Add me and it'll scream 2013 even more
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,703
2013 was the shit smh now there are too many new faces I still don't recognise
I came around January 2017 tho, more like 2016 if it screams anything but I know shit about osu forums, so don't hit me with ad hominem attacks.abraker wrote:
Remove me and Enetro, then maybe yes. Remove Enetro, and it does scream 2015Tanzklaue wrote:
2015? more like 2012-2013.
but then you were gone. Shit
Yet again you're spouting something completely irrelevant. How are you literally unable to comprehend the most basic things?
drama ~
I'm more like 2010-2013
I miss people like Seph and D33d and Jazz
David is a good boyo
2013 was hype tbh
This is applicable to any arguement with a dumb person - the dumb person being the one who says this.Hwa Yang wrote:
Yet again you're spouting something completely irrelevant. How are you literally unable to comprehend the most basic things?
If you think about it, a smart person would know how to handle things better than claiming the other to be ignorant.
Igrnorance and not knowing something aren’t the same thing, but I fall into the former.
/shrug
I tire of your ad hominem attacks; if you’re going to call me out at least call me out on something other than those :unamused:
/shrug
I tire of your ad hominem attacks; if you’re going to call me out at least call me out on something other than those :unamused:
What the fuck, ignorance IS not knowing something!DJ Enetro wrote:
Igrnorance and not knowing something aren’t the same thing, but I fall into the former.
/shrug
I tire of your ad hominem attacks; if you’re going to call me out at least call me out on something other than those :unamused:
he didnt say ignoranceBrisk Clarity wrote:
What the fuck, ignorance IS not knowing something!DJ Enetro wrote:
Igrnorance and not knowing something aren’t the same thing, but I fall into the former.
/shrug
I tire of your ad hominem attacks; if you’re going to call me out at least call me out on something other than those :unamused:
Ignore him, he has no idea what he's saying, clearly. Can't say that the fact he can't even spell the word ignorance correctly (as FuZ pointed out) says anything much better about him.Brisk Clarity wrote:
What the fuck, ignorance IS not knowing something!DJ Enetro wrote:
Igrnorance and not knowing something aren’t the same thing, but I fall into the former.
/shrug
I tire of your ad hominem attacks; if you’re going to call me out at least call me out on something other than those :unamused:
Call me out for ad hominem attacks as much as you want, but they're still true.
nigga im here thoBrokenArrow wrote:
I miss people like Seph and D33d and Jazz
While that is its definition, to me it has a slightly different meaning. To me it is purposefully choosing not to know or accept a fact. If not, then call me ignorant about the word that actually means that.Brisk Clarity wrote:
What the fuck, ignorance IS not knowing something!DJ Enetro wrote:
Igrnorance and not knowing something aren’t the same thing, but I fall into the former.
/shrug
I tire of your ad hominem attacks; if you’re going to call me out at least call me out on something other than those :unamused:
I appreciate you and all of your posts, bless youHika wrote:
nigga im here tho
being “dumb as fuck” would probably apply here
No, what the hell are you doing, don't feed her even more!BrokenArrow wrote:
I appreciate you and all of your posts, bless youHika wrote:
nigga im here tho
Ignorance definitely has different connotations.Brisk Clarity wrote:
What the fuck, ignorance IS not knowing something!DJ Enetro wrote:
Igrnorance and not knowing something aren’t the same thing, but I fall into the former.
/shrug
I tire of your ad hominem attacks; if you’re going to call me out at least call me out on something other than those :unamused:
To me ignorance has the connotation of not studying something/learning about it on purpose in order to avoid the new info from "clashing" with your opinion and the way you see things in general
Ignorance: The quality of not knowing somethingBrisk Clarity wrote:
Okay, what exactly is that connotation then?
Ignorance: The quality of staying willingly ignorant of something by ignoring valid evidence. Also includes posting falsehoods online in an obnoxious manner
Gotta back Brisk here. No official dictionary source lists Ignorance as anything other than the lack of knowledge or education (in early definitions). The latter in Railey's post may be what he refers to as a "street meaning", but I can't agree on that.
