Contrary to Popular Belief

[Nieroshai]

Mormons aren't polygamists.

Yes, yes... I know you saw that episode of Family Guy too, but trust me. We aren't.

Those crazy fundamentalists though, *whew*... feel free to go to town on them.

Those Fundamentalists were the norm until the US government stepped in though, or am I wrong about the Prophet's personal collection of wives? The insistence that it was the will of God that they marry him? I'm not trying to be intolerant, I just don't want history swept under the table. Personally, I don't care about the ethics of polygamy itself. It's the pedophilia and treating women like property that the Fundamentalists engaged in that galls me.

 

[axlryder]

Well I consider you to be wrong, but since I don't have sources handy and don't feel like getting into a big long debate, I find it easier just to point out that you have zero evidence to back up your claims. Pointing out that you completely missed the point of the scene was my primary reason for quoting you anyway.

You do realize that the beginning and end of your first sentence do all my talking for me, right? "I don't have any evidence but neither do you so you're just wrong."

And I don't want to get in a big long debate either, for many reasons. For one, I wasn't even positing anything as an absolute fact. I made a cultural observation, and even made sure to specify that my experience was strictly anecdotal with term such as "in my experience" and "from what I've seen." I also said "mostly true" which was also my opinion, and I purposefully added "mostly" to guarantee that people knew I wasn't making a totally absolute statement.

Another reason would be that at this moment, before any kind of debate had even started, you've already proven yourself to be an unbearable person. Maybe you're having a bad day, maybe a bad year, but whatever it is that's influencing your behavior makes you one hell of a conversational nuisance.

Missing the point again, hmmm? I said "citation needed" to show you have no evidence for it, not to produce a counter. It's me pointing out my skepticism in an efficient way and in reference to the OP's request. I couldn't care less if it's anecdotal or not, that doesn't stop people from being skeptical of your claims. You're just falsely equating me expressing said skepticism with me saying "you're definitely wrong". Yes, I do think you're wrong about people, but I didn't flat out say "you're wrong" because I don't feel like taking the time to prove it. Get it?

Also, again, my main reason for quoting you was your interpretation of the intentions of the scene simply are flat out wrong. The director stated the intentions of the film. Bateman is meant to be a product of our deranged society. His views are meant to be similarly deranged. Not endear the audience or make them laugh. The end.

I don't care if you don't like me, I've just noticed that your have the unfortunate combination personality of chronically misinformed while also being too cockily assured of yourself. It's a bad mix. Hopefully if your errors are pointed out enough you'll start to actually think before you speak instead of just spouting BS.

 

[Jdorty]

Death doesn't always wear blue, and he, in fact, can fall. (Cookie for reference)

I'm going with Discworld.
A silencer will not reduce the sound of a gun to a tiny pfff pfff sound. Nor will it make only a clack clack sound (could somehow tell me how to get italics on this. That would be great). The sound of gunpowder exploding is roughly 160 decibels and can permanently deafen you hearing it the once. Attachng a silencer reduces it to about 120 decibels.
A guitar is NOT easy to just "pick up and play". If you'd devoted any time to being GOOD at the instrument you'd know this.
Just because the Soviet Union was your enemy during the Cold War doesn't mean that Communism or Socilaism is in any way bad, America.
Just because life may get better after your teenage years doesn't make "it gets better" or "you're just going through a difficult phase in your life" useful or in any way reassuring statememnts.
Yes, you smoke, we get it. Now stop acting like such a fucking martyr because no one gives a shit about your woes when it's your filthy habit that endangers the health of you and the people around you.
That's all I've got right now.

There isn't a single example of communism or socialism working in history, or today. Pretty sure its on your end to find an example of it ever remotely working, as opposed to me listing every country that ever tried it and failed economically. I suppose socialism would work if every person was perfect in the entire world, however, I would argue in that case you don't need governments anyhow.

I'm not 100% sure whether second hand smoke is harmful, or to what degree, but what I do know is that there have been studies showing both ways. It is most definitely not conclusive that second hand smoke is overly harmful and many studies showing that it is have been proven biased.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/scientific-evidence-shows-secondhand-smoke-no-danger

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

The fact is that the EPA, World Health Organization, and other such organizations latch onto what they feel is bad for you and find any way they can to demonize said activity.

Is smoking healthy? Most certainly not. However, there are dozens of other things people do that are also unhealthy and not nearly as looked down upon. Is smoking harmful to those around you? Inconclusive, and most certainly exaggerated upon by those who demonize smokers in general.

 

[Samantha Burt]

The eskimo do not have 100 different words for snow. They do, however, have 234 words for fudge.

OT: I dunno if it's as commonly believed anymore, but glass is NOT a slow-flowing liquid, dammit.

 

[RipRoaringWaterfowl]

Hitting women in the groin does cause pain... and it's usually worse than what men experience.

Source, pls.

I've talked to a couple girls that have been kicked in the groin, and they compared to having their foot stomped, except higher and causing more adrenaline rush.

