Lurker > thanosibe

Freddie_Mercury posted...

Lost_All_Senses posted...

Why do these always start in the middle of the action? It seems like excessive force regardless but its so suspicious how a lot of cop videos start in the middle. Like they purposely cut it cause something happened before hand that might give the cops some type of actual reason to use some force.

"why do police brutality videos only show police brutality"

"Why do shit posters only shit post"
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

metralo posted...

thanosibe posted...

Omnislasher posted...

metralo posted...

good. there's no reason that cop should be getting off and st louis better prep for some buildings being burnt the fuck down.

Shit posters advocating violence and destruction of other people's property...... yeah I'm on CE.

how else are you going to get things to change? when people in positions of power don't even get a slap on the wrist for murdering somebody AND planting fake evidence then what are you supposed to do? just take it?

I'm not sure. But others, possibly, and more likely probably, that nothing to do with one judge's judgement should suffer property damage, fear for their safety or end up being that person that couldn't stop in time and takes another person's life cause pedestrians are on the damn highway?

That doesn't sound like a progressive solution to me.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Omnislasher posted...

metralo posted...

good. there's no reason that cop should be getting off and st louis better prep for some buildings being burnt the fuck down.

Shit posters advocating violence and destruction of other people's property...... yeah I'm on CE.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

DreadedWave posted...

Fucking poachers!
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

No it's not. It may come as a surprise to some, but sexy women look sexy.

My son's speech therapist/counselor in 3rd and 4th grade was a beautiful woman that was very fit and trim. And she never wore nothing inappropriate, but always looked good in it, like the teacher in the OP.

And what's the worry with 4th graders? They think the teacher trying to seduce 9 year old boys?
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

DesuDeku posted...

winterdust11 ptsSep 13 2014
As a white girl, I need to try this.

lol
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

DanielCormier posted...

why be angry about it at all...

Because it's a joke on how internet nerds get outraged over the littlest things that don't effect them. I guess it did it so well it came off genuine.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

DanielCormier posted...

Is someone forcing you to eat all of these or this just "stop, i don't like thing"?

I don't know how to properly express my anger in a healthy manner.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

Not a single mention of Pumpkin Beer yet.

idontwanttoliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

--kresnik-- posted...

Ehh, let em' have it. I'm not wild about the flavor, myself, but it makes good use of it and people seem to look forward to it all year.

But I wanna be mad about something and this is all I could come up with. :-(

And that's only because my wife and I were just shopping and we were pointing these products out to each other. (Cause a trip to the grocery store is the closest to date night we've had in a while.)
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

It's out of hand!

https://imgur.com/a/FubZL
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Pumpkin spice fucking rum?
Pumpkin spice Hostesses cakes?
Pumpkin spice Cheerios?
Pumpkin spice Pop Tarts?

For Christ sake, enough already!
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Maybe the 500 was a stretch. But I've seen several of your AMA threads. Mind you I'm not trying to insult you. Just answering the OP's question. My opinion on you is completely neutral.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Deadpool_18 posted...

@Sayoria

Yeah. And CE trips over themselves to give her the attention too. But girls are unicorns on CE.

Vegy likes attention but his topics have substance or at least aren't about him all the time. Sayoria goes from one 500 post AMA to the next.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Kineth posted...

I disagree that this is the main argument. It is an argument, but it's an oversimplification of the scenario and what was actually going on. Of course punching people for speaking is ridiculous. It is a little bit different when a person is being verbally abusive towards someone which as I said qualifies as fighting words, i.e. something that was said with intent to injure and provoke somebody. To suggest that the violence started with the physical blows is just not a true evaluation of what transpired. All fights start with words. Getting sucker punched out of nowhere doesn't count as a fight so that exception is irrelevant.

I am not going to push this point to far because while I've read the thread it doesn't seem as relevant of a point since this is a fictional scenario. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

I think that has more to do with how the populace of this board works than because of the subjects. If it were a black man insulting a white person and the white person swung at them, I bet it would have plenty of discussion as well as a different tune from some of the people I think frequent this board.

That's what I meant. CE's reaction, not necessarily the general populace. And I agree. I would be a flip side of a lot of reactions that are going on now in this thread.

