interviewed him without a lawyer."

Take responsibility for your shitty wording. Or we could just keep a discussion going on something really stupid and bring gender into it. Yeah, that sounds better.

They did interview him without a lawyer, that is a fact...

You were wrong. I'm sorry that you acted like a woman, and didn't take the time to research and form your own opinions on the matter. Even so it is not my job to educate you on the issue that is being discussed. I assumed that the people I was talking to (everyone except you because you are fucking retarded and I try to avoid you) had a basic knowledge of the subject. I therefore didn't explain everything I said in pedantic detail. What you said on the other hand was just completely ignorant of what was going on, typical for most females.

5

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Scientific proof that Star Wars would crush Star Trek in any war

« on: May 29, 2013, 10:15:18 PM »

So after all these pages we finally admit that star trek wins?

What part of "lightsabers" don't you understand?

What part of phasers being lightsabers with a much greater length don't you understand?

This is false.

Phasers are a particle based energy weapon that fires a beam of concentrated and high energy particles while a light saber is a high energy beam looping in on itself using a very strong magnetic field.

A lightsaber will block a phaser blast.

And that looping is the disadvantage. A lightsaber is a rather short item and has a limited movement speed. A phaser can be barely redirected and depending on the distance would have a vastly different target. Phasers would easily out compete lightsabers. Also, the whole beaming people into space against their will thing would murder everyone in star wars.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: May 29, 2013, 10:12:11 PM »

You brought up civil war out of nowhere, I'm honestly just trying to figure out where you pulled it out of your ass from.

Also, 10 posts later I'm still trying to figure out how guns are causing the fall of society. Guess we will never know.

Isn't that what the constitution is about? Giving the people the right to take arms just in case they need to fight the government?

So if you had to fight the government you wouldn't call it a civil war (or revolution, it doesn't matter)?

So you just throw it (or a revolution, it doesn't matter) then ask again. Classic.

Again, how are guns the downfall of our society.

I bolded, italicized, and underlined it.

They are aiding in mass murders and general crime?  I would not state that they are the sole downfall of our society, but they are a contributor to some pretty nasty shit.

They may be used in some mass murders, but they aren't the cause. Mass murders are the symptoms of something in society, not the cause.

Obesity is killing more people each year than murders, forks could just as easily be used in your argument. Again, obesity and murders are the signs of something failing in society, not the causes of society being fucked up.

Only if this were discussion of suicide. 

I'm not suggesting that gun control is the solution, merely part of the solution.

Murders can be committed with any weapon. Mass murders in the US weren't a problem until gun controls came into place. Back when kids were allowed to bring guns to school to hunt afterward, and colleges had organized gun events on campus (such as target shooting) these mass shootings simply didn't happen. Your solution is 100% against historical data.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: May 29, 2013, 10:10:09 PM »

You brought up civil war out of nowhere, I'm honestly just trying to figure out where you pulled it out of your ass from.

Also, 10 posts later I'm still trying to figure out how guns are causing the fall of society. Guess we will never know.

Isn't that what the constitution is about? Giving the people the right to take arms just in case they need to fight the government?

So if you had to fight the government you wouldn't call it a civil war (or revolution, it doesn't matter)?

So you just throw it (or a revolution, it doesn't matter) then ask again. Classic.

Again, how are guns the downfall of our society.

I bolded, italicized, and underlined it.

So do you think a society that's trying to arm itself for a possible civil war is stable?

Your society is trying to arm itself for a possible civil war, to me that indicates a fragile and unstable society. It's that instability that could lead to its downfall.

I would also argue that having to put armed guards in schools is a good indicator that your society is in a downward spiral as well.

Again you bring up civil wars out of nowhere?

And now guns aren't the downfall of society? Armed guards are an indicator? Interesting.

You're really not able to prove any of your points are you?

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Would the US have been better if it lost the Civil War?

