This confuses me. A few weeks ago my BF said to me this when i expressed possibly not wanting kids
'As a man you are born to want to take care of a family"
To me that is BS. society shape whther i want children or a family. Not biology.

hotsauceman1 wrote:This confuses me. A few weeks ago my BF said to me this when i expressed possibly not wanting kids
'As a man you are born to want to take care of a family"
To me that is BS. society shape whther i want children or a family. Not biology.

Hah, yeah that IS bs.

I dont want to take care of anyone other than myself at the moment, I might possibly want kids one day, but millions of people don't and I don't feel it's a big deal either way.

Lets be honest, its not like the world is suffering from a small population atm.

Definitely agree with you there.

I don't think that's unusual though. I'm 27 and have little interest in children at the moment. Still too much I need to do, and I can't help but feel this is a horrible time, for many external reasons, to start a family.

That same friend is 20 and already looking for a wife to have kids with. 20 years old he doesnt want to party oor anything. He wants to make babies and support a wife.
That is the most confusing.

Maybe he saw Paranormal III and figured why not?

hotsauceman1 wrote:That same friend is 20 and already looking for a wife to have kids with. 20 years old he doesnt want to party oor anything. He wants to make babies and support a wife.
That is the most confusing.

I know people like that. A lot of them have turned out wrecks of people by my age. Some of them haven't. The sad thing is that people are scarcely more than babies at 20 anyway.

hotsauceman1 wrote:This confuses me. A few weeks ago my BF said to me this when i expressed possibly not wanting kids
'As a man you are born to want to take care of a family"
To me that is BS. society shape whther i want children or a family. Not biology.

If more people thought like you then we probably wouldn't be here today.

If you're not going to have kids, how do you expect there to be a next generation?
(you in general here, not hotsauceman specifically, obviously)

biccat wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:This confuses me. A few weeks ago my BF said to me this when i expressed possibly not wanting kids
'As a man you are born to want to take care of a family"
To me that is BS. society shape whther i want children or a family. Not biology.

If more people thought like you then we probably wouldn't be here today.

If you're not going to have kids, how do you expect there to be a next generation?
(you in general here, not hotsauceman specifically, obviously)

I dont want to have kids because right now for the most part i cant stand them. anytime hear a kids voice i cringe.
And because right now its irresponsible to havve a kid. both personally and societally.

How people still don't know what the power button is, despite said button having a universally recognised icon.

I expect a small child not to have figured it out, but some people still haven't managed to put two and two together and realise that the circle with a vertical line through the top has been the icon on every single bloody power button they have ever encountered.

There are lots of things that people do that confuse me, really fundamental things too.

Believing in god is a pretty big one. I know this is one of those subjects that people are very divided on, but even if god were to come down from heaven, stand in front of me in all his glowing glory, and say "Hey I'm god, and I'm real"... I would still be like "Did anyone else see that?". Because you know... Talking to god, being kidnapped by aliens, being delusional... These things can all appear very alike without some kind of external confirmation. So yeah I find it confusing that people can be so sure that there is a god, with far less confirmation or evidence than I just described to support the idea (usually just on the basis that their parents believed it).

Counting in 10s... Many people have put forward the argument that 12 or 16 would be a superior number base for division. But no one ever tries to change it. Now we have the metric system reinforcing base 10 even further. Though I think this is really just an example of a larger problem. Which is that society is like a big wheel that just can't be stopped, even when it's rolling in a dubious direction.

hotsauceman1 wrote:That same friend is 20 and already looking for a wife to have kids with. 20 years old he doesnt want to party oor anything. He wants to make babies and support a wife.
That is the most confusing.

Is your friend A Christian by any chance? For some reason Religious people are obsessed with breeding. I'm well aware that they want their Religion to spread which is why they all seem to have such a hard on for breeding like rabbits, but still, you would think we have grown out of that.

7 billion and counting tells me we really don't need to be worrying about the whole "making babies" thing.

As far as I'm concerned we should start forcibly sterilising people that get sent to prison or dont work for more than 6 months!

mattyrm wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:That same friend is 20 and already looking for a wife to have kids with. 20 years old he doesnt want to party oor anything. He wants to make babies and support a wife.
That is the most confusing.

