1,397 Forum Posts by "AxTekk"
Erm, nation-wise, bad for infrastructure and regulations (ie: bad holiday, worker's rights, healthcare, minimum wages etc) but you guys have some seriously awesome culture.
People wise, you guys seem a lot louder and more competitive than people here (Britain) but then again, you guys also always seem way more friendly, so there's that.
Food-wise, I'm not sure if I'm willing to give up curry for tacos. We both got lucky with our main immigrant groups being pretty amazing with food.
At 5/30/14 10:33 PM, NeonSpider wrote: To minors, as one of you has said, you're right you have no business posting here or in similar sex-related threads. Get out. It's entirely a "you'll understand when you're older" thing.
I think that's unfair, a 14 year old who's gotten laid has more business here than a 30 year old virgin, surely?
At 5/31/14 03:30 PM, cowgoesmoo2 wrote: thanks for being repulsively sarcastic.
I'm not sure if that was intentionally ironic - if it was, +1
At 5/30/14 11:16 AM, Stereocrisis wrote: You're the one bringing up being some humorless faggot story teller
I'm sorry cunt, do you have a fucking problem with my sexuality?
At 5/30/14 03:26 AM, mothballs wrote: I could honestly give a shit less
Why do you people say this? Why not "I could honestly not give a shit less"? You are literally saying you give <0 shits. Americans.
At 5/30/14 04:44 AM, AxTekk wrote:
*psuedoscience. Very high and lack of sleep.
I feel like the psychosis has finally taken hold and you've become consummately lost in neuroscience.
At 5/30/14 02:43 AM, Stereocrisis wrote:Both of you. -_-
Oh, I think I see the misunderstanding. I meant I'd rather be some kind of story teller. To be honest though, I do think you're a prick.
At 5/30/14 02:14 AM, Stereocrisis wrote: That's what a comedian is jackass.
Hmmmmmmmm, nope, no it isn't.
At 5/17/14 01:14 AM, TheKlown wrote: We think because we were fortunate to be born in a Country where we actually have some type of Freedom that we should forget about the people that aren't fortunate to have been born in USA.
Genuine question - What do you think would happen if one country invaded another country every time they thought they were going to wrongly execute someone?
But it's different if they're Muslim, of course.
Keep drinking that neoconservative Kool Aid. Hasn't been a hundred years since a black man could get killed (with police involvement) for having sex with a white girl in some parts of your country.
Generally, if I have a conversation with someone I find interesting I'm very engaged throughout and if they find me cool we just naturally bond. I guess lately that's mostly been people from lectures (though I'm also still pretty tight with a guy just on the same coach as me on my way back to southampton), but I'm cool making friends with new people who seem interesting, provided I have the energy.
Otherwise it's friends of friends, but I do make an effort to meet friends of friends and get to know them on a personal basis if I think they seem cool. Pretty dull I guess, just talk to them about things I find interesting, things they find interesting, ask standard questions about accents/ style of clothing/ body language/ mannerisms. I think conversations pretty easy if you're both chill and interested in someone - don't get why you'd want to be friends with someone you're not interested in though.
At 5/29/14 10:10 PM, TheDarkGrimore wrote: Still not knowing and now learning about it is kind cool.
Oh yeah lol, and this definitely makes me think of kangaroos differently. Definitely a TIL kinda thing right here.
Man, comedians are pretty corny to me, plus it's a lot of stress and energy for something I think I'd get pretty tired of and don't have any talent for.
I'd rather do something weird and kinda interesting, like tell funny stories or something.
It's bad, but I was pretty happy when KDs got beat down lol. I like to think 10% of it was just enjoying a beatdown and 90% of it was just relief that I didn't have to watch some lone girl get bullied by some spoilt, vindictive bitch for longer than three minutes though. That's what I like to think haha.
Definitely. I'm a little bit psychotic and when I was young (like from age 6 until I was about 10) I believed passionately that I had psychic powers. I would act in line with this genuine belief, waging a subtle war against the evil Mr Head, focusing on blocking out the effects of his evil psychic jamming signals on my friends in lessons rather than complete tedious and no-doubt malevolent long division problems. I'm also a little bit depressive, and from age 14 - 17 I had a pretty stupid self harm situation which is probably the other main set of retard in my past.