« on: May 29, 2013, 10:08:20 PM »

How do the people live so differently? I've lived in the south, I've lived right in the middle, I've lived out west.  It's all pretty much the same. Most states have rural areas and urban areas. All the states have their fair share of religious nuts, right wing nuts, and lefties, they all have moderates. 

Population density, agricultural vs industrial, cultural mixing, region specific problems.  Plus, the various regions have different majorities on religion, gun control, abortion, labor laws, role of the government, etc...

Our political parties were once more central, not that long ago. It's really only in the last decade that the right has gone off the rails.  The Civil War didn't have anything to do with it.

I'd like to believe that.  I really would.


Also, the idea of the civil war isn't the issue so much as it was the first and only time we had a chance to become two countries instead of one.
Perhaps a more accurate title would be: Should the US split up?

Lol I didn't realize it was still the 1800's. Your points would be accurate if industrialization hadn't swept the country. Agriculture is now huge in the midwest and out far west. The south doesn't have a very large hold on it anymore. Population centers have moved as well with the changes in industry. The biggest differences are results of the political divides. States that have a strong voting preference tend to reflect that parties form of government. The US's constitution guaranteed state's rights to operate rather autonomously, this kind of defeats your argument for splitting.

9

The Lounge / Re: Multiple Explosions in Downtown Boston

« on: May 25, 2013, 08:35:10 PM »

The motion to treat the bomber as a non citizen pissed me off to no end. The laws aren't there to protect us just when it's convenient. They are there to protect us when things have gone to shit and people want to treat us as less than human.

The fact that they interviewed him without a lawyer when this was clearly a case of him acting by himself pissed me off. People are such pussies about anything "terrorist" related now days. It reminds me of the "communist" label. I mean the entire term "terrorist" is fucking retarded when you think about it.

Maybe he didn't want a lawyer present.

He wasn't given the option, though, is the point.  They took his due process rights and threw them out the window.

Raist should have specified then.

Maybe you should have researched it before giving such an asinine answer.

It wasn't an answer, just a suggestion. Don't be all snippy because your wording wasn't clear.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand what was going on and made a retarded comment. Please act like a female and blame your actions on others.

sincerely,
the male population of Earth

10

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Scientific proof that Star Wars would crush Star Trek in any war

« on: May 25, 2013, 08:34:07 PM »

So after all these pages we finally admit that star trek wins?

What part of "lightsabers" don't you understand?

What part of phasers being lightsabers with a much greater length don't you understand?

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: May 25, 2013, 08:33:08 PM »

You brought up civil war out of nowhere, I'm honestly just trying to figure out where you pulled it out of your ass from.

Also, 10 posts later I'm still trying to figure out how guns are causing the fall of society. Guess we will never know.

Isn't that what the constitution is about? Giving the people the right to take arms just in case they need to fight the government?

So if you had to fight the government you wouldn't call it a civil war (or revolution, it doesn't matter)?

So you just throw it (or a revolution, it doesn't matter) then ask again. Classic.

Again, how are guns the downfall of our society.

I bolded, italicized, and underlined it.

They are aiding in mass murders and general crime?  I would not state that they are the sole downfall of our society, but they are a contributor to some pretty nasty shit.

They may be used in some mass murders, but they aren't the cause. Mass murders are the symptoms of something in society, not the cause.

Obesity is killing more people each year than murders, forks could just as easily be used in your argument. Again, obesity and murders are the signs of something failing in society, not the causes of society being fucked up.

12

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Scientific proof that Star Wars would crush Star Trek in any war

« on: May 25, 2013, 06:00:35 PM »

So after all these pages we finally admit that star trek wins?

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: May 25, 2013, 05:59:20 PM »

You brought up civil war out of nowhere, I'm honestly just trying to figure out where you pulled it out of your ass from.

Also, 10 posts later I'm still trying to figure out how guns are causing the fall of society. Guess we will never know.

Isn't that what the constitution is about? Giving the people the right to take arms just in case they need to fight the government?

So if you had to fight the government you wouldn't call it a civil war (or revolution, it doesn't matter)?

So you just throw it (or a revolution, it doesn't matter) then ask again. Classic.

Again, how are guns the downfall of our society.

I bolded, italicized, and underlined it.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: May 24, 2013, 07:37:34 PM »

Well unless a civil war and a revolution are the exact same thing, I'm not sure you're right.

If they were literally the same phrase then you would have definitely gotten me there.



On a different note, it is a good thing there aren't guns in Britain. It keeps murders from happening in public.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4938784/You-and-your-kids-are-next.html

Good thing no law abiding citizens had access to guns here, they might have shot the poor muslim man wielding a non threatening perfectly legal cleaver.

Revolution and civil war? Why would either of them be any better than the other within the context?

And how often do you think that happens in the UK?

This is just speculation, but if those two people had better access to firearms, an assault rifle for instance, instead of a machete and a hand gun (which I don't think worked, may have been fake) etc... do you think that situation might have been worse?

If anything it's a proponent for stricter gun control; it shows it works.

You brought up civil war out of nowhere, I'm honestly just trying to figure out where you pulled it out of your ass from.

Also, 10 posts later I'm still trying to figure out how guns are causing the fall of society. Guess we will never know.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Sandy Hook disinformation

« on: May 22, 2013, 09:36:45 PM »

No others could do Sandy Hook massacre except the Feds because so many resources were activated: police, media, government officials and informants (some were called as "actors" by people.) And they of course would let out disinformation to meddle the water.

Robbie Parker was pushed out as a trap to discredit “Sandy Hook truthers”. Mr. Parker was selected because he has three look alike daughters, all with blonde hair and you can hardly recognize them if the picture was taken in a few years.

Here is a doctored picture. Madeline and Samantha have no legs in the photo. It was cut and replaced by other stuff. That two legs on bottom part is from another photo. The size and location does not fit Robbie Parker’s body.
 

http://contrailscience.com/skitch/skitched-108-20130109-134449.jpg

And they deliberately let Madeline wearing Emilie's dress in photo with Obama. Let her in Emilie’s hair style in picture one too. The dress and hair style were designed to confusing people (that Emilie wasn’t dead) then to prove the suspicious people are "conspiracy theorist". Remember, no others have the motive and resource to do that. Those who could take pictures of Obama and Samantha have the privilege or that photo was a product of the "strategy office"(disinformation office) too.


http://contrailscience.com/skitch/Sandy_Hook_school_shooting__President_Obama_prepares_to_address_Newtown_at_emotional_memorial_service_%7C_Mail_Online-20130107-213029.jpg 
---
That picture was created particularly to mislead people to conclude Emily hadn't died. (they let Madeline wear Emily's dress) That's a trap set up for suspicious people. It proves even the president could be obedient actor to be manipulated by the perpetrator. See how happy those actors are. Are they family members who just lost a lovely girl and after memory service, or it was a celebrating party?

So they intentionally made things look shady so that you'd think there was a conspiracy theory just to disprove you?

That's genius. Making an argument that asserts someone else is making you look dumb on purpose. Then the dumber you come off the more you prove your assertion.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: May 22, 2013, 09:33:23 PM »

Because our guns played an essential role in our country's founding, which really wasn't too long ago.

Your guns are playing a huge part in the downfall of your society, which is now.

Please explain.

You think it's right for a society to arm teachers or have armed guards in schools because they need to be defended in that way?

You think it's right for a society to be so paranoid that they have to 'arm' themselves, just in case something happens?

Or... I'm asking you to explain how guns are causing the downfall of society....

As for societies arming themselves in case something happens:

That has been the case throughout history. I don't see it as paranoid at all. Humans are an inherently violent people and citizens taking up arms has been one of the cornerstones of defense since the beginning of history.

What you're doing is arming for a possible civil war. How can that not be a sign of an unstable and paranoid society, which in the end will lead to its downfall?