Is your friend A Christian by any chance? For some reason Religious people are obsessed with breeding. I'm well aware that they want their Religion to spread which is why they all seem to have such a hard on for breeding like rabbits, but still, you would think we have grown out of that.

7 billion and counting tells me we really don't need to be worrying about the whole "making babies" thing.

As far as I'm concerned we should start forcibly sterilising people that get sent to prison or dont work for more than 6 months!

That's a little harsh. Can we just sterilise violent criminals (if the dog is aggressive you cut its testes off) and men that abandon say two women with their children (Once could be a mistake, making two burdens on society is taking the mickey).

I expect a lot of good people will be unemployed for more than 6 months in the next few years I would make it people who don't take the third job offer.

Oh and drug addicts.

Sonophos wrote:
Oh and drug addicts.

I know drug addicts who are more functional in a professional environment than sober people.

Christ lads. I'm pretty fething conservative in some ways, but sometimes the stuff people come out with (sterilising criminals, and the like...), it just floors me.

Positive reinforcement is better than negative.

Sterilise everyone by default, and then unsterilise them again based on merit. That would give people something to work towards while also solving teenage pregnancies.

Smacks wrote:Positive reinforcement is better than negative.

This confuses me, I find it's a phrase often spouted by parents with no control over their hyperactive children.

A mixture of positive and negative reinforcement seems to work best for me.

biccat wrote:
If you're not going to have kids, how do you expect there to be a next generation?

Why do you care if there is one?

Because overcrowded nursing homes and dementia wards would be awful ?

daedalus wrote:

Sonophos wrote:
Oh and drug addicts.

I know drug addicts who are more functional in a professional environment than sober people.

Same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:This confuses me. A few weeks ago my BF said to me this when i expressed possibly not wanting kids
'As a man you are born to want to take care of a family"
To me that is BS. society shape whther i want children or a family. Not biology.

My initial response to this was "Then why are you in a gay relationship?" under the assumption that you're a man, and your name is at least somewhat accurate (I assume you're not made of hot sauce).

I now realize "BF" probably means "best friend".

dogma wrote:Why do you care if there is one?

As a favor to my children.

Plus, the social security gravy train isn't going to haul itself. We're going to need a new generation of marks contributors.

dogma wrote:My initial response to this was "Then why are you in a gay relationship?" under the assumption that you're a man, and your name is at least somewhat accurate (I assume you're not made of hot sauce).

I now realize "BF" probably means "best friend".

I may be wrong, but I believe hotsauceguy "outed" himself in another thread.

biccat wrote:
As a favor to my children.

That's not an argument for someone with no kids having children, though. Its an argument for why other people should have kids, after you've already had kids, and presumes other people care about your children.

biccat wrote:
Plus, the social security gravy train isn't going to haul itself. We're going to need a new generation of marks contributors.

Well, assuming we want social security to continue, many people don't seem to want that.

biccat wrote:
I may be wrong, but I believe hotsauceguy "outed" himself in another thread.

If true, I remain vexed. If only for reasons of gender normativity.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
If you're not going to have kids, how do you expect there to be a next generation?

Why do you care if there is one?

Who's going to make queso and serve me booze?

Frazzled wrote:
Who's going to make queso and serve me booze?

Alfred:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:As a favor to my children.

That's not an argument for someone with no kids having children, though. Its an argument for why other people should have kids, after you've already had kids, and presumes other people care about your children.

No, I'm saying that the reason I have children is as a favor to my children. My parents did the same for me (and I'll assume yours did for you), so it only seems fair.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:Plus, the social security gravy train isn't going to haul itself. We're going to need a new generation of marks contributors.

Well, assuming we want social security to continue, many people don't seem to want that.

You seem to have missed the sarcasm. I will be shocked if either of us sees a dime of social security retirement.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:I may be wrong, but I believe hotsauceguy "outed" himself in another thread.

If true, I remain vexed. If only for reasons of gender normativity.

Do guys really refer to eachother as "BF" or even "best friend"?

Although I may be wrong. I'm not proud of it, but it has happened before.

biccat wrote:
No, I'm saying that the reason I have children is as a favor to my children. My parents did the same for me (and I'll assume yours did for you), so it only seems fair.

By have do you mean "continue to care for"?

Otherwise it seems odd to do favors for a thing that does not exist.

biccat wrote:
You seem to have missed the sarcasm. I will be shocked if either of us sees a dime of social security retirement.

Oh, I caught it. I just chose to respond in my nominal fashion which can alternately be called droll, obnoxious, smug, or, for that matter, sarcastic.

biccat wrote:
Do guys really refer to eachother as "BF" or even "best friend"?

Although I may be wrong. I'm not proud of it, but it has happened before.

I know a dude that calls me his BFF* (granted, he is bi).




*I'm not his BFF, he's a whiny SOB.

biccat wrote:
Do guys really refer to eachother as "BF" or even "best friend"?

Although I may be wrong. I'm not proud of it, but it has happened before.

I refer to my best friend as my best friend. Never as my BF.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
No, I'm saying that the reason I have children is as a favor to my children. My parents did the same for me (and I'll assume yours did for you), so it only seems fair.

By have do you mean "continue to care for"?

Otherwise it seems odd to do favors for a thing that does not exist.

Yes, it does.

I also consider it an obligation to the human race to preserve my genetic potential. It's unfortunate that I have to dilute it.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Who's going to make queso and serve me booze?

Alfred:

Aflred's old. What hapens when that geezer retires? Indeed how does anyone retire? Everyone else just sorty of fizzles out.

Frazzled wrote:
Aflred's old. What hapens when that geezer retires? Indeed how does anyone retire? Everyone else just sorty of fizzles out.

They retire if they have enough money to induce servitude.

Let's be clear, though, I hate children and would be an awful parent. I will never have kids unless the better half drags me into it kicking and screaming (unlikely event). I don't aggressively espouse the view "No one should have children." but I do argue that there are merits to not having children; because there are. I further expect that biological urges, primarily among women, will not let our species die out any time soon. Our culture, maybe, but that doesn't really matter anyway.

daedalus wrote:

Sonophos wrote:
Oh and drug addicts.

I know drug addicts who are more functional in a professional environment than sober people.

Agreed.
It's amazing how some people can function impaired.
Now leave me alone, I'm stoned....

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
No, I'm saying that the reason I have children is as a favor to my children. My parents did the same for me (and I'll assume yours did for you), so it only seems fair.

By have do you mean "continue to care for"?

Otherwise it seems odd to do favors for a thing that does not exist.

Yes, it does.

So, the existence of your children was accidental?

Your existence was accidental?

alarmingrick wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Sonophos wrote:
Oh and drug addicts.

I know drug addicts who are more functional in a professional environment than sober people.

Agreed.
It's amazing how some people can function impaired.
Now leave me alone, I'm stoned....

What the hell drug other than nicotine are they addicted to that they can function in a job for any long period?

People who insist that someone with a mechanical engineering degree will never be able to get a job as it's a useless degree that has no benefit to society, whilst insisting that his choice of Medieval History Studies is more likely to get a job and benefit society.

People who call other people gay for having a girlfreind.

I don't understand why I missed that momentous point in time where it became acceptable for grown men to engage in all this 'best fwends fowever!!!' stuff. I would never tell someone they were my best friend.


And not just because I naturally like to hedge my bets.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Why do you care if there is one?

As a favor to my children.

Plus, the social security gravy train isn't going to haul itself. We're going to need a new generation of marks contributors.

dogma wrote:My initial response to this was "Then why are you in a gay relationship?" under the assumption that you're a man, and your name is at least somewhat accurate (I assume you're not made of hot sauce).

I now realize "BF" probably means "best friend".

I may be wrong, but I believe hotsauceguy "outed" himself in another thread.

Um, Im straighter then you can be. I just like acting feminine.....because that is who i am.

dogma wrote:So, the existence of your children was accidental?

Your existence was accidental?

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. I understand, quite well actually, the causal connection that leads to children. Probably better than most*.

Goliath wrote:People who insist that someone with a mechanical engineering degree will never be able to get a job as it's a useless degree that has no benefit to society, whilst insisting that his choice of Medieval History Studies is more likely to get a job and benefit society.

