Lurker > HerpToTheDerp

"when i got a job i had to start payin for my own shit too. rents due next month"

TheOnionKnight posted...

Humans are animals. When every other animal creates something, it's considered natural. Why are humans the only animals with the capability to create unnatural things? It's because humans don't really consider themselves animals; there's a mindset that humans are a step above nature, a level removed from it. Which is false. We're part of it. Computers and beehives are both natural products created by animals.

In common usage, the words "natural" and "unnatural" have their places in conversation, but when you're getting into a deeper conceptual discussion about whether certain behaviors are appropriate because they are or aren't natural, I think it's important to take a step back and realize humans aren't special.

a lot of the times we lose sight of the actuality of this situation. the reason being for us being different in the sense of why we're able to create more complex tools than the ones we find made in other aspects of nature is because of our ability to learn. nobody is born with the innate ability to create literal things like nuclear weapons or theoretical things like religions and manifestos. all of these creations come from a culmination of generations and the ability for us to pass down what we've learned.

again im not saying it is unnatural for us to create. by nature we are curious and we are problem solvers. that does not mean that everything we make is natural. you brought up beehives. bees naturally make those. the knowledge and abilities used to create a hive is innate. the same cannot be said for computers. that was a taught ability. there's a reason that we still have so many indigenous uneducated people to this day

i disagree. i think it's natural for us to be curious and to problem solve using our creations. however, despite arguing creating to be human nature, i do not think that automatically makes whatever we make natural.

the fleshlight topic?

i just believe that homosexuality is not learned. nobody taught me how to be gay. religion however is taught and, unlike homosexuality, can be redirected if taught otherwise.

people are taught religion and can be taught to stop practicing.

Mistere Man posted...

Well I didnt say animals were deep thinkers, but if they ever did gain more self awareness and brain function those rituals could lead to such things.

yes but i stand by statement that i believe those were learned behaviors and not innate since from everything ive seen on the matter regarding specific ritual behaviors, it is not a common occurrence/recorded frequently. otherwise it looks to me like the only innate thing about them are the emotional responses.

all that said ill admit I'm biased. ive got a vendetta against religion since im gay myself. i hear it all the time, how "unnatural" it is and it pisses me off because the only people i hear it from are the religious types.

Mistere Man posted...

Religion maybe found in nature as some animals show ritual behavior or even idol worship of objects. Of course I could be mistaken as my memory isnt the best, but I think I remember reading that somewhere. Again if I am wrong I am sorry for the misinformation.

yeah, i ended up reading on it because of this actually. i find it fascinating, but from what ive read i dont believe ritual behavior and highly cognitive theologies to be one in the same. even if you did then i still stand by my statement that it isnt the response it self that rationalizes itself as natural but instead the emotions which then became learned behaviors.

i cannot in good faith call religion natural. if one theology is open for discussion then all by nature must be as well and since i dont believe beliefs like anti-semitism or racism to be natural then that type of thinking is off the table for me.

Guide posted...

I'm not saying you're trolling, but this is what I do to troll.

i was just going to assume that they were religious and felt attacked. it could be an extremely proactive statement in this case where i believe homosexuality to be natural since that fundamentally goes against what they believe to be natural.

i do not believe religion in of itself to be natural. instead it is the means of how we create religion and other ideologies to be natural. religion is created in a response to basic human emotions which i do consider to be natural.

darkphoenix181 posted...

How did it not occur naturally?

i wasnt around during the creation of religion to give you the specifics if that's what you're actually asking me lol. id wager someone made up a story and got others to believe it. again, just because you're capable of spreading an ideology with little resistance, that doesn't make it natural. unless of course you're going to say fundamental beliefs like anti-semitism and other racist beliefs are natural

darkphoenix181 posted...

And what about that makes it unnatural?
Did God teach it to them?

typically, things that don't occur naturally are unnatural. shocking, i know. you're free to argue that its natural human behavior to create but that does not make everything man-made innately natural.

darkphoenix181 posted...

So you use the same logic tc opposes.

"Only humans have it, it is unnatural."

no. i answered the question you asked lol. also, could you be any more disingenuous? religion isnt some kind of innate response or desire that exists among all humans. to those that practice only do so because they were taught.

i dont think the definition of religion boils down to being respectful and sympathetic towards others. otherwise we wouldnt be having this discussion about homophobia in the first place.

they think it feels good too. thats one less person to mark them for the inane bigoted shit they post.

i dont think that has anything to do with religion. sounds more like animals are just capable of being respectful of others/sympathetic. after all, its not like religious people are the only ones allowed to have funerals/mourn

darkphoenix181 posted...

What do humans do that is unnatural?