Also, I used to be such a shitposter on the BBS back in '07-09 lol, used to be called AKACCMIOF if anyone remembers. I needed to grow personally.
At 5/30/14 12:06 AM, Painbringer wrote: Well, back in kindergarten a classmate spilled a bottle of clear glue all over his paper.
Not knowing what to do, I broke open my glue bottle and did the same.
Brilliant. That's actually fucking brilliant. I laughed a very happy laugh.
At 5/29/14 11:33 PM, NeonSpider wrote: Logic is not subjective. Thanks for playing!
Dude, read my posts. Politics isn't 100% logic. For example, on gun control, there's absolutely no empirical evidence that x legality of guns produces y mass shootings so both arguments are entirely based on personal estimates that are subjective. But let's say they aren't - Let's say we know that making guns illegal will mean only 5 children dying each year due to some psychopath getting his hands on illegal gun (again, let's say we know no-one will just use a knife). Let's also say that the value of a child's life and the value of civil liberties can be measured in objective quantifiable units (even though, again, we all have to make subjective estimations) and that all the children who aren't dying are worth 10 points of prevented heartbreak and that the civil liberties are worth 15 points of personal freedom. Is the debate over?
Of course not. To someone who lost a child, a single point of prevented heartbreak might be worth a thousand points of personal freedom. To a gun lover more concerned with wider societal values and the preservation of American tradition, the opposite.
Logic isn't subjective but it is a garbage in, garbage out process and I'm afraid the value of any outcome compared to another is subjective.
I'm not saying you should see every opinion as equally valid - that would be ridiculous and incredibly inefficient. I'm saying remember you might be wrong and respect that someone can have a completely different opinion to you while being perfectly logical without him necessarily being right. I'm also saying do yourself a favour, be open and try and learn about different world views whenever you get the chance.
At 5/29/14 10:29 PM, NeonSpider wrote:
For example - OP takes a logical stance if you take the welfare of porn stars to be massively important and the conditions of porn to be inhumane. I don't right now, but now I kinda understand his argument if I find out I've been wrong and porn really is much, much worse for porn stars than I have (empirical) reasons to believe right now and if I change my priorities for whatever reason in the future, I think I'll react the appropriate way, without feeling too much cognitive dissonance.
At 5/29/14 10:29 PM, NeonSpider wrote: Logically sound? Reasonable? Are you also trying to win BINGO tonight? I mean there might not be enough prizes to go around but you can try.
You don't have to think someone's right to understand their point of view. It's not sensational or stimulating to admit, but pretty much everyone's only human and given a certain outlook on life and certain priorities we might logically take one of many views and the OP's (while being a clear troll) is definitely included in that.
Political views don't work like electrons in the old, Rutherford model of atoms, where everything's in a certain place and we can logically figure out where we should stand on everything given a few facts. There are too many variables. Our outlook, shaped at least partially by random events, could affect our view and we might reach very different stances based on perfectly sound logic and only slightly different priorities (think, for example, how holding stability as more important than freedom or vice versa can completely change a person's stance on a number of issues).
It's more realistic to say they work like the more modern, Bohr - Rutherford model where we can make out certain possibility clouds of where we should stand on various issues with a large range of ambiguity where we have to admit that we just don't know. All we can do is try and be pragmatic and base our stances (the ones we seriously have power to enact at least) on empirical and objective data, but if someone doesn't do that but is still consistent and logical that doesn't mean they're some kind of retard. They're just human, and while we might have to write off what they say to maintain a simpler worldview, we should also have enough respect to try and understand it.
At 5/29/14 10:13 PM, Slint wrote: So am I. Sleeping on the afternoons and studying all night baby. If I don't pass erry single one I swear to god newgrounds
Also me too, and also me too as well haha. Oh finals, you so cray cray.
At 5/29/14 10:06 PM, ZE13 wrote: I'm really scared
What was for me a handy tip - excitement and fear are somatically identical and purely cognitive, but fear is cognitively less efficient and also makes long term consistent motivation harder. Tell yourself it's excitement, look on your heightened levels of arousal and give yourself a reason to be excited about the cause of it, ie: proving how sick you are at your subject, and your mind will adopt it as a cognitive alternative and you'll find the process way more pleasurable as you'll get more dopamine out of revision and exams.
Other than that, just don't panic man, I bet you're all set. You'll kill it man.
