forum

ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting

posted
Total Posts
57,694
show more
B1rd
Soft drinks are pretty much poison. But I've never been one to force people from making their own lifestyle choice. It wouldn't be the first time that liberals have made policy for "moral good" while creating disastrous consequences.

Now about the poor. That's an interesting topic. Going to some places on Reddit, you have all these left-wing people who think that there is some rich vs poor dichotomy, that the conservative parties who are full of rich people who want to profit at the poor people's expense. Basically socialist lite. Funny that the majority of these left wingers are college educated middle class, and they think any poor people are vote right are 'voting against their own interests', in the typical condescending attitude they have where they think only they know what is right for everyone.

People being poor is partly their own fault, partly the fault of their situation. One of the biggest factor keeping people poor is welfare. Simply put, if people get money for doing nothing, they are not incentivised to work lots and give up all their free time for only slightly better living standards. Most poor people do not work many hours [1] [2]. And like abraker says, lots of the poor are druggies, no good people where it's entirely their fault. If you actually go to low-income neighborhoods, you will see this. Lots of people have the opportunity, few people use that opportunity. In the end, the only thing that can get people out of poverty is the people themselves, with hard work and determination. And lots of welfare and social programs are counter-productive for this.

Of course one of the factors of poverty is the labour market, as a lot of people can't find full time work even though they want to. One of the solutions for this is deregulation of the working environment and reduction of the minimum wage, to get rid of the artificial barrier to finding work. Countries in the EU without minimum wage laws have about a 33% smaller unemployment rate than those that do [3].

[1] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/who-are- ... or-america
[2] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/research-pap ... arch-needs
[3] https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... -wage-laws
Mahogany

abraker wrote:

Unless you are in an unfortunate dictatorship that is ready to execute you for knowing anything but it's culture, there is almost certainly a way to get the knowledge. Be it the library or the internet, though even in extreme cases, if there is a will then there is away. Why do I hear a story about some African child in a secluded village learning some shit and makes something with that knowledge to become a local hero while I have all the knowledge a foot away from me and instead I am stuck playing these stupid osu! minigames instead?
There'll always be these amazing, inspiring exceptions, but simply speaking most people will never achieve something like this :(
Simply statistically speaking, most won't amount to anything like that without having an easy route to acquiring the education. It should not be so hard for these people in the first place.

B1rd wrote:

Soft drinks are pretty much poison. But I've never been one to force people from making their own lifestyle choice. It wouldn't be the first time that liberals' have made policy for 'moral good' while creating disastrous consequences.
You can still drink the soda, you stupid fuck

B1rd wrote:

Funny that the majority of these left wingers are college educated middle class, and they think any poor people are vote right are 'voting against their own interests', in the typical condescending attitude they have where they think only they know what is right for everyone.
Because they're educated you twat. Someone who's educated is naturally going to have more insight than someone who isn't educated. Are you seriously so insecure that you hate all people you perceive as smarter than you? In that case, I'm honored.

B1rd wrote:

People being poor is partly their own fault, partly the fault of their situation. One of the biggest factor keeping people poor is welfare.
Are you serious
Welfare, and not poor wages are the reason?
If somebody doesn't get paid well for work, what's the point in working? There, point completely reversed. Hence why it's necessary for regulations on minimum wage and such, which you endlessly protest against.
abraker

B1rd wrote:

One of the biggest factor keeping people poor is welfare
This is the only point in that paragraph that sticks out like a sore thumb. Don't mind the fact without it their life is put in danger, but you are implying that people should fend for themselves. You are implying somebody with no money will not be able to survive. That is so wrong. Even if the person is homeless, you don't want them dying on the streets. Moreover, you don't want them to be a carrier of some undiagnosed disease that may have implications for the rest of the population.
B1rd
Are you done beating up the strawman you created? I mean, I was only talking about the effect welfare has, it's a bit early to pull the 'dying on the streets' card.
Mahogany
See? Can't stand opposing viewpoints.
abraker

B1rd wrote:

