Lurker > KillCommunism

I went from center-right, to extremely hard right thanks to ppl like tc.

Fuck him.... he should've known better.

Philoktetes posted...

pornography is degeneracy

Agreed, but I can't break the habit. Not yet.

Ugly....

Harley Dean is better

holy shit....

that is all...

Conker....

Foppe posted...

Saw this on /pol/ long ago...

Loved it then. Love it now...The23rdMagus posted...

I'm sure it has nothing to do with generations of women being brought up to think that survival/outdoorsy stuff is exclusively "man's work". Family goes camping, the guys do a lot of the hands-dirty work, because that's traditionally their "role".

If this "experiment" happened in a complete societal vacuum with no pre-conditioning whatsoever, it might mean something.

Lol... things happened that way because men are bigger, stronger and someone needs to stay home and care for the kids. Women aren't going to hunt or be warriors etc

Every civilization evolved that way. That happened because it was necessary.

CiIantro posted...

KillCommunism posted...

Could be that. It could also just be a glitch. You're attributing this to homosexuality without any evidence.

Most of evolutionary biology is speculation. I literally couldn't provide any better evidence. Either way, there are definitely arguments to be made about how homosexuality could be beneficial for a species.

And arguments for the opposite can also be made.

So what? I'm fucked up because I'm straight I never want to have kids? Something is wrong with me because procreating is something I want nothing to do with? "I've fucked clear off the human blueprint" because producing offspring to continue the species is of no interest to me? I'm "supposed to" for some assbrained reason WANT to put up with everything that implicitly results from progeny? Am I defective in the eyes of my species for being completely indifferent toward its continuation? For having complete apathy in regard to its preservation? Am I meant to feel a sense of genetic obligation to perpetuate the imposition of human life? I mean... if people want to have kids... fuck it. More power to them, go for it. I just want to know, via an expert such as yourself, what might be causing me to be an outlier in this genetic debate.

You will want kids. Maybe you don't now, but you will when you get older. That's almost an inevitability. Maybe you won't, but you probably will. I didn't want kids when I was in my late teens, and through my mid 20s. I'm nearing my 30s now and that impulse is starting to hit harder.

Am I defective in the eyes of my species for being completely indifferent toward its continuation? For having complete apathy in regard to its preservation? Am I meant to feel a sense of genetic obligation to perpetuate the imposition of human life?


Waaaaay too much edge. You sound like I did when I was 16.

CiIantro posted...

KillCommunism posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

KillCommunism posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Here is the specific section of the post I quoted that started this discussion about natural with you:

KillCommunism posted...

intended by nature for a man to want a woman.

This means that you are saying that gay people are unnatural, since to you the only thing 'intended by nature' is for a man to want a woman.

Furthermore, you suggest that same thing again here:

KillCommunism posted...

That's some glitch that occurs in nature. Sure you can say everything is natural. A person with 11 fingers instead of 10 has them naturally, but 11 fingers isn't supposed to occur.

Yes, we are supposed to multiply. That is the only way species survive, is by multiplying. You can't multiply by fucking the same sex, so logically, it can't be something nature would intend, it would have to be a glitch, like my 11 fingered example. Technically, having 11 fingers is natural by the mere fact that it occurred, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. Likewise, having a sexual attraction exclusively to males is natural, but it's not necessarily supposed to happen.

"Supposed to" is really just a version of the Is-Ought problem/fallacy. If it has occurred, it is by nature. Your perspective of how you interpret those things is just your perspective and goes no further. This plays a role in how you would see evolution, too. Species evolve in all kinds of ways, not just one narrow pathway.

The only way for a species to survive is to multiply. Is that true or not? If a species does not multiply, it cannot survive. If the only way humans can achieve sex is by butt fucking, then there would never have been a third human being. Every species' prime objective is to multiply, from bacteria, fish, mammals, reptiles all the way down the line. Every species that has ever existed has as it's primary goal multiplication. That cannot be achieved through same sex interactions, maybe in some species it can, but in humans it cannot. So yeah, we are SUPPOSED TO multiply. If we do not, we CANNOT exist. Anything that gets in the way of a person's ability to multiply, is most likely not something that was SUPPOSED to occur. It may be a natural thing, the very same way that a person born with an extra limb was born with it naturally, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. It isn't in the human blueprint, which is why almost none are born with extra limbs. It's why there are in reality hardly any gays. It's why there are barely any transgenders. Sometimes, nature.... just fucks up.

False. In evolutionary biology, it is often advantageous to have some members of society not reproduce and instead focus on other areas that benefit the species as a whole. It is called kin selection and is visible in tribal/colonial organisms. More gay people = more people to help raise kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

Could be that. It could also just be a glitch. You're attributing this to homosexuality without any evidence. I can say the same of someone born without a dick. As far as evolution goes regarding homosexuality, all you have to go on is a bunch of perhapses, maybes, ifs... there is no real reason to believe that the reasons gays exist is to help raise kids.

Asherlee10 posted...

KillCommunism posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Here is the specific section of the post I quoted that started this discussion about natural with you:

KillCommunism posted...

intended by nature for a man to want a woman.

This means that you are saying that gay people are unnatural, since to you the only thing 'intended by nature' is for a man to want a woman.

Furthermore, you suggest that same thing again here:

KillCommunism posted...

That's some glitch that occurs in nature. Sure you can say everything is natural. A person with 11 fingers instead of 10 has them naturally, but 11 fingers isn't supposed to occur.

Yes, we are supposed to multiply. That is the only way species survive, is by multiplying. You can't multiply by fucking the same sex, so logically, it can't be something nature would intend, it would have to be a glitch, like my 11 fingered example. Technically, having 11 fingers is natural by the mere fact that it occurred, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. Likewise, having a sexual attraction exclusively to males is natural, but it's not necessarily supposed to happen.

"Supposed to" is really just a version of the Is-Ought problem/fallacy. If it has occurred, it is by nature. Your perspective of how you interpret those things is just your perspective and goes no further. This plays a role in how you would see evolution, too. Species evolve in all kinds of ways, not just one narrow pathway.

The only way for a species to survive is to multiply. Is that true or not? If a species does not multiply, it cannot survive. If the only way humans can achieve sex is by butt fucking, then there would never have been a third human being. Every species' prime objective is to multiply, from bacteria, fish, mammals, reptiles all the way down the line. Every species that has ever existed has as it's primary goal multiplication. That cannot be achieved through same sex interactions, maybe in some species it can, but in humans it cannot. So yeah, we are SUPPOSED TO multiply. If we do not, we CANNOT exist. Anything that gets in the way of a person's ability to multiply, is most likely not something that was SUPPOSED to occur. It may be a natural thing, the very same way that a person born with an extra limb was born with it naturally, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. It isn't in the human blueprint, which is why almost none are born with extra limbs. It's why there are in reality hardly any gays. It's why there are barely any transgenders. Sometimes, nature.... just fucks up.

On The Evening Train is up there with Hurt as his two best covers... that I've heard at least.

Kaname_Madoka posted...

a lot of those high schoolers are going to be old enough to vote in 2020

Making a great case for increasing the voting age my friend.

Kineth posted...

KillCommunism posted...

Yes, we are supposed to multiply.

This is such a bullshit premise. This argument says that sterile people are unnatural.

No it doesn't... Jesus fucking christ you people need to learn how to read.

Asherlee10 posted...

Here is the specific section of the post I quoted that started this discussion about natural with you:

KillCommunism posted...

intended by nature for a man to want a woman.

This means that you are saying that gay people are unnatural, since to you the only thing 'intended by nature' is for a man to want a woman.

Furthermore, you suggest that same thing again here:

KillCommunism posted...

That's some glitch that occurs in nature. Sure you can say everything is natural. A person with 11 fingers instead of 10 has them naturally, but 11 fingers isn't supposed to occur.

Yes, we are supposed to multiply. That is the only way species survive, is by multiplying. You can't multiply by fucking the same sex, so logically, it can't be something nature would intend, it would have to be a glitch, like my 11 fingered example. Technically, having 11 fingers is natural by the mere fact that it occurred, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. Likewise, having a sexual attraction exclusively to males is natural, but it's not necessarily supposed to happen.

Asherlee10 posted...

KillCommunism posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

KillCommunism posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

robellr13 posted...

Wait some of yall are mad that straight people are uncomfortable if a gay guy hits on them?

Yeah I would be mad uncomfortable. I support them having equal rights but if you know Im straight, stay the fuck away from me. Thats sexual harassment.

Someone who flirts with you isn't always sexual harassment.

Should I get all bent out of shape when some man hits on me because he's straight and I'm not?

No, because you're a woman, and it is normal, and intended by nature for a man to want a woman. It is normal to be bent out of shape, and uncomfortable in situations that are not necessarily supposed to happen, like a guy hitting on another guy.

"Intended by nature" means fuck all. It's such a silly phrase to use in a discussion. Everything is 'natural.'

And no, just because I'm a woman it doesn't make a difference. I don't expect everyone I encounter to intimately know my sexuality upon just meeting me. Neither should you.

