Contrary to Popular Belief
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Both mostly true.JeffBergGold said:
EDIT: After enough backlash I'd like to clarify that the part of it that I find true is the idea that looks and personality are usually an exchange. I don't actually agree with the characters in the movie.
Though my opinion on "size matters" is that it goes either way: there's a too small and a too big for everyone.
Oh god, THIS. For those of us who have actually shot a shotgun in real life, this one's annoying.Ranylyn said:
And I'm not talking about slugs, I mean buckshot. As long as you're within 30-50 feet of your target you can hit them with all of the pellets in the buckshot. I did it with a can of diet coke at that distance, practically disintegrated the thing.
If I never had to work for anything and money wasn't an issue, I'd sure as hell skip my way to a gourmet breakfast every morning at the time that I choose, with my butlers doing all of the dishes and cleaning for me.
Even THINKING about money makes me happy.
The original Horsemen of the Apocalypse were CONQUEST, War, Famine and Death. Or, if you want to take the original Book of Revelations by face value, Some dude on a white horse, some dude on a red horse, some dude on a black horse, and Death (on a pale horse).
Also, eye for an eye is a call for fairness in judgement, not for always getting revenge. It was a suggestion made to replace the general policy at that time, which was a life for an eye.
(I realize these are both biblical, and I don't really know why, but hey, whatever.)
Also, eye for an eye is a call for fairness in judgement, not for always getting revenge. It was a suggestion made to replace the general policy at that time, which was a life for an eye.
(I realize these are both biblical, and I don't really know why, but hey, whatever.)
The weird thing is that they aren't that common. However, whenever they do happen they become a massive deal, completely forgoing the twelve other instances where this person was stopped. Frankly, I still maintain that if there had been a single person with a concealed carry permit in that Aurora theater, we'd be reading about a hero that stopped a potential massacre rather than some fucked up college student.manic_depressive13 said:
In regards to your desire for sited evidence, I would be doing that, but I didn't bring my laptop to college with me and all my saved data regarding firearms threads on the escapist was saved on my desktop. I apologize, I'll see if I can find it.
OT: Contrary to popular belief, shotguns are actually pretty effective past 2 feet, people can't just pick up handguns and shoot super-accurately, and without the US Army Rangers at Pointe du Hoc, D-Day would have had many, many more losses.
Citation Neededbl4ckh4wk64 said:
Said person would have to have been WELL trained in the use of said concealed firearm for this to have happened, and even then placement of your 'hero' and a multitude of other factors mean that you can not conclusively say that the shooting would have been stopped.
He said it applies to both men and women. I'm saying most people are easily judged superficially. I didn't specify that it was women, the video is clearly supposed to be purposefully misogynistic for a failed attempt at comedy or bachelor-esque charm. I'm not promoting the video.Vault101 said:
I'm currently in a relationship with a girl who I'd like to think is an exception to that rule. Other people I see, however, that are alone (men and women) and "can't seem to figure out why," it's easy for somebody on the outside to figure out why it is that this person is repelling mates. And most mundane situations do fit under the idea that looks and personality are inversely proportional. It's not some balance of nature, it's more of a power thing. Attractive people become spoiled by their social success and become more and more selfish and corrosive, so much so that they often test how nasty they can be while still being revered by their body image alone.
It's a wonderful world we live in, hmm?
People always say this but me and additionally many other people I know have had first hand experience with this and it is exactly to the contrary. Furthermore I have very vivid memories of my childhood, so vivid in fact I can remember not only minute details but what I was feeling and thinking at the time. This allows me to remember several times I ate pure sugar from the bag then went on a holy rampage of boundless energy followed shortly after by a nauseating crash. Solved immediately by another cup of sugar. This is first hand experience mind you and not something I can provide a source for.Professor James said:
Its from the movie American psycho, its suposed to show how superficial/fucked up Patrick bateman's world is (the "psycho" in the title)Faladorian said:
I think he (jeffgoldberg) was being dead serious as in "yes, this is what I think"
[quote/]I'm currently in a relationship with a girl who I'd like to think is an exception to that rule. [/quote]
so your lucky enough to have an "exception"? I wonder how many exceptions there are...