Are you done beating up the strawman you created? I mean, I was only talking about the effect welfare has, it's a bit early to pull the 'dying on the streets' card.
You went towards a bit extreme part of the spectrum. Yea majority can't help themselves and there is little point in helping if they are not cooperating, but think a little about what an undiagnosed group of people can bring to the rest of the population. You have to understand the ones that cannot be helped to make sure everybody else can be helped before they go into a state they cannot be helped.
_handholding
honestly the world is too big to help everyone, sometimes it's actually better to just care about only yourself
B1rd

abraker wrote:

You went towards a bit extreme part of the spectrum. Yea majority can't help themselves and there is little point in helping if they are not cooperating, but think a little about what an undiagnosed group of people can bring to the rest of the population. You have to understand the ones that cannot be helped to make sure everybody else can be helped before they go into a state they cannot be helped.
Not sure I completely understand what you're saying.
abraker

B1rd wrote:

abraker wrote:

You went towards a bit extreme part of the spectrum. Yea majority can't help themselves and there is little point in helping if they are not cooperating, but think a little about what an undiagnosed group of people can bring to the rest of the population. You have to understand the ones that cannot be helped to make sure everybody else can be helped before they go into a state they cannot be helped.
Not sure I completely understand what you're saying.
We need welfare because those that cannot afford it will spread their disease to the rest of the population. Additionally, it's worth learning how to prevent people from becoming those that cannot be helped.
B1rd
What am I reading.
WavePoint
I need a power-up for osu!, but to not invade Russia in the wintertime.
Mahogany

B1rd wrote:

What am I reading.
Opposing viewpoints
abraker

B1rd wrote:

What am I reading.
An argument against yours. Looks like you are so far in one side that you can't comprehend anything else and dismiss it as ridiculous. Try to understand that paying that programs are needed to ensure that society doesn't destroy itself due to the lack of ability to sustain itself. There is also a similarity between developed countries helping third world countries and the government's helping its poor. It ensures the societal development where otherwise there would not be any.
B1rd
Rest assured, if I could understand what your argument was I would respond to it. But when you start talking about unspecified diseases infecting the population, "they who cannot be helped", I have no idea what you're talking about, much less how it is related to welfare. And now you're accusing me of partisan bias out of nowhere.
Wiwi_
Mahogany
I'm not sure if B1rd is actually retarded or if he's just been indoctrinated
Serraionga
So I guess this is where actual s m a r t discussions take place
Mahogany
No, it's just slightly less cancer than the rest of this godforsaken website, nazis notwithstanding.
Jordan
johnmedina999
This is a place where there are periods of inactivity, posting shit that is neither funny nor interesting, until someone says something someone else doesn't like. From there, an argument ensues for a few days until it settles down, and the cycle starts all over again.
Razzy

Jordan wrote:

lmao

what is it that other Muslims don't like about the Muslims in Albania
B1rd
Think about Protestants vs Catholics, but they're Muslims.
_handholding

B1rd wrote:

Think about Protestants vs Catholics, but they're Muslims.
A bit like England vs America then?
Razzy

Kisses wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Think about Protestants vs Catholics, but they're Muslims.
A bit like England vs America then?
I mean, that's never exploded into actual conflict in the past 100 years, unlike, say, in Northern Ireland or the Iran-Iraq War
Hika

Serraionga wrote:

So I guess this is where actual s m a r t discussions take place
not even
_handholding

Serraionga wrote:

So I guess this is where actual s m a r t discussions take place
When ppl stop getting salty over politics then they can start.
Wiwi_


didnt have much time to throw this one together but i think it illustrates my point
Foxtrot
Much better than Stefan threads though
abraker

B1rd wrote:

Rest assured, if I could understand what your argument was I would respond to it. But when you start talking about unspecified diseases infecting the population, "they who cannot be helped", I have no idea what you're talking about, much less how it is related to welfare. And now you're accusing me of partisan bias out of nowhere.
You are not trying hard enough to understand.