That may be the case but I don't see the point in getting one's knickers in a knot over semantics when the actual meaning was clear.
That's how language evolves.
There are many ways a language can evolve, including this specific example, but that doesn't justify it.
wow for a second I forgot about 2013
I bet that was an interesting secondFoxtrot wrote:
wow for a second I forgot about 2013
It's probably the denial of what happened in this year. So many sins. So many things I don't want to remember lmaoFoxtrot wrote:
wow for a second I forgot about 2013
sorry Sara my head is v big
also I post pics of me n Kanye in a few days lel
also I post pics of me n Kanye in a few days lel
hika why did you leave us we miss you ,,Hika wrote:
sorry Sara my head is v big
also I post pics of me n Kanye in a few days lel
its ok let me die for your sinsMilkshake wrote:
It's probably the denial of what happened in this year. So many sins. So many things I don't want to remember lmaoFoxtrot wrote:
wow for a second I forgot about 2013
*dokidoki*Hika wrote:
sorry Sara my head is v big
also I post pics of me n Kanye in a few days lel
wow kanye is still alive?
our love is a sin, my dear. we shall both die together as we make out passionatelyFoxtrot wrote:
its ok let me die for your sins
I suppose you're referring to our beloved, sweet underminey?
@tupsu: I sry
@miney and slimfast: hi he is still alive doing doctor stuff so I am flying in 3 hours to see him yeeee
@miney and slimfast: hi he is still alive doing doctor stuff so I am flying in 3 hours to see him yeeee
that's a cute
thanks
i miss kanye.
he was like one of 3 people who believed in my ability to click those circles.
he was like one of 3 people who believed in my ability to click those circles.
he said these threads are trash
I still believe in you, my sonTanzklaue wrote:
i miss kanye.
he was like one of 3 people who believed in my ability to click those circles.
Now go and click life’s circles
Steph told me to get on here and tell y’all about how great she is and stuff
But she’s an asshole lol
But she’s an asshole lol
so this is a guy b1rb looks up to? lmao
Do you find something objectionable?
Going through hundreds of hours of content to cherry pick something mildly disagreeable to you, well done.
Going through hundreds of hours of content to cherry pick something mildly disagreeable to you, well done.
That quote is straight retarded, not "mildly disagreeable" lol
Also I didn't go through his stuff, just popped up on my twitter feed from a "hot takes" account that I follow
Also I didn't go through his stuff, just popped up on my twitter feed from a "hot takes" account that I follow
I WILL GIVE IT MY BEST CAPTAIN OH CAPTIAN ;_;7Kanye West wrote:
I still believe in you, my sonTanzklaue wrote:
i miss kanye.
he was like one of 3 people who believed in my ability to click those circles.
Now go and click life’s circles
In your opinion that is.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
That quote is straight retarded, not "mildly disagreeable" lol
Also I didn't go through his stuff, just popped up on my twitter feed from a "hot takes" account that I follow
If you didn't even realise, it's not a statement of fact, it's an example of a question that (as you have shown) it's impossible to pose without getting shouted down by the SJW crowd. And as far as the question itself goes, it's a perfectly valid proposition to put forth. You have to wonder what outlet all of the feminists who are surrounded by no one but beta numales will turn to.
that question doesn't get shouted down by SLWs, but rather by people with half a brain.
like it's such a ridiculous question that ignores facts just to push their own fantasy agenda, it's ridiculous. god it actually makes me kinda ornery.
like it's such a ridiculous question that ignores facts just to push their own fantasy agenda, it's ridiculous. god it actually makes me kinda ornery.
If it were a ridiculous question it would be easy to refute, yet I'm not hearing an argument from you.Tanzklaue wrote:
that question doesn't get shouted down by SLWs, but rather by people with half a brain.
like it's such a ridiculous question that ignores facts just to push their own fantasy agenda, it's ridiculous. god it actually makes me kinda ornery.
Dr. Peterson is a respected psychologist with thousands of citations, I'd estimate that he is smarter and more knowledgeable in this field than both you and Vipper.
any statement based on some sort of generalization is usually a bad statement
to give you a counter argument, the reason many of them probably don't talk so much about Islam is because they live in the West and mostly focus on Western issues
to give you a counter argument, the reason many of them probably don't talk so much about Islam is because they live in the West and mostly focus on Western issues
I just realized my first line is a contradiction in itself lmao
There's nothing wrong with speaking in generalisations. Yes I realise that when you speak about groups you're not necessarily speaking about every individual in that group, but you can observe general patterns of behaviour that is common across the group and is useful to observe.
I was going to say this isn't entirely untrue but then I realized I didn't want to get into another 4 page long argument on here...DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
so this is a guy b1rb looks up to? lmao
It wouldn't be ITT if it didn't continue for an n amount of pages with completely random nonsense.
for all we know, your last name could be "Peterson"!Jordan wrote:
I was going to say this isn't entirely untrue but then I realized I didn't want to get into another 4 page long argument on here...DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
so this is a guy b1rb looks up to? lmao
what do u call a belt made out of watches?
a waist of time!
xd
a waist of time!
xd
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
neither
I'd choose prison, then I have a better chance of escaping.
Sorry, the wording of my question wasn't clear enough and people are going to misinterpret what I wanted them to answer. Allow me to rephrase.Kisses wrote:
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
If a convicted criminal was sentenced to life in prison without parole would you rather have them receive the death penalty? Yes or no, why? If it depends, what does it depend on?
Strike him down and bury him, and so clear me and my father's house of the guilt of the innocent blood that Joab shed. The LORD will repay him for the blood he shed, because without the knowledge of my father David he attacked two men and killed them with the sword. Both of them—Abner son of Ner, commander of Israel's army, and Amasa son of Jether, commander of Judah's army—were better men and more upright than he. May the guilt of their blood rest on the head of Joab and his descendants forever. But on David and his descendants, his house and his throne, may there be the LORD's peace forever.Kisses wrote:
Sorry, the wording of my question wasn't clear enough and people are going to misinterpret what I wanted them to answer. Allow me to rephrase.Kisses wrote:
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
If a convicted criminal was sentenced to life in prison without parole would you rather have them receive the death penalty? Yes or no, why? If it depends, what does it depend on?
life in prisonKisses wrote:
Sorry, the wording of my question wasn't clear enough and people are going to misinterpret what I wanted them to answer. Allow me to rephrase.Kisses wrote:
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
If a convicted criminal was sentenced to life in prison without parole would you rather have them receive the death penalty? Yes or no, why? If it depends, what does it depend on?
it's less expensive and still presents the opportunity for some kind of reform
a question to those reading: if you were wrongly convicted of a terrible crime, would you rather your punishment be the death penalty, or life in prison without parole?
suicidal people need not apply obviously
DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
life in prison
it's less expensive and still presents the opportunity for some kind of reform ??? Prison is way more expensive as it requires much more taxes for the occupation of prison, clothing, food, wages of prison wardens etc. Also I can't imagine any man "reforming" after a sentenced to life in prison. Human minds just don't work like that. Also it would be reforming for no reason, you have no freedom and nothing to aspire for once you leave the best you can do is cope with prison
a question to those reading: if you were wrongly convicted of a terrible crime, would you rather your punishment be the death penalty, or life in prison without parole? death
suicidal people need not apply obviously
Lol
How much do you think prison costs for an inmate each year?
hahahaha wtfDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
death penalty costs a shitton, guys.
$31,977 on averageKisses wrote:
How much do you think prison costs for an inmate each year?
if the death penalty will cost the state 1.2m on average then that breaks even with 37.5 years in prison
or 75 years in prison if the death penalty costs 2.4m on average
depends on the state. people who think that the death penalty is cheap are very naive about the legal costs of pursuing and carrying out such things
for the record, the average life sentence in the UK lasts for 15 years before the prisoner becomes paroled
but vipper
it is not the true
does not cost alot
they say the lies to make public think it ok to ban kill people
u think u know
u know not
it is not the true
does not cost alot
they say the lies to make public think it ok to ban kill people
u think u know
u know not
The real question is, are there any crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty? The answer is yes. Leftists are too naive to realise that there are people who are evil and those sort of people deserve to die for their crimes. It's silly how you have mass murders in Scandinavian jails who can complain because they have a PS2 instead of a PS3 and only kids' games to play. That's not what justice is.
I still stand by my point that instead of life in prison and the death penalty, they should introduce torture - not because of the physical aspect of it, but the psychological. I'm quite positive the number of crimes would be significantly reduced were such a thing to be passed in law.
I know, I know, if mere death sentences pose such a problem in legality, this thing would be even more nightmarish, but as a concept it works just fine... it's just sad that general corruption and the very core of capitalism we practice in this day make it an impracticality and thus improbability, if not an impossibility.
I know, I know, if mere death sentences pose such a problem in legality, this thing would be even more nightmarish, but as a concept it works just fine... it's just sad that general corruption and the very core of capitalism we practice in this day make it an impracticality and thus improbability, if not an impossibility.
B1rd wrote:
The real question is, are there any crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty? The answer is yes. Leftists are too naive to realise that there are people who are evil and those sort of people deserve to die for their crimes. It's silly how you have mass murders in Scandinavian jails who can complain because they have a PS2 instead of a PS3 and only kids' games to play. That's not what justice is.
And yet they have the best prison system in the world, when talking about rates of re-offence for example.
Sometimes, solutions are counter-intuitive to your feelings.
Also, re: your video. Ok, Panzram was well and truly evil by the time he went on his crime spree. Execution still wouldn't be necessary, since as a prisoner, he'd therefore been removed from society. Just remember that when the death penalty is an option, many families of victims will seek it, for example, because they want retribution- which can be both very costly and dangerous.
Bonus: Panzram's backstory.
Born in East Grand Forks, Minnesota, the son of East Prussian immigrants Johann "John" and Matilda Panzram, Carl was raised on his family's farm with five siblings. In 1903, at the age of 12, he stole some cake, apples, and a revolver from a neighbor's home. Soon after, his parents sent him to the Minnesota State Training School. While there, he was repeatedly beaten, tortured, and raped by staff members in what attendees dubbed "The Painting House", because children would leave "painted" with bruises and blood. Panzram hated this place of torture so much that he decided to burn it down, and did so without detection.
In late 1905, Panzram was released from the school. By his teens, he was an alcoholic and was repeatedly in trouble with the authorities, often for burglary and theft. He ran away from home at the age of 14. He often traveled via train cars; he later claimed that on one train he was gang raped by a group of hobos.
In 1907, at the age of 15, after getting drunk in a saloon in Montana, Panzram enlisted in the U.S. Army. Shortly thereafter he was convicted of larceny and served a prison sentence from 1908 to 1910 at Fort Leavenworth's United States Disciplinary Barracks. Then-Secretary of War William Howard Taft approved the sentence. Panzram later claimed that any goodness left in him was smashed out during his Leavenworth imprisonment.
...So he had an abusive, awful childhood, exacerbated by the school and prison systems that he'd been to in his youth. A bit hard to see him as just some evil guy that deserves to be judged the same way as anyone else, considering how fucked up his entire life had been up to that point. This is the case for most people who do terrible things.
Aurani wrote:
I still stand by my point that instead of life in prison and the death penalty, they should introduce torture - not because of the physical aspect of it, but the psychological. I'm quite positive the number of crimes would be significantly reduced were such a thing to be passed in law.
I know, I know, if mere death sentences pose such a problem in legality, this thing would be even more nightmarish, but as a concept it works just fine... it's just sad that general corruption and the very core of capitalism we practice in this day make it an impracticality and thus improbability, if not an impossibility.
I'm pretty sure that harsher punishments don't actually correlate with less crime, but that's for either of us to be bothered to research lol.
What does corruption and capitalism have to do with that though? I don't think most people would want torture to be integrated into the justice system, regardless of profit or corruption-driven motives. People have learned as a society that it's quite frankly unnecessary. See the backlash to the Guantanimo Bay torture for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanam ... mp#Torture
I don't like the idea of criminals having it easy in prison either, but if that is what it takes to create the lowest rate of re-offenders and a healthy society, then maybe i should reconsider if my "sense of justice" is worth being pursued. In other words: If your sense of justice doesn't create any utilitarian value, it belongs on the historical garbage-dump, right next to witch-hunts, laws regarding bastards, the opression of women and everything else we got rid of to create a better life for everyone.
So what. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because they do some things right, doesn't mean they do everything right. Whether it is good at reforming petty criminals it a moot point,what is cleat is that it is absolutely lacking in being able to deal justice when people have committed atrocities. How many people does someone have to kill, torture, rape and brutalise before 21 years of playing video games and relaxing in a holiday resort then release for good behaviour becomes insufficient?DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
And yet they have the best prison system in the world, when talking about rates of re-offence for example.
Sometimes, solutions are counter-intuitive to your feelings.
..So he had an abusive, awful childhood, exacerbated by the school and prison systems that he'd been to in his youth. A bit hard to see him as just some evil guy that deserves to be judged the same way as anyone else, considering how fucked up his entire life had been up to that point. This is the case for most people who do terrible things.No. Just because one guy has a sob story doesn't mean you can generalise it to mean that everyone who ever did something bad had a proportionately bad earlier life. You have people like him, then you have people like Elliot Rodger who had a perfectly good childhood but just brooded on some minor hardship and then did what they did. People have free will and it's not just all environmental determinism, I'd be willing to bet that serial killers have lives no harder than 1000 other people who managed to lead normal lives.
In other words the "right side of history" fallacy.Railey2 wrote:
I don't like the idea of criminals having it easy in prison either, but if that is what it takes to create the lowest rate of re-offenders and a healthy society, then maybe i should reconsider if my "sense of justice" is worth being pursued. In other words: If your sense of justice doesn't create any utilitarian value, it belongs on the historical garbage-dump, right next to witch-hunts, laws regarding bastards, the opression of women and everything else we got rid of to create a better life for everyone.
By no means it it obvious that lack of capital punishment is what's best for society. Japan's prison has capital punishment and a harsh and punitive prison system. It also has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, even compared to Scandinavian countries. But would there be more utilitarian value in letting the convicted of the Nuremburg trials off on good behaviour?
Does determinism scare you, B1rd?
Does free will scare you?
How is everyone's Halloween?
@b1rd: Note that I didn't directly say what judicial system would be most beneficial for society (It's probably highly dependent on what sort of society you work with, although I do suspect that something close to the scandinavian system will work best for a society that is already very healthy).
The main point i was trying to make was that anything pertaining to a "sense of justice" is a non-argument and should be ignored. I don't give a crap about what people think is "fair", as that in itself can never be a valid line of reasoning. People thought it fair to burn people to death based on allegations of witchcraft, so there you go.
A more productive discussion can be achieved if justice as a concept is ignored, and everything is only talked about in terms of policy-dependent consequences.
The main point i was trying to make was that anything pertaining to a "sense of justice" is a non-argument and should be ignored. I don't give a crap about what people think is "fair", as that in itself can never be a valid line of reasoning. People thought it fair to burn people to death based on allegations of witchcraft, so there you go.
A more productive discussion can be achieved if justice as a concept is ignored, and everything is only talked about in terms of policy-dependent consequences.