6,830 Forum Posts by "SolInvictus"
At 11/4/11 10:53 PM, kakalxlax wrote: brand
again intensely silly. short of giving up the children, parents and their opinions will nonetheless shape a child's view without their consent.
At 11/4/11 08:06 PM, Malachy wrote: I felt the same way before I went to one. It's usually almost 20 people which you would think would be unbearable...
not to worry, never figured anyone here was some manner of terribly unlikable person.
At 11/4/11 08:07 PM, Famas wrote: So you're only willing to be pleasant to cute people? I see, hmm
scribbles down notes on stationary while making disapproving faces behind half-moon glasses.
do your worst; sociologists don't believe in psychology!
unless thats the approach you're taking...
At 11/4/11 06:36 PM, Famas wrote: So basically, what you're saying is, you're a Newgrounds user.
the internet is lovely for coming up with clever persona, but i think i'm still relatively nice and/or polite online (and its not like all of us aren't). just gotta work on my motivation for more interpersonal relationships.
you start realizing your stance on such things are stupid when you walk away from cute people who seem to be interested in talking to you rather than talking to them.
and i shall kick myself forever more... or you know, until the next chance
At 11/4/11 03:53 PM, djack wrote: It's not like there are a bunch of unsupported theories or even contradicted theories that some scientists and many people treat like facts even when they aren't (man made global warming, dark matter, parallel universes, etc.).
...other than global warming, most scientists studying those things readily admit that they mostly don't know what they are or how they work.
as opposed to stating it isn't our business to know because its greater than us.
At 11/3/11 07:35 PM, kakalxlax wrote: every single time i spoke to religious people i found out that....
thats fun, but now you're corresponding with non-religious people and you seem to be acting...
At 10/8/11 07:22 PM, Malachy wrote: How come you never go to the Montreal Newgrounds meetups?
for i am not a friendly person.
but i'm working on it :) [emoticons count as therapy, right?]
At 10/25/11 06:27 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:At 10/25/11 05:31 PM, stafffighter wrote: It's expensive but it does keep the black knight at bay.And don't forget the alligators in the moat.......can't have too many alligators now, can you?
hows that for green technological efficiency; defence and tasty, tasty fritters.
...and teeth to put all around your hat, i guess.
hope everyone's' apocalypses are done cause prediction of above average snow have me tingling everywhere.
and it can't be frostbite because temps will be above average :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
At 11/4/11 12:58 PM, Famas wrote: DOGS DON'T MAKE NON-DOGS. THEY ONLY EVER MAKE MORE DOGS.
Why can't you darwinists understand this???
do they have a bird whistling in the background, or was that someone's nose?
either way, we should probably get a unique spin on this thread before this becomes like the other evolution threads... umm, thanks jeebus for selective dog breeding?
...or are humans still evolving (my prof says no!)
At 11/4/11 03:19 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: Then tell them that macroevolution is microevolution but over a long period of time.
psh... i'd love to see a chicken turn into a cat.
At 11/3/11 04:17 AM, marchohare wrote: Absolutely not. I am as serious as cancer.
what about coming to the conclusion that they are the master race, and not all those upstarts that wanted to kill or subjugate them?
sure, they're not all tall and blond; but unless you're a model who spends his days getting stuff off the top shelf, i don't see how that would help.
At 11/2/11 09:20 PM, kakalxlax wrote: Need more explanations?
probably a lot; mostly sources and means of establishing that graph as anywhere near accurate.
even religious people have to admit that every advance of humanity involved a contraposition to religion
not really considering that while "science" wasn't necessarily booming in Christian Europe, it was doing so in the Muslim Middle-East. not to mention the advancements of the Ancient Egyptians, who were also one of the longest continuous civilizations while being one of the most authoritarian theocracies ever.
At 11/3/11 01:49 AM, marchohare wrote: ...assuming you've ever slept with anyone at all, that is.
i see there is no comedy allowed in this thread.
At 11/2/11 11:38 PM, marchohare wrote: WINNERS!
i find it interesting how people still want to get rid of them even though its really starting to seem that they may actually have God on their side.
At 11/2/11 12:57 AM, Kwing wrote: Example 2: Monsanto has sued companies for labeling their products "non-GMO" because it implies that there is something wrong with genetically modified organisms. Regardless of whether there is or not, it should always be the consumer's choice what they're buying!
lol, slander is not a consumer-choice issue.
U.S. of America is best America!
good thing everyone ignored how "its natural/not a choice" makes for an poor argument when it comes to defending one's rights.
At 10/29/11 09:16 AM, Famas wrote: So you chose to be a straight man? Preposterous. Saying homosexuality is a choice because you can choose to not engage in gay romance is like saying eating is a choice because you can choose to starve.
you missed my point which is that an argument from nature is intensely fallacious and undermines our rights to choose (for both gay and straight) how we live. not to mention that since we can't read minds and prosecute thought crimes, is the issue really with people who are attracted to others of the same sex or with those who wish to take part in a homosexual lifestyle?
whichever the case, arguing that they should have less rights to acting on their hopes and desires does all our rights a disservice.
