Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Lost a bit of faith in mankind today.Follow

#27 Feb 19 2010 at 3:50 AM Rating: Decent
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:
If Red starts sporting one, well, we'll have to find someone to ********* him.


What do you mean, "if"?
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#28 Feb 19 2010 at 4:15 AM Rating: Decent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:
If Red starts sporting one, well, we'll have to find someone to ********* him.


What do you mean, "if"?
This.

I always pictured Monsieur Rouge to have some 'Bugger's Handles' face furniture
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#29 Feb 19 2010 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
****
6,858 posts
Samira wrote:
I got CC'd on an email in which some marketeer actually used the line, "Remember, there's no "I" in "team"!

Should I send the response I so want to send?

True, there is no "I" in "team". However there is an "eat" and a "me".



There is no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think...
#30 Feb 21 2010 at 2:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
I misread the intent of your question. I thought you meant it as "People are animals!", a phrase indicating outrage at some horrific act you read about(and as such, I stared at your post for almost a minute after voting looking for an article link before reading on) as opposed to a more calm declaration of "People are classified as animals".

Basically, I misread the ballot and voted Buchanan. Sorry.

Samira wrote:
True, there is no "I" in "team". However there is an "eat" and a "me".


Shaun wrote:
As Mr. Sloan always says, there is no "I" in team, but there is an "I" in pie. And there's an "I" in meat pie. Anagram of meat is team... I don't know what he's talking about.


Edited, Feb 21st 2010 1:34am by Poldaran
#31 Feb 21 2010 at 3:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
There is no "I" in "Team", but there is a "FUck Off" in "FUck Off and die you rancid fUcking cUnt"
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#32 Feb 21 2010 at 4:44 AM Rating: Good
Am I completely lost here? A. By both defintion of animal and detrmination of "people" the scientifically, YES, people are animals...Taxidermically humans are mammals as taxidermy is only concerned with the SKIN of animals... B. It must be some huge rock your living under to think that people aren't animals in a more esoteric sense...honestly between the age of crixificion and the age of chemical warfare is there any other way to define the actions of humanity as a whole as "animal".


Perhaps the bit of faith that was lost was actually a bit of faith that was unfounded to begin with.
#33 Feb 21 2010 at 10:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Taxidermically? Smiley: laugh

Norman Bates lives. Pass it on.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#34 Feb 21 2010 at 11:17 AM Rating: Default
If you mean are we descended from animals then categorically yes, if you mean are we animals now, then just as adamantly no. I don't sleep outdoors, defecate in the woods, and eat my young just for starters. Humans have a conciousness a million (or billion) times removed from our closest animal cousins (no matter how much you use anthropomorphism on them) and we are the result of thousands of years of culture, exploring metaphysics, and yes, sympathy for other species, that has resulted in modern ethics and morals.

Quote:
honestly between the age of crixificion and the age of chemical warfare is there any other way to define the actions of humanity as a whole as "animal"


Um, yeah. Lots of different ways but unfortunately i don't think you'll care unless I back it up with some vague references to science – which you may or may not understand, but hey it'd be “scientific” as opposed to maybe “religious” so who would care if it was true or not? * That apart, don't ladle me with your crap modern secular guilt that's so feckin fashionable right now. Mankind has transcended it's animal origins. Live with it.

One of the greatest tragedies of our age is that some modern scientists and their prodigious brains, a world apart from me and you pal let alone bubbles the chimp, are sitting in front of their million dollar computers, that no animal can even comprehend let alone work, intent on reducing humanity's many facets, and not just the fully justified biological, to animal status whilst ignoring exactly what it is to be human.

*All hail Science, the new religion of the uneducated masses.
#35 Feb 21 2010 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
CaptainDarling wrote:
If you mean are we descended from animals then categorically yes, if you mean are we animals now, then just as adamantly no. I don't sleep outdoors, defecate in the woods, and eat my young just for starters. Humans have a conciousness a million (or billion) times removed from our closest animal cousins (no matter how much you use anthropomorphism on them) and we are the result of thousands of years of culture, exploring metaphysics, and yes, sympathy for other species, that has resulted in modern ethics and morals.

Quote:
honestly between the age of crixificion and the age of chemical warfare is there any other way to define the actions of humanity as a whole as "animal"


Um, yeah. Lots of different ways but unfortunately i don't think you'll care unless I back it up with some vague references to science – which you may or may not understand, but hey it'd be “scientific” as opposed to maybe “religious” so who would care if it was true or not? * That apart, don't ladle me with your crap modern secular guilt that's so feckin fashionable right now. Mankind has transcended it's animal origins. Live with it.

One of the greatest tragedies of our age is that some modern scientists and their prodigious brains, a world apart from me and you pal let alone bubbles the chimp, are sitting in front of their million dollar computers, that no animal can even comprehend let alone work, intent on reducing humanity's many facets, and not just the fully justified biological, to animal status whilst ignoring exactly what it is to be human.

*All hail Science, the new religion of the uneducated masses.


I know we're in a forum called the Asylum, but this is a bit much.
#36 Feb 21 2010 at 4:48 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
We, humans, as defined by the Linnaean system are part of the Kingdom Animalia.


Case closed.
#37 Feb 21 2010 at 7:05 PM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts
Quote:
If you mean are we descended from animals then categorically yes, if you mean are we animals now, then just as adamantly no. I don't sleep outdoors, defecate in the woods, and eat my young just for starters.


But a lot of animals don't defecate in the woods ( due to lack of said foliage) and the majority of animals don't eat their young. Just my quick two cents. :P

Now if you will excuse me I got to go No 2 before it gets too dark to make it back out of the woods safely.
#38 Feb 22 2010 at 5:41 AM Rating: Decent
*****
18,463 posts
wandererks wrote:
Perhaps the bit of faith that was lost was actually a bit of faith that was unfounded to begin with.
[:emo:]
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 330 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (330)