Why would it not be a compliment that someone found you so attractive that they got up the courage to flirt with you or ask you out?

Every life form's purpose is to multiply. You can't multiply by fucking dudes. That's some glitch that occurs in nature. Sure you can say everything is natural. A person with 11 fingers instead of 10 has them naturally, but 11 fingers isn't supposed to occur. Nature makes mistakes too. And that something is natural doesn't necessarily mean it is correct...

When did I say it wouldn't be a compliment? You can feel complimented and uncomfortable at the same time.

You just helped illustrate why using the words "nature" and "natural" mean fuck all in discussions like this. It occurs in nature, therefore it is natural.

What you are trying to say is it's abnormal, which is not the same thing as unnatural. Homosexuality is not the norm, therefore it is abnormal. Nothing about it is unnatural.

Also (again), it's a good thing human existence is more complicated than just a biological drive. We aren't savage animals.

I think you're lost. Try re-reading my post. I said nothing about gays being unnatural.

Asherlee10 posted...

KillCommunism posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

robellr13 posted...

Wait some of yall are mad that straight people are uncomfortable if a gay guy hits on them?

Yeah I would be mad uncomfortable. I support them having equal rights but if you know Im straight, stay the fuck away from me. Thats sexual harassment.

Someone who flirts with you isn't always sexual harassment.

Should I get all bent out of shape when some man hits on me because he's straight and I'm not?

No, because you're a woman, and it is normal, and intended by nature for a man to want a woman. It is normal to be bent out of shape, and uncomfortable in situations that are not necessarily supposed to happen, like a guy hitting on another guy.

"Intended by nature" means fuck all. It's such a silly phrase to use in a discussion. Everything is 'natural.'

And no, just because I'm a woman it doesn't make a difference. I don't expect everyone I encounter to intimately know my sexuality upon just meeting me. Neither should you.

Why would it not be a compliment that someone found you so attractive that they got up the courage to flirt with you or ask you out?

Every life form's purpose is to multiply. You can't multiply by fucking dudes. That's some glitch that occurs in nature. Sure you can say everything is natural. A person with 11 fingers instead of 10 has them naturally, but 11 fingers isn't supposed to occur. Nature makes mistakes too. And that something is natural doesn't necessarily mean it is correct...

When did I say it wouldn't be a compliment? You can feel complimented and uncomfortable at the same time.

Asherlee10 posted...

robellr13 posted...

Wait some of yall are mad that straight people are uncomfortable if a gay guy hits on them?

Yeah I would be mad uncomfortable. I support them having equal rights but if you know Im straight, stay the fuck away from me. Thats sexual harassment.

Someone who flirts with you isn't always sexual harassment.

Should I get all bent out of shape when some man hits on me because he's straight and I'm not?

No, because you're a woman, and it is normal, and intended by nature for a man to want a woman. It is normal to be bent out of shape, and uncomfortable in situations that are not necessarily supposed to happen, like a guy hitting on another guy.

@do_ob_tpkillr

Lmao

There can be something wrong, while also being fine.

Shadow-Moses posted...

MGS4 had better gameplay than V. You can only carry two weapons in V while in 4 you have shotguns, rocket launchers, rail gun, all fully customizable and available at your disposal.

Which made no sense....

Fuck that movie. It gave me the feels...

Srsly... one of the best movies of all time.

GunmaN1905 posted...

KillCommunism posted...

does it really matter? MGS4 was the shittiest game in the series by far. I'm sure even Survive has a better story.

Nah, I thought the same and then V came.
It took the title.

V was a masterpiece compared to 4

SageHarpuia posted...

Just can't do it. As a guy I have serious reservations about doing something like that to one of my best friends.

Well if dogs in heat are anything like cats in hear, you will be begging yourself to have her spayed...

Just do it. You don't want your mutt having a bunch of doggies...

Fixed

Scaramanga posted...

Not enough. Thread is still broken.



We need more power!

does it really matter? MGS4 was the shittiest game in the series by far. I'm sure even Survive has a better story.

Oh so not all rappers are morons? Thanks for letting me know tc.

Sonic Cannon posted...

KillCommunism posted...

Cal12 posted...

KillCommunism posted...

So they have a porn star play a major role in this film, and now they start pushing THIS liberal trash...

Ehh, it's not like I was going to watch this piece of garbage anyway, but still. Fuck Disney...

Theres a pornstar in Solo? Who?

that game of thrones chick

Were there any pornstars in GoT? I remember hearing that lady who played Tyrion's girlfriend had done porn in the past, but nobody else.

Emilia Clarke... literally ass smacking, doggy style softcore porn...