Well, he can always work in the History factory.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Um, Im straighter then you can be. I just like acting feminine.....because that is who i am.

I find the first hilariously untrue and the second dubious.

However, like I said, I was mistaken. I had thought you outed yourself in one of the other threads down here.** My apologies.

* Having an idea of the average educational achievement either in this country or in the world, I feel comfortable making this statement.
** Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'd say it would be long distance relationships. What good is a date without the cuddles?
I also can't understand it when girls insist they are fat then get mad when you agree with them.
And I don't make heads or tales of people who post on internet forums about miniature wargames.

I do not get why people listen to pop or metal. Or rap or country or techno.... Or really any music besides Ska/ Psychobilly/ Punk

Yeah what is up with long distance relationships? THEY NEVER WORK!

Johnny-Crass wrote:I do not get why people listen to pop or metal. Or rap or country or techno.... Or really any music besides Ska/ Psychobilly/ Punk

I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume you have no idea who Mos Def, Talib Kweli, The Hieroglyphics, The Roots, Rakim, Jurassic 5, etc are...

Asherian Command wrote:Yeah what is up with long distance relationships? THEY NEVER WORK!

Actually I'm proof they can. we just celebrated our 8th anniversary.

CoI wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Yeah what is up with long distance relationships? THEY NEVER WORK!

Actually I'm proof they can. we just celebrated our 8th anniversary.

Yes thats once. Out of how many people that have tried?

Girls. Nuff said.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:So, the existence of your children was accidental?

Your existence was accidental?

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. I understand, quite well actually, the causal connection that leads to children. Probably better than most*.

Seeing as you only care for your children as a favor to them, I reasoned that you didn't set out with the intention to obtain them; being that we're having a conversation about why people should have them where "have them" means "procreate".

Amaya wrote:

Johnny-Crass wrote:I do not get why people listen to pop or metal. Or rap or country or techno.... Or really any music besides Ska/ Psychobilly/ Punk

I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume you have no idea who Mos Def, Talib Kweli, The Hieroglyphics, The Roots, Rakim, Jurassic 5, etc are...

Ok so there are exceptions to the rules

Also Tech-9

Girls really confuse me, not biologically or anything but just what they do sometimes, like date complete nutheads who don't care about them when there are guys like me who'll treat them like a queen. That's my 2 cents guys.

3Strike wrote:Girls really confuse me, not biologically or anything but just what they do sometimes, like date complete nutheads who don't care about them when there are guys like me who'll treat them like a queen. That's my 2 cents guys.

Be more alpha male.
Work out and start hitting people weaker than you.

3Strike wrote:Girls really confuse me, not biologically or anything but just what they do sometimes, like date complete nutheads who don't care about them when there are guys like me who'll treat them like a queen. That's my 2 cents guys.

Men do it too.

dogma wrote:

3Strike wrote:Girls really confuse me, not biologically or anything but just what they do sometimes, like date complete nutheads who don't care about them when there are guys like me who'll treat them like a queen. That's my 2 cents guys.

Men do it too.

The crazy ones are usually the easy ones who are up for anything, so we have an excuse.

@ Joey, Why though violence doesn't solve anything.

@Dogma, Oh of course but i just dont get why complain about it and not actaully do anything?

@Hotsauceman1, But there's crazy and CRAZY! xD haha

Thanks for hearing me out.

Albatross wrote:I don't understand why I missed that momentous point in time where it became acceptable for grown men to engage in all this 'best fwends fowever!!!' stuff. I would never tell someone they were my best friend.


And not just because I naturally like to hedge my bets.

I did that once when I was 6..

I still shiver with shame at the memory.

3Strike wrote:
@Dogma, Oh of course but i just dont get why complain about it and not actaully do anything?

Why do men complain about their wives?

Not because they really hate them, or that they're really awful (though sometimes they are), but because its something they've accepted as a natural consequence of something good, or at least not bad enough to end the relationship.

For example, as men go, I'm pretty cold. I don't express many emotions, and don't easily speak about my feelings. Its not that I don't have feelings, its that they're not especially strong relative to commonly emotive topics. I've also been trained to not have strong feelings, and I have good control over the feelings that I do have.

Several ex-girlfriends are ex-girlfriends because I am not, in their words, good at expressing my emotions. The current girlfriend mirrors these sentiments, but understands that my relative lack of emotion makes me really good at my job, and also really good when gak hits the fan.

I call my best friend my best friend ever because i have known sense i was 3. im 19 now. and we still take some of the classes.
And i can trust him more thne my family in some cases.

dogma wrote:

For example, as men go, I'm pretty cold. I don't express many emotions, and don't easily speak about my feelings. Its not that I don't have feelings, its that they're not especially strong relative to commonly emotive topics. I've also been trained to not have strong feelings, and I have good control over the feelings that I do have.

Several ex-girlfriends are ex-girlfriends because I am not, in their words, good at expressing my emotions.

Mate you sound exactly like me, I could have written that about myself.

I have always been that way, Im not given to overly emotional displays, especially in front of anybody.



Hey I know!

BEST FRIENDS 4 EEVVAAA



No but seriously. Emotions are for women.

@ Dogma, I'm sorry i should of delve more deeper into what i was saying , I'm more so talking about girls my age and younger, (I'm 17) and I get where you're coming from, completely. My last girlfriend complained alot about me showing that i cared alot about her yet she'd also tell me to show that side of me to her. I can be a cold person, very cold but I can also be that very emotional person. I'm also sometimes very blunt towards certain people and certain things. Life's life, i guess.

mattyrm wrote:
Mate you sound exactly like me, I could have written that about myself.

Do you want your friend bracelet to be pink, or purple, or both?

Mr Hyena wrote:Or, like myself, I find the taste of the majority of vegetables to be quite disgusting.

Which is fair enough. If someone offers you a food and you reply "I've tried that before and I don't like it" you're just being sensible.

No theory is fact. Its theoretical. Thats why its called a theory. Evolution, an example you used, is not fact. There is a massive wealth of evidence for it, that it can be widely believed...but its not fact.

Yeah, it's a line of argument that's made more confusing by the use of the terms theory and fact, as if they were the only two options for what a thing could be.

Instead we have 'scientific theory', which is a term for a collection of repeatable observations and the general explanation for why those things happen. It sits between the general public's understanding of the term 'theory', but stops short of being a 'fact', because there are no facts in science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Yep. If you're going to do it, quit cheating.

By the way (not to you Easy E). Seaweed IS a plant.

I get confused by people who decide what other people's life decisions ought to consist of.

So, for instance, someone saying they're vegetarian, and then someone else coming in to tell them what that ought to mean, and what foods they should and shouldn't be eating.

Or someone saying they're Christian, and someone else coming in to tell them what that ought to mean, and how they should be living their life.

It's their ethos, applied by themselves, to themselves - let them live it as they see fit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Sophistic nonsense. I did not know being vegetarian requires a legalistic viewpoint of organisms...

You started the sophistic nonsense!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:'The Third' has connotations of elitism and WASP-ish east coast aristocracy.

'Junior-Junior' suggests a humbleness of origins and grammatically incorrectness that fits in better with the 'two first names' crowd that make up NASCAR's target demographic.

FWIW, I only know two 'The Third' people; one was a complete douchebag, the other was a nice down-to-earth guy... definitely more of a Junior-Junior in my mind.

The whole Junior and The Third thing puzzles me. Why not just give your kid an original name? Fortunately this seems to occur only among Americans and extremely twee aristocrats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Not the doctor?

Anyway, I don't understand why men claim to not understand women*, they aren't that different (aside from the obvious physiological issues).



*This is a lie.

This one used to puzzle me too, then I think I figured it out. It isn't that men and women are that different, it's that we don't understand either men or women*, but we only notice it about women because we try to have relationships with women.

There's an example in this thread, right now, with 3Strike wondering why women date guys that treat them badly, and not guys that would treat them well. Well guys do the same, falling for girls that take them for granted, it's just that guys don't notice, or think too much on other guy's doing that... because who cares, they're just guys and you're not trying to have sex with them.




*I mean if you seriously sat down and tried to figure out why you do the things you do, can you really make sense of your own life decisions, let alone anyone else's?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liquidjoshi wrote:Why people go onto threads obviously not concerning them (I.e. Brony threads) and commenting things such as "WTH is wrong with you?!?!?", and more along those lines. Hey, I don;t go onto your football (English) thread and say "You're messed up in the head, watching 22 fully grown men, with a combined IQ lower than that of one said animated horse, chase a ball around a muddy pitch all day."

Honestly, it isn't trolling, it's called being a donkey cave. Why do people do it? I honestly cannot fathom it. I guess to induce nerdrage, but that would be like trying to turn a GK to Chaos.

Good one. It's like the people who go into threads that are for people who loved a movie, or love a certain game or whatever (because it's titled "I loved this movie and everything about it and want to talk about all the good bits about this movie") and yet you still get people who have to come in and point out they don't like that particular thing. They just have to let everyone know they don't like someone's favourite new thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:No, I'm saying that the reason I have children is as a favor to my children. My parents did the same for me (and I'll assume yours did for you), so it only seems fair.

In all seriousness, this attitude is a thing that really puzzles me.

I want to have kids, I expect to be trying fairly soon. But we're going to try for kids because we want them, no more, no less.

The idea of producing and raising kids out of social expectation is something I just do not get.

Why cops fear kids. I mean I know why but really...

@sebster, i actaully get it now... wow i'm no longer mind boggled about it.

@Johnny-Crass, When did cops start fearing kids? Where I'm from a lot of kids tend to badmouth them and despise.

sebster wrote:
*I mean if you seriously sat down and tried to figure out why you do the things you do, can you really make sense of your own life decisions, let alone anyone else's?

My own? Maybe not. Though it wouldn't be as hard as you're insinuating. Those of, say, the GF? Yeah I probably could without much effort.

Yours? No, I'm not telepathic, and I doubt your fiance would enjoy a third.

sebster wrote:
The idea of producing and raising kids out of social expectation is something I just do not get.

I get the rhetorical reason, but find it transparent.

Otherwise...

dogma wrote:Seeing as you only care for your children as a favor to them, I reasoned that you didn't set out with the intention to obtain them; being that we're having a conversation about why people should have them where "have them" means "procreate".

You're mistaken. My comment was that I only had (i.e. created) children as a favor to them.

Yes, it's an odd sort of obligation.

Plus, my life would not be as rich without kids. Kids are fething awesome. Unless you're psychotic, you can't have kids and not love them. And be endlessly entertained by them.

Johnnh-Crass wrote:Why cops fear kids. I mean I know why but really...

Cops fear kids?

I know cops hate fear dogs, but kids?

sebster wrote:I mean if you seriously sat down and tried to figure out why you do the things you do, can you really make sense of your own life decisions, let alone anyone else's?

Yes, I can. But that doesn't mean that I would understand it, agree with it, or do it again.

Plus, my life would not be as rich without kids. Kids are fething awesome. Unless you're psychotic, you can't have kids and not love them. And be endlessly entertained by them.

Just wait until they become...teenagers.

@Biccat in regards to the video, I'm not sure about you guys but that actaully made me so angry and wanted to do something bad to that police officer, I'm not sure if he was within his rights to do that but regardless of whether he felt he need to protect himself, when i see people doing things to dogs such as taunt, abuse and hurt them physically in any way, i get so angry, I grew up with dogs and hold them in high esteem.

Also why are there so many guns in America? I'm not hating on anyone but all the shows i've seen regarding weapons in America, There seems to heaps especially gangs having assault rifles etc. Where do these people get kitted out? If i step on any american or even anyones toe, I'm sorry in advanced.

Oh god not the "why do americans have guns" thing again.

3Strike wrote:@Biccat in regards to the video, I'm not sure about you guys but that actaully made me so angry and wanted to do something bad to that police officer, I'm not sure if he was within his rights to do that but regardless of whether he felt he need to protect himself, when i see people doing things to dogs such as taunt, abuse and hurt them physically in any way, i get so angry, I grew up with dogs and hold them in high esteem.

Also why are there so many guns in America? I'm not hating on anyone but all the shows i've seen regarding weapons in America, There seems to heaps especially gangs having assault rifles etc. Where do these people get kitted out? If i step on any american or even anyones toe, I'm sorry in advanced.

Its all true too. Those shows peg it exactly. Everyone here has guns, and not just guns, high caliber AK-16s and M-47s. With a $50 fee you can go full auto too. That, plus the rise of the "you looking at me?" culture means people are just blasting away at each other all the time. Sometimes when I am at work, it sounds like I Drang is going on outside. Good thing our building is bullet proof.

3Strike wrote:@Biccat in regards to the video, I'm not sure about you guys but that actaully made me so angry and wanted to do something bad to that police officer, I'm not sure if he was within his rights to do that but regardless of whether he felt he need to protect himself, when i see people doing things to dogs such as taunt, abuse and hurt them physically in any way, i get so angry, I grew up with dogs and hold them in high esteem.

If that upsets you, you should see what they do to senior citizens.

3Strike wrote:Also why are there so many guns in America? I'm not hating on anyone but all the shows i've seen regarding weapons in America, There seems to heaps especially gangs having assault rifles etc. Where do these people get kitted out? If i step on any american or even anyones toe, I'm sorry in advanced.

Where? Gangs and the like get them from illegal gun sellers and importers. It's pretty easy to smuggle guns into Central America and parts of Mexico. And from there it's not a stretch to get them across the border.

Why? The guns are here because there's a market demand for them. Largely due to the massive drug trade.

corpsesarefun wrote:Oh god not the "why do americans have guns" thing again.

Because we fervantly defends and old amendment that lost most of its use years ago.

I'm not starting it, I'm for guns if anything.

Printing off pages and pages of docs for a meeting, not looking at them once and binning them after its concluded.

At least make a nice doodle on them.

3Strike wrote:all the shows i've seen regarding weapons in America

Half of what you read and everything on TV is false. I live in what's considered the 4th most dangerous city in the States in 2011 (most dangerous in 2010), and I only see weapons when I wish to. I actually live in the city proper, and I can't think of a single time I've ever actually felt unsafe. America is not like "Falling Down".

Source: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/12/st_louis_4th_most_dangerous_city_again.php

CuddlySquig wrote:I also can't understand it when girls insist they are fat then get mad when you agree with them.

I know, right?

"Does this dress make my butt look big?"

Choose 1:

1. "Of course not."
2. "It's not very flattering darling, but you have a nice butt.'
3. "No. That box of twinkies you eat every day makes your butt look big. The dress is very nice, though."

You just can't win.

Frazzled wrote:

3Strike wrote:@Biccat in regards to the video, I'm not sure about you guys but that actaully made me so angry and wanted to do something bad to that police officer, I'm not sure if he was within his rights to do that but regardless of whether he felt he need to protect himself, when i see people doing things to dogs such as taunt, abuse and hurt them physically in any way, i get so angry, I grew up with dogs and hold them in high esteem.

Also why are there so many guns in America? I'm not hating on anyone but all the shows i've seen regarding weapons in America, There seems to heaps especially gangs having assault rifles etc. Where do these people get kitted out? If i step on any american or even anyones toe, I'm sorry in advanced.

Its all true too. Those shows peg it exactly. Everyone here has guns, and not just guns, high caliber AK-16s and M-47s. With a $50 fee you can go full auto too. That, plus the rise of the "you looking at me?" culture means people are just blasting away at each other all the time. Sometimes when I am at work, it sounds like I Drang is going on outside. Good thing our building is bullet proof.

I realize your post is sarcastic. But, in reality, it's actually somewhat accurate. The US has way more guns per capita than any other country (US has 888 guns per 1000 people, England has 62 per 1000). And, we have one of the highest firearm related death rates in the world (behind South Africa, Colombia, and Guatemala, and well ahead of Mexico).

In fact, the death rate from firearms in the US just from accidental shootings is higher than the death rate from firearms in England from accidents, suicides, and murders combined.

The US really is the crazy gun-loving country that Europe thinks we are.

When people put @username rather than just quoting them.
¬_¬

Grakmar wrote:
In fact, the death rate from firearms in the US just from accidental shootings is higher than the death rate from firearms in England from accidents, suicides, and murders combined.

The US really is the crazy gun-loving country that Europe thinks we are.

There's like, 4 threads on this already man.

Joey wrote:When people put @username rather than just quoting them.
¬_¬

It's easier when replying in an edit.

@ Joey

Not after 6 or 7 requotes.
Ends up an unreadable and frankly space wasting mess.

@Joey:

Ratius is right. The "wall o' quotes" is an eyesore.

Monster Rain wrote:@Joey:

Ratius is right. The "wall o' quotes" is an eyesore.

Then edit them out. Tidying up a post takes what, 3 seconds?

I am standing by for a convincing argument as to why people should change their behavior in order to accommodate one person's utterly irrational pet peeve.

Monster Rain wrote:I am standing by for a convincing argument as to why people should change their behavior in order to accommodate one person's utterly irrational pet peeve.

er...what?

@ Frazzled: I was responding to this:

Joey wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:@Joey:

Ratius is right. The "wall o' quotes" is an eyesore.

Then edit them out. Tidying up a post takes what, 3 seconds?

okley dokley

biccat wrote:
You're mistaken. My comment was that I only had (i.e. created) children as a favor to them.

So you did a favor for a thing that didn't exist?

biccat wrote:
Yes, it's an odd sort of obligation.

That's quite the understatement.

kronk wrote:

CuddlySquig wrote:I also can't understand it when girls insist they are fat then get mad when you agree with them.

I know, right?

"Does this dress make my butt look big?"

Choose 1:

1. "Of course not."
2. "It's not very flattering darling, but you have a nice butt.'
3. "No. That box of twinkies you eat every day makes your butt look big. The dress is very nice, though."

You just can't win.

You forgot to add the 4th:

Can we have a don't ask; don't tell policy on this please?

I have also found humming the imperial death march does not go down well either.

Here's where Frazzled's action plan works.
Feign hearing loss. Keep feigning until they get annoyed and stop asking you. It helps when the Wife also has hearing loss.

"What?'
"What!"
"WHAT!"
"Never mind!"

profit!

dogma wrote:My own? Maybe not. Though it wouldn't be as hard as you're insinuating. Those of, say, the GF? Yeah I probably could without much effort.

I'm not so sure. I mean, yeah, anyone can come with an answer for why they opted to go to the game rather than stay at home and watch it, but why do they enjoy watching other people play sport at all?

At some point you end up just having to say 'because that's how I do stuff'.

Yours? No, I'm not telepathic, and I doubt your fiance would enjoy a third.

Then you clearly aren't telepathic.

I get the rhetorical reason, but find it transparent.

Yeah, fair point. That probably sums it up pretty well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

3Strike wrote:@sebster, i actaully get it now... wow i'm no longer mind boggled about it.

Nice.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
You're mistaken. My comment was that I only had (i.e. created) children as a favor to them.

So you did a favor for a thing that didn't exist?

Wouldn't it be that he created a thing as a favor to it?

Frazzled wrote:Here's where Frazzled's action plan works.
Feign hearing loss. Keep feigning until they get annoyed and stop asking you. It helps when the Wife also has hearing loss.

"What?'
"What!"
"WHAT!"
"Never mind!"

profit!

I just go for:

"Yes"
If they take that as me telling the truth, so be it.
If they take that as me taking the mick, so be it.

BUT NOW IT IS THERE PROBLEM!

which, then becomes our problem, our fault, our issue, and ultimately our sofa we're sleeping on.

Goliath wrote:

Wouldn't it be that he created a thing as a favor to it?

Do you experience time linearly?

Scrabb wrote:

Goliath wrote:

Wouldn't it be that he created a thing as a favor to it?

Do you experience time linearly?

Personally no I don't. I experience it subjectively I can only presume that the past happened as I can rememeber it (well some of it) but I can not be absolutely certain that it actually happened.

People that dont read/spellcheck their emails.
You arent talking to your mate on Facebook, do you class yourself as a professional?

You can read confuse here as annoy.
People who smoke on the bus. You're scumbags.

All of human endeavour!