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 - Verbatim
Pages: 1 ... 465466467 468469 ... 1601
13981
« on: September 12, 2016, 01:40:31 PM »
but you can be a bear and kill people
iirc tekken hasn't been GOOD good since tekken 3
13982
« on: September 12, 2016, 01:36:46 PM »
If you try to kill someone in cold blood and fail, I see no reason to consider him any more moral than if he succeeded.
The scenario in the OP is pretty wild, and comes across as more of a freak accident--it was said that he couldn't possibly have conceived such an outcome, so I'd probably lend him some clemency. Something should probably happen to him, though. He probably shouldn't be allowed to handle agriculture again.
13983
« on: September 12, 2016, 01:23:25 PM »
Hehehe fuk labels dude I'm above them he hahaha 
Yeah, this is a good thing.
Labelling yourself is just a way to make you feel special.
it's also a quick and convenient way to describe different types of human behavior "i'm straight-edge" > "i have a philosophical opposition to using drugs and drinking alcohol"
13984
« on: September 12, 2016, 01:20:12 PM »
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/surface-tension.html You're really good at proving your opponent's points for them. Once again, nothing here contradicts anything I've said. Even Dietrich could come up with better examples than this. It's a liquid. Yes. Very good. Did you know liquids are wet? >classmates
>fiends
You're like the autistic kid in class who keeps talking to everybody about random stuff making people pretend to laugh so you'll leave them alone. lol Whatever you want to believe, I guess. I've known some of these people since high school, but I don't need to prove to you who my friends are. LOL Where did you get this from? Where do you get that I'm autistic? Same place, I'd imagine. Please explain (scientifically) how water in its liquid form can stack. I won't be able to show that it stacks in a traditional sense--only that it stacks in the only way liquid can. Turn on your faucet, grab a glass, and fill it up. You'll notice how the water literally fills the glass. Water molecules are being "stacked" from bottom to top into the cup. They're not stacking like blocks--they're stacking like water molecules. You see, as the molecules fill the glass, more and more space in the glass gets taken up. When this happens, the water starts rising up to the top. But by your logic, that's not what's happening. Water can't rise to the top--it just grows, because it's one entity, right? All water is just part of the same """"whole,"""" after all. Well it's as if you're denying grass is green. It's green. End of story. That's what you're denying. Uh no, it's a whole. Parts make a whole. Illusion. Just like when you said you lived on the Atlantic Ocean or whatever, and that you lived in other countries because you were there for a few days on vacation. You'll literally argue about anything and say any stupid thing you can think of just to disagree with me. It's pathetic.
Water is the wettest thing on the planet.
13985
« on: September 12, 2016, 11:50:08 AM »
If you want to abstain from drugs, great. But you shouldn't use it as a way to look down on others and feel morally superior to them. Especially considering smoking a joint is about as harmful as eating a Big Mac.
Eating a Big Mac is very wrong. Your comparison is like saying murder is only about as harmful as suicide. They both end up in death. If someone eats McDonald's it's a universal truth that you should look down on them.
You should only look down on someone if they do something morally wrong. Eating a Big Mac only affects themselves, thus it can't be morally good or bad.
well, there's the whole contributing-to-the-evil-meat-industry thing but even if that weren't an issue, i will still never understand this mentality
13986
« on: September 12, 2016, 11:37:40 AM »
Rockruff's werewolf form is... genuinely frightening.
Those limbs.
13987
« on: September 12, 2016, 11:32:59 AM »
When I think of sex being portrayed in a negative light, I'm not really thinking about rape--I'm thinking about making a caricature of what consensual sex really is--crude, sweaty, disgusting. Carnal. Simple-minded. Unintelligent. Unsophisticated. Animalistic.
Think Requiem for a Dream, but instead of being mostly about drugs, it's about sex instead. That's what I want to see: a commentary on how even casual sex is just another worthless vice, yet most people are too crass and superficial to really think about how or why. All they want is to make white stuff come out of their dicks, and that's true happiness to them. It's a goal for some people to have sex. I want a show that expresses how pathetic it is that we put sex on this pedestal.
