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 - Mordo
Pages: 1 ... 154155156 157158 ... 243
4651
« on: June 01, 2015, 09:19:49 PM »
it must be great to experience a tidal wave when you're porking a fatty from the back
tfw that THWAP sound whilst you're pounding it tfw you can see her ass ripple glorious
4652
« on: June 01, 2015, 09:18:03 PM »
was okay
nothing special
once you go fat you never go back i guess
4653
« on: June 01, 2015, 08:38:17 PM »
His career is pretty much over now seeing as how Hollywood is run by Jews.
4654
« on: June 01, 2015, 07:37:19 PM »
Only fedora tipping autists actually watch American Football in Bongland. Same with WWE. Literally nobody has an opinion on it besides them.
4655
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:08:19 PM »
I think this pretty much confirms Jon is Azor Ahai.
4656
« on: June 01, 2015, 11:12:41 AM »
I'm probably boring to most people and unless I've got a drink down me, pretty shit at socializing too.
4657
« on: June 01, 2015, 10:44:33 AM »
Here's what we know: >Produced and written by Raimi and Campbell >Raimi is set to direct the first episode >10 30 minute episodes >set 30 years after Army of Darkness, Ash is an old asshole that hasn't grown up and the world is hit by some Deadite apocalypse >Ash is joined by 2 sidekicks in ''a roadtrip'' to end the evil outbreak >Along with Campbell, Lucy Lawless is confirmed as Ruby, some woman that's convinced Ash is the cause of the apocalypse >Mimi Rogers is also in >There's apparently 5 seasons planned >Filming on location in New Zealand Thoughts?
4658
« on: June 01, 2015, 09:44:38 AM »
>drinking decaf
I doubt that's even coffee mate. Just coffee flavoured water. What you just did is the equivalent of using a computer without the Internet.
4659
« on: May 31, 2015, 09:07:45 PM »
I have. All it tells me is the various kinds of dietary contortions vegans have to go through just to maintain a serviceable supply of nutrients you could just as easily and more efficiently have obtained from meat. And that makes meat-eating okay?
I don't even care if meat-eating increases your lifespan by twenty years.
It's still unethical.
Actually what's really unethical here is you being birthed into existence.
4660
« on: May 31, 2015, 09:02:59 PM »
Hunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.
Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).
Did you read the OP?
The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.
Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.
Exactly how does it? Like I said, meat and protein is an essential component of our diet, so your " extreme survival situation" analogy doesn't really hold up.
I'd also appreciate you dropping the sanctimonious tone, thanks.
Sorry if it came across like that, it just appears that many people did not read it.
The protein argument is really so trivial considering you can get all the protein you need from plant foods without even trying. So no, "hunting for protein" is in no way a meaningful purpose any more than hunting for a trophy is.
But, perhaps you're trolling again.
Yeah no, plant foods such as nuts and seeds are a horribly inefficient source of protein. They're not complete proteins, and lack essential amino acids necessary for dietary needs.
You can go through all kinds of mental gymnastics and accuse me of trolling all you want, but it doesn't make you any more correct.
Getting a complete amino profile through grains, legumes, greens and fruit is remarkably easy. To claim otherwise demonstrates a lack of nutritional knowledge. I recommend reading the following article:
http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/protein
And I recommend you refer me to a non partisan source next time. Veganhealth.org? You can do better than that.
I recommend you read the article before forming an irrational opinion.
I hope you're trolling, because I thought you were better than that.
I have. All it tells me is the various kinds of dietary contortions vegans have to go through just to maintain a serviceable supply of nutrients you could just as easily and more efficiently have obtained from meat. It doesn't discredit meat as a primary component of our diet. In fact, all it's done is convince me of the opposite.
4661
« on: May 31, 2015, 08:51:19 PM »
>paying money to see the concept of a movie we've literally seen a MILLION times while the Rock phones in a shit performance
I saw the trailer for this movie last year and immediately knew what it was going to be like. Looks like I was right.