... and really, saying that the world is black and white and that gays will only ever touch their own sex (or never engage in heterosexual behavior) seems to betray highly stereotyped classifications of little use in a debate
At 10/28/11 03:59 PM, Scarface wrote: ...Because there's no polygamy in New York, San Francisco, Massachusetts, or any other gay-marriage-allowing state.
Provide links.
why can't gay marriage be a step towards the legalisation of polygamous marriage? we've established the importance of consent and personal choice, why are we still maligning polygamy in an age of gay marriage?
At 10/27/11 10:09 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: If being gay is a choice, you should try it out some time before judging it.
sexual orientation is irrelevant in such a debate, we all choose to act or not act on our desires. as a sane and reasonable person, shouldn't i have the right to decide whether or not i wish to partake in homosexual behaviour with other consenting adults (or members of my age group if i weren't an adult)?
At 10/28/11 06:14 AM, thedo12 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpPJ1PWTc 6I&feature=relmfu
its the same scene mercator posted, except with commentary....
At 10/27/11 05:31 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Hitting people in the head with fired gas canisters and rubber bullets is indeed misuse.
unless we know police are robots without the ability to miss, i'm not sure you have the strongest case.
i see Halloween has the power to reanimate threads as well as corpses.
since i'm here; i'm getting intensely irritated by the continuous use of the "homosexuality isn't a choice" argument. the implied acceptability because its natural is not only highly fallacious, but it strongly undermines the position of reasoned personal choices.
so the police are urged to use non-lethals because they're better than other methods of control, but when they use them after providing warning its still brutality. kudos boys and girls.
oh no! its a flash-bang everyone freak out cause you heard about it in call of duty.
At 10/19/11 01:18 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: The only reason people make fun of other people is because they have absolutely no security in themselves whatsoever and have to make other people feel bad about themselves as well.
not the dumbest argument ever but i find its a little overused, especially in the context of bullies. being a dick is fun sometimes. :D
most speciallees on the interwebs.
At 10/16/11 01:17 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: the only difference between the Mafia from the 20s and the Cartels of today is that the cartels don't have a celebrity bad ass. if they did maybe people would be able to see the connection.
were bootleggers ever as influential as the cartels are?
At 10/16/11 11:43 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 10/16/11 08:58 AM, homor wrote: This situation is currently being mirrored almost exactly with the Cartels in Mexico.Poverty, not drugs, created the Cartels in Mexico.
poverty didn't make them powerful.
At 10/13/11 08:18 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: oh I have a pretty damn good policy proposal for ya, "stop giving them our money."
bingo!
i wonder how many corporate pizzas were eaten while occupying.
so they arrived here in Montreal; apparently their stance is protest first, find solutions second and its driving me absolutely batty.
a simplification, but in essence the stance that was presented by organizers, but they don't want organizers either.
At 10/13/11 02:20 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Yet these same bozo's gave each other hundreds of millions in bonuses, after having to be bailed out ! It staggers my mind !
indeed, but this is likely one of the few instances in which policy change would be effective insofar as protester demands are concerned, much of the rest seem to be based on lifestyle changes we are completely unwilling to change. we as consumers have been responsible for the growth in corporate power and wealth and seem to be unwilling to address means to remove our support from them.
granted with the big guys now doing everything (for so cheap), we have few options with which to protest economically.
At 10/13/11 03:32 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: I think you guys need to see this.
this and iron's statistics still don't seem to indicate that protests will achieve anything; our values are what need rethinking (well i guess we can protest our disposable materialism) not attempts to legislate things like "greed" and "unfairness".
although the whole banks and how they reacted to the bailouts does indicate that some places are apt for policy changes.
i'm gonna have to stick with the "corporate power came about through consumer demands" side of the argument, meaning that it isn't just wall street that needs changing. i'd be curious to see what factors influence relative wealth between CEOs and employs (as posted earlier), and whether or not it is legislation or society that has most influenced them. if it hasn't come about through legislation, protesting would have little relevance.
At 10/11/11 03:38 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: When the reason for banning them is "they are dangerous", but yet keeping even deadlier drugs legal, then yes. It is hypocrisy.
but this isn't a full representation of Camarohusky's position, as he has stated his disdain for drugs and their harmful effects in general, or the use of damaging substances for the sole purpose of personal pleasure. the current legislation does to a degree reflect social attitudes in that we differentiate drugs by purpose, effects and harms. like it or not alcohol, tobacco and coffee are intensely socially ingrained, and serve cultural purposes (this is supposedly a positive) whereas most others don't leaving us only with considerations of effect and harm on which to base a decision. it would be like saying the Rastafari are hypocrites for smoking pot but abhorring other drugs; social understandings of drugs and their dangers are not based solely on notions of self-harm.
this of course says nothing about Cam's position as he may very well be that more should be done/regulated, but as he has been making thought out posts and has been elaborating on his position, i would like to continue hearing from his as opposed to arguing about hypocrisy.
consistency is fun and all but cause and effect are likely more fruitful topics.