A knee to the balls, in comparison, is similar to having someone shove a red-hot knife into your arm for a second, then letting you deal with the aftermath (some extrapolation used).

OT: Contrary to popular belief, teenaged girls ARE psychopathic, and many will freely admit it.

(This not-very serious observation has been used in lieu of any factoids not already mentioned.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groin_attack

Couldn't find much else, but the idea is that it can still be painful. Also in certain cases for women, it can cause further problems, but such is rare.

EDIT: Also, come to think of it, getting stomped on the foot is pretty painful. That's what a kick in the balls feels like, I think, based on experience.

 

[Jdorty]

A-lot of people think that blood is actually blue however this is false.

Money CAN buy you love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_wife

Money CAN buy you happiness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

That is hardly love and while poverty is certainly a unhappy existence being wealthy does not ensure happiness.

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.

The kid was wearing body armor and there is no guarantee the armed citizen would have won the gunfight or what would have went down after. Such events leave unpredictable results. You are simply lying to yourself and others if you say you know how things would have turned out. Maybe it would have been better, practically the same, or maybe even worse. It is a chaotic situation and you can't just claim that the scenario you would prefer would be the outcome.

I find it hard to believe that it would have been worse. The shooter didn't have a specific target in mind and from what I've read was just shooting people at random. I am unsure how having a civilian with a concealed weapon and attempting to stop him would make the shooter somehow shoot more people, seeing as his goal was already to shoot a bunch of people.

If you want to argue for gun laws on other grounds, that's fine, but to say the Aurora shooting wouldn't have turned out the same or better is just naive.

In a country as large and diverse as America, people who are planning to be violent and have any money WILL be able to get a gun. Just like you can get cocaine, meth, weed, prostitutes, heroine, or anything else to your hearts content if you really want it. There are already certain weapons that are illegal and criminals are still getting their hands on those.

The only thing gun laws might protect against are shootings that are in no way planned or from your average criminal. Situations where individuals simply get upset, angry, are off their meds, whatever and decide to shoot one person. I would argue these situations are outweighed by circumstances where an average citizen needs to protect themselves from an actual criminal.

 

[Faladorian]

Missing the point again, hmmm? I said "citation needed" to show you have no evidence for it, not to produce a counter. It's me pointing out my skepticism in an efficient way and in reference to the OP's request. I couldn't care less if it's anecdotal or not, that doesn't stop people from being skeptical of your claims. You're just falsely equating me expressing said skepticism with me saying "you're definitely wrong". Yes, I do think you're wrong about people, but I did flat out say "you're wrong" because I don't feel like taking the time to prove it. Get it?

It does matter if it's anecdotal or not, because when I'm saying that my viewpoint of people taking their looks for granted (or simply lacking them) creates a social dichotomy where people produce cognitive dissonance between wanting somebody whose personality reflects their own, and wanting somebody who is a figure of lust. If you're being "skeptical of my claims" and the only thing I'm claiming is my observation, all you're effectively doing is saying that you don't actually believe that society has left that impression on me. There's no point in being skeptical of something like that. In fact it doesn't even make sense.

If you think I'm "wrong about people" all that says is that you have a different view on life than I do; which is abundantly clear because we're obviously not getting along very well.

Also, again, my main reason for quoting you was your interpretation of the intentions of the scene simply are flat out wrong. The director stated the intentions of the film. Bateman is meant to be a product of our deranged society. His views are meant to be similarly deranged. Not endear the audience or make them laugh. The end.

So your main mission was to defend the honor of the film and not find any reason at all to be a patronizing jerk. Why do I doubt that?

I don't care if you don't like me, I've just noticed that your have the unfortunate combination personality of chronically misinformed while also being too cockily assured of yourself. It's a bad mix. Hopefully if your errors are pointed out enough you'll start to actually think before you speak instead of just spouting BS.

Oh so now you're here to help me. I'm just a poor social anomaly that you've decided to take under your wing.

And I'm the cocky one.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Factoid is not synonymous with fact. It means an unsubstantiated statement presented as fact. Not at all like a lot of the posts in this thread.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

The Aurora theater was in Colorado. Do you really think no one had a gun in there?

This theater banned all carrying including concealed carry. So, yes. I'm pretty positive no one had a gun in there.

 

[Jaeke]

Mormons aren't polygamists.

Yes, yes... I know you saw that episode of Family Guy too, but trust me. We aren't.

Those crazy fundamentalists though, *whew*... feel free to go to town on them.

Those Fundamentalists were the norm until the US government stepped in though, or am I wrong about the Prophet's personal collection of wives? The insistence that it was the will of God that they marry him? I'm not trying to be intolerant, I just don't want history swept under the table. Personally, I don't care about the ethics of polygamy itself. It's the pedophilia and treating women like property that the Fundamentalists engaged in that galls me.

Man this is the 3rd time I've tried to post

OT: So what happened is that the Mormons were, well alienated to say the least around the 1830's/1840's and what Joseph Smith said is that it was "revealed to him by god" that polygamy should be practiced to branch far reaching families to sort of culture a much larger base.

Now this is/was VERY contridictory to our practices today, and even then, in that we are firmly based upon the belief of an eternal family and an eternal companion not companions.

So yes it became a norm but VERY soon after when our second Prophet, Brigham Young (who keep in mind, was a bit of a hardass; he really set things in motion for the Mormons when he became the leader and got us moving), stepped in when things between the Mormons and United States were cut-throat to say the least, and, to be honest, basicly said "That was wrong." he scrapped that law and basicly cut ties with the U.S. to stop any further conflict, and then you have the migration west into Utah and the founding of Deseret and what-have-you.

Now there were those who said no to Brigham Young's new direction of the church and said "We ONLY follow what Joseph Smith has revealed to the letter" and then left. To where exactly... well we didn't know, up until that whole messy incident with their president a few years ago.

So yes. We did practice polygamy, don't get me wrong, and while some have come to find Joseph Smith as being... well, frankly a horndog (and keep in mind as a Mormon, this is saying something almost as equivalent to a devout Catholic saying "the Pope is a pedophile"), the polygamy law was mostly just a way of branching out our people to merge families and unify us as a people in our times of struggle when Mormons were treated like the plage in mid-19th century America. And let me make it PERFECTLY clear, no such act or practices, such as the ones you mentioned, would EVER be tolerated in our church today.

 

[Faladorian]

Both mostly true.

Okay, I want to hear how you can possibly believe that this is somehow factual in any sense of the word?

Dear god, I already had two strings of conversations about this. I'm just going to edit my original post, I'm tired of talking about it. I don't agree with the way they talk about women in the video, I just think that as a general societal rule, personality and looks are inversely proportional. For both genders.

Jesus this got out of hand.

 

[Faladorian]

the video is clearly supposed to be purposefully misogynistic for a failed attempt at comedy or bachelor-esque charm.

This is the statement being referred to. This is an incorrect observation for reasons already pointed out to you, and simply calling it your opinion doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and need to go back and re-evaluate the movie with a more critical eye.

That's what you're worried about? I've never seen the movie. I made an assumption. Are you happy?

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Abraham Lincoln wasn't the "Great Emancipator" that he's known to be today. Even so, he was still a great man and worth remembrance.

Assassin's Creed 3 isn't going to be "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!" and will keep the subtle neutrality of the previous games in terms of opposing sides.

Dragon Age 2 is a flawed and ungraceful sequel to an otherwise better game. It is not complete and utter shit worthy only of scorn and hatred, however.

EA is just bad at management and PR. It's not the Legion of Doom.

Valve isn't perfect either.

Notch shouldn't be the sole voice of Mojang and needs someone to take his twittering privileges away.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Contrary to popular belief not everything can be decided on popular vote.

For example there could be a news story where someone brings up the fact that a "large percentage" of the population think that something is wrong. Well in some cases (mostly when it comes to science) that just means that the "large percentage" is either wrong or lying.

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

Hitting women in the groin does cause pain... and it's usually worse than what men experience.

Source, pls.

I've talked to a couple girls that have been kicked in the groin, and they compared to having their foot stomped, except higher and causing more adrenaline rush.

A knee to the balls, in comparison, is similar to having someone shove a red-hot knife into your arm for a second, then letting you deal with the aftermath (some extrapolation used).

OT: Contrary to popular belief, teenaged girls ARE psychopathic, and many will freely admit it.

(This not-very serious observation has been used in lieu of any factoids not already mentioned.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groin_attack

Couldn't find much else, but the idea is that it can still be painful. Also in certain cases for women, it can cause further problems, but such is rare.

EDIT: Also, come to think of it, getting stomped on the foot is pretty painful. That's what a kick in the balls feels like, I think, based on experience.

A sharp blow to the pelvic bone of a woman can cause it to break, causing way worse complications than a man could typically experience.

Also, when the hell did Steven Fry become an expert on Roman history and ancient warfare? It's well established in several different sources that Hannibal employed elephants for combat. By the time Hannibal was fighting Scipio, however, the Romans had managed to develop rather foolproof strategies for avoiding the elephants and, in some cases, returning the elephants, in a rage, back to Punic lines to cause them at least a little misery.

 

[Da Orky Man]

The original Star Wars trilogy wasn't really all that great, and people who complain about the prequels are just looking at the originals through Nostalgia Goggles.

The USA does not have anything remotely close to a free market in medicine. An actual free market would be a much better solution to our medical problems than a European-style system.

Gun-control laws produce increases, not decreases, in violent crime.

Michael Bay was the perfect person to direct a live-action Transformers movie. The problems with Bayformers can almost all be blamed on the writers.

Please don't turn this into one of 'those' threads. We get enough Universal healthcare and gun-control threads as it is.