All I know is that I said your views are pathetic, and you called me ugly.JeffBergGold said:Whatever you say boss. I guess we all have our ego defense mechanisms.
Something about ego defense mechanisms, right?
Contrary to Popular Belief
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Something about ego defense mechanisms, right?
THE STORY SO FAR:
-I tell some dude who misuses a scene from American Psycho that his views are cynical and bad
-He tells me I think that because I'm ugly
-I half-heartedly defend myself, because seriously... what the hell...
-He then affirms his opinions with an old poor-quality photo
-I tell him as much
-He flat out ignores me, assumes I have a massive ego
-INEXPLICABLE FIFTY CENT
TO SUM UP: My opinions are worth less than dirt because there's a majorly unflattering photo of me.
I'm lacktheknack, and this is my favorite thread on the Escapist.
Seriously, this was a great laugh. Thanks, Jeff!
-I tell some dude who misuses a scene from American Psycho that his views are cynical and bad
-He tells me I think that because I'm ugly
-I half-heartedly defend myself, because seriously... what the hell...
-He then affirms his opinions with an old poor-quality photo
-I tell him as much
-He flat out ignores me, assumes I have a massive ego
-INEXPLICABLE FIFTY CENT
TO SUM UP: My opinions are worth less than dirt because there's a majorly unflattering photo of me.
I'm lacktheknack, and this is my favorite thread on the Escapist.
Seriously, this was a great laugh. Thanks, Jeff!
I have my doubts that any of us weren't aware.Kargathia said:
We just came in anyways. Like moths to flame.
Contrary to popular belief the CEO of a company or corporation actually has the least amount of power in the organization. The real power belongs to the Board of Executives. The CEO is much more like the Queen of England, a nice figurehead, but has no real power.
EDIT: But unlike the Queen of England, the CEO has to take all the flak every time the company screws up.
EDIT: But unlike the Queen of England, the CEO has to take all the flak every time the company screws up.
No, no, my friend, thank you! This thread will provide laughter for many! You should post on bodybuilding.com sometimes you might find this very thread over there! 8Dlacktheknack said:
Yes it does. Those studies all specify that high sugar diets don't induce an increase in overall hyperactive behavior, which makes sense when you consider that over the short run, sugar causes peaks and troughs, which could easily balance out to an overall lack of change. However, I guarentee that sugar causes a temporary spike in hyperactivity, I actually remember being a kid.Professor James said:
On Topic:
Guns are evil and cause crime. that's a common misconception.
Since you asked for sources, I'll provide one.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Furthermore, you've actually convinced me to take down that stupid photo and put something more current in it's place!JeffBergGold said:
Lemme just find a good photo.
(This'll take a while.)
Don't do that dude! You don't have to put up appearances for anyone. I'd feel bad if you did.lacktheknack said:
I am not unattractive and I don't consider my GF to be pretty. She has a wonderful personality and I love her to bits for it. Of course I'd never say this to her face, but it's true nonetheless. I know many people (on both sides of the gender fence) who are in similar situations. For the record, the less attractive men I know who are with pretty girls do not all have big dicks. The girls seem to attribute their attraction to confidence and personality. I don't think physical attractiveness is naturally as important as the media makes it out to be. Of course, people's perceptions are undoubtedly shaped, at least in part, by the media's influence.JeffBergGold said:
You know, you do a great job of both reinforcing your statement AND lacktheknack's. Assuming that you aren't trying to be a massive troll (obviously I'm not taking the last statement at face value) you're being a shining example in favor of your argument. Although that's not really contrary the impression I've gotten from your previous posts.JeffBergGold said:It's a good thing ugly people can't hurt my ego!lacktheknack said:All I know is that I said your views are pathetic, and you called me ugly.JeffBergGold said:Whatever you say boss. I guess we all have our ego defense mechanisms.
Something about ego defense mechanisms, right?
OT: Contrary to popular belief the Big Bang was actually a name given to the theory by someone trying to highlight how absurd it sounded. It just happened to stick
This one is out of date and looks bad. We've already gotten one hilarious argument out of it, it's served its time.JeffBergGold said:
I should also probably get a new avatar while I'm at it...
I gotta admit, if that is true, you're a better man than I am. Although, some will argue that is not very hard. I believe it's commendable. I can't date an ugly chick, even though I've met some who are really good people. Far better people than I could ever be. I'd never date em though. They probably wouldn't like me either so in the end it all works out.axlryder said:
If you really want a picture of me you can just ask! 8DTopazFusion said:> Has no photo of himself on his profile.JeffBergGold said:It's a good thing ugly people can't hurt my ego!
> Accuses everyone else of being ugly.
Seems legit.
tbh, I initially didn't even consider her to be a prospective partner. I had to get to know her quite a bit before I started to see her that way. I think it's the same reason that some couples manage to grow more in love with one another as their looks fall to the wayside with age. The brain may prioritize core traits over superficial appearance. I'll end it here, in light of the suspension.JeffBergGold said:
Those are excellent points, and it's good that you brought them up, because those lines in Scripture have actually been the primary sources of confusion. What most scholars have come to the conclusion of however, is that "the Law" Jesus is referring to is actually representing the WHOLE of the Old Testament. And it IS true that Jesus did not come to void all of the Old Testament, because it is still important. He wanted the history, wisdom, and morals to be available to everyone, even if much of the Mosaic law was replaced by the new Law Jesus taught (some call it "the Word"). The reason he stated that anyone who doesn't take the commandments seriously or teaches others that the Old Testament is pointless, lest they be "the least in his kingdom", was to clarify that he did NOT desire the dereliction of the Old Testament; he was specifying that he was NOT there to replace the Old Testament with what would eventually be known as the New Testament. Both Testaments are important for Christian knowledge, even if the laws and ideals of the ancient Israeli no longer apply to our own society.undeadexistentialist said:
http://www.ukapologetics.net/Jesusandthelaw.html
http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament
Romans 6:14 - 6:21, Galatians 3:10 - 3:14, and many more also provide adequate proof.
Sorry, I hope I'm not sounding too preachy. lol
If this becomes uninteresting to you, please inform me, and I will terminate this dialogue.