There are more people with an insulting disposition than there are people who have a knee jerk violent reaction, so I only partially agree with your statement. Obviously the second person is bad too, but suggesting that it's a knee jerk response is painting a different picture than what was described and very likely how shit actually happens.

I'll tell you this, I've mean-mugged and talked some rusty shit to people who called me that word, but I'm not looking to go to jail so I'm not interested in assaulting people. Most of us know that shitheads who would use the word as an insult are cowards who would actually resort to that tactic of calling the police over a fight they started and would likely lie to the officers about what happened to.

And in case it isn't clear, I'm not excusing violence or saying it's justified. It seems to me that people here are excusing the insulting nature/attitude of the first person though, which is why I originally said the thing about ethos, pathos and rhetoric.

Yes there are less violent people than there are insulting people. A knee jerk response is one uncontrolled by the stimuli. If someone just says one insulting word to you and your response is immediate violence, then that's pretty knee jerk to me. But then again, it's a fictional scenario with no details in the OP. So a lot of people's posts are probably reflecting how they see in their minds the scenario going. And especially for those that a similar situation might have happened to them.

This also may have to do a lot with people's dispositions. Some people aren't quick to anger. Or have an easy time turning the other cheeks or whatever. I've been insulted and talked down to by people I wanted to punch in the face, but I didn't because that wouldn't have helped the situation. Though doing nothing, I guess, could be argued whether that's helpful too.

As far as agendas and all that, yeah that is going to color people's posts. Not everyone can be objective about certain issues. But a willingness to discuss them and be civil goes a long way to understand others and why they are the way they are.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

That_Happened posted...

thanosibe posted...

Two white guys in same scenario would been off the front page before it even got one post.

I agree, but only because if it was two white guys people would say "Why would you go up and aggressively be a dick to someone and NOT expect retaliation?"

Maybe. As I said I think resorting to violence over words is always bad no matter race, gender, etc. The types of mindsets displayed in this thread because it is a racial scenario is disturbing. Race of any kind is not a hall pass to be a violent to another person when it's not self defense.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Kineth posted...

thanosibe posted...

Kineth posted...

Lotta rhetoricians ignoring pathos in order to press the ethos more. Pretty odd, but that's why the arguments presented are specious, at best.

Meanwhile the opposite argument is just trying to egg others on into justifying fits of rage over words so they can press their ethos more. It's staggeringly surprising how CE actually believes this is legitimate debate tactics.

There's more than two arguments. Like mine in post 94.

I don't think either's right, but this isn't some "same thing, both sides" bullshit or simply a legal question.

The main argument is whether it is justifiable to respond to words with violence. Morally no. In the scenario the man was not threatened, nor his life in danger. So responding to words with violence, are the consequences he has to deal with if the man that insulted him decided to press charges. Which I don't see any judge not agreeing that is a valid action in response to the other man's violence against him to press charges. The only reason this thread continues to go on is it two difference races of men. Two white guys in same scenario would been off the front page before it even got one post.

Personally people that insult others and people that resort to violence as a knee jerk response are what keep us from progressing better than we can as a society.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Kineth posted...

Lotta rhetoricians ignoring pathos in order to press the ethos more. Pretty odd, but that's why the arguments presented are specious, at best.

Meanwhile the opposite argument is just trying to egg others on into justifying fits of rage over words so they can press their ethos more. It's staggeringly surprising how CE actually believes this is legitimate debate tactics.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

2 if by "men" the definition is adult male. 4 if including my children as I can't take a piss in peace
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

spanky1 posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

smoliske posted...

Therein lies the idiocy. Interpretation by man.

As opposed to...what, divine revelation?

Consuming a substance means you are eating or drinking said substance.

It goes slightly deeper than that. It's not only about physical consumption. The whole doctrine does not hang upon one single word. It's the whole consideration of what blood is, and how it is treated, that brings us to this conclusion.

Blood is treated as something sacred in the scriptures, and it only had a limited number of uses. Blood was seen as life, and life belongs to Jehovah. In one account, some soldiers risked their lives, without being asked, to fetch water for their thirsty leader. Upon receiving it, he poured the water on the ground, regarding it as the blood of the men who risked their lives for it. Life, that is to say, blood itself, should not be used, risked, so carelessly.