In the simplest terms I can possible spell out for you:

SUPPOSE THE POOR DONT HAVE WELFARE AND NEED TO PAY FOR A HEALTH CHECK
THEN THE POOR DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO CHECK THEIR OWN HEALTH STATUS
UNCHECKED HEALTH STATUS OF POPULATION = RISK OF SPREAD OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASE

I don't need to name this "unspecified" disease. Make the name up your self. I don't need to supply real world evidence to back this claim. It's just plain logic and common sense.. If you don't get neither of that, then nothing can be explained to you unless it aligns with your own opinions.
_handholding
Can we like, ban Dawnsday from posting here?
Wiwi_
what have i done this time mom
Rurree
nothing
abraker

Dawnsday wrote:

what have i done this time mom
I'm pressing charges for a memeing offence, violating the fair use of OT material, and impersonating Blitzfrog. See you in court.
Blitzfrog

abraker wrote:

Dawnsday wrote:

what have i done this time mom
I'm pressing charges for a memeing offence, violating the fair use of OT material, and impersonating Blitzfrog. See you in court.
What's that got to do with me...
B1rd
If you talk about a "disease", you're talking about a singular disease. Fix your grammar before telling me I'm not trying hard enough to understand you.
Mahogany

Kisses wrote:

Can we like, ban Dawnsday from posting here?
Absolutely not before we ban b1rd. Dawnsday is ok in my book
Wiwi_
HOW am i copying blitzfrog i was shitposting before this clown had even contemplated coming into existence
abraker

Blitzfrog wrote:

abraker wrote:

I'm pressing charges for a memeing offence, violating the fair use of OT material, and impersonating Blitzfrog. See you in court.
What's that got to do with me...
Everything has got to do with you as of late
Hika
so i have a doctor's appointment and a list of stuff i'm going to complain about
for example, why do i get cancer everyday????
Blitzfrog

Hika wrote:

so i have a doctor's appointment and a list of stuff i'm going to complain about
for example, why do i get cancer everyday????
Because you're not married to Blitzfrog.

no homo
Hika
nah that's ok... that would give me more cancer
picky picky_old
full homo
B1rd

abraker wrote:

In the simplest terms I can possible spell out for you:

SUPPOSE THE POOR DONT HAVE WELFARE AND NEED TO PAY FOR A HEALTH CHECK
THEN THE POOR DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO CHECK THEIR OWN HEALTH STATUS
UNCHECKED HEALTH STATUS OF POPULATION = RISK OF SPREAD OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASE

I don't need to name this "unspecified" disease. Make the name up your self. I don't need to supply real world evidence to back this claim. It's just plain logic and common sense.. If you don't get neither of that, then nothing can be explained to you unless it aligns with your own opinions.
Why is people having diseases that are hard to personally detect the biggest issue you see with the lack of welfare, wouldn't people suffering from diseases and not being able to pay for treatment be a bigger concern for you? Regardless of your grammatical errors, I'd have an easier time understanding your position if it made logical sense to me.

But anyway, I'm not gonna waste my time trying to respond to your arguments if you're gonna constantly throw insults and not take the time to make your posts readable.
abraker

B1rd wrote:

Why is people having diseases that are hard to personally detect the biggest issue you see with the lack of welfare, wouldn't people suffering from diseases and not being able to pay for treatment be a bigger concern for you?
Diseases that are hard to detect can be an issue, but a more common issue is that it may be that they don't get treatment for it, and as a result, spread detectable diseases further to others. If the severity of the detectable diseases is high, then you get an epidemic and a sick population consisting of not just the poor. Also depending on the severity of the diseases, deaths can occur in not just the poor population because of this.

It's in my best interest to supply the poor with welfare because of this and my well-being. If someone poor at public transport caught some disease they never got treatment for, then I am likely to get it too because I ride public transport every weekday. I don't need a sick week because someone is developing a 40c fever on the train.

The act of people suffering from diseases is a topic going from moral standpoint and not from an objective standpoint. Why I should care about their suffering should be a topic to discuss separate from why welfare should not exist because it's then a question about why I think it should exist and not why it should exist.
Blitzfrog
Abraker has fallen
Razzy

Blitzfrog wrote:

Abraker has fallen
funny, coming from someone who's been in a permanent state of "fallen"
abraker

Blitzfrog wrote:

Abraker has fallen
firstofall
_handholding

Raspberriel wrote:

Blitzfrog wrote:

Abraker has fallen
funny, coming from someone who's been in a permanent state of "fallen"
hehe xd
Mahogany

Blitzfrog wrote:

Abraker has fallen
What do you mean, he's literally one of only two good posters here.
B1rd

abraker wrote:

Diseases that are hard to detect can be an issue, but a more common issue is that it may be that they don't get treatment for it, and as a result, spread detectable diseases further to others. If the severity of the detectable diseases is high, then you get an epidemic and a sick population consisting of not just the poor. Also depending on the severity of the diseases, deaths can occur in not just the poor population because of this.

It's in my best interest to supply the poor with welfare because of this and my well-being. If someone poor at public transport caught some disease they never got treatment for, then I am likely to get it too because I ride public transport every weekday. I don't need a sick week because someone is developing a 40c fever on the train.

The act of people suffering from diseases is a topic going from moral standpoint and not from an objective standpoint. Why I should care about their suffering should be a topic to discuss separate from why welfare should not exist because it's then a question about why I think it should exist and not why it should exist.
I don't really get what you're saying about morality vs objectivism. Isn't one of the primary roles of systems of governance, which is what we're talking about, to reduce human suffering? If not, I don't understand by what standards the best type of government is judged. It seems you're talking about your own personal interests being the most important factor. If that's the case, then the best type of government would be a dictatorship with you at the top, if we're not considering other people.

Now about welfare. Note, that I never actually said that welfare should be abolished, although I am warm to that idea. Now, the primary error in your logic is assuming that without welfare, the people who are dependent on welfare with income would suddenly have no income without it. As I have already shown, the majority of welfare recipients are capable of working, and if they didn't get welfare, they could do so. Of course, as I've mentioned, reducing barriers to employment should go along with this to ensure that people can be employed. So then, these people would be able to afford health insurance.

What about the people who can't work because of a disability, temporary life circumstances, et cetera? Private charities can fill this role, and are much better and more efficient that government programs in general, for the same free-market principles in which private organisations usually can do things better than the government. For example, 70% of government welfare spending goes towards administration spending, compared with 10% for private charity. And of course, private charities are much better at helping people with the specific help they need, and much better at administering help to people who genuinely need it, compared with government bureaucracy.

And another point: in a welfare state, what is stopping every person from a poorer country immigrating to your country for free welfare? We've seen many examples of these economic migrants in Europe and America. Simply, the welfare state necessitates strong border control. And since liberals do not want the latter, well, that is a recipe for disaster. As we have seen in Sweden. http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/05/sweden ... migration/

And the final point that I'd like to make, is that welfare creates a welfare dependent population within a nation. It allows people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford kids, to have kids, which then grow up in low-income areas, destined to the same fate as their parent(s). Well, you might tell me, people would just have kids regardless and then their kids would starve. Well, I'll play the same logic card as you did; to say that people's actions are not affected by their economic circumstances and opportunities is ridiculous. No doubt it would happen, but I doubt as many teens would have a baby without a guaranteed welfare check from the government. The reduction of welfare would encourage only economically stable married couples to have kids, which is a better thing for society.
WavePoint
Stefan has all the power to lock every OT thread, but he is not using it to invade Russia in the wintertime.

good 4 him
Kappa FrankerZ
My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because B1rd's posts gave me cancer anyway.
Razzy

Kappa FrankerZ wrote:

My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because B1rdBlitzfrog's posts gave me cancer anyway.
ftfy
Yuudachi-kun
Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.

I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.

I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
B1rd
How can cancer get cancer? This is the next philosophical question we must engage on.
Blitzfrog

B1rd wrote:

How can cancer get cancer? This is the next philosophical question we must engage on.
By getting B1rd, the cancer of cancer
abraker

B1rd wrote:

I don't really get what you're saying about morality vs objectivism. Isn't one of the primary roles of systems of governance, which is what we're talking about, to reduce human suffering? If not, I don't understand by what standards the best type of government is judged. It seems you're talking about your own personal interests being the most important factor. If that's the case, then the best type of government would be a dictatorship with you at the top, if we're not considering other people.
I am saying that I am approaching this argument purely with an objective view point. This is to put morality out of the question since morality is subjective, and therefore, cannot be proven. Objectively, my survival comes first before others. That doesn't mean I will enjoy an all powerful leader in a system.

B1rd wrote:

Now, the primary error in your logic is assuming that without welfare, the people who are dependent on welfare with income would suddenly have no income without it. As I have already shown, the majority of welfare recipients are capable of working, and if they didn't get welfare, they could do so. Of course, as I've mentioned, reducing barriers to employment should go along with this to ensure that people can be employed. So then, these people would be able to afford health insurance.
I agree. People who have an established income can have welfare. For people that do not, let's see the next point.

B1rd wrote:

What about the people who can't work because of a disability, temporary life circumstances, et cetera? Private charities can fill this role, and are much better and more efficient that government programs in general, for the same free-market principles in which private organisations usually can do things better than the government. For example, 70% of government welfare spending goes towards administration spending, compared with 10% for private charity. And of course, private charities are much better at helping people with the specific help they need, and much better at administering help to people who genuinely need it, compared with government bureaucracy.
Ok I have to agree with this too. It does look like a viable solution. However, it is not a better option during an economic depression. Since it's privatized, it depends on philanthropy which in turn depends on the economy. Not saying that it's a bad option altogether, but offering the flexibility for government social programs to make up what private charities cannot during time of crisis might be better than staying with just privatized charities.

B1rd wrote:

And another point: in a welfare state, what is stopping every person from a poorer country immigrating to your country for free welfare? We've seen many examples of these economic migrants in Europe and America. Simply, the welfare state necessitates strong border control. And since liberals do not want the latter, well, that is a recipe for disaster. As we have seen in Sweden. http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/05/sweden ... migration/
Ok, I agree with point too.

B1rd wrote:

And the final point that I'd like to make, is that welfare creates a welfare dependent population within a nation. It allows people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford kids, to have kids, which then grow up in low-income areas, destined to the same fate as their parent(s). Well, you might tell me, people would just have kids regardless and then their kids would starve. Well, I'll play the same logic card as you did; to say that people's actions are not affected by their economic circumstances is ridiculous. No doubt it would happen, but I doubt as many teens would have a baby without a guaranteed welfare check from the government. The reduction of welfare would encourage only economically stable married couples to have kids, which is a better thing for society.
While this point applies to couples that think things through, this doesn't prevents couples from having children in unfavorable economic conditions. How do you apply this point for those cases where children were born due couples carelessly having unprotected sex?
Mahogany

Kappa FrankerZ wrote:

My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because B1rd's posts gave me cancer anyway.
Wiwi_
Im dedicating a post to how dreadful mental health support is in England.


Seriously it's actually appalling. Carry on.
lovetap
.
lovetap
.
johnmedina999

ryyushi wrote:

Please don't make this into a meme.
Mahogany

johnmedina999 wrote:

Please don't make this into a meme.
lol
i like the part where u added urself haha! xD
Foxtrot

Yuudachi-kun wrote:

Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.

I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.

I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
Stop trying to share your sick addiction on OT. Share it with me instead. I'm boring because I smoke reds though
lol
2017 and people smoke cigs over joints

enjoy ur cancer and smelling like a walking tumour :P
Hika
I stopped smoking almost 2 years ago.. I'm soooo proud.
Foxtrot

lol wrote:

2017 and people smoke cigs over joints

enjoy ur cancer and smelling like a walking tumour :P
Yeah you'd smell like a tumor except that deodorants nd showers are a thing
Yuudachi-kun

Foxtrot wrote:

Yuudachi-kun wrote:

Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.

