Contrary to Popular Belief

[Casual Shinji]

Contrary to popular believe, the Matrix code from The Matrix was ripped off from the Ghost in the Shell credits, as were other little visuals. Still a great movie though.

The Rapture is not part of the Book of Revelation. It was added by some Irishmen in, I think, the 17th century and then spread across America.

 

[axlryder]

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?

Citation needed. Also, the film is a cutting satire of modern society (that scene included). You seem good at missing the point of things.

OT: When being used as a possessive, 'Its' should not have an apostrophe between the 't' and the 's'. I'm no linguist, but I see that one quite a bit.

 

[ZehMadScientist]

Contrary to popular belief, the phrase 'Omelet du Fromage' is grammatically incorrect. The correct phrase would be 'Omelet au Fromage'.

 

[Faladorian]

Citation needed.

That has to be the least effort you can put into being passive-aggressive.

Also, the film is a cutting satire of modern society (that scene included). You seem good at missing the point of things.

I'm not promoting the video.

Apparently so are you. There is such a thing as using something as a conversation piece as opposed to a shining example, a one-to-one copy of your exact opinion.

 

[axlryder]

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

It's called the book of revelation, not revelations.

*Snip the rest*

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.

*snip the rest*

Isn't it almost ironic that I go here to, among other things, show some intelligence on these matters, and it takes only a page for two people to find flaws in my own pointing out of flaws?
(Perhaps flaws is the wrong word but you get my point.)
Not complaining or anything, just saying...

While on this subject, actually:
Irony is not a funny coincidence.
But, also contrary to "popular" belief, it is ALSO not just complete and utter reversal of an expected happening.
There is, for instance, dramatic irony, where the audience knows something within a play or show, but the characters do not.
And, depending on which definitions you accept, (Possibly wrong ones but I'm not sure) sarcasm can be classed as irony in a sense.

Sarcasm is classified as a form of irony.

 

[In Search of Username]

Contrary to popular belief, [list of every QI episode here]

Source: Stephen fucking Fry

 

[Nieroshai]

As anyone who has ever fired one can attest, most shotguns have an effective range of more than five feet. We wouldn't use them otherwise.

Hell, they're the weapon choice for bird hunting. You know, those animals that usually won't let you get within the 20 ft effective range of a VG shotgun. The spread isn't even that great.


My turn.
A duck's voice does, in fact, echo. The quack simply sounds exactly like its echo because of its reverberation when it comes out of the duck.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Hannibal never used elephants.

Source: Stephen Fry.

Not even remotely true.

He didn't use them in very large numbers, but they were highly effective in early engagements because they were large and frightening. However they weren't that easily trained for warfare. Most of them died crossing the alps. And the Romans were able to subvert their use quite well by simply maneuvering phalanxes to provide gaps, the Elephants which are inherently not very aggressive would prefer to simply avoid the soldiers and move through the gaps ignoring its handlers.

If you examine two areas with the same socioeconomic status, you will find that almost always, the place with more gun control laws has higher crime rates.

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

Evidence for this?

There is no evidence for it. Persons advocating freedom of guns like to point out that Australia's murders and other violent crimes went noticeable up following their gun ban. However its now below the US rate last time I checked. Basically its a normal fluctuation. Snopes has an article explaining it, but access to guns and legality of guns has no effect on deaths during normal day to day life in peace time.

I actually made a graph awhile ago, but unfortunately deleted this cataloging guns per capita according to various surveys by the UN and NGOs. Essentially it showed that It could swing pretty wildly, and Russia could have far fewer guns than the US and a higher murder rate. Iraq had very few guns estimated per capita and an insane murder rate(yes we are talking murders.) But by contrast states that had high gun rates like Canada and Switzerland also had very low murder rates.

The factors most at play are racial homogeneity and economic parity/equality(eg. the existence of a strong middle class to 'bridge' the gap.)

 

[axlryder]

Citation needed.

That has to be the least effort you can put into being passive-aggressive.

Also, the film is a cutting satire of modern society (that scene included). You seem good at missing the point of things.

I'm not promoting the video.

Apparently so are you. There is such a thing as using something as a conversation piece as opposed to a shining example, a one-to-one copy of your exact opinion.

Well I consider you to be wrong about your assessment of people, 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 hard evidence to back up your claims (thus the "citation needed").

Regardless, you explicitly interpreted the intentions of the scene incorrectly. That's not me missing the point, that's just you being wrong.

 

[irishmanwithagun]

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.

 

[Faladorian]

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.

 

[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.