Actually, I don't even understand the second half of the "zing" Except he can't "what?" There's no adjective verb(edit) in the phrase "You ole softie"

As a side note, here is a fun game my wife and I regularly play. One of us says "Gimmie a 50 (or any number between 0-100)" where the number indicates a percent capacity of punch power. The other person then applies a "50" to the abdomen of the requester. It's hilarious and performed in public regularly with the highest regularity in theme parks where we're waiting in line. Is she pressured into this? No. Is she scared of me? No. She is simply a bad-ass. Maybe the girl in the video is also a bad-ass and enjoys physical abuse when it's funny. She's probably in a dorm, hanging with her friends. This stuff happens, and doesn't really necessitate any sense of pressure unless you want it to

>> ^bareboards2:

Sooooo.. why hasn't my funny funny troll on blankfist gotten any upvotes? @rottenseed? You like a good troll.... where's your upvote?
This is a serious question -- why not a single upvote, guys?
>> ^bareboards2:
And by "ole softie", I am of course referring to your penis.
rimshot
Oh! Except you can't!!
booyah and doublerimshot
>> ^bareboards2:
You stopped yourself because you know it is actually the best vagina monologue EVAR.
You ole softie.
>> ^blankfist:
Worst. Vagina. Mono--
Oh, nevermind.

I was going to make fun of him saying 'disorientated' until I checked and found out that that's the correct use of the word in the transitive verb form. Thank goodness I checked, otherwise I might have been a jerk and/or eaten my own poop, LIKE AN ANT.

She can *verb* my *noun* any day of the week!

>> ^dag:

Interesting question. I suppose I love who they were, but you can't put a noun in past-tense so you modify the verb. So, just this once I suppose I'll say "I love the Carsed".>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Loved The Cars.

Still do, right?



lol, English, how does it work? I love the Policed too...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Interesting question. I suppose I love who they were, but you can't put a noun in past-tense so you modify the verb. So, just this once I suppose I'll say "I love the Carsed".>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
Loved The Cars.

Still do, right?

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^ant:
>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^ant:
Kids = Plural.

Oh you -- fixed! Now regress this for me so we can move it to verified.

You mean verified and then regressed. Either way, release it.

I was using "regress" as the verb by which this bug you pointed out shall have its status moved to "verified". Colloquialism!


Deferred!

>> ^ant:

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^ant:
Kids = Plural.

Oh you -- fixed! Now regress this for me so we can move it to verified.

You mean verified and then regressed. Either way, release it.


I was using "regress" as the verb by which this bug you pointed out shall have its status moved to "verified". Colloquialism!

>> ^messenger:

Also, the title looks like the cameraman is a 4-year-old shit-talker. Change "talking" to "talks" and it becomes clearly a verb, not ambiguously an adjective.


You're so right. Still, it all becomes apparent when you watch it

Also, the title looks like the cameraman is a 4-year-old shit-talker. Change "talking" to "talks" and it becomes clearly a verb, not ambiguously an adjective.

>> ^blankfist:

Pressure [presh-er] –verb (used with object)
to force (someone) toward a particular end; influence:
That's from dictionary.com, though I'm not sure why you couldn't look it up yourself. Why would I have a problem with people exercising a right to free speech or assembly?

Well, it's that dual meaning that made me ask you to define what you meant by pressure. Exercising your right to free speech and assembly can rightfully be called "applying pressure to legislators to create laws in their favor".

You made it sound like unions are okay with you...unless they exercise their rights to free speech or assembly.
>> ^blankfist:
I don't want people (singular or in a collective) using the violent apparatus of government to satisfy their own selfish ends.

Now we're getting somewhere. So what does the right to freedom of speech entitle unions to? The ability to say whatever they want to their government, or is it somehow confined only to some subset of things you approve of?

>> ^NetRunner:

Define "pressure". Certainly you don't object to people exercising their 1st amendment rights, do you? You know, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and all that?


Pressure [presh-er] –verb (used with object)
to force (someone) toward a particular end; influence:

That's from dictionary.com, though I'm not sure why you couldn't look it up yourself. Why would I have a problem with people exercising a right to free speech or assembly?

I don't want people (singular or in a collective) using the violent apparatus of government to satisfy their own selfish ends. If they want to assemble and try to apply pressure to their employer through nonviolent persuasion, that's one thing. But when people use government to restrict industries, it always results in protectionism which is bad.

>> ^Xax:

W. T. F. It has the same general geometrical shape of a dick, so you can only show it once? Why even once then? Fucked up fucking fuckers.


I'm afraid you can only use that verb once.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
First of all, you misunderstood me completely, I was talking about spiritual belief, there's a difference between believing the sun will come up and believing in god and even there I have a problem with the verb "believe". I don't believe the sun will come up, I know it has come up every day since the day I was born so I assume (with quite a bit of certainty) that it will come up again tomorrow.
I understood from your words that you believe in god, you talk about meaning with such certainty and then you talk about humility? To me, true humility is accepting you can't truly believe in things of the spiritual nature, they are metaphysical, you have no means of judging their meaning/existence or lack there of. You could look at the different explanations science/religion/your own personal interpretation can offer and say which you feel the most at peace with.
You talk about the "trap" of nihilism, again, ironic. As far as I'm concerned religious belief is the trap, it is in of it self arrogance, it is saying "I believe in something because I do, because I have faith". I don't "believe" in science, I accept that it is our most efficient tool at understanding the world, it isn't an answer, it is a means. I don't understand how any humble human being deems it justifiable to just pick from a plethora of so called "answers" or "truths" and say "this one, this is true, this explains everything, there is meaning". Again, if I misunderstood, I apologize, but if you are religious then why would you talk about something like the sun rising and falling? It is a physical phenomenon that we can observe and make (somewhat) objective assumptions about. You must realize that in religion logic is never on your side, it is the belief in spite of logic, the insistence on the least likely, arrogance.