Could you please explain how guns are the downfall of our society? Or did you just say that to say it?

I don't think anyone is arming for a civil war. We've already been through that once, and nobody had a good time.

Isn't that what the constitution is about? Giving the people the right to take arms just in case they need to fight the government?

If you're saying that's no longer necessary, then I suggest the constitution needs amending.

Well unless a civil war and a revolution are the exact same thing, I'm not sure you're right.

If they were literally the same phrase then you would have definitely gotten me there.



On a different note, it is a good thing there aren't guns in Britain. It keeps murders from happening in public.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4938784/You-and-your-kids-are-next.html

Good thing no law abiding citizens had access to guns here, they might have shot the poor muslim man wielding a non threatening perfectly legal cleaver.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: May 21, 2013, 09:49:54 PM »

Because our guns played an essential role in our country's founding, which really wasn't too long ago.

Your guns are playing a huge part in the downfall of your society, which is now.

Please explain.

You think it's right for a society to arm teachers or have armed guards in schools because they need to be defended in that way?

You think it's right for a society to be so paranoid that they have to 'arm' themselves, just in case something happens?

Or... I'm asking you to explain how guns are causing the downfall of society....

As for societies arming themselves in case something happens:

That has been the case throughout history. I don't see it as paranoid at all. Humans are an inherently violent people and citizens taking up arms has been one of the cornerstones of defense since the beginning of history.

What you're doing is arming for a possible civil war. How can that not be a sign of an unstable and paranoid society, which in the end will lead to its downfall?

Could you please explain how guns are the downfall of our society? Or did you just say that to say it?

I don't think anyone is arming for a civil war. We've already been through that once, and nobody had a good time.

18

The Lounge / Re: Multiple Explosions in Downtown Boston

« on: May 21, 2013, 09:45:44 PM »

The motion to treat the bomber as a non citizen pissed me off to no end. The laws aren't there to protect us just when it's convenient. They are there to protect us when things have gone to shit and people want to treat us as less than human.

The fact that they interviewed him without a lawyer when this was clearly a case of him acting by himself pissed me off. People are such pussies about anything "terrorist" related now days. It reminds me of the "communist" label. I mean the entire term "terrorist" is fucking retarded when you think about it.

Maybe he didn't want a lawyer present.

He wasn't given the option, though, is the point.  They took his due process rights and threw them out the window.

Raist should have specified then.

Maybe you should have researched it before giving such an asinine answer.

19

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Free energy

« on: May 13, 2013, 01:16:44 PM »

I could install a solar panel and have a negative electric bill, you dolt.

Yes you could. Again my statement more has to do with the fact that the makers of these machines ARE paying electric bills. Something that can be looked up and checked.

20

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Rome Sweet Rome

« on: May 12, 2013, 06:58:13 PM »

Starting the debate:

I feel like the first encounter would be the deadliest. The romans would march in rank and file and face horrible losses to the heavy machine guns. Once they retreat against orders there would be a decimation. 1:100 would be killed as punishment. If the marines split up and kept up a guerilla warfare they could continue harassing the romans as mall units until they were broken. Honestly it really comes down to whether the Romans could adapt to this new form of warfare or would they keep up their strategy of sending waves of soldiers against the marines. It also depends whether this is Rome at their height with throwing spears and stabbing swords, or Rome at the end with stabbing spears and slashing swords.

21

The Lounge / Re: FTW

« on: May 12, 2013, 06:20:49 PM »

TB owning the noobs.

The atmoshphere is still fairly transparent to Microwaves. Tom should have mentioned hills trees and such. Line of sight communication relies on just that. A line of site. Hills and such will kill your microwave transmission very quickly.

That's why the relays are at 30 miles instead of the 50 or 60 miles you can easily do over water even with the Earth's curvature.

22

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Free energy

« on: May 12, 2013, 06:13:31 PM »

By this logic, I could prove that I have learned to survive without eating by showing you a photograph of my empty larder.