4662
« on: May 31, 2015, 08:48:43 PM »
Hunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.
Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).
Did you read the OP?
The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.
Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.
Exactly how does it? Like I said, meat and protein is an essential component of our diet, so your " extreme survival situation" analogy doesn't really hold up.
I'd also appreciate you dropping the sanctimonious tone, thanks.
Sorry if it came across like that, it just appears that many people did not read it.
The protein argument is really so trivial considering you can get all the protein you need from plant foods without even trying. So no, "hunting for protein" is in no way a meaningful purpose any more than hunting for a trophy is.
But, perhaps you're trolling again.
Yeah no, plant foods such as nuts and seeds are a horribly inefficient source of protein. They're not complete proteins, and lack essential amino acids necessary for dietary needs.
You can go through all kinds of mental gymnastics and accuse me of trolling all you want, but it doesn't make you any more correct.
Getting a complete amino profile through grains, legumes, greens and fruit is remarkably easy. To claim otherwise demonstrates a lack of nutritional knowledge. I recommend reading the following article:
http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/protein
And I recommend you refer me to a non partisan source next time. Veganhealth.org? You can do better than that.
4663
« on: May 31, 2015, 08:36:42 PM »
I love GRRM's work, but goddamn, he's such a cunt to his fanbase.
>took him more than half a decade to write a ADWD
>is taking him 4 years and counting to write TWOW
>moans about "pressurization" when fans rightfully question his lengthy process of writing
>talks shit about people who like to write fan fiction
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if he was just improvising a pretty neat idea he had in 1996 just to keep the money flowing. He already stated the series could possibly extend into another 3 books.
To be fair, he doesn't hate all fan fiction! He's rather pleased with HBOs high budget fanfic x]
On a serious note, he is a bit rude to the fans, but I understand where he's coming from. He's got a lot of work ahead of him and a huge legacy to live up to/finish strong with, so the pressure is obviously mounting with each passing year. I think he's over the hill now and once he finishes TWOW we won't have another ADWD-style wait ahead of us.
I do wish he'd be a bit more transparent regarding his actual progress, but he famously does a lot of revisions so it wouldn't be entirely honest to gauge his progress publicly, methinks.
Which I'm sympathetic to, but that's really no excuse to treat the people who got him to where he is today like complete garbage. Either inform fans on the progress of your work, or don't say anything at all. There's no point in acting like a spoiled lazy brat when people rightfully protest about the insufferably slow pacing of a series they're paying their hard earned cash on. Nothing professional about it at all.
Funny how you didn't see JK Rowling string along her novels several years at a time when HP blew up, or throw temper tantrums at fans.
Apples and oranges. ASOIAF is much more complex than HP, and to be fair, he has released quite a bit of TWOW content and several novellas in recent years. Now, one could argue that the novellas just slowed his progress, but I'm glad we got them. The Dunk&Egg stories are lovely.
Eh idk, there's a surprising amount of canonical backstory to the world of HP, so it's not as infantile as you think. But yeah, it's certainly not as fleshed out as ASOIAF is. Tbh, the weird pacing could all be forgiven if he had just responded to the valid criticisms with "I'm sorry, I'm working as hard as I can, it takes a lot of effort into establishing a universe of this scale" instead of "lol gtfo, i'll go as slow as i want." It's pretty disrespectful.
4664
« on: May 31, 2015, 08:27:42 PM »
I love GRRM's work, but goddamn, he's such a cunt to his fanbase.
>took him more than half a decade to write a ADWD
>is taking him 4 years and counting to write TWOW
>moans about "pressurization" when fans rightfully question his lengthy process of writing
>talks shit about people who like to write fan fiction
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if he was just improvising a pretty neat idea he had in 1996 just to keep the money flowing. He already stated the series could possibly extend into another 3 books.