Cal12 posted...

KillCommunism posted...

So they have a porn star play a major role in this film, and now they start pushing THIS liberal trash...

Ehh, it's not like I was going to watch this piece of garbage anyway, but still. Fuck Disney...

Theres a pornstar in Solo? Who?

that game of thrones chick

So they have a porn star play a major role in this film, and now they start pushing THIS liberal trash...

Ehh, it's not like I was going to watch this piece of garbage anyway, but still. Fuck Disney...

electricbugs2 posted...

Please stop comparing a film you simply didn't like (TLJ) to a legit garbage source material murdering film (DB: E). Makes you look a bit slow.

You're assuming The Last Jedi wasn't legit garbage source murdering material. Hint: it is.

mew4ever posted...

I liked the film quite a bit but could see why it's polarizing. I couldn't see or accept the reaction those who did not like film had. People were acting like Rian Johnson killed their family or something. It's just a damn film.

It was an astonishingly bad film. I'm not a fan of Lucas selling SW to Disney, but I felt The Force Awakens was decent at least. I even wtched it about 3 times. The Last Jedi is nigh unwatchable. I had more fun watching Batman Vs Superman. Suicide Squad was more enjoyable. Dragon Ball GT is more enjoyable. Dragonball Evolution was better than this piece of shit movie. I am absolutely amazed at how bad it was.

LightningAce11 posted...

What did you think of the mirror scene on Luke's island?

eh... a mirror scene? I don't think I even remember that....

that's how fucking boring this film was.

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

You honestly liked TPM more then ROTS ???

I dont see how that is even possible, the last PT movie finally got it right.

@KillCommunism

It has been a few years since I last watched it. I remember coming away from it just not liking it very much, but enjoying Phantom Menace a lot.

I'll watch it again at some point in the near future and see how I like it...

Doom_Art posted...

KillCommunism posted...

Episode 1 was a great film.

Yeah this kinda makes your opinion on anything Star Wars worthless lol

What was so bad about it?

CyricZ posted...

Metacritic says 85, dude.

Were you thinking of the Rotten Tomatoes score?

KillCommunism posted...

(I thought Episode 1 was fantastic all around)

Oh dear.

what? Episode 1 was a great film. I recently re-watched the entire franchise before The Force Awakens came out, and it held up pretty good. Episodes 2 and 3 didn't hold up so well, and neither did Return of the Jedi for that matter, but I enjoyed Ep 1 for sure. I don't understand the hate that film receives. CyricZ posted...

Metacritic says 85, dude.

Were you thinking of the Rotten Tomatoes score?

KillCommunism posted...

(I thought Episode 1 was fantastic all around)

Oh dear.

Yeah, Rotten Tomatoes, that's what I meant.

Welp, I started watching it a couple days ago, made a topic here, but gave up about an hour and 20 minutes into it. Now, I just finished it.. and... well...

there is no fucking way this piece of trash deserves the 90+ metacritic score it has from reviewers. This fucks the lore almost as bad as Dragonball Evolution did to Dragon Ball. How can anyone like this shit? There is no possible way that the reviewers, the "professional" reviewers actually felt this enthusiastic about the film after having watched it. There is no way an honest reviewer coujld rate it anything higher than a 4 on a 10 point scale with 10 being the greatest.

It's not even that the classic characters took a backseat. I enjoyed The Force Awakens, and for all it's faults, even Rogue One was superior to The Last Jedi. For all the faults of the 2 later films of the prequel trilogy (I thought Episode 1 was fantastic all around), they were more enjoyable than this goddamned abomination.

The Positives of The Last Jedi.

Those little chicken fish things were kinda funny with their random screaming, and the "do you think you got him" line made me lol in real life, but those are really the only high points of the film.

The Negatives of The Last Jedi:

Where the hell do I begin? The writing is atrocious, the jokes are far too common and too often fall flat. Not to mention they're out of place. This feels like they were trying to work their Marvel comic magic on Star Wars, but it just didn't work. Why is The Last Jedi a quip fest?

Why was I supposed to feel any sort of connection with Holdo after having her be introduced and then killed off within half an hour? Why waste that film on this stupid character that no one knows or gives a shit about? That death could've been used for someone else. Seriously, what was even the point of her inclusion? She was completely pointless.

I'd go into the other shit, like Super Leia, but others have already drilled into that endlessly. It was all just so horrible.

Not even Mark Hammil could save it given what he was working with. You, Rian Johnson, finally bring back the original trilogy cast and THIS is what you do with them? You put them in some "Star Wars" film that can hardly be said to be a Star Wars film at all. It sure as hell didn't feel like one.