Religion

neither tbh. dudebro fps games and generic action flick blockbusters are a dime a dozen these days

if its just one hit then take a step back and call the cops and let them beat the fuck out of em. if they keep hitting you then run the fade

did you even bother to read the article you've posted lol?

pillow fuckers that scream bloody murder when the boob slider gets removed

wii u got slept on hard. library aside, that was nintendos best system imo

darkphoenix181 posted...

1. They might. If you don't need them, might stop caring about them.
2. Laws may also be passed outlawing fishing for environmental reasons ot maybe just cause someone got bribed by fish designer corp.

1. we're not going to stop caring about an animals ecosystem simply because we don't eat them anymore. there are plenty of animals we don't eat that we actively try to protect. if anything the species will only thrive because of this since we'd likely leave them alone.
2. on what basis? has there ever been an instance where hunting/farming/procuring certain foods has been outlawed not because of environmental concerns but on the sole basis of there being a substitute available? no.

juno is just a poor mans napoleon dynamite. shows that just because you try to be quirky or unique that doesnt automatically make you interesting.

am i the only person who drinks water?

darkphoenix181 posted...

I have an issue with this.

Food like this can always be changed.

Think like an iphone. Yours breaks and you want one just like you had before. Sorry, don't sell them anymore, you gotta buy the new model. Oh eait, I don't like the new model. Too bad.

And since meat goes bad, there will be no secondary market with the old models.

Fish 2.0
Fish 3.0
Fish 4.0 now with extra vitamin A
Fish 5.0 now with aspartime

Etc.

Literally a corporation controlling what your food is made of.
There is a freedom to food coming from the earth and not a factory.

And yes I know, technically alot of our food comes from a factory already. But the natrual movement has halted alot of additives.

fortunately for you, your analogy is shit. you can't find wild natural iphones frolicking about. actual fish wont cease to exist

BakonBitz posted...

That's what I'm wanting to know, lmao. Did they just not care or something?

they just know the truth about the lost city of iran

"its 'fair next' until it happens to me"
lol

yeah. discrimination is sooooo progressive

lets see which side can get a bigger circle jerk going

minesweeper
pinball
solitaire
freecell

brestugo posted...

SHOOK

its actually pretty terrifying to live in an age where one compares touching someones hair with express permission to sexual assault. especially when all you have to do is say "this is creepy/weird" and it would have sufficed.

this is what hollywood has been since its inception

hockeybub89 posted...

Someone else's body is someone else's body. Hair, ass, elbow, whatever. Even if you do get permission, it's fucking weird to ask someone you are not intimate with if you can touch a body part because you find it so interesting. Are we all 5 years old? I find it immature, not sexually inappropriate.

no shit sherlock, point to the part where i said this wasnt a weird thing to do. however im not some dumbass that would equate this to the same severity of sexual assault. your analogy is exaggerated and stupid. its okay tho since you arent the only one making these inane reaches

hockeybub89 posted...

Hold up lemme touch that ass. Never had the chance to feel an ass like this one.

i didnt think id find a stupider analogy itt than the one comparing touching hair to a racist telling a racist joke but here we are

jeffhardyb0yz posted...

Just because someone doesnt mind something, doesnt make it not offensive. Its like watching someone make harsh racist jokes to their racist friend who laughs, doesnt make it not racist and offensive to someone else who hears/sees it

the lengths people go to defend ignorant white people is hilarious

what an incredibly stupid analogy. the reach youre trying to make is even more hilarious

BakonBitz posted...

I mean, we don't know how big the game's gonna be. They're almost assuredly adding a bunch of new content, the question remains on how much of that feels genuine or filler.

best to lower our expectations. XV was big but it was also a whole lot of nothing. if Square has proven anything this past decade, its that filler is their specialty.

The_Scarecrow posted...

Its very likely going to stop where you would think it would for a good cut off point which is after leaving Midgar. It would be an easy set up for part 2.

square is really charging full price for 15% of a game that came out over 20 years ago lmao

this is me with basically any third person shooter.

DeadBankerDream posted...

If you think Dark Souls is harder than Ikaruga, you might be:

Wrong
Stupid
A Games critic

theyre definitely not the 3rd since the crash trilogy isnt on the list. according to them thats basically dark souls

tifas boobs look unchanged to me.
https://imgur.com/joyFtRb
w heres @Skye_Reynolds with his war on tits copy pasta. what does he make of this?

JebronLames posted...

you have, in a field?

i have.
ive shat in a many number of places and not once have i dropped one in a porta john

billcom6 posted...

How can you spoil the beginning of a remake of a 20 year old game?

by spoiling the remake because this is a remake and not a remaster. this probably wont be the game you played 20 years ago. you know nomura is gonna retcon and shoehorn in a bunch of stuff. hes like the george lucas of square enix

literally no hotline miami on the list. wut.