To be fair, he doesn't hate all fan fiction! He's rather pleased with HBOs high budget fanfic x]
On a serious note, he is a bit rude to the fans, but I understand where he's coming from. He's got a lot of work ahead of him and a huge legacy to live up to/finish strong with, so the pressure is obviously mounting with each passing year. I think he's over the hill now and once he finishes TWOW we won't have another ADWD-style wait ahead of us.
I do wish he'd be a bit more transparent regarding his actual progress, but he famously does a lot of revisions so it wouldn't be entirely honest to gauge his progress publicly, methinks.
Which I'm sympathetic to, but that's really no excuse to treat the people who got him to where he is today like complete garbage. Either inform fans on the progress of your work, or don't say anything at all. There's no point in acting like a spoiled lazy brat when people rightfully protest about the insufferably slow pacing of a series they're paying their hard earned cash on. Nothing professional about it at all. Funny how you didn't see JK Rowling string along her novels several years at a time when HP blew up, or throw temper tantrums at fans.
4665
« on: May 31, 2015, 08:05:12 PM »
I love GRRM's work, but goddamn, he's such a cunt to his fanbase.
>took him more than half a decade to write a ADWD
>is taking him 4 years and counting to write TWOW
>moans about "pressurization" when fans rightfully question his lengthy process of writing
>talks shit about people who like to write fan fiction
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if he was just improvising a pretty neat idea he had in 1996 just to keep the money flowing. He already stated the series could possibly extend into another 3 books.
4666
« on: May 31, 2015, 07:32:36 PM »
You done jerking him off yet? You done eating our shit yet?
I'm not a vagina, so no, sorry.
4667
« on: May 31, 2015, 07:27:11 PM »
it doesn't make you any more correct. Because he doesn't need to be any more correct.
You done jerking him off yet?
4668
« on: May 31, 2015, 07:25:11 PM »
Hunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.
Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).
Did you read the OP?
The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.
Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.
Exactly how does it? Like I said, meat and protein is an essential component of our diet, so your " extreme survival situation" analogy doesn't really hold up.
I'd also appreciate you dropping the sanctimonious tone, thanks.
Sorry if it came across like that, it just appears that many people did not read it.
The protein argument is really so trivial considering you can get all the protein you need from plant foods without even trying. So no, "hunting for protein" is in no way a meaningful purpose any more than hunting for a trophy is.
But, perhaps you're trolling again.
Yeah no, plant foods such as nuts and seeds are a horribly inefficient source of protein. They're not complete proteins, and lack essential amino acids necessary for dietary needs. You can go through all kinds of mental gymnastics and accuse me of trolling all you want, but it doesn't make you any more correct.
4669
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:05:28 PM »
Hunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.
Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).
Did you read the OP?
The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations.
Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.
Exactly how does it? Like I said, meat and protein is an essential component of our diet, so your " extreme survival situation" analogy doesn't really hold up. I'd also appreciate you dropping the sanctimonious tone, thanks.
4670
« on: May 31, 2015, 03:48:13 PM »
Vietnam War:
Justified if it meant stopping the spread of Communism, which it did, despite the death toll.
Iraq War:
Deposed a malicious dictator and discovered WMDs in the process. Can't see how it wouldn't be justified, although the reasons provided were a bit tenuous.
Inflation.
EU:
Not really bothered one way or the other. Don't think it impacts us a tremendous amount as much as Eurosceptics make out to be, and vice versa for proponents of the EU.
Rehabilitation. Punishment on aggregate doesn't work as an effective deterrent of crime.
For legalising marijuana and majority of the psychoactive drugs. Not so hot about legalizing opioids, as I'd actually argue something that fiendishly addictive eliminates any kind of choice involved. The drug ends up controlling you, not the other way around. But I'm willing entertain an argument as to why it should be accessible to the general public.
Tax:
Cut down really. It's the only way we're ever gonna see a crack down on unemployment and poverty.
Pensions:
State pensions worked back in the days were you were lucky enough to live past 50. Horribly inefficient now. If you want a pension you should earn it.
Banks:
Government needs to back the fuck off. I don't want to hear about another bailout again.
4671
« on: May 31, 2015, 03:19:01 PM »
Still has my vote.
Tbh I really don't see how you're any different than the backwater hicks who vote Republican just because they're Republican.
I've explained why I'll likely be voting for her over Sanders/O'Malley before. I'd rather not do it again
Yeah I'm not talking about the Democratic Candidacy election. I'm talking about this incessant hivemind mentality of "always vote Democrat, never vote Republican just cause." I really don't care who you vote for, but at least have the courteousness to actually consider both sides of the argument from both parties instead of just stagnating to one side.
4672
« on: May 31, 2015, 03:11:54 PM »
Ideally I would like to see government out of the medical industry altogether.
But given how infeasible that'll be, a dual funded system where people still pay tax but competition is also encouraged amongst medical providers seems like the most idyllic and realistic scenario at this point.
4673
« on: May 31, 2015, 02:44:43 PM »
one question though--what was that stuff that nox kept spraying on his mouth? and what was it for
Chrome paint. Guess it's some kind of ritual they do before an heroing kind of like an Allahu Akbar or something.
4674
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:55:48 PM »
Still has my vote.
Tbh I really don't see how you're any different than the backwater hicks who vote Republican just because they're Republican.
4675
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:39:35 PM »
and the fact that men have a higher "peak" for physical effectiveness has no bearing on whether or not women can be just as effective from a military standpoint. It kinda does. Physicality is absolutely paramount for militaristic operations, from lugging heavy equipment that could potentially save you or your friend's life, to hiking astronomical distances over long periods of time. If an individual woman can prove herself worthy of attaining such feats then I see no problem of acceptance with the infantry, but chances are on aggregate, a disproportionate amount of women just aren't gonna make the cut due to their biological makeup. Unfortunate fact, but still ultimately true.
Spare us the tumblrina rhetoric. This is the serious forum.
>Arguing against blatant sexism
>Tumblrina rhetoric
Ah, there it is. I was waiting for something akin to "SJW" to pop up.
But no, luckily the fact that men are stronger than women on-average and that men have higher 'peaks' than women in terms of strength doesn't really affect anything from a militaristic standpoint. I highly doubt that most infantrymen are Arnold Schwarzenegger or Usain Bolt.
Infantry units work as a team. If someone isn't literally pulling their weight, that puts everyone in danger. I place higher value on saving lives than some tenuous diversity argument. And like I said, if an individual woman can make the grade, brilliant. No qualms there. But if you average 100 men and 100 women up against each other, chances are, the men are going to come out on top physically, rendering them a much more suitable choice as a soldier.
4676
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:31:36 PM »
and the fact that men have a higher "peak" for physical effectiveness has no bearing on whether or not women can be just as effective from a military standpoint. It kinda does. Physicality is absolutely paramount for militaristic operations, from lugging heavy equipment that could potentially save you or your friend's life, to hiking astronomical distances over long periods of time. If an individual woman can prove herself worthy of attaining such feats then I see no problem of acceptance with the infantry, but chances are on aggregate, a disproportionate amount of women just aren't gonna make the cut due to their biological makeup. Unfortunate fact, but still ultimately true. Spare us the tumblrina rhetoric. This is the serious forum.
4677
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:11:08 PM »
I'd advise watching the RLM reviews first.
or even better watch the nostalgia critic videos of it and then the rlm videos to help you realize the difference between people who say they're okay and who say they're awful
>nostalgia critic opinion descarted
4678
« on: May 31, 2015, 11:02:19 AM »
Hunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.
Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).
4679
« on: May 31, 2015, 10:29:44 AM »
I'd advise watching the RLM reviews first.
4680
« on: May 31, 2015, 10:26:58 AM »
*unsheaths katana*
*slices your foreskin off*
"Heh...told you...not to...mess with me kid"
Pages: 1 ... 154155156 157158 ... 243
|
Show Posts