I think theres a difference between being ugly and just not putting that amount of effort into ones apearance, (ok..I admit I may make a snap judgment about a bleach haired orange skinned blonde) but I don't like doing that, I dont like putting peple into boxes regardless if there is truth in those boxes, because it may affect my judgment in negative ways
Well then I disagree.Vault101 said:
so your lucky enough to have an "exception"? I wonder how many exceptions there are...
I think theres a difference between being ugly and just not putting that amount of effort into ones apearance, (ok..I admit I may make a snap judgment about a bleach haired orange skinned blonde) but I don't like doing that, I dont like putting peple into boxes regardless if there is truth in those boxes, because it may affect my judgment in negative ways[/quote]
If somebody's just "plain" so to speak, like a girl who doesn't wear makeup, that's not ugly. At least not in my book. That's just what a female human looks like without odd chemicals on her skin.
But some people are truly ugly and that's who I'm talking about.
Contrary to popular belief, the "eye for an eye" mentality came from the Code of Hammurabi, which was the BASIS for Biblical law (Mosaic law). Which segues me right into my O.T. post.TAGM said:
*Warning, bit of the ol' Bible fires burnin' below this point*
The Code of Hammurabi is the reason why the the Old Testament is not as "harsh" as people believe it is today. They only say it's harsh now because they don't realize what life and society was like under the Code, BEFORE Mosaic law came into effect (prior to that, people would have KILLED for an "anarchistic" legal system like what Moses brought, if only for some breathing room).
Which ALSO segues me into another factoid - Christians are not supposed to judge or condemn homosexuals (or anyone for that matter). I'M LOOKIN' AT YOU, WESTBORO! The only reason it says in the Old Testament that men laying with other men were to be killed was from, again, the Code of Hammurabi, which was, again, what Mosaic law was based off of. In their society, it was wrong to be gay, just like it was wrong to have a disease, or to leave your chewed gum on the underside of a counter [citation needed]. The New Testament does NOT say anything about homosexuals, save for a few loose Greek translations that scholars are still unsure of the meaning. Nevertheless, when Jesus came, he essentially rendered the Old Testament laws void, to make way for the new age of societies that were rising up (such as our own, two thousand years later). Jesus SAID not to judge LEST YE BE JUDGED, and to basically love and tolerate the SHIT out of everyone. That's four points of Biblical history against Westboro's beliefs right there...
*End of Bible-Homosexuality correction*
And just to make sure this wasn't a COMPLETELY God-filled post, I'll add a gaming point...
"The Sith Lords" was better than the original K.o.t.O.R.
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell is not about a country where everybody is constantly being watched. It's about a country where everybody might be watched at any given moment but can't tell if they are or not.
Interesting ones, and I'd like to make two additions:TAGM said:
It's called the book of revelation, not revelations.
At no point does the book of Revelation ever mention anybody called the Antichrist by name. And there is no part of the Bible where the word "antichrist" is used to refer to one specific individual. In fact, it makes it clear that antichrist is what everybody who goes against Christ is.
I.Q. tests do measure more than just your ability to solve I.Q. tests. While they don't measure your entire intelligence, it's an undeniable truth that if you have an I.Q. of twelve, that will be noticable outside of I.Q. test settings. Very noticable.
It's true, again if we're judging by Escapist posts alone, the ones I've seen show a superiority complex that's unlike most I've seen.trty00 said:
But it's important to note that we don't actually know him, I'm glad you said that.
In real life I'm generally okay to get along with as long as youre not a domineering asshole, but on the forums my opinion gets fueled by inner rage and I turn into a pseudo-Hitler.
Greater internet fuckwad theory, I am no exception.