He's not Canadian because Canadians are very nice people.Vext wrote:
The Canadian with 3 posts wants to fight; I'm too lazy. I want someone to though.
He's not Canadian because Canadians are very nice people.Vext wrote:
The Canadian with 3 posts wants to fight; I'm too lazy. I want someone to though.
I'm not flaming anyone, I'm simply using the same logic they used to draw conclusions because I have no valid arguments to offer, I think I was doing it pretty accurately.YellowerYoshi wrote:
I think a lock is impending here if it is just going to devolve into a flame war. Way to have an intelligent discussion guys.
Post of the yearShangMing wrote:
You must be American because you are fat?
Oh yeah, right, I forgot that jokes don't exist on the Internet because the Internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS. Excuse me. Also, I'm not American, I am a dirty immigrant.ShangMing wrote:
You must be American because you are fat?
You're my dirty immigrant, baby~.Firo Prochainezo wrote:
Oh yeah, right, I forgot that jokes don't exist on the Internet because the Internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS. Excuse me. Also, I'm not American, I am a dirty immigrant.ShangMing wrote:
You must be American because you are fat?
Wasn't that stated in like the second para?NeverDie wrote:
This thread was all about you in the first place. There is no friend, it was you all along. So obvious.failboat wrote:
Well fortunately they managed to in the end patch it all up, and get back together again
~~~drama~~~~
The reason NeverDie is getting flamed is because he is stating his "opinion" as fact, and that opinion happens to be very objectionable, especially in this community.awp wrote:
NeverDie's opinion of "fat people are not attractive" is his opinion of what isn't an appealing body figure or preference. That's on topic, and people don't really have any business telling him otherwise.
Hahaha, I don't think of it as a bad thing, absolutely not.mathexpert9981 wrote:
inb4 plastic surgery.
That assumes that getting plastic surgery is an insecure behavior. I don't see how that is the case. But you are entitled to your biases.mathexpert9981 wrote:
I find that someone insecure enough to get plastic surgery is very unattractive, even if it doesn't look horribly artificial.
NEVERDIE ALWAYS LIESVext wrote:
Plastic surgery? "Those aren't boobs! THEY'RE LIES!!!!"
As long as you're smart enough to realize "looking good" is relative to each individual's preferences, then yeah I'd say soB12ad wrote:
Just like NeverDie, I think only a moron would disregard the attractive qualities of looking good.
strictly trolling without at least wrapping your post in a thin disguise of an argument is NOT ACCEPTABLED33d wrote:
NEVERDIE ALWAYS LIESVext wrote:
Plastic surgery? "Those aren't boobs! THEY'RE LIES!!!!"
Major consensus is that a well toned and fit body is the ideal look. There's people who even have sex with dogs, pigs, monkeys, and yes, fat people. Those people are not the norm and have obvious mental defects to certain extents.awp wrote:
As long as you're smart enough to realize "looking good" is relative to each individual's preferences, then yeah I'd say soB12ad wrote:
Just like NeverDie, I think only a moron would disregard the attractive qualities of looking good.
Yeah it does. You think evolution made it so that fat people are the ones with superior genetics? Of course not. There's a reason why everyone likes what they like, because it serves an evolutionary purpose. Anyone who's fat would have not been able to escape predators back in the day, hence why we have a preference for someone that's fit because that means they have higher survival value. Anyone that doesn't prefer that is going against their evolutionary programming, hence they're a defect. Simple as that. Either a defect or really desperate.awp wrote:
yeah but pop music is also popular/always on the radio etc and if you break its structure down, it's shit
just because the majority of people like something, it doesn't mean everyone who doesn't is "wrong" or "defective"
That may have been more relevant a couple hundred thousand years ago than it is now, but predators have kind of gone to the wayside. Fat people store heat better, so that has its own survival value, since some parts of the world are still cold.NeverDie wrote:
Anyone who's fat would have not been able to escape predators back in the day, hence why we have a preference for someone that's fit because that means they have higher survival value.
I'm pretty sure being a homosexual falls under going against evolutionary programming, and I'm pretty sure you're calling homosexuals defective. That makes your beliefs appear rooted in intolerance more than anything else, and that's going to make it hard for myself (and probably a few others) to take your words seriously. Like, not just the ones in this thread. Any of 'em.NeverDie wrote:
Anyone that doesn't prefer that is going against their evolutionary programming, hence they're a defect. Simple as that. Either a defect or really desperate.
Homosexuals ARE defective rofl. They wouldn't be here if their parents were homos too. Another thing you're also forgetting is that evolution takes course through millions of years. We are still the same biological entity that was here 100,000 years ago, we haven't changed at all. I just think everyone that's disagreeing with me is retarded and in plain denial, but in the end, I really don't care rofl. I'm not the one going to be screwing fatties and keep living in self-denial that, that's what I really want, it's everyone else in this thread with that mentality. Pretty sad one if you ask me, but hey to each his own. There's a good reason why people like that are the minority.awp wrote:
That may have been more relevant a couple hundred thousand years ago than it is now, but predators have kind of gone to the wayside. Fat people store heat better, so that has its own survival value, since some parts of the world are still cold.NeverDie wrote:
Anyone who's fat would have not been able to escape predators back in the day, hence why we have a preference for someone that's fit because that means they have higher survival value.I'm pretty sure being a homosexual falls under going against evolutionary programming, and I'm pretty sure you're calling homosexuals defective. That makes your beliefs appear rooted in intolerance more than anything else, and that's going to make it hard for myself (and probably a few others) to take your words seriously. Like, not just the ones in this thread. Any of 'em.NeverDie wrote:
Anyone that doesn't prefer that is going against their evolutionary programming, hence they're a defect. Simple as that. Either a defect or really desperate.
Don't even bother. NeverDie has no fucking idea what he's talking about.Pokebis wrote:
I still don't get how me getting a boner for a fat bitch and me not-getting a boner for a skinny bitch is denial.
Also, with all this talk of evolution, I think I'm going to pull creationism into the mix and say your entire backup argument is bullshit.
And, as you say, being fat isn't hereditary, and while habits and some features may follow in with children the child isn't necessarily inferior genetically than if the mother was skinny.
Come at me bro.