I watched an interview in which Mark Hammil and Rian both participated, and to one of the questions, Rian answered something along the lines of, "I wanted to put my own vision in the film instead of what the fans wanted," Well Rian, you should've done what the fans wanted because your vision was complete dog shit. Seriously, I wasted an hour of my day off today on your piece of trash movie all to see characters I loved growing up be destroyed.

This entire thing just feels like one big fucking lost opportunity. This trilogy could have been incredible. It could have been awesome seeing the original cast go on one more grand adventure, but THIS is what we got? Really? I mean, Luke is dead, Carrie is dead in real life so she will have no involvement in 9 and I have zero attachment at all to any of the new characters. I see no reason at all why I should even bother with Episode 9.

Kineth posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Kineth posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

You'd definitely have to look at their tax and social welfare systems if you wanted to apply it anywhere else, though.

Those aren't essential inputs for such a scheduling to be implemented.

If you reduce people's income without appropriate compensation from somewhere else, people tend to get upset about it.

I thought their pay wasn't reduced, only their hours. The positions discussed here aren't wage positions either.

Liberals...

well he was a rapist and a liar... and to make matters worse, he was a democrat so no, of course he wasn't a good president.

iClockwork posted...

Bout time something is done about drug peddlers.

This.... fuck those pieces of shit. They deserve it as much as a murderwr, if not, worse.

Patchwork posted...

"Rappers."

That first dude beats pregnant women, so his opinion on anything is shit. I literally don't know who any of these other shitheads are.

Biggie beat women too you know...

and Tupac was convicted of rape.

_MorningStar posted...

So, comics haven't been canon for years. Could your logic be any worse.

Yeah, as I said, varying quality of fan-fiction. Some later stories written by authors who weren't the original creators may even be better than the original writings, but that doesn't make them any less fan-fictiony.

Distant_Rainbow posted...

KillCommunism posted...

Canon is decided by whoever created it. Everything else is just varying quality fan-fiction.

Normally, yes, but Lucas sold his rights to Disney. That includes the right to decide what's canon or not.

As loathsome as TLJ is, it's canon.

I don't care if some piece of paper says some guy owns Star Wars. Lucas created it. It's his forever, even if not legally.

Got an hour left on it. I think I'll watch the rest of it tomorrow. maybe....

@_MorningStar

"everyone who says things I don't like is a troll"

typical..._MorningStar posted...

BlueJester007 posted...

Anything after 2012 related to Star Wars is fan fiction and should not be taken seriously.

I hate when people say stupid shit like this. You don't get to choose what is and is not canon. Whoever owns the property gets to choose that.

Canon is decided by whoever created it. Everything else is just varying quality fan-fiction.

MaverickXeo posted...

There were good parts, but some REALLY bad CGI and dialogue choices. It could've also been two movies, but it was jammed into one.

I noticed it. What the fuck, why do those little chicken duck things look so bad? Even the cooked one that Chewie was eating looked like crap.

maybe a few cans of Steel Reserve will make me enjoy this a bit more...

Makeveli_lives posted...

Fuck the haters I enjoyed the fuck out of that movie. But I never got into the EU beyond knights of the old republic so I wasn't weighed down by preconceived notions of how everything was "supposed to be".

I've never read any of the EU either and I've hardly played any SW game not based on the original trilogy except for that n64 game, shadows of the empire....

and what's with benicio's character? He was stuck in that little jail for how long? He could've broken out so easily but didn't?

seriously, it's actually difficult to sit through this. I'm doing so only to see Mark Hammil reprise the role of Luke but goddammit if even his segments are bad. I can see Luke in him, the way he speaks and all, but what he says and what he does, it's just so off. Certain shots are comical, like when he's got his arms out-streched and saying "Ben Nooooo!" or something like that, during the flashback scene to where Ben rekt his shit.

1:07:37

this shit doesn't even feel like a star wars movie anymore.. It feels like a bad spoof. Even Force Awakens was way better than this shit.

I'm seriously considering just quitting and watching The Disaster Artist instead... ....

snooze-fest...

This might actually be even more boring than Rogue One, despite Luke being in it.

47 mins in. I'm at the part where Rey and Kylo started having some kind of mental discussion;

So far, first impression are... this might actually be the worst written star wars movie yet, and yeah, I'm including the prequels in that comparison. It's been terrible. The jokes have fallen flat for the most part. I kind of smirked at a few but that's about it.

I honestly would rather watch 2 hours of Anakin and Padme romance written by George Lucas than what I've seen of The Last Jedi so far.

Oh well, let's get back to it. I'll write up some more in a few mins