This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Cadenza has moved on
Pages: 1 ... 8910 1112 ... 20
271
« on: December 18, 2015, 01:12:25 AM »
His argument falls apart because not everyone from those cultures fails to assimilate. Most western countries are melting pots where everyone adds the better parts of their background and discard the rest. And only western, read: White European countries, are melting pots for all shades of browns. This pretense that white people deserve no place for their own people is so strong that in 2010 Eric Besson, the minister for immigration and national identity said: «la France n’est ni un peuple, ni une langue, ni un territoire, ni une religion, c’est un conglomérat de peuples qui veulent vivre ensemble. Il n’y a pas de Français de souche, il n’y a qu’une France de métissage.»
"France is neither a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion, it’s a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There are no indigenous French, there is only a France made out of miscegenation."
Because Joan de arc was some arab, oriental, berber or african.
The idea of a society doesn't emphasize ANY one's race primacy. The west supposedly rose above that. The US and EU aren't about race. We are about a society that everyone can thrive in.
If you want a place where Whites thrive, join a bowling league or country club.
Question: What's your opinion on white people? You seem to dislike them.
272
« on: December 18, 2015, 01:10:12 AM »
We? I'm not Chinese, Indian, African, South East Asian, or Middle Eastern; and I don't live in any of those countries/regions. They are the ones with an overpopulation problem not me, not my New Zealand, and not my British Isles. Yeah, but I'm just talking about humanity in general. Again, there's nothing wrong with having kids, but it should be left up to personal choice. The societal and familial pressure to have children is something that I find very silly because it's not a necessity anymore.
Fair enough then, I look out for my people first so to me it is necessary, that's my bias.
It's just it came across as doublethink to be supporting an idea while calling it a name that demeans it. I understand the use of specifics but the fact that they're needed is throwing me off. I wouldn't say that it demeans it, though - just clarifies further on the specifics. The same way you might just call someone a "person" but then refer to them as a "black man" or "asian woman" when talking about race and gender, specifically.
It's the specifics that I find demeaning. I place value in loving sex between a couple, so a form of sex that's specified as casual comes across as devalued. I mean, if it was just as good as normal sex then it wouldn't be causal sex, it's just be sex.
Could you correct me if i'm wrong, but since your opposed to overpopulation, isn't that an environmental issue caused by having unnecessarily having kids? I'm under the impression that that's how your logic is stringing it all together, which makes it sound like Verb. I suppose so, but I guess I'd hold a much less "radical" viewpoint than him. Verb and others like him think that the human race should voluntarily eliminate itself through not having children, I simply think that we should avoid overpopulation and the rapidly, exponentially increasing population of the planet so we don't drive ourselves to extinction by consuming all the resources at a rate too fast for the planet to replenish them.
That does sound more reasonable than Verb. There was a time when I would've agreed with you on this, but seeing as those countries I mentioned aren't slowing their growth down aside from China, I have the choice between supporting a world overpopulated by them, or a world overpopulated by them and my people. And I choose the second option.
I can't believe I forgot to mention it but this is quite important to my reasoning here: I'm not just thinking about this in terms of my life, but also of my future children; so when you say that we should be more accepting of promiscuity, what I'm imagining is a society in which my future daughters (or the daughters of any of my friends and family) are allowed to be used as fucktoys by any man that can sweet-talk them, and I can only see that leading to emotional/trust issues. I want them to have a family because their my family as well, and your idea is harmful to that I'd agree. Well, not specifically that you shouldn't raise your daughters how you wish - it'd be your family and so on - but simply that I find the whole "daddy's girl" mentality to be incredibly creepy and an off-product of female sexuality and promiscuity being looked at as a negative across the board. Launching off into a tangent, I just find it really, really creepy how many fathers do the whole "cleaning the shotgun" routine as if their daughter's virginity is some precious thing to be ultimately protected, but might give their son a fist bump if he pulled a girl at the same dance. It's odd and kinda creepy.
Talking in a generalized sense, though, it is your household and so of course you would raise your children with the values that you yourself hold. Openness of sexuality isn't something that I think we need to break down on an individual level, just something that I don't like being faulted on a societal level.