Any use of blood contrary to what was explicitly approved was forbidden. This is not an explicitly approved use, and therefore, it is forbidden.

If, for example, there were a decoration, dye, or paint, made or derived from blood, Jehovah's Witnesses would steer clear of it. If there was a technology fueled by it, we would not use it.

And are you not also giving your own "interpretation by man", when you disagree with us?

Something has gone horribly wrong when a symbol of life is held in higher regard than life itself. I can't fathom a loving god who would believe that.

The Christian god in general is a dick, if you read the bible. A being so obsessed with himself that he punishes those that don't worship him in eternal damnation. Something 90% of Christian religions believe. Then there's all the shit he did to Job just to "test" his faith and prove a point to Satan. Jehovah's Witnesses are following the same dick god. I honestly wouldn't single out any Christian denomination, because it's all the same god to them. I question anyone, even if he really does exist, who would want to worship such a being?
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

smoliske posted...

thanosibe posted...

smoliske posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

smoliske posted...

I would argue that sustaining life is a rather sacred use of blood and 99% of religious interpretations of the Word of God would see blood transfusion as an acceptable practice that does not fall under "consuming the blood of an animal". Jehovah's Witnesses are the vocal minority in this regard.

Sure, you would argue that, but we respect the Bible as a higher authority, and we are not concerned with what the other 99% think.

The other 99% have their own interpretation of the Written Word, missing the point.

What about the hundred different factions of Catholics that are split into said factions because they interrupted something different and separated from Catholicism? Let's break them down into percentages too, as they also respect the bible as a higher authority. It doesn't matter if it is 0.5% or 99.5% most all Christian religions have separated or started their own faction because of a disagreement in bible scripture interpretation.

Not here to debate that. I'm here to argue that it is asinine to think it's okay to interpret scripture to think it's okay to let anyone die, especially your child.

Okay. I misunderstood your post. My apologies.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

smoliske posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

smoliske posted...

I would argue that sustaining life is a rather sacred use of blood and 99% of religious interpretations of the Word of God would see blood transfusion as an acceptable practice that does not fall under "consuming the blood of an animal". Jehovah's Witnesses are the vocal minority in this regard.

Sure, you would argue that, but we respect the Bible as a higher authority, and we are not concerned with what the other 99% think.

The other 99% have their own interpretation of the Written Word, missing the point.

What about the hundred different factions of Catholics that are split into said factions because they interrupted something different and separated from Catholicism? Let's break them down into percentages too, as they also respect the bible as a higher authority. It doesn't matter if it is 0.5% or 99.5% most all Christian religions have separated or started their own faction because of a disagreement in bible scripture interpretation.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

I challenge him to a duel. Pistols at dawn.
I demand satisfaction.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Zanzenburger posted...

spanky1 posted...

It's interesting that they used contaminated blood given to hemophiliacs as a way to teach the dangers of blood transfusions. As a hemophiliac myself (who should have a reason to fear blood transfusions), that is just silly. The contaminated blood was as a result of improper screening an regulations involving blood transfusions. As a result of that incident, much stricter protocols were put into place that made blood transfusions much safer. Like any medical procedure, trial and error will continue to help improve science.

Like, if a religion is for or against a certain thing, then fine. But don't start finding irrelevant examples to justify your case just because it will help your cause. If transfusions are wrong because God said so, then fine. But don't start using science to backup your claims if you're going to reject science to begin with.

I've had similar criticisms of my own religion as well.

When I was in it, blood is refused because it considered consumption of blood which is sacred to god. Which is why god struck down so many Israelites when he finally gave them meat because they greedy, didn't bleed it properly after god told them to not do that shit.

I think the explanation of contaminated blood (which they were doing in the 90's when I carried around my "no blood" card is just something to appease the negative attention no blood gets Jehovah's Witnesses. But I agree with you that it is redundant, if again, god's real wishes are that humans do not receive other people's blood or face damnation.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

spanky1 posted...

Definitely, that was a big nail in the coffin for me as well. I'm not sure how they extended "the generation of 1914" into two generations, but it happened.

