spoon should love him as he claims that gay men are intellectually superior to straight men.
Printable View
spoon should love him as he claims that gay men are intellectually superior to straight men.
Literally nobody cares about strict gayness because it's so tied to white males. It's all about trans now if you want to get into the real victimhood shit because that's where you start seeing a super-high incident of mental illness and poor "men" wearing shitty makeup and calling themselves trans because they were picked last for kickball.
I like men, my brother's gay and my other brother is a neckbeard, so you do the math on that.
Semi-related: All women are bisexual or gay, according to some new shit that's out now, and I can confirm that I have never, ever, ever met a woman who was 100% opposed to fucking another woman.
he has some fantastic points about how he thinks gays are being pocketed by the authoritarian left and in turn subjugated just like everybody else, meaning that gays used to be leaders against the behavioral herding of divergent cultures yet are now mostly convergent with the herders themselves. it's about how those who just twenty years ago suffered great intolerance have become themselves intolerant of others. he's not saying that this is gay culture, but that gays and sympathizers are in the early stages of being converted into intolerant warriors of the authoritarian left. the left does this to everybody, just like it hijacked feminism and civil rights and even education and turned them intolerant, among many others.
Also, everybody knows that liberals are fascist shitheads.
I won't hesitate to give Jeri Ellsworth a 10/10. There's something about self reliance that makes women hugely attractive to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mycOQ1A0Ejs
There's no such thing as a self-reliant woman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEHWaGuurUk
^good shit
A chick going in about how she believes in ghosts is such an enormous turn-off.
I think we actually ran a guy out of the FTR IRC chat back when it was booming like 5-6 years ago because he went in on how he did as well.
What's important (to me) isn't the words they use to describe what they believe, but how their beliefs mold their actions.
Are they kind? Are they considerate? etc.
These are what matters.
But yeah... talking about ghosts as if they are real is a turn-off.
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2015/11/1...on-taipei-mtr/
Wow, what an absolute dick. Why did nobody on the train shut his fucking mouth for him?
Need more Murca up in thur.
Seriously. I ride the Metro busses and trains to and from work. If I saw this crap going on, I'd be all over it. To be fair, though... I wouldn't have my first week or two on public transit. It was only after I saw other people taking this line that I felt empowered to do so.
How do you say "hahaha dude you have a fat neck" in Mandarin?
honestly this is a big reason why ive become quite pro-christian the last few years. i dont care if people believe in myths and legends. we all have our fairy tales and we all believe wacky things.
if people need god to feel a sense of purpose and community, let them have it.
but they can and do wipe themselves. so there goes your theory.
everybody, even you, believes in some really stupid stuff that looks irrational to others but is rational to the self.
ironically, the dismissing of people based on unsound beliefs probably stems from the unsound belief that we can control the world around us. it was only after i understood my mortality and my place in the universe that i could see the silliness and futility getting my panties in a wad over what people believe. life is a room that looks like it needs to be cleaned but can never be.
People have always been like this, mocking the sanity and intelligence of anyone who believes in things that the majority think is stupid. Like, anyone who believes in ghosts has obviously been watching too much tv and not going to enough scienece lessons at school.
Just like anyone who believed magnetism was a thing before science could actually explain it. Or all those muppets who thought the world was a sphere back when it was flat.
I'm not gonna sit here and pretend I believe in ghosts, but I'm pretty sure that's a fucking shit load for science to yet dicsover that would right now seem like magic.
Why is someone who believes in ghosts any more unsound in their thinking than, idk, someone who believes in God, or Allah, or that when we die we just decay and that's the end of it? How can anyone have any of these answers?
Here's my answer - I don't know.
Nor do you, nor does anyone, and those who pretend otherwise are deluded, whether they believe in Allah or Casper.
C'mon, now ong. You know that spoon only views people in 3 groups: women who want to fuck him, men who those women also want to fuck, and all the other shithead-losers who didn't make either of the first two categories.
By your own logic, he's above being mocked for these beliefs. By his logic, he is fully justified in thinking you are both wrong and out of line for not being more aggressive about how you express your judgements.
Right, so long as you're making no distinction between the two, that's fair enough. Both religion and ghosts are essentially pseudoscience.
That doesn't mean outright proven to be false though.
There's nothing wrong with the belief itself, imo. What's wrong is the "I can't be wrong" mentality. And that's not something that only religious folk and flat earthers are guilty of. Many atheists think they are somehow different to religious folk, when actually they ram their non beliefs down people's throats in exactly the same way.
I think it's stupider to say "ghosts definitely don't exist" than it is to say "ghosts might exist in some form, and if they do there's a scientific explanation for it". It's like saying flies definitely don't have thoughts. Easier to say that prove. No less pseudoscience than what you're trying to mock.
Using flat earthers as a point of reference isn't particularly accurate. I mean there's proof the world is a sphere. There's proof these people are either idiots or trolls.
There's no proof one way or the other with shit like souls, consciousness, or that elephant with the arms.
*immediately shared on facebook
Ronda Rousey confesses to domestic violence; nothing is done about it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...uble-standard/
of course. she could probably get away scot-free with manslaughter right now. she could EASILY get away with violent sexual abuse. the irony is that she is an atypical woman whose life and values don't actually reflect what the typical woman wants, yet she's thought of as a hero for the typical woman because the culture's narrative is that women are oppressed.
the real female champ is joanna jedrzejczyk. ronda rubs me the wrong way.
So, Paris.
A bunch of Muslim terrorists they let in the country with their lol politically correct circlejerk open border policies orchestrated simultaneous attacks on at least 6-7 sites in France. Big fucking surprise there. This is the same country where it's illegal to ask for a paternity test.
In other news, the sky is blue.
fyp
Also, if you want to read some funny shit: https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/
So in all seriousness, the topic of effective immigration policy is more or less a balance between the safety of the people already in the country and the wants (and sometimes needs) of the people who are trying to get into the country (including logistic factors like what happens when a country grows in population too quickly). There are plenty of people who could immigrate to the country that would create a net positive for everyone, and there are plenty who would create a net negative. If policies on immigration are too strict, then they create an effective net negative for the country because they keep out too many people who would have a net positive effect. On the other hand, if policies on immigration are too loose, then they create an effective net negative for the country for obvious reasons.
The politically correct/SJW victim culture has pressured several governments in Europe into having immigration policies that are entirely too loose from optimal. That's why Sweden is currently the rape capital of the west (source, source, source), and it's why attacks like the one in France last night are going to keep happening until something's done to get things back closer to optimal.
france being just a rowboat ride from africa might have something to do with it.
So I just played a $3 spin and go and won $600.
Today is a good day.
Cheers. At first I thought I regged into the wrong spin and go, like wtf $720 prize pool? How much did I just spend?
Can anyone tell me why there's a global outpouring of grief when France gets attacked, but if it happens to Kenya noone cares?
france is much closer to home geographically, culturally, familially.
^, and cuz Americans/etc vacation in Paris.
It's across the water here, and I'm exactly as horrified by this as I am any event in which this many normal people are slaughtered in the name of religion or globalisation or whatever the fuck these people are dying for.
So, did anyone see that clip of Putin telling us some home truths about the origin of ISIS?
there's an irony in being taught to respect other peoples' cultures. it helps create an environment where many do not feel any connection to people in different cultures. if people caring about kenya is your primary priority, you should promote the white protestant savior complex as well as the market capitalism modernization engine.
it's also about the different levels of security. france is considered secure and a bastion of western liberal ideals. when kenyans get slaughtered by terrorists, we think "well of course it happens there, half of them are religious fundamentalists and they have little security and do not have western values". but when it happens in france, where it's not *supposed* to happen, it can be an eye opener.
Kenya isn't my priority. My priorities are weed, food, rent, tea, poker, friends, family.
I guess I was getting to the point of how much media plays a role. I mean I don't recall being able to have a transparent Kenya flag over my profile pic on fb in April.
Did anyone see that they found passports allegedly belonging to the attackers? I mean if you're planning to go on a killing spree before taking yourself out, don't forget your passport.
France isn't very secure at all. The free movement of people across Europe has meant there are no longer any border posts, certainly not between France/Belgium, Belgium/Germany and Germany/Austria, where I've travelled. You can literally drive across the borders like going from state to state. Once you're in the EU, it's easy, and since nations like Hungary and Greece are portals into the EU, it's very difficult to keep track of who's coming in and out.
Also, the French government aren't to be trusted. France is where disobediant English princesses get dealt with. They're in the global conspiracy up to their fucking eyeballs.
according to western ideals, france is VERY secure. just two examples, the western liberal philosophy believes that firearm prohibition and immigration expansion of disenfranchised peoples brings them MORE security than otherwise.
bad things aren't supposed to happen in paris. the naivete in the west has taken over so much so that it comes as a major shock when what they believe is supposed to provide them security actually hinders it.
just look at the bullshit headline from a mainstream publication that holds these values. the narrative emerges from a belief that has bombarded the western psyche of late, that killers are victims created by use of force against their killing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...to-west-africa
no, france isn't "paying the price". when somebody is murdering innocent people, you don't "pay the price" by trying to stop him. on the realities of some of its silly beliefs and the realities of how to deal with killers, the mainstream west has shoved its head so deep in the sand that they've discovered oil.
I thought it was 1 in 10k, but I'm not sure. I tried to find it on the stars page but got bored looking. I've probably played around a hundred 50c games, maybe 20-odd $1 games, a few $5 games, and literally one $3 game.
Winning hand was lucky too. 33 vs A8 aipf leaving me short, flop Axx, hero catches backdoor flush for the bink. I was covered 2/1 going HU.
Stars says 50 in 1,000,000 and here's the link
https://www.pokerstars.uk/poker/spin...space=%20&_n=1
Thanks! You're right. Lucky bink indeed. I should probably retire from spin n gos.
It's a common fallacy that most atheists are gnostic atheists. Atheist, as far as I am aware, by and large simply are asserting that there is insufficient evidence, and why would you cater to the desires of a being who's existence is unsupported by evidence? But when you remove the nuance, it's easy to make it sound like "God doesn't exist, you're dumb."
I can't make sense of this assemblage of words.
You used a hammer to break that hammer, therefore you didn't break that hammer.Quote:
note that you used a metaphor to insult a metaphor.
Wait, what?
Nah, that takes work, I'd rather just throw jabs and dance around.Quote:
if you'd like to dissect my metaphor, please do.
you suggested the metaphor was dumb but it was actually quality. therefore i wondered if i should take what you said as an insult since you dont like choprah or that choprah might come up with good metaphors.
more like you said "smashign things doesnt break them" then you smash something to break it.Quote:
You used a hammer to break that hammer, therefore you didn't break that hammer.
then do that. you havent done that.Quote:
Nah, that takes work, I'd rather just throw jabs and dance around.
You're all over the place here. Choprah uses cleverly crafted metaphors to peddle bullshit on unsuspecting "searching for meaning" types. If that's the mark of a quality metaphor to you, then you should feel complimented.
I never once denounced the use of metaphors. You made that up. Plain and simple.Quote:
more like you said "smashign things doesnt break them" then you smash something to break it.
I hope you're playing some sort of meta "look how vague and open to interpretation metaphors are" game here. Otherwise, I am disappoint, son.Quote:
then do that. you havent done that.
i dont feel complimented. i was giving you legroom to back peddle after you derided a perfectly fine statement.
i made a metaphor. you said it was crappy and you used your own metaphor that was equally as "crappy".Quote:
I never once denounced the use of metaphors. You made that up. Plain and simple.
what are you even doing dude? the metaphor is just fine and serves a purpose if you were inclined to examine it, but instead you just wanna say it reminds you of something you dont like therefore it is the something you dont like. im left wondering if you cared to know my point in the first place.Quote:
I hope you're playing some sort of meta "look how vague and open to interpretation metaphors are" game here. Otherwise, I am disappoint, son.