It's sort of a territorial thing: hypothetically speaking, I'd expect myself to be the most important man in the life of my wife and my daughters, so seeing my daughters with a man that I don't approve of would feel like a betrayal, and seeing them with lots of men would be both multiple betrayals and make me wonder how important I was to her/them in the first place. As with sons, they themselves would be the most important man in their own life while I'm the one to guide them along and train them, so them getting with a girl isn't a betrayal of my efforts with them, but a confirmation that they're closer to being a man. That being said, I'd still expect my son to settle down and I'd still expect him to keep it in his pants. And as for other men, there is the fact that daughters get pregnant but sons don't; I'd support my grandkids regardless of if they're bastards (though I'd be thoroughly dissapointed if they are), but other men might not be so willing.
They very well could, but what about a decade down the line, or two decades? or when they're past 60? They're allowed to have their fun but I don't see how it could last, and a lack of forward planning is a problem. But, again, that boils down to personal preference. I do eventually plan to have a stable family - or at least a husband/wife, maybe not kids - and not continue deviancy into my adulthood, but some other people might prefer to remain independent.
Yep, and it's my personal preference to stay away from that.
Now I already know that dating has enough issues associated with it as is, so in my view the less baggage a girls' got the better. I see your view as one that adds baggage to everyone that goes along with it, and the more people that follow it the more I'll have to be on my guard about it; It creates too many questions that I'll have to ask without creating any answers that I could be happy with. Yes it is somewhat subjective, but even I can't live my whole life being inhumanly objective about things. How does a woman's freedom of sexuality add MORE baggage? The way things are currently, a girl who has slept with more men is looked at as lesser, buy and large, than a woman who has slept with a small number or no men. That seems odd to me, especially in the context that you've brought things up. Just because a girl has had a number of relationships or casual encounters beforehand doesn't mean that she's "jaded" and incapable of finding her's with you special.
Because there will always be that uncertainty about how close she was to her exes and exactly what they did together - If I were to get with a girl like that then I would always be comparing myself to a standard that I don't even know the details of. And that's assuming that there wasn't anything else at all to the relationships, the reality could be even worse and I might never know, or I might find out, or she might never tell me and I wouldn't know. There's simply too many unanswered and awkward questions and assumptions that are created by her being with other men, and all those questions dissapear if she hasn't been with anyone else. Likewise if she's only been with one other guy then that's still significantly less uncertainty than if she's been with several. And if she has had say, 20, what's to her from downplaying that number? especially if she knows how I'd react to it. I don't want to get in a relationship just to play mindgames. Again, not saying you're required to latch onto one thing in a romantic or sexual sense, but I'm just generally talking about what's accepted by society overall. It even seeps into the language - words for men that sleep with a lot of women like "womanizer," "playboy," "stud," are all positives, whereas words for women that sleep with a lot of men, "slut," "whore," "skank," and so on are all negatives. Again, I argue none of these points on an individual level, but it'd be great if society as a whole stopped tying a woman's worth to how many people she's slept with.
I can't say I'm a fan of men being promiscuous, but given my explanation above about my hypothetical kids, attacking those words ultimately means attacking my own ideals. Off on another tangent, but it kinda has to do with that thread I wrote a while ago and how society tends to see things that are inherently feminine as negatives while viewing more masculine traits as positives - unless, of course, the feminine traits are attractive to a generic, straight male.
Extremely so, girls being feminine is like catnip to men; I love when girls have lots of subtle feminine traits and mannerisms to them, and when they're visibly happy about being feminine and acknowledged as being feminine. For instance some of the girls In my circle of friends sing together every now and then and it's really comforting hearing them, but then when one of the guys starts singing it ruins it and makes me ever so slightly pissed off at him.
"Hey I'm in an open relationship, anyone want to fuck my girlfriend for me?" That's what a cuckold is, that's what your advocating for. I mean, if someone wants to be a cuck then I think that's weird as hell but, hey, more power to them.
You know i'm not sure if I fully understand the term since this is the first time i've ever heard it being used, could you give me a run down of it?
Not really sure which part you're talking about, so I'll just run down the whole list.
Open relationships/polyamory generally have to do with, as I said, the separation of romance and sex. One or both members of a relationship can more or less sleep around as they see fit because sex is looked at as something of a pleasurable act that does not necessarily tie in with romance. It's still a trusting relationship, of course, but a different type - rather than trusting your partner not to sleep with others and keep it form you, you trust your partner to separate romance and sex, be responsible, and stay in a loving relationship with you while you both have plenty of fun on the side. Unfortunately, these often get a bad rap from people who will more or less coerce their partner into staying faithful while they themselves go out and bang ever second broad at the bar.
Cuckolding is a fetish based on humiliation. I don't really get humiliation kinks in this form (I'm a fan of more, uh...direct forms of humiliation kinks), but some people apparently just love to hear about how terrible they are in bed, how small their cock is, how much better the "bull" (term for the person doing the cucking) is at fucking them, and so on. I don't understand it, but it's a kink and shouldn't be representative of the whole community.
Well now I can see the subtle difference between the two, but from my point of view a relationship is one of the few times when you can justifiably be selfish, as in "this is my girl and nobody gets to fuck her except for me". Like if I jumped through a few hoops I could see how somebody could divorce love from sex in a relationship, but you're still letting someone else fuck your girl, and that's something I could never do or respect. D/s stands from Dom/sub which in turn stands for dominant/submissive, part of the BDSM portion of kinks. D/s relationships focus on the removal of power from the "sub" and the gratification of power to the "dom" and may take the form of a very wide range of kinks from simple rough sex all the way up to pet play, rape play, extreme bondage, and heavy sadomasochism. Humiliation, and there by cuckolding, are an extension of the 'domination' group of this kinks, but does not necessarily need to include the B, S, or M.
Spoiler I'm kind of amazed at how vanilla I've become.
273
« on: December 18, 2015, 12:41:31 AM »
If you want peace then leave the region instead of causing more conflict.
I agree with almost all of your points except this one. You can't just simply get up and leave. A two state solution would probably help ease a LOT of tension. All a lot of people want over there is some land to call their own, and to be represented. Not oppressed.
I'd support a two state solution; But what I had in mind was that if civilians wanted peace then there is always the option of them individually leaving to somewhere peaceful. Whereas the guy in the video was making it seem that fighting was their only option for peace.
274
« on: December 17, 2015, 11:55:02 PM »
I thought the title was being sarcastic, but it isn't so her's my thoughts play by play:
Israel being a decent country is an opinion not a fact. Israel being in the style of Western democracy is a neutral statement not a compliment. Israel's existence is built on stolen land, of course it has an interest in war. And nobody would want to destroy it if it wasn't built on stolen land. "Judaism, with it's unsurpassed moral standards" Is this a fucking joke? "They don't want to be fighting and they don't want to harm others" Fair enough but why would you try to achieve that in the Middle East? If you want peace then leave the region instead of causing more conflict. Yes, killing civilians is clearly the pinnacle of National Defense. At this point the propaganda is getting pretty blatant; TERRORISTS! I can't have much sympathy for Israel being shot at when they have their iron dome system. Precision strikes precisely targeting schools and hospitals. "terror tunnels" It really doesn't matter what they intended to achieve with warnings, and judging by this video they just wanted to be able to point at something and say "see, we're not the bad guys, we did this much to help the Palestinians"; eating your cake and still wanting to have it afterwards. Also, how are those phone calls even commendable? "Hey Ahmed i'm gonna bomb your house in a bit try not to die, bye bye now" And I figure that aborting missions was done again so they could have something to write propaganda about. No goy, war crimes are war crimes. "Hamas is evil for hiding weapons amongst civilians, Israel is good for bombing those weapons" And pray tell where are these videos of the fakes? how hard would it have been to include them in the video description? A propaganda piece claiming it's the truth, are you even trying Israel?
Meta I can't tell, do you support these people or something else?
275
« on: December 17, 2015, 11:15:07 PM »
Shit food makes for shit people.
276
« on: December 17, 2015, 11:12:24 PM »
If I wanted to hate myself.
277
« on: December 17, 2015, 11:02:32 PM »
And the Trump supporters will eat this shit up and crown the man as the next Savior of Mankind.
I like to believe that we as a people have become smarter and more educated than the common peasant 500-1000 years ago. Sadly Trump's fans make that out to be more of a fantasy.
I can't say I support this decision despite supporting Trump.
278
« on: December 17, 2015, 10:56:56 PM »
This is the only upside to not having money. Hooray for no expectations.
279
« on: December 15, 2015, 03:47:46 AM »
Am I doing this right.
You're killing me with laughter at the very least.
280
« on: December 15, 2015, 03:40:22 AM »
I don't, I'd kind of like to got to live in Africa for a year or two.
Mongolia is also on the list of interesting places I'd like to live.
My friend is from rural Mongolia, he came to U.S when he was 14 (he's 18 now)
He said they would sometimes smoke cow poop srs
What would that even achieve?
281
« on: December 15, 2015, 03:37:05 AM »
282
« on: December 15, 2015, 03:25:41 AM »
Unless you're hiding an mortality potion and the means to mass produce it then what you said is completely false, a culture cannot survive without reproducing. Yes but the focus on having children in order to continue family lines and as though it's a necessity needs to stop. We're having more overpopulation issues than we are the inverse (despite what places like Japan and Russia might lead you to believe), so there doesn't need to be as much of a pressure by society to have kids.
Have 'em if you wanna, but you're not exactly doing anything bad by not having kids.
We? I'm not Chinese, Indian, African, South East Asian, or Middle Eastern; and I don't live in any of those countries/regions. They are the ones with an overpopulation problem not me, not my New Zealand, and not my British Isles.
You still haven't answered why it's a good thing. And what I was trying to say was that you don't call this kind of sex "sex" but "casual sex", the prefix changes the meaning and I don't see how it implies the sex is good, but I can see how it implies it's of a lower quality/standard than normal sex. Well that's just a stupid way of bringing in implications. I say "casual sex" as a differentiator because just saying "sex" could imply any time. I'm purposefully segmenting it into categories to talk about one specific category. "Sex" does not imply "sex in a relationship" or "sex for the purpose of reproduction," it just implies two people sticking things inside each other. Getting specific doesn't necessitate that said specifics are worse.
It's just it came across as doublethink to be supporting an idea while calling it a name that demeans it. I understand the use of specifics but the fact that they're needed is throwing me off.
You're the one saying reproduction isn't necessary, that's verb's line. You should already know that something being fun is not a justification for it because anything can be fun. And you haven't explained at all how it isn't harmful, both to the individual and society. No, Verb's line is that we shouldn't have any kids because it's bad for the environment. Saying that kids are no longer necessary for every family to have is miles away from antinatalism or however you spell it.
Could you correct me if i'm wrong, but since your opposed to overpopulation, isn't that an environmental issue caused by having unnecessarily having kids? I'm under the impression that that's how your logic is stringing it all together, which makes it sound like Verb. And there's no burden of proof necessary on me to explain why society shouldn't shame two consenting adults agreeing to something that hurts neither one of them and is typically looked at as a fun thing. If they were going on murdering sprees or causing harm to other, that would obviously be different. I'm not saying that we should start putting up billboards encouraging people to have one night stands in bars, just that we shouldn't shame people who do exactly that.
I can't believe I forgot to mention it but this is quite important to my reasoning here: I'm not just thinking about this in terms of my life, but also of my future children; so when you say that we should be more accepting of promiscuity, what I'm imagining is a society in which my future daughters (or the daughters of any of my friends and family) are allowed to be used as fucktoys by any man that can sweet-talk them, and I can only see that leading to emotional/trust issues. I want them to have a family because their my family as well, and your idea is harmful to that.
I specifically said "having sex with a woman that has fucked other men" I will never fuck a man so there's no inherent disgust, but If the guy's fucked more than a few then I have to wonder what he's doing with his life and/or if he has some reason for not being in a stable relationship. I may hold men and women to different standards but don't mistake that for me not holding either group to any standard. Can't it just be that someone enjoys casual sex rather than the more structured environment of a relationship? Why does someone have to be "wrong" to enjoy things differently than you?
They very well could, but what about a decade down the line, or two decades? or when they're past 60? They're allowed to have their fun but I don't see how it could last, and a lack of forward planning is a problem.
As for my disgust, first off sticking my dick where another man, or multiple men, have stuck theirs (and might have came in as well) is fucking disgusting and a health risk. Then I have to wonder why the women allowed it to happen: is she easy? is she bad at choosing men? does she have some serious baggage to her? does she just like to fuck whoever, and so i wont even be with her for long? You see I'm a man that's only interested in a woman if I can see myself marrying her and starting a family, and there is not a single answer to "why has she fucked so many men" that could possibly make me attracted to her or value her more. Well, okay, that's preferential. I think it's weird that you think like that, but you probably see the way that I think is weird, so touche. Still, though, that's a fully subjective way of looking at things. I'm not saying that you need to be forced to have one night stands or to bang chicks that pick up a different guy every other day of the week, I'm just saying that society, as a whole, should not look down on that kind of behavior in a generalized sense.
I think your opinions are incredibly weird, that's what makes this enjoyable; internet conversations don't normally make me emotional but I've been feeling pretty passionate about what I'm thinking with this. Now I already know that dating has enough issues associated with it as is, so in my view the less baggage a girls' got the better. I see your view as one that adds baggage to everyone that goes along with it, and the more people that follow it the more I'll have to be on my guard about it; It creates too many questions that I'll have to ask without creating any answers that I could be happy with. Yes it is somewhat subjective, but even I can't live my whole life being inhumanly objective about things.
you should've made it clear you were talking about Hollywood. Fuck Hollywood. Eh, it really just extends to media and pop culture in general, but fair.
I fully agree it's hypocritical of pop culture, which is one of many reasons why I say "fuck them" and stay away from it's influences.
"Hey I'm in an open relationship, anyone want to fuck my girlfriend for me?" That's what a cuckold is, that's what your advocating for. I mean, if someone wants to be a cuck then I think that's weird as hell but, hey, more power to them.
But open relationships/polyamory and cuckolding are two very different things. One is a separation of romance and sex and the other is a kink focused on humiliation and D/s relationships. They're not really comparable.
You know i'm not sure if I fully understand the term since this is the first time i've ever heard it being used, could you give me a run down of it?
283
« on: December 15, 2015, 02:27:42 AM »
One time I saw a guy stroking this girls hair with both of his hands
Then who was holding the camera!?
probs a GoPro with a chest strap
I still find it hilarious that those cameras are used for porn of all things.
284
« on: December 15, 2015, 02:26:18 AM »
China's wall also took multiple dynasties to build and killed millions of people. It wasn't really worth it.
Comparing something so ancient to modern times where there is not a force invading you, is rather silly.
Be that as it may it sets the precedent that a stupidly big wall isn't impossible. Now while I'm not a qualified engineer, construction technology and methods have improved tremendously since then, China didn't have trucks or modern chemistry and engineering knowledge; and I would assume America has safety standards. And 11 million people have already, they're so successful at invading that they're having families at the same time. Hoover Dam is tiny compared to the wall being proposed, and the Great Wall of China is falling apart, trying to maintain what remains would be a massive challenge, only parts that are huge tourist attractions are even taken care of. I think only a third of the wall is even left.
It's possible to build a wall across the US/Mexican border, but I couldn't imagine the cost. To use the Great Wall of China as an example, the current Great Wall was built over a period of nearly 300 years, cost a ton of lives and is now in disuse and falling apart. What would be the point?
But Hoover is more structurally complex than a wall. I should've made it clear, but if America is capable of building and maintaining a structure like that, then they have the technical capacity to build a wall. Of course the wall could still be economically impossible, I simply don't know enough. I mean if Trump can't afford it then he's fucked.
285
« on: December 14, 2015, 08:13:20 PM »
I'm almost expecting him to just "break character" once he gets elected to show that the majority of the voting base are retarded.
Not that I've read up on his actual policies at all, but if it's along the lines of the ones I hear often ("Fuck muslims, build walls"), I can hardly believe he's serious about it, nor that that many people could support it.
I really don't see how building a wall is something you couldn't be serious about.
It's geographically impossible to do what Trump wants to do, given how the land is around the border in a lot of places. And the money it would take to build and maintain this 21st century Great Wall.
Do you have any details on which places would make the wall impossible to build? Wouldn't difficult terrain act as a natural barrier reducing the amount of wall that needs to be built?.Also beyond construction I'm not seeing what would make it so expensive.
The terrain is different all across the border with elevation, cliffs, etc taken into account.
And if it's going to be a wall like Constantinople's golden gates, which is what Trump is saying, then the cost to build that across 1,954 miles, and maintain it, is nothing shy of fantasy and a massive waste of money that could be going someplace else.
But wouldn't cliffs make the wall more defensible? And even then I don't see why the wall would have to be more elaborate than anything Israel has, essentially a concrete fence.
There's a difference in scale from building a concrete fence around the Gaza Strip to seperating the southern US from Mexico.
...about 1,917 miles difference.
(Not mentioning maintenance here either)
That's less than half the length of China's wall. I don't see how this wall is impossible compared to any other wall, or compared to any other American building project - You've already built and maintained Hoover dam so the engineering capabilities exist in America.
286
« on: December 14, 2015, 08:03:49 PM »
My father's side goes back to my Grandad's grandad in Ireland somewhere. My mum's side goes back to England but I'm not sure where either. ayy lmao we family crest?
Ohey I have one too
Step aside and get a look at a real family crest! It's been hanging above the front door for as long as I can remember.
287
« on: December 14, 2015, 07:49:47 PM »
I-I love you Blankina~
288
« on: December 14, 2015, 04:28:23 AM »
I'm almost expecting him to just "break character" once he gets elected to show that the majority of the voting base are retarded.
Not that I've read up on his actual policies at all, but if it's along the lines of the ones I hear often ("Fuck muslims, build walls"), I can hardly believe he's serious about it, nor that that many people could support it.
I really don't see how building a wall is something you couldn't be serious about.
It's geographically impossible to do what Trump wants to do, given how the land is around the border in a lot of places. And the money it would take to build and maintain this 21st century Great Wall.
Do you have any details on which places would make the wall impossible to build? Wouldn't difficult terrain act as a natural barrier reducing the amount of wall that needs to be built?.Also beyond construction I'm not seeing what would make it so expensive.
The terrain is different all across the border with elevation, cliffs, etc taken into account.
And if it's going to be a wall like Constantinople's golden gates, which is what Trump is saying, then the cost to build that across 1,954 miles, and maintain it, is nothing shy of fantasy and a massive waste of money that could be going someplace else.
But wouldn't cliffs make the wall more defensible? And even then I don't see why the wall would have to be more elaborate than anything Israel has, essentially a concrete fence. Now I can think of 11 million problems that the American government could spend it's money on, but it would be completely useless without a wall, and the without a wall the problem isn't going to decrease either.
289
« on: December 14, 2015, 03:46:17 AM »
You mean nothing but what you choose to strive and care for, and to live for.
I think you already have the answer to your question right there and you don't even realize it. That's the entire trick to life and there's no alternative. You pick the perspective that benefits you the most/fits the situation; not all perspectives are equal because not all provide the same options for you. I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong perspectives, but a matter of "You're alive right now, what the hell are you going to do with yourself?" and if your perspective's only response is "nothing", then that's a useless perspective. What you've said reminds me of an interesting discovery I made yesterday: what's infinity times zero? it being equal to zero sounds reasonable, but if zero represents the gradient of a horizontal line, and infinity the gradient of a vertical line perpendicular to it, then infinity * 0 = -1So is it -1 or 0 ? the answer is it depends on which is more useful for the situation.
290
« on: December 14, 2015, 03:25:10 AM »
Oh, I thought you meant have sex with Megan while your head is Nimoy's.
I thought he meant use a disembodied head as a sex toy on her...
291
« on: December 14, 2015, 03:21:35 AM »
I'm almost expecting him to just "break character" once he gets elected to show that the majority of the voting base are retarded.
Not that I've read up on his actual policies at all, but if it's along the lines of the ones I hear often ("Fuck muslims, build walls"), I can hardly believe he's serious about it, nor that that many people could support it.
I really don't see how building a wall is something you couldn't be serious about.
It's geographically impossible to do what Trump wants to do, given how the land is around the border in a lot of places. And the money it would take to build and maintain this 21st century Great Wall.
Do you have any details on which places would make the wall impossible to build? Wouldn't difficult terrain act as a natural barrier reducing the amount of wall that needs to be built?.Also beyond construction I'm not seeing what would make it so expensive.
292
« on: December 13, 2015, 09:16:43 PM »
I'm almost expecting him to just "break character" once he gets elected to show that the majority of the voting base are retarded.
Not that I've read up on his actual policies at all, but if it's along the lines of the ones I hear often ("Fuck muslims, build walls"), I can hardly believe he's serious about it, nor that that many people could support it.
I really don't see how building a wall is something you couldn't be serious about.
293
« on: December 13, 2015, 09:14:37 PM »
Can you meme at me?
294
« on: December 13, 2015, 09:13:54 PM »
wh-what kind of calculus is it?
295
« on: December 13, 2015, 09:12:04 PM »
I don't know if it was really depression or not but I did go through a period of about a year where I just felt incredibly sad about everything and had little motivation to do anything, but I was pretty capable at hiding it. I got through it by thinking about just how long I'd be alive for and realizing that I'd hate living like that, and I never had the capacity to kill myself, so I forced myself to look for things that I could enjoy, and after finding them I've been fine. But there are times where I suddenly feel awful and have to find something to cheer me up. Things get better OP.
296
« on: December 13, 2015, 08:57:18 PM »
I like that memes have become so meta that they're just ordinary memes again.
297
« on: December 13, 2015, 08:44:04 PM »
Yucky.
298
« on: December 13, 2015, 08:40:17 PM »
you seem angry a lot.
299
« on: December 13, 2015, 08:39:05 PM »
I had weetbix before, shit they're bland in a good way.
300
« on: December 13, 2015, 08:37:35 PM »
It's really not hard to see how a person who's life is very different than most people would develop opinions that are unique. Just by reading books I feel that I've become a person that I would thought insane when I used to watch TV. I think Trump is like that but rich.
Pages: 1 ... 8910 1112 ... 20
|