I'm not saying it would be proof. I'm saying the fact that they have food in their larder proves they do need to eat.

I may have worded it wrong, I guess what I'm saying is they are all still paying electric bills, not that the lack of an electric bill would be absolute proof. It would just be a better start than the youtube videos they make.

(also your argument is non analogous because you can get food from many other places than your pantry, electricity on the other hand is much more tricky/expensive that way. I rarely have food where I live)

23

The Lounge / Re: Multiple Explosions in Downtown Boston

« on: May 12, 2013, 06:11:17 PM »

The motion to treat the bomber as a non citizen pissed me off to no end. The laws aren't there to protect us just when it's convenient. They are there to protect us when things have gone to shit and people want to treat us as less than human.

The fact that they interviewed him without a lawyer when this was clearly a case of him acting by himself pissed me off. People are such pussies about anything "terrorist" related now days. It reminds me of the "communist" label. I mean the entire term "terrorist" is fucking retarded when you think about it.

24

The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!

« on: May 12, 2013, 06:08:35 PM »

Awww Nomad is some sort of cucold raising another dude's baby.


I wish I had a baby.

<3 you nomad and proud of you for being a daddy type figure.

25

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Scientists

« on: May 12, 2013, 06:02:13 PM »

Lol @op for saying it is the most poisonous plant on earth. The castor plant has close relatives that produce an even more toxic bean poison. You have to eat several of the beans to be poisoned by it. The nightshade plant on the other hand has killed many children just because they decided to put their lips around its stalk and use it as a pea shooter.

Silly little op

26

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Free energy

« on: May 12, 2013, 06:00:01 PM »

Many people say they've invented free energy machines. If this is so I think the only proof they need is to post their 0 dollar, or negative amount electric bill. I mean if they have a machine that can produce electricity for free, why haven't they used it to at least get rid of their electric bill. They claim that their work isn't used elsewhere because of evullll corporations wanting monies, but there would be nothing stopping them from using it at home.

Thoughts anyone?

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: May 03, 2013, 06:25:18 PM »

Homicide does have a broader meaning but it is also in fact, murder. So I'm not sure what your point is? Fewer people dying from a gun is what matters, not necessaily the motive or intent.

In KY a 2 year old was killed by her 5 year old brother with his new TOY gun. And they are labelling it an accident. WTF America?

Homicides include people killing someone to protect themselves. You don't have a problem with justified shootings going down? Is it Ok if rape goes up because women can't protect themselves?

lol, rape won't go up because it's never been "down".  You know what will also stop a rapist? Pepper spray. I don't know why people think that the only thing that can defend you is a gun. There are plenty of other ways to protect yourself.

The converse has been shown. In areas there have been public campaigns where women were encouraged to get concealed weapons and were trained in their use. Rape and assaults on women plummeted. Why wouldn't the converse be true?

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: May 03, 2013, 06:23:23 PM »

Because our guns played an essential role in our country's founding, which really wasn't too long ago.

Your guns are playing a huge part in the downfall of your society, which is now.

Please explain.

You think it's right for a society to arm teachers or have armed guards in schools because they need to be defended in that way?

You think it's right for a society to be so paranoid that they have to 'arm' themselves, just in case something happens?

Or... I'm asking you to explain how guns are causing the downfall of society....

As for societies arming themselves in case something happens:

That has been the case throughout history. I don't see it as paranoid at all. Humans are an inherently violent people and citizens taking up arms has been one of the cornerstones of defense since the beginning of history.

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Amerikkans are descended from cannibals.

« on: May 02, 2013, 04:28:45 PM »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22362831

Good thing the majority of my ancestry isn't english. I do have a little peacock a couple generations back.

I'm slightly disgusted with myself now.

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: May 02, 2013, 04:27:31 PM »

Because our guns played an essential role in our country's founding, which really wasn't too long ago.

Your guns are playing a huge part in the downfall of your society, which is now.

Please explain.