I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.

I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
Stop trying to share your sick addiction on OT. Share it with me instead. I'm boring because I smoke reds though

You dont like menthol


Angry faic
abraker

Yuudachi-kun wrote:

Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.

I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.

I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
Awww I thought you tried it once half year ago and hated it. Rip lungs I guess :\
Yuudachi-kun
Then I had an orgasm in my mouth
abraker
And I'm done
Yuudachi-kun
Cyka blyat
B1rd
Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
lol

B1rd wrote:

Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
because if you smoke the good stuff it tastes good and you get a high
Blitzfrog

lol wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
because if you smoke the good stuff it tastes good and you get a high
lol
Erlkonig

B1rd wrote:

Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
>whisky
>good taste
lol the pretentiousness. Whiskey tastes like nothing. Literal shit brewed distilled bottled and sold for absurd prices. This wannabe drink that only caters for c00l guy adults should be banned/
Foxtrot
You're pretentious for making a post about pretentious people
silmarilen
i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
Razzy
wine is fine, but whiskey's quicker
B1rd

Erlkonig wrote:

>whisky
>good taste
lol the pretentiousness. Whiskey tastes like nothing. Literal shit brewed distilled bottled and sold for absurd prices. This wannabe drink that only caters for c00l guy adults should be banned/
You're just butthurt alcohol in haram in your country :^)

Though, I can forgive people for not liking stuff like Jack Daniels, which is pretty disgusting. But good single malt whiskys taste amazing.
Mahogany
I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/
B1rd

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.
Tae

Mahogany wrote:

I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/
I appreciate your memes, Mahogany x
Yuudachi-kun

B1rd wrote:

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.
Sil is like one of those virtue signaling libtards on reddit. He could just as easily say I hope everyone who drinks dies in a DUI carcrash or that everyone who eats fast food should get a heart attack but he wont because hes probably a hyppocrite about that.
Rwyta

Mahogany wrote:

I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/
Not sure if I should be glad or disappointed for not being a part of your meme

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
Idc if people smoke or not, as long as they keep a fair distance from me or anyone that doesn't want to get their lungs exploded from smoke exposure
Erlkonig

B1rd wrote:

Though, I can forgive people for not liking stuff like Jack Daniels, which is pretty disgusting. But good single malt whiskys taste amazing.
Oh I only tried Jack Daniels because it's popular and shit. Couldn't finish 50cl bottle it's been lying there for months.

On another note I've been trying to spark some discussions or reactions but it always comes to insulting my nationality. Turkey is not a third world shitfest place like middle earth what the hell.
Yuudachi-kun
Lord of the Rings is a third world shitfest ITT
johnmedina999

Mahogany wrote:

I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/
I like the frame you used for my avatar.
Razzy

Erlkonig wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Though, I can forgive people for not liking stuff like Jack Daniels, which is pretty disgusting. But good single malt whiskys taste amazing.
Oh I only tried Jack Daniels because it's popular and shit. Couldn't finish 50cl bottle it's been lying there for months.

On another note I've been trying to spark some discussions or reactions but it always comes to insulting my nationality. Turkey is not a third world shitfest place like middle earth what the hell.
they do this for, like, every Turkish, Indonesian or Filipino
Mahogany

B1rd wrote:

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.
Says the person who supports fascists
Faust
I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if you two met in-person.
Mahogany
I'd leave immediately probably
it would be interesting though, considering b1rd couldnt just pretend im not there
Yuudachi-kun
Says the guy who thinks calling people out on their bullshit is indicative of facism because those people are the media
Mahogany
No, I fully support calling people out on their lies, regardless of who they are
Yuudachi-kun
:thonkang:
Jordan
Mahogany
I can support this meme
lol

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
you should try league of legends
silmarilen

B1rd wrote:

silmarilen wrote:

i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.
This post proves that you're just trolling. Man you've been fooling us good so far. Before this i wasn't sure yet, but nobody can be this stupid.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply