forum

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

posted
Total Posts
56,018
show more
johnmedina999

Endaris wrote:

As if you had to warn people because you go on hiatus.
When you put it that way, sure it seems silly. I guess I'm just used to farewells; hell, even Kisses posted a farewell post before he said he was leaving.
Endaris
But Kisses is still here.
johnmedina999
Endaris
who cares if you're still in contact?
Tae
You did this kind of stuff before when posting for the whereabouts of various people, it's incredibly pointless.
Milkshake
I have nothing good to say so I'll post the lil bamboo I bought for myself.
Softwarm

Milkshake wrote:

I have nothing good to say so I'll post the lil bamboo I bought for myself.
It looks pretty cute!
Comfy Slippers
put a shekel in there
Milkshake
I put a euro instead
bamboozeled
silmarilen

B1rd wrote:

Nothing is more symptomatic of this sheltered generation than people who block others at the slightest sign of them having a different opinion.
Or i just want to have an enjoyable time without having to see the posts of shitfaces like you and jordan.
Tanzklaue

Milkshake wrote:

I have nothing good to say so I'll post the lil bamboo I bought for myself.
that is a nice bamboo.

may i ask why a bamboo over other plants?
silmarilen
Doesn't bamboo grow like super fast?
Tanzklaue
yes it does.

some kinds of bamboo grow so fast in fact that they were used for torture/execution purposes.

so i guess that's why milkshake got hers.
Milkshake
actually no. I'm a soldier atm and my position in army is a pretty unique one - I'm not in a base, but in an apartment the army rents us. I wanted to decorate the desk I have in my own room and chose a plant I wouldn't have to water often, because sometimes I might not be at the apartment for weeks.
Tanzklaue
so it totally is a torture device.

since you are in the army there is no denying it. case closed.
Milkshake
gotta repay the germans amirite?
Tanzklaue
i am not a fan of this plan.
Endaris
poor tom
Milkshake
he's only a tool for me to gain control over all of you!
B1rd

Milkshake wrote:

actually no. I'm a soldier atm and my position in army is a pretty unique one - I'm not in a base, but in an apartment the army rents us. I wanted to decorate the desk I have in my own room and chose a plant I wouldn't have to water often, because sometimes I might not be at the apartment for weeks.
What's your position.

I sent in an application to join the army. Turns out though that I didn't actually completely year 10 so that's gonna be a problem. Doesn't help that they're straight up discriminating against men top get their magical diversity quotas.



silmarilen wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Nothing is more symptomatic of this sheltered generation than people who block others at the slightest sign of them having a different opinion.
Or i just want to have an enjoyable time without having to see the posts of shitfaces like you and jordan.
Your problem is you can somehow hate us when we have done nothing to you. You have thin skin.
Milkshake
I'm a soldier-teacher.

edit: are they actually discriminating against men? it's the goddamn army, wtf. men are way more useful to army than women 90% of the time. lol
Tanzklaue
what do you teach the soldiers?
B1rd

Milkshake wrote:

I'm a soldier-teacher.

edit: are they actually discriminating against men? it's the goddamn army, wtf. men are way more useful to army than women 90% of the time. lol
Yep. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/n ... a2e3e5680a

It sucks since apparently the role they are fast-tracking women through are the combat roles which are the ones that I'm interested in. There weren't any positions available in the army for a rifleman so I had to change my preference for the Reserve instead.

And its especially stupid because there are plenty of roles in the army that women would be suitable for, but combat roles aren't any of them.
Endaris
Can you link a source that doesn't force you to subscribe before you can read anything?
B1rd
I can access it without subscribing to any thing.
Aurani

B1rd wrote:

Your problem is you can somehow hate us when we have done nothing to you. You have thin skin.
Why do you need to try and solve or point out every problem? There's all sorts of humans and people not-so-human out there. Of course not everyone is gonna stand your guts. Ultimately, who gives a rat's ass if one bloke doesn't like you; I'm sure half your neighbours can't stand you for reasons unknown either.

Just ignore it, mate...
Endaris
It immediately redirects me to some subscription page and if anything it wants me to AT LEAST log in before I can continue to that article.
B1rd
Milkshake

Tanzklaue wrote:

what do you teach the soldiers?
I'm not teaching soldiers. I'm basically qualified to teach Hebrew so I'm working at middle/higshschools and in the evenings I work with that they call 'youth at risk'. you could say it's like social service on army uniform, tbh...but I did go through bootcamp and a course and all that shit. It sounds all fun and dandy until you get your schedule and you see you have 12 working hours excluding the drives I do a day lmao fuck my shit up fam

also b1rd: this is the dumbest shit I've heard of in a while. I'm actually speechless
Zain Sugieres
@lamey[b] the army man where are u
Tanzklaue
jeffrey dahmer was one fucked up individual.
Railey2

Jordan wrote:

silmarilen wrote:

If it involves a fight between a man and a woman, don't take jordan seriously. He has a history of hating women in general regardless of what actually happened.
Unlike what tumblr people call mysoginist (basically anybody that isn't a woman agreeing with their point of view), i think he actually is one.



https://i.imgur.com/dtAOP0b.jpg

y'all remember that argument?




lol @ the possibility of me ever being wrong
sorry for replying late but I completely forgot that this argument happened (I even forgot about my involvement), but better late than never!

The shit you spouted back then could have been valid if you had known of the screenshot back then, but alas you didn't.

All of the things we said back then are still just as valid, because they criticized your mindset, aka how you arrive at your decisions. Time has proven you correct in this instance (or at least it appears so for now), but that doesn't mean you're any less of an idiot. An example of how being technically correct doesn't prove that you're not a moron:

A: "HEY, the rain tonight is a bad omen because the rain gods told me so!"
B: "but wait, rain is just a natural phenomenon, it follows a patter, a pattern that you could calculate if you had enough time and computation powe.."
A: "NO, you're WRONG, just wait and you'll see!!"

- then some random bad shit happens to B

A: "See, I told you so, I was right and therefore my methodology is proven over this thing you call naturalism or balanced scepticism or whatever. Hail the rain gods!"




In other words: You're the A-guy, who is like "I told you so!!!". But no. I doubt that anything has changed and there still aren't any rain gods.
B1rd
Who was in the screenshot and why are all these dweebs hating on Jordan
Railey2
if you google Jordans quote, you should find the pages on ITT where the discussion happened.
B1rd
No idea what you expect me to Google.

Anyone can point holes in someone's belief system. You can criticise the Ancient Israelites for only eating Kosher food because they thought that God would punish them otherwise. But even if that weren't correct, it still ended up protecting them from the multitude of parasites that you fin in pork that wasn't perfectly prepared, and from a practical standpoint they were more correct than the gentiles. That's the error of psuedo-intellectuals, they think that because they can point out a few logical inconsistencies in someone's belief system they can then attribute that entire system to irrationality. But it's a lot easier tear something down than to construct an entire system of values that will help you get along in the world, something most atheists lack.
_handholding
yehaj
Railey2

B1rd wrote:

No idea what you expect me to Google.

Anyone can point holes in someone's belief system. You can criticise the Ancient Israelites for only eating Kosher food because they thought that God would punish them otherwise. But even if that weren't correct, it still ended up protecting them from the multitude of parasites that you fin in pork that wasn't perfectly prepared, and from a practical standpoint they were more correct than the gentiles. That's the error of psuedo-intellectuals, they think that because they can point out a few logical inconsistencies in someone's belief system they can then attribute that entire system to irrationality. But it's a lot easier tear something down than to construct an entire system of values that will help you get along in the world, something most atheists lack.

I don't know why you saw my example as an attack on theism, because it really wasn't. The only thing I wanted to demonstrate is that a correct result doesn't necessarily prove that your methodology is correct. In the case of the example: B gets run over by a car. A's prediction therefore turned out to be correct ("something bad will happen"), but his methodology was still utter garbage ("rain gods, obviously").

For context, google "If it involves a fight between a man and a woman, don't take jordan seriously. He has a history of hating women in general regardless of what actually happened.
Unlike what tumblr people call mysoginist (basically anybody that isn't a woman agreeing with their point of view), i think he actually is one."



Whether or not something has practical value is a different question. A heuristic or cultural norm can return correct values in certain situations, but fail horribly in other situations. The "no-meat"-cultural norm works really well when you have no way to sanitize your meat, but when you DO have a way, it becomes a useless garbage rule that imposes a mostly needless restriction. If you don't like that particular example, feel free to find a better one yourself, as there are many.
Jordans mysoginism sometimes happens to return correct values, in situations where the girl really does turn out to be a horrible person. In all other situations it goes horribly wrong and Jordan ends up being unhappy and alone because of it, if he doesn't change his methodology.
B1rd
Googling that gives me nothing.

And yet value systems are often much more beneficial than not, because they have evolved over time and take in to account a large degree on social phenomena that aren't readily apparent to "rational" interpretation.

Calling Jordan a "misogynist" is a non-argument. And likely it ignores the underlying reasons as to why he believes what he does and just oversimplifies in into a claim that "he just hates all women". Considering that he was right about whatever he was right about indicates that his interpretations are more well-founded than yours.
Railey2

B1rd wrote:

Googling that gives me nothing.

And yet value systems are often much more beneficial than not, because they have evolved over time and take in to account a large degree on social phenomena that aren't readily apparent to "rational" interpretation.

Calling Jordan a "misogynist" is a non-argument. And likely it ignores the underlying reasons as to why he believes what he does and just oversimplifies in into a claim that "he just hates all women". Considering that he was right about whatever he was right about indicates that his interpretations are more well-founded than yours.
When you Google, leave out the " ".

The second part of your post has Little to do with what I wrote. Sure, value systems are often beneficial, so what? What are you even arguing for at this point? You're just distracting from the original argument:

"Only because you happened to get a good result, doesn't mean that your methodology, aka the way how you arrived at your conclusion, was correct. THIS is what you responded to initially, so how the heck did we even end up agreeing over these platitudes? "Value Systems evolved over time", well no fucking shit and yes of course I agree, but what is your point and why are you even saying this? It has nothing to do with my initial statment, or with the discussion I was trying to have before you derailed it completely. Please just stop.


The second part of your post is completely irrelevant because you don't even know the topic. I was talking to Jordan anyway, not to you.

Misogynist is an ample description of Jordans behavioral bias, so what do you mean by "it's a non-argument?" Again, what's your point? I feel like half of the time what you're trying to say is so far away from what was being discussed, it's hard to have any sort of discussion at all. You bring up something thats only tangentially related, and then the argument devolves until it starts being about something completely different. This is no fun, no fun at all. This is why arguing with you never ends with a solid conclusion. I don't know how to keep going like this.

And likely it ignores the underlying reasons as to why he believes what he does and just oversimplifies in into a claim that "he just hates all women.
.. ok ? Of Course ist simplifying, I'm not a psychologist with 100 hours to waste on the most accurate Analysis of his state of mind. Whats your point?
Neither do I care about the underlying reasons. I was merely pointing it out in that argument that happened about 7 months ago, because I recognized the pattern. Fuck me. See? As soon as I go into this, you will respond to it with something else thats only tangentially related and that is exactly what I meant before. All you do here is derailing the topic.
B1rd
How am I derailing? I was making the point that even if someone's methodology is incorrect, it may lead to a better outcome than someone who is technically correct, because often it takes into account a lot of other variables that are hard to cognize. Thus even if you refute someone's methodology it doesn't necessarily refute their claims. That is highly relevant to what you were saying, and considering you won't link to the source argument and instead give instructions that I have already said don't work, all I can do it argue in the abstract.

Calling someone a misogynists is just like calling someone a racist, a Nazi, a homophobe, a fascist, or any other buzzword pejoratives. It is not an argument, it is a conclusion. It does not adequately define what those words are in the context, it does not make a case for why a person is such a thing, and does not explain why that is a bad thing. It implies that a whole load of assumptions about the previously mentioned variables are true and self-evident, without actually presenting any argument why. Thus it's absolutely meaningless for debating with someone outside your ideological bubble. And rarely are those pejoratives even accurate in the first place.

And if you want to know why no argument ever reaches a conclusion, it's because you always derail the topic with a tirade of off-topic ad hominems.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply