Contrary to Popular Belief

[Mr.Philip]

Grand-daddy longlegs aren't venomous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opiliones

Vikings didn't wear horned helmets. (At least in battle.)
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2189/did-vikings-really-wear-horns-on-their-helmets

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

While violent crime may not go down, it's harder to shank large numbers of people to death than shoot them, which would at least reduce the number of massacres which seem to be so popular in America.

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.

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.

 

[Vault101]

Both mostly true.

.

you as well? seriosuly?

do you know any women in real life?

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

While violent crime may not go down, it's harder to shank large numbers of people to death than shoot them, which would at least reduce the number of massacres which seem to be so popular in America.

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.

Citation Needed

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.

 

[Faladorian]

Both mostly true.

.

you as well? seriosuly?

do you know any women in real life?

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.

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?

 

[Saulkar]

List some common misconceptions here. I would also appreciate it if you sourced your statements.

Sugar does not make children hyperactive.

http://www.uamshealth.com/?id=877&sid=1

http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a2769

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.

 

[Vault101]

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.

Its from the movie American psycho, its suposed to show how superficial/fucked up Patrick bateman's world is (the "psycho" in the title)

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

 

[Spinozaad]

Wikipedia is not unreliable because it contains more errors than other sources, but because it has no identifiable author and is easily edited/changed/corrupted.

 

[Faladorian]

Its from the movie American psycho, its suposed to show how superficial/fucked up Patrick bateman's world is (the "psycho" in the title)

I think he (jeffgoldberg) was being dead serious as in "yes, this is what I think"

Well then I disagree.

[quote/]I'm currently in a relationship with a girl who I'd like to think is an exception to that rule.

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.

 

[ATRAYA]

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.)

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.

*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.

 

[Queen Michael]

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.

 

[Queen Michael]

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.)

Interesting ones, and I'd like to make two additions:

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.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Contrary to popular belief, xkcd is not supposed to be in all caps.

http://xkcd.com/about/

 

[Vault101]

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.

is that even possible?

 

[Evil Smurf]

your mum is not a slut when you play COD

 

[Faladorian]

Yeah, I'm willing to bet that he was COMPLETELY SERIOUS. I don't know the guy personally, but, and this is just going off the Escapist posts alone, he has an... "interesting" outlook on life.

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.

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.

 

[Vault101]

Yeah, I'm willing to bet that he was COMPLETELY SERIOUS. I don't know the guy personally, but, and this is just going off the Escapist posts alone, he has an... "interesting" outlook on life.

oh my god....it all makes sense now

HE IS PATRICK BATEMAN

 

[Queen Michael]

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.

is that even possible?

[obvious politics joke]

 

[undeadexistentialist]

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...

Without getting too far into R&P here, this is arguable
- ?For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.? (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV),
- "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
- "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

to start with.

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm
http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/introductory/q-how-did-jesus-view-the-old-testament.htm
http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/what-did-jesus-teach-about-old-testament
http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/06/did-jesus-abolish-old-testament.html

The last also deals with the 'mosaic law' you talked about. Further to that. I've seen some (not all, I'll admit that right now) of the Code of Hammurabi while I was studying law and while, yes, it did prescribe death as a penalty rather often, it also expressed a sentiment of gender politics that was positively progressive by the standards of biblical law which followed.

Again, this is all menat in a friendly manner, coz who wants another bloody flame war on this topic

 

[SckizoBoy]

Hannibal never used elephants.

Source: Stephen Fry.

Surprised no-one's picked up on this one...

He did, at the battle of Zama, just not very well.

On that note, he wasn't outnumbered three to one or more at Cannae as a lot of people seem to think...