At 5/29/14 09:13 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: lol This guy sure is reeling them in. You all know he's just baiting you, right?
lol genetic fallacy tho, I think it's kinda good practice to reply to trolls to try and at least understand stances other people potentially might take. I mean, the best trolls are the ones like PiGPEN and occasionally OP who troll people by taking a logically sound, reasonable position and watch as most people completely over-react.
To me, there are two kinds of trolls - ones where we just laugh at how ridiculous one person's being and ones where we also laugh at how ridiculous we all can act in response. The best trolls aren't about just being a dick, but laughing at things that most people completely overreact to.
At 5/29/14 04:37 PM, Phobotech wrote: Whats wrong with her face?
shes a badger whats wrong with being a badger you racist piece of shit
Nah, but yeah all the characters in Sonic Boom have weird physical proportions.
Also, leak of new in game music. They've returned to the classics with some of the early music but with a modern hiphop twist that really puts the "Boom" into "Sonic Boom".
At 5/29/14 03:39 PM, Profanity wrote: Using hindsight on the USA:
Pretty much spot on on everything. Just wanted to say though, reason number one is less isolated from the other four as people might think - While to some degree weed does make people lazier (although, like alcohol, the effects are limited to the manageably small period of time when under the influence) this perception was, for a period, hyperbolised and pushed onto Americans through some community leaders and sections of common media largely because of the other four reasons.
If that sounds a little conspiratorial, I should note that surmprisingly many of the people whose interests were threatened by marijuana may have genuinely believed that minority races, workers and emerging economies needed to be subjugated for the good of an orderly and productive society. If that still sounds a little conspiratorial, at least we know that a big portion of the people in charge of law and order, big money religion and competing industries may have been motivated by genuine though misguided racism, classism, distain for unproductive workers and latin countries that may have caused them to have misconceptions of weed.
But yeah, pretty much spot on on everything.
Erm, roses are red
So are lots of other things
In fact I think roses are more red
Than red things are roses
At 5/28/14 07:55 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: restrictions are a hassle for law abidding citizens remember the AWB? we couldn't buy new AR15s and other types of semi auto firearms because of those "Restrictions" and crimes soared during that period especially in California, New York, and Illinois.
I think this is the real disagreement between pro- and anti-guns control people, if we're willing to drop the strawmen, whether maybe lowering the possibility of a mass shooting worth a little more hassle to gun owners.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the right to bear arms.
At 5/29/14 04:26 PM, Xenomit wrote: Angry birds said he didn't like porn
Amaranthus assumed that he was seeing straight porn and asked him if he was gay
He completely overlooked the fact that straight porn isn't the only kind of porn
That's what I was talking about
I think second and third axioms are flawed - Amaranthus needn't assume that Angrybirds meant straight porn when he said porn made him uncomfortable for him (Amaranthus) to reach the conclusion that Angrybirds was gay. It's also a possibility (I think maybe more probable) that Amaranthus was implying people feel uncomfortable with porn because they're uncomfortable with their own sexuality. Again, not trying to be a prick, js.
As has been pointed out by other users, we share a lot of genes with a lot of other species and sharing genes doesn't even predicate common descent.
If humans share more genes than expected with kangaroos it's more probably to do with common environmental pressures (we've both spent a lot of time evolving to be largely bipedal, strongly maternal mammals with strong social cohesion and probably similar status in the natural food chain).
At 5/29/14 02:46 PM, Xenomit wrote: You realize there's such thing as gay porn, right?
Not to be a prick (I realise this might seem like I'm looking for shit to correct people on) but tbf, some closeted gay people do feel uncomfortable with porn, gay or straight, because it makes them think of sexuality (which they are uncomfortable thinking about).
I might be wrong, but I think it's more likely that Amaranthus is referring to Angrybirds being that rather than an openly gay person feeling uncomfortable by straight people expressing their sexuality.
At 5/29/14 03:19 PM, JRob wrote: THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN.
Lol, idk actually, because we're not the same way about traffic, religion or guns. I mean, how many more kids get run over or molested by priests than fall victim to kiddie porn? And how come we're not willing to massively tighten traffic control near residential areas or get priests regularly vetted by social services?
I think it's more about politics - It's just much easier to talk about how bad kiddy porn is rather than how good internet freedom is. Tough on crime > dedicated to maintaining freedom in a lot of areas, vote-wise.