If there's an anime that treats sex like that, then hit me up with it. But none exist, because they're all created by the sex-crazed culture that is Nippon.
13988
« on: September 12, 2016, 11:21:09 AM »
Yet still manages to be a strong character nonetheless.
I thought Verbatim would like that virtually all sex is portrayed negatively.
And in general, I'd hate to grow attached to some cool character only to watch them get raped. That's, like... No.
i feel like expanding on this a bit because this can easily be misconstrued as me not wanting anything bad to happen to female characters, which is what a lot of anti-fems seem to think about statements like that Conflict is the most important thing about any story--without conflict, there is no story. If a character isn't put through hell in some way, then there's no reason to care about their life or whatever it is they're trying to accomplish. Here's the thing, though--you still have to write conflict well. You can't have what's called "conflict for the sake of conflict," or conflict for the sake of moving the plot forward, instead of being an organic presence throughout the story. When I say I don't want to see a female character get raped, it's not just because rape is an unpleasant and extremely touchy subject matter that makes me viscerally uncomfortable. I loved the Millenium trilogy (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, etc), and that series is filled with rape--BUT, it still managed to write them in intelligent and non-indulgent ways. They disgusted me, but they never offended me. The rape scenes are not erotic--they're disturbing, as they should be. They're not trying to entice the viewer--they want the victim to rise up later in the film and KILL that motherfucker. Or whatever. Revenge plots are lazy, but satisfying--it's the easiest way to pull off a rape scene without making me cringe with how edgy you're trying to be. Berserk goes out of its way to take the offensive route. It tries to make it erotic--you can tell by the way the scenes are drawn. That's what I take umbrage with. And if what Dietrich is saying is correct, the fact that her character gets basically destroyed afterwards certainly doesn't do it any favors for me. So I'm not saying women can never get raped in fiction--just, if you're gonna try it out, you have to do it with respect--and that's clearly not Berserk's mission statement. Berserk is just A Serbian Film--dumb shock value of the sake of dumb shock value. Edge for the sake of edge. I see no value in that.
13989
« on: September 12, 2016, 10:59:18 AM »
Apart from the word "sitting" it's exactly the same thing. "It's no different except for that one thing that makes it completely different." "Sitting" implies the molecules are static or motionless. I've never said anything like this. What I've said is that the water molecules are on each other, because that's how water works. Molecules do not have to be at rest to be considered on top of each other. For something to get wet it has to be dry. We're not talking about things "getting" wet. My argument is that water is in a perpetual state of wetness, unless you only have a singular molecule. There's really nothing autistic about it--I show my classmates funny shit all the time. You're right, though--not all of them are laughing. Some of them are cringing. Dude... there's no way you're this socially retarded.
How much of a depraved fucking loser do you have to be to think that having friends is autistic and socially retarded? And you're someone who doesn't even have friends. And I'm socially retarded. Water does not stack in its liquid form. It does in its own unique way. I'm sorry you're too slack-jawed to comprehend how. You realize that's what you're doing right? And that if my posts seem repetitive, it's because I have to keep repeating the same facts over and over until you understand it? If that were true (it's not), you're really not doing a fantastic job. Saying "water isn't wet" the exact same way fifty times isn't going to convince me. Ever. But that's all you can do. Really? How so? By not contradicting a single thing that I've said so far? The fact that wholes exhibit properties that their parts do not does not conflict with anything that I've said whatsoever. They're still illusory. They're still just parts. Just drop it dude. This is really getting stupid now.
Not my fault.