And probably the biggest baggage I had getting older and trying to grasp my own mortality. I was told from the time I could understand the English language that there was a possibility I would never have to face death if I did what god wanted. And time just kept going on and will keep going on. Except now the only thing about death I feel is fear. If one thing turned out to be a lie, how much else is?
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

spanky1 posted...

Foppe posted...

spanky1 posted...

Foppe posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

Foppe posted...

So you timetravel when you die?

In the sense that you are aware of nothing for the duration of the time which you are dead, yes.

Wait, as long as you are dead?
So we dont get access to heaven when we die, we have to stay dead for hundreds or thousands of years before we get into heaven?
What messed up religion is this?

It's a pretty simple setup, I think you're overthinking it.

Basically, Armaggedon is gonna come within about 50 years or so from now.

How can you be so sure of that?
They predicted it to happen in 1798, 1799, 1844, 1873, 1874, 1878, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1932, 1940s, 1951, 1975, 1986 and before 2000.
Heeey, 1878 was when the sealing of the 144K was supposed to happen, which means no more access to heaven for later people. This was moved to 1881, 1910, 1914, 1925, 1931 and finally 1935. Now it is admitted as unknown.

Actually, the current understanding is the "overlapping generations" rule. People that were alive when the generation of 1914 were alive will see Armageddon. It's kinda complicated. :\ So anyway, about 50 years, give or take, that means. Edit: to clarify, like, my grandma was alive in 1914, and I was alive when my grand ma was still alive, so the end will come before people around my age die out.

And when I was in the religion the generation of 1914 would not pass away before Armageddon came. I was told it was near when I was young. It could happen any day. Now I'm 40, married with two kids of my own when I wasn't sure I'd even graduate high school before the end. So yes it will keep changing as time keeps going on. This is one of the major things that I could not agree with. If there is a god and Jesus second coming, it will be as the bible itself literally says, to no knowledge of man.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

I just love that gif for that expression on his face. Makes me laugh every time I use it.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Zanzenburger posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

People would rather talk about me, than to me

The weirdest part about the topic is the posters telling you how your religion is supposed to work.

It's like the religion equivalent to a man "mansplaining" womanhood to a woman.

A lot of this forum has a lot of hate for religion in general. Not surprised to see people insinuating to others their religion makes them a bad person.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

literal_garbage posted...

Take it back

http://gph.is/10L8JaT
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

spanky1 posted...

Well then there you go. You were never disfellowshipped, so your family and friends in the organization aren't required to shun you.

And if you were disfellowshipped, and your parents happened to continue talking to you and having a close relationship with you, they could be counseled by the elders, and if they continued to do so after that, your dad could lose his position as an elder, and if they still continued to do so and didn't stop, they could eventually be disfellowshipped themselves and then they would be shunned by all their JW friends. You do realize that, right?

You're what they call a fader. It's the healthiest way to leave the organization. Not everyone is as lucky as you, or has it as easy as you.

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, I realize all that, and no I never said everyone had the exact same experience if they left the religion. That still is a person's decision to make, to stay or leave or whatever. And with that decision comes the consequences thereof. You don't get to choose how other's live their lives either. If I did something I know would have disfellowshipped me, then I live with that decision. How do I bear ill will if my family choose to abide by the letter of the religion for the sake of what they believe is their eternal life? I'm not advocating it's a good practice but I am also not going to absolve my involvement in the situation when I knew from the get go what the consequences would have been. Just like anyone in the religion knows.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

spanky1 posted...

thanosibe posted...

spanky1 posted...

thanosibe posted...

Holy shit JW's really trigger CE.

I mean I was born into it I've be out for almost 20 years now and have healthy relationships with my folks and sister and brother in law. I have no animosity towards what my parents did. And I hope my children will forgive my mistakes as an adult too.

Edit: I may have discarded the religion. But the life I grew up around and the friends I had, and memories I have are all worth it. Religion is only as important as an individual makes it. When I realized I was just going through the motions as I reached my 20's I realized if I don't believe this is the truth than why stick with it?

Are your parents and sister and brother in law all in the religion?

Yes my folks for sure. My father is an elder (probably equivalent to a priest/father?) himself and my mother has been a pioneer (full time door to door service) since I was a teenager.