I can tell you're itching to attack my views here, but since you're not sure, you can't unload the big guns. I'll make it easier for you. Yes, I believe in God. No, it isn't because I was raised with religion (i wasn't), nor was I indoctrinated. I was agnostic until a few years ago. I believe in God because of personal revelation.

Now you say God isn't likely. How would you know? If you want to look at it that way, everything is equally unlikely. Why should anything exist at all? I think you're having the problem that most atheists have, seperating the question from religious ideas about it. The question, "Was the Universe created?" is a perfectly reasonable one. I don't see why it seems so out there to some people to believe that the Universe could have been created. To say it all exploded out of nothing randomly I think is a much more bizzare (and ridiculous) thought.

The spiritual is not something you believe in, it's something you experience. It's not a matter of conceptualizing it, it's a matter of what is happening in actuality, real time, in the here and now. Before my beliefs changed, I had no clue what any of it was all about. I presumed people were imagining it. Not so. There are interconnections between us which transcend physiciality. There are parallel realities in which people can and do travel, in their dreams or wide awake. Until you experience it personally, you absolutely won't know anything about it what-so-ever. It's like trying to watch a football game from outside the stadium based on the noise the crowd is making.

I don't believe the things I do, or have the faith I have, because of some selfish need or weakness or fear. I believe as I do because of my personal experience. I wouldn't believe it, otherwise. It isn't arrogant of me to believe in something in which I have sufficient evidence personally. To me, truth is something tangible; it is not a vague conception. It is the framework of who and what I am. Regardless of whether it seems real to someone else, it is real to me, and the impact I have on the world is a direct result of that truth. So, either way you look at it, it's a real thing. This is what I meant about all the meaning out there. 7 billion human beings living out their truth. It is tangible to all of us.

First of all, you misunderstood me completely, I was talking about spiritual belief, there's a difference between believing the sun will come up and believing in god and even there I have a problem with the verb "believe". I don't believe the sun will come up, I know it has come up every day since the day I was born so I assume (with quite a bit of certainty) that it will come up again tomorrow.

I understood from your words that you believe in god, you talk about meaning with such certainty and then you talk about humility? To me, true humility is accepting you can't truly believe in things of the spiritual nature, they are metaphysical, you have no means of judging their meaning/existence or lack there of. You could look at the different explanations science/religion/your own personal interpretation can offer and say which you feel the most at peace with.

You talk about the "trap" of nihilism, again, ironic. As far as I'm concerned religious belief is the trap, it is in of it self arrogance, it is saying "I believe in something because I do, because I have faith". I don't "believe" in science, I accept that it is our most efficient tool at understanding the world, it isn't an answer, it is a means. I don't understand how any humble human being deems it justifiable to just pick from a plethora of so called "answers" or "truths" and say "this one, this is true, this explains everything, there is meaning". Again, if I misunderstood, I apologize, but if you are religious then why would you talk about something like the sun rising and falling? It is a physical phenomenon that we can observe and make (somewhat) objective assumptions about. You must realize that in religion logic is never on your side, it is the belief in spite of logic, the insistence on the least likely, arrogance.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
The lack of conviction you speak of, the unwillingness to accept any "truth" as absolute is by definition the opposite of arrogance. How can anyone who -believes- in anything say to the "non-believer" that he's arrogant? A believer must be arrogant enough to say "I believe in this, I don't believe in that", a logical person simply says "I am not informed enough to decide what is true and what is not, I believe everything is possible". As far as I'm concerned, belief is the ultimate form of arrogance: a person allowing himself not to be completely objectiveBR>

Believing something is not the ultimate arrogance. I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow. Is that arrogant, or is it just good sense? Essentially, I am taking a leap of faith, but the precipice isn't very high. We can believe things just on the basis of observation and deduction. Just because I could be wrong doesn't mean I have no basis for my belief. My belief there is completely justified by the long history of the Sun coming up every day without fail, the stability we find in the continuim, and what we have observed about the behavior of Sol and other similar stars.
How is one supposed to be truly objective? Only God could be truly objective. We simply don't have enough information to be objective about anything. Our lives are consumed with self-interest. Just to maintain our life here we have to eat, be clothed, etc. I guarantee you no one on Earth is as interested in this as you are. We are inherently selfish for this reason. We have to be. It isn't like someone else could or would live our lives for us. Unless we reach out and grab it for ourselves, no one is going to be putting it in our hand.
A logical person may say he isn't informed enough to make judgments about everything, but he is reasonably informed enough about some things to feel fairly confident in his stance. Is that arrogance? To believe something is true, regardless of whether he could be wrong or not? We all have that in common, you know. Every one of us could be wrong about absolutely everything we know as true and real. I think its admirable, to take a stand for what you believe in, as obviously Mr Hitchins did and still does. I think its cowardice to dismiss it all as meaningless. The Earth is ripe with meaning, with value. It screams out to us every moment of every day. To look at this world and see nothing meaningful has got to be a mental illness at best.

He got the noun and verb mixed up for "beach".