13990
« on: September 12, 2016, 08:04:47 AM »
Use ctrl+F Did you do what I asked? Did you find a post that says the water molecules are "sitting" on top of each other? Or did you just find a post that says they're on top of each other. Do you understand that those are two different assertions? FUCKING LOL
This is basic fucking kid's science. It's basic metaphysics and you're getting it wrong. If you're autistic enough to show random people at your school an argument you're having on the Internet then lmao. I couldn't care less what philosophy students think about anything, they're basically studying nothing. They know more about the subject than you ever will, is the point. There's really nothing autistic about it--I show my classmates funny shit all the time. You're right, though--not all of them are laughing. Some of them are cringing. No, the point is you're talking about that as if it's relevant. It's relevant because it destroys everything about your argument. You can stack anything together if you try hard enough. No, because it's a liquid. No you haven't. You've just added more liquid. Do you understand that these aren't arguments? Do you understand that what you've been doing over the past three or fur years--probably longer--does not count as an argument? Repeating your shitty incorrect viewpoints over and over again? Or is it because you're embarrassed that you have the understanding levels of a small child. Got it to work. As I expected, it does nothing to prove me wrong. Helps my argument, actually.
13991
« on: September 12, 2016, 07:42:14 AM »
You clearly tried to say water stacks Nope. you for some reason think this is about semantics Uh, no, I don't. That's you. LOL If you were trying to make another point you would've said so just now and called me an idiot for not being able to read your post.
You didn't, however, because you know damn well what I called you out on was EXACTLY what you were trying to do. "hurr how is water divided if it's a whole lel get rekt"
Bro Right. You done chimping out? This entire thread where you literally said water sits on itself? Yeah, show me the post where I said that. Simple request. Can you do that for me? I'm not. You're doing that for me. You haven't once yet proven in any way that water can be wet. Your only argument has been that "water molecules" are always separate and can never form a whole, wholes don't even exist in the first place (fucking LOL), and that water is wet because it is wet with billions of other "water molecules". And you can't refute any of that. Except it shows that you don't understand basic science. It's not even a discussion of science--it's metaphysics, and I'm sorry, but you're the moron here. I've shown this argument to many philosophy students already. They're all laughing at you. You're being laughed at. LOL HOLY SHIT
THE GRASPING IS REAL Except that's really not grasping at all, because if you want to stack two gas molecules together, that's literally how you would do it. I'm glad you're learning something from this. Because adding water to water does not wet the other water. It just adds to the volume of the other water. Nothing got wet. It's water. You're right, because water is already wet. Because it's in a perpetual state of wetness. You're 100% right--that's one of the first things I said, too. If you had one water molecule and you poured a glass of water over it, you just made that singular molecule wet. The problem here is you're talking about solids when you agreed with me we're talking about liquid, specifically water and how it is not wet. Replace what I said with "water droplets" and not a single thing changes. Please keep your autism in check. If you're going to make shitty examples because you can't back up your argument with hard science, you only make yourself appear uneducated. You shouldn't even be allowed to use the term "hard science." http://sciencenetlinks.com/lessons/exploring-parts-and-wholes/ 404 Error: Page Not Found Good job. I'm sure it was some brilliant shit, too. Maybe it was written by the same nutjob who thinks plants feel pain. Except water.
And you've failed conclusively to demonstrate this, unsurprisingly.
13992
« on: September 12, 2016, 05:48:51 AM »
No it isn't. It's an arbitrary division based on depth. Nothing more. I think you should maybe read the whole post before you respond to stuff, because I wasn't nearly finished there. Unless you're okay with looking silly, because you're responding to arguments I've never made. No you didn't. In fact, you're laughably ignorant of how water works and behaves. I'm really not, though--you've convinced yourself that I am because of a few simple misinterpretations on your part, but that has nothing to do with me. You think I'm arguing hat the ocean is divided--I literally never said it was. I posted a diagram of a body of water that had lines on it, and you think that's me trying to say that the body is divided. Because you're not very bright, and you can't read very well. It absolutely does mean shit since water does not sit on top of itself. This is super basic fucking kid shit. Cool. So, can you point out where I denied that, please? And can you also explain how the fact that water doesn't sit on top of itself somehow proves that water can't be wet? Are you aware that you're making my own arguments for me? That you're proving me right? You'd be wet. There would be a large amount of water on you. Millions of parts that form a whole. OH, really? All of the water on me forms a whole? Is that why some of it is dripping off in individual drops? Because it's a whole? Is that something that a whole does? It breaks apart? This is the part where you just admit that you're being stupid and just give up, or admit that I'm right or something. I'd say this is looking pretty bad for you right now. We're talking about liquid, not solids. Solids, unlike liquids, can stack and sit on top of each other. My point is that it literally doesn't matter what state of matter it is. You can stack gas molecules onto each other if you try hard enough. Ever heard of a particle accelerator? You probably call it an atom smasher. I think that's what stupid people call them. It has nothing to do with language, it's about how water does not separately sit on itself. It moves and mixes. Wow, very good challenger! "It moves, and it mixes." Awesome. You figured it out. I'll just wait for you to respond to the previous questions, then--when did I ever suggest that water doesn't move, and how does the free movement of water demonstrate that water cannot be wet? Why are you bringing up dust when we're talking about water, and how it isn't wet? It's simply a liquid. It's water.
Hmm! Do you know what an analogy is? It's a comparison between two like subjects, commonly used as a rhetorical device to help illustrate a point to less educated people. I'm simply saying that there are no "wholes." There are only particles and rudimentary constituents. Once you establish that there are no wholes, the fact that water is wet becomes academic. You can no longer play the "whole" card anymore. You're forced to observe the molecules themselves. And what the molecules themselves show is that for every body of water, there are some molecules that are filling the bottom of the glass, and there are some molecules that are near the top of the glass. And everywhere in between. And yeah, boy genius--they move around. But that literally doesn't mean anything. Lots of things move around. They can still be wet.
13993
« on: September 12, 2016, 02:02:12 AM »
If you want to abstain from drugs, great. But you shouldn't use it as a way to look down on others and feel morally superior to them. Especially considering smoking a joint is about as harmful as eating a Big Mac.
that's pretty fucking harmful
13994
« on: September 12, 2016, 01:54:12 AM »
I'm straight-edge.
Yeah, not doing drugs or alcohol is one of the brighter things you can do with your life.
13995
« on: September 11, 2016, 10:51:53 PM »
On top of that one game that I'm supposed to be playing, I've been playing some Shining Force on the side.
I love it. I'm looking to play all the Shining Force games now.
13996
« on: September 11, 2016, 10:50:07 PM »
Looks like a random guy collecting videos (for some reason) with the words "second" and "class" or videos relating to that. I doubt it was anybody here...
oh shit you're right lmao what the fuck
13997
« on: September 11, 2016, 10:38:57 PM »
But... How does absorbency not factor? I think it's the crutch of the argument. It's why wet suits keep you dry and why water repellant things aren't wet. They don't absorb the water and therefore cannot be considered wet, water is just resting on top without actually changing the physical make-up of the item. Hydrophobic is also a great word. I never really thought of it that way, I guess? I've never handled a wet-suit or any water-repellent material, so I guess I couldn't really say anything about that.
13998
« on: September 11, 2016, 10:34:16 PM »
I don't live in city housing :/
Close Encounters of the SecondClass
Are you ErikGeo?because someone named ErikGeo took my clip and posted it on dailymotion
13999
« on: September 11, 2016, 10:29:17 PM »
Bls respond to my post I just don't agree. The fact that you brought up absorbency is weird, because it doesn't really have a lot to do with the wetness of an object. An object doesn't necessarily have to absorb water to be wet. In general, this whole argument--it's like trying to say that fire isn't fiery. Or, visible light isn't visible.
14000
« on: September 11, 2016, 10:18:21 PM »
I like how he says "scientifically" incorrect, as if "this is just incorrect" wouldn't have sufficed.
"Maybe if I start using words like that, I'll look like I know what I'm talking about!"
14001
« on: September 11, 2016, 10:12:21 PM »
Uh no, it isn't. It's literally just an arbitrary division based on depth. "Division" is the wrong word to use, because two halves of one glass of water cannot """stack,""" which is a word you keep using and shoving in my mouth, and I explained why that's bullshit below. The two halves fluidly coalesce into each other, but that doesn't mean anything because the water molecules are still on top of each other. They're moving, but that doesn't mean shit. It doesn't mean shit. Except you can because the particles form a whole. It doesn't stack. For the umpteenth time, they don't need to stack. "Stack" is just a stupid word to use. Since you're probably soaking wet right now just talking to me, would you consider the liquid to be "stacked" on you? No, of course not. If I were soaking head to toe with water right now, I wouldn't say that the water is "stacked" on me, either. It's just on me. I'm covered with it. So enough with the bullshit verbiage. Two blocks of wood on top of each other can be treated as one entity if you need them to be. That doesn't make it one whole entity, though. It's just convenient that we refer to things as wholes, because if we referred to each other by every little one of our microscopic constituents, it would take an eternity. This is just scientifically incorrect.
Only if you don't understand metaphysics. We're specks of dust swimming around in a huge bowl. Some of the dust gets compacted, but it's still just dust.
14002
« on: September 11, 2016, 10:02:35 PM »
Yet still manages to be a strong character nonetheless.
I thought Verbatim would like that virtually all sex is portrayed negatively.
Well, I appreciate the thought. But looking at these panels, what you're saying doesn't seem quite apparent to me. The scenes are all drawn like a hentai, with very careful details displaying all the girl's body parts as she's being raped. It's drawn as if the artists expect the readers to get off to it--not be horrified by it. And in general, I'd hate to grow attached to some cool character only to watch them get raped. That's, like... No. Maybe it's just me, but that's the impression I get out of those pages. Not really for me. I'll look up the other thing you mentioned, though.
14003
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:58:22 PM »
They do have a tendency to do that, now that I think about it. Are the quotes around 'deconstruct' implying that they don't deconstruct anime tropes? They deconstruct anime tropes, but what I mean by the quotation marks is that, to me, all they end up doing is adding fuel to the fire. By criticizing and making a mockery of all these tropes, they're just fighting fire with fire--it's not like less trope-y anime are being made now that we have this parody out. It also doesn't help that lots of people don't even realize that shows like Kill La Kill are meant to be deconstructive. Not that it matters, because like I said--shows like Kill La Kill do nothing to help the industry become less derivative. Maybe that's not what it's trying to do, but I think the only reason deconstruction should exist is to criticize industry practices and help stimulate some studio creativity. In Mob Psycho, the shounen fight tropes are deconstructed primarily using anticlimax and explosive visuals (cue One Punch Man), but unlike One Punch Man rather than only using anticlimax to emphasize the ridiculous power of the protagonist comically and moving to the next gag, Mob Psycho spends more time contextualizing that power's effect on the side characters in the developing narrative. That sounds a little better, but the over-the-top artstyle and spastic animation still turn me off like a motherfucker. It looks like I'd get migraines watching it. What problems do you have with something like Mushishi or Jin Roh? Do you also dislike Ghibli Films?
I know nothing of the first two things you said. Ghibli films are tolerable, but to my understanding, they tend to make films with Western sensibilities in mind. Because they understand they have a huge market over here. The last one I've seen is My Neighbor Totoro over a decade ago, though. There's also a fun game on PS1 called Jade Cocoon: Story of the Tamamayu which uses Studio Ghibli animation, but a show was never made.
14004
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:47:11 PM »
In all likelihood, absolutely nothing will come of this at all.
If Dick Cheney can live through seventeen heartattacks, Hilldog can take a little tumble.
14005
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:43:27 PM »
Casca also gets raped and gives birth to a demon baby...
ohhhh, he's trying to trick me (NSFW obviously)
14006
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:40:32 PM »
I did that and I didn't find anyone talking about me. Which is a good thing in my book.
that's because no one knows what to call you
14008
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:32:42 PM »
Yeah I do this sometimes.
Do you ever Google your controversial opinions in quotation marks, just to see if there's anyone out there who agrees with you?
14009
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:30:20 PM »
Psychic/Electric
Just call me Alolan Verbchu.
14010
« on: September 11, 2016, 09:24:51 PM »
Is Verb more of a manga man?
Not really. I like to tease Prime about reading manga, but I couldn't care less about it tbh. I own a manga based on Majora's Mask, and I've read and enjoyed it.
Pages: 1 ... 465466467 468469 ... 1601
|
Show Posts