Not sure how often my sister and brother in law go to meetings and stuff, but I know they still go to some degree.

Were you 1)baptized and then 2)disfellowshipped?

Yes. I was around 16, I think.
No I left voluntarily.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

spanky1 posted...

thanosibe posted...

Holy shit JW's really trigger CE.

I mean I was born into it I've be out for almost 20 years now and have healthy relationships with my folks and sister and brother in law. I have no animosity towards what my parents did. And I hope my children will forgive my mistakes as an adult too.

Edit: I may have discarded the religion. But the life I grew up around and the friends I had, and memories I have are all worth it. Religion is only as important as an individual makes it. When I realized I was just going through the motions as I reached my 20's I realized if I don't believe this is the truth than why stick with it?

Are your parents and sister and brother in law all in the religion?

Yes my folks for sure. My father is an elder (probably equivalent to a priest/father?) himself and my mother has been a pioneer (full time door to door service) since I was a teenager.

Not sure how often my sister and brother in law go to meetings and stuff, but I know they still go to some degree.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Holy shit JW's really trigger CE.

I mean I was born into it I've be out for almost 20 years now and have healthy relationships with my folks and sister and brother in law. I have no animosity towards what my parents did. And I hope my children will forgive my mistakes as an adult too.

Edit: I may have discarded the religion. But the life I grew up around and the friends I had, and memories I have are all worth it. Religion is only as important as an individual makes it. When I realized I was just going through the motions as I reached my 20's I realized if I don't believe this is the truth than why stick with it?
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

hollow_shrine posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ClockworkHare posted...

The aesthetic of the man bun is in direct correlation to how physically attractive the guy is to begin with.

I don't agree. I think it depends on if you have the right hair. Colin Farrell is a good looking guy, but that man bun is not working for him.

You're absolutely right.



Burn it with fire.

The difference between and Asherlee's first example and Farrell's is the first dude actually has some hair. So it's less of a "man bun" and more of a short pony tail. The less hair you have the more awful it looks. Just like the soul patch.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Asherlee10 posted...

I think those examples in the picture provided are probably some of the worst man buns I've seen. Some men can really pull it off well and straight women seem to love it.

Might be true. Saw some dad at my son's orchestra open house last month with a man bun and a ZZ Top beard.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

XD

https://imgur.com/a/FCswP
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

ThyCorndog posted...

thanosibe posted...

I would assume that most people don't talk face to face with other people with the same ridiculous grammar that they do on the internet.

lol I hope u don't use big words like ridiculous, grammar and internet irl you nerd

Your assumptions about my articulations outside of the internet are erroneous. Or at the very least disingenuous on your part. Your "lol" does not negate the pain it seems you feel by only having only a monosyllabic grasp on vocabulary.

;-)
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

I would assume that most people don't talk face to face with other people with the same ridiculous grammar that they do on the internet.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

Bolt-ons? :-) You kids and your slang.

Some women look good with em. Some don't.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

https://imgur.com/a/PRKWm
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

gunplagirl posted...

AliceofInsanity posted...

The definition I stated was literally marked for being offensive. smh

I'm sure if you appeal they'll somehow distort that "speaking about an entire race of people" thing, even though that's totally not what the rule is suppressed to entail.

So a rule to suppress posters making racists comments, isn't meant to suppress racist comments, when the racist comment is something another poster agrees with?
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

I'd kill you if I had my gun!
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

gamepimp12 posted...

It's weird the romanticize certain people have with a time filled with social strife for a large portion of the world

It's weird how people can't compartmentalize a fictional scenario and cherry pick an aspect from an entire decade, without trying to generalize people are praising the bad aspects of said decade.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

They are very different. I can imagine "accidentally" going in the wrong one. It's pretty much the difference between the clutch and the brake pedal.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

My wife cooking dinner in a dress and high heels.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

SBAllen: Symphony of the Administration
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

I'm trying to find a data cell to repair the security access tuner and get to seegson communications. But some humans/androids are trying to kill me on sight.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski

RebelElite791 posted...

You already missed the first alien appearance if you're that far in lol.

The cutscene where Axel dies and one death on my part waiting for an elevator is all I've seen of it.
---

I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski