Comments(325):
Back to the content 'Straight Up Caught Comp. 16' Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFsAnonymous comments allowed.
63 comments displayed.
#235
-
cognosceteipsum (01/08/2016) [-] I have great pitch, I have a pretty high intelligence and probably synthesensia.
The pitch is pretty obvious and I've been told so by a few of my teachers. The intelligence is simply what I've extrapolated from how I work in my life and my cunning, so can't really prove that one I suppose, have tricked people one too many times with pretty smart plans though. I've performed easily in most task that require spacial and linguistic intelligence, which are two of the most important when it comes to measuring IQ I believe.
Synthesensia is not really bragging considering it's literally just a glitch in the brain. I always get pictures in my mind when listening to music, certain weird pictures and it's not really of things it's just like.. hard to describe.
The pitch is pretty obvious and I've been told so by a few of my teachers. The intelligence is simply what I've extrapolated from how I work in my life and my cunning, so can't really prove that one I suppose, have tricked people one too many times with pretty smart plans though. I've performed easily in most task that require spacial and linguistic intelligence, which are two of the most important when it comes to measuring IQ I believe.
Synthesensia is not really bragging considering it's literally just a glitch in the brain. I always get pictures in my mind when listening to music, certain weird pictures and it's not really of things it's just like.. hard to describe.
#236 to #235
-
cognosceteipsum (01/08/2016) [-] Not absolute pitch though. Not 163, more like 110-130 something if I'm lucky (my fathers estimate) oh and the fact that dad has a doctorate in physics and my mom works in a pretty complicated law something, forgot what it was called. She got like straight A's in school. So I guess that had some effect.
But as SH said, people who brag about their IQ are losers. I'm way more proud of other things in life related to creativity.
But as SH said, people who brag about their IQ are losers. I'm way more proud of other things in life related to creativity.
#211
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-] the first picture is not claiming the photo is from 1955.
it's only claiming that body type was considered perfect in 1955.
it's only claiming that body type was considered perfect in 1955.
#220 to #217
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-] that doesn't matter, the comment didn't say anything about that, only about the person in the image
#221 to #220
-
iqequalzero (01/08/2016) [-] Wait, it doesnt matter that the statement is a lie? That is most certainly not the definition of perfection by 1955 standards.
#223 to #221
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-] this post is about people getting caught, the commenter said nothing about the body type, only the person and it's date of birth.
It's not about whether it's a lie or not, it's about the commenter automatically assuming that that picture is from 1955, while the uploader never claimed such a thing
It's not about whether it's a lie or not, it's about the commenter automatically assuming that that picture is from 1955, while the uploader never claimed such a thing
#225 to #224
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-] the commenter is trying to prove the poster wrong by saying that the person wasn't from 1955.
this proves nothing and is an irrelevant argument.
this proves nothing and is an irrelevant argument.
#243 to #225
-
stifflimb (01/08/2016) [-] If the person wasnt born before 1955 how could it ever be considered the ideal body? Unless she got an timetraveling twin.
Also the poster said it was Time Magazines definition of a perfect body type 1955, if she was not in time magazine 1955 then the poster is wrong.
Since you seem to like being specific.
Also the poster said it was Time Magazines definition of a perfect body type 1955, if she was not in time magazine 1955 then the poster is wrong.
Since you seem to like being specific.
#245 to #243
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-] so it's impossible to have the perfect body for 1955 in the year 2000?
#250 to #247
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-] "the ideal body" means the shape in general.
it's perfectly possible for a woman to have a shape that doesn't match the ideal body now, but does match the ideal body in 1955.
it's perfectly possible for a woman to have a shape that doesn't match the ideal body now, but does match the ideal body in 1955.
#252 to #250
-
stifflimb (01/08/2016) [-] No, he said this was the "definition of a perfect body" in other words only 1 body, he never said body typ but body.
And even by going with what you are saying, he's saying that the pic was time magazines idea of a perfect body in 1955, unless he worked there or been contacting the people who was responsible for picking the body in time magazine 1955 which I see no sources of, so he got no claim in saying it's, he dont know for what exact reasons they picked the body of 1955 so he can only guess that this pic is the same.
And even by going with what you are saying, he's saying that the pic was time magazines idea of a perfect body in 1955, unless he worked there or been contacting the people who was responsible for picking the body in time magazine 1955 which I see no sources of, so he got no claim in saying it's, he dont know for what exact reasons they picked the body of 1955 so he can only guess that this pic is the same.
#256 to #252
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-]
Definition:
the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:
Time made clear that this is what a woman should look like.
They wouldn't just say "Look at this woman, she looks perfect and all others suck!"
They would give a body as an example, and the body of the woman pictured might suit the definition of 1955.
probably what time magazine's perfect body would be at around 1955
<==
Can't you see the clear similarities?
Definition:
the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:
Time made clear that this is what a woman should look like.
They wouldn't just say "Look at this woman, she looks perfect and all others suck!"
They would give a body as an example, and the body of the woman pictured might suit the definition of 1955.
probably what time magazine's perfect body would be at around 1955
<==
Can't you see the clear similarities?
#258 to #256
-
stifflimb (01/08/2016) [-] "definite" meaning "this, nothing else" you just bit your own hand there.
Dosn't share the same hairstyle or color, not same outift in 1955 that would be scandalous, cant see stomach on this pic.
First pic looking downwards this pic is looking straight at you could be taken as the attitude or personality of the person, also not a match, so there are quite a few things that differs the two photos from each other, and you still havn't given any credentials to why this woman was chosen, if it was the all then clearly the first pic is not the definition of a perfect body 1955 since they are not the exact same, and the ages? What are their ages that factor plays in aswell.
Dosn't share the same hairstyle or color, not same outift in 1955 that would be scandalous, cant see stomach on this pic.
First pic looking downwards this pic is looking straight at you could be taken as the attitude or personality of the person, also not a match, so there are quite a few things that differs the two photos from each other, and you still havn't given any credentials to why this woman was chosen, if it was the all then clearly the first pic is not the definition of a perfect body 1955 since they are not the exact same, and the ages? What are their ages that factor plays in aswell.
#262 to #258
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-] note the "or" in the definition of "to define"
body figure is not the same as clothing or hairstyle or even the age of a woman.
of course thay aren't identical, but they are similar. both not skinny/not fat
(i could go into details of this, but can't be bothered to do so right now)
The poster probably chose this woman because her figure would be considered very beautiful in 1955, and kind of fat in the present.
He's outing his appreciation for these kinds of figures.
body figure is not the same as clothing or hairstyle or even the age of a woman.
of course thay aren't identical, but they are similar. both not skinny/not fat
(i could go into details of this, but can't be bothered to do so right now)
The poster probably chose this woman because her figure would be considered very beautiful in 1955, and kind of fat in the present.
He's outing his appreciation for these kinds of figures.
#268 to #262
-
stifflimb (01/08/2016) [-] It's a part of the body, or why did they not show of her naked and shaved if it's was strictly the body the were interested in?
As I did with the things that differed them, who are you to say what criteria time magazine used 1955 to determine her body to be perfect?
>>#244 and then you go to me saying "He's outing his appreciation for these kinds of figures." where is your proof for this, this all started with you calling out iqequalzero on doing that and now you are doing the same xD
As I did with the things that differed them, who are you to say what criteria time magazine used 1955 to determine her body to be perfect?
>>#244 and then you go to me saying "He's outing his appreciation for these kinds of figures." where is your proof for this, this all started with you calling out iqequalzero on doing that and now you are doing the same xD
#233 to #225
-
iqequalzero (01/08/2016) [-] It was exceptionally implied that the picture was supposed to be from 1955, everything from the statement itself to the black and white filter on the picture.
You can argue for "he might have meant this" all you want, its all but certain he meant it to be taken as an actual 1955 picture.
You can argue for "he might have meant this" all you want, its all but certain he meant it to be taken as an actual 1955 picture.
#244 to #233
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-] that is waht you think, not what the poster claimed at all.
#253 to #244
-
iqequalzero (01/08/2016) [-] Lol, so what I say is "that is what you think" but your own idea of what he said is fact? Please.
Theres more evidence to support what Im saying, while your claim is purely based on "well it could be like this, maybe"
Theres more evidence to support what Im saying, while your claim is purely based on "well it could be like this, maybe"
#254 to #253
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-] you have no evidence at all for anything.
you assume the poster meant something which is not explicitly stated. (just like the commenter on the post)
this is all i am saying.
the commenter is saying the poster is lying, while he never did.
you assume the poster meant something which is not explicitly stated. (just like the commenter on the post)
this is all i am saying.
the commenter is saying the poster is lying, while he never did.
#255 to #254
-
iqequalzero (01/08/2016) [-] What you are saying is no less of an assumption.
Again, why put a black and white filter on the damn picture if not to pass it off as coming from that time?
And again, that is not the 1955 image of perfection, so still basically a lie either way.
Again, why put a black and white filter on the damn picture if not to pass it off as coming from that time?
And again, that is not the 1955 image of perfection, so still basically a lie either way.
#257 to #255
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-] to give it more of an oldschool feel, perhaps.
i can't know what the poster was thinking.
the figure of the woman in the picture looks very similar to the figure of marilyn monroe, who was considered to have "the perfect body" at around that time.
"stop spreading ******** " clearly means that the commenter thinks the poster is lying.
it's not an assumption.
i can't know what the poster was thinking.
the figure of the woman in the picture looks very similar to the figure of marilyn monroe, who was considered to have "the perfect body" at around that time.
"stop spreading ******** " clearly means that the commenter thinks the poster is lying.
it's not an assumption.
#260 to #257
-
iqequalzero (01/08/2016) [-] Its an assumption when you say that the poster isnt lying, just as much as him stating that he is.
From where im sitting, theres more indication that he is lying than he isnt.
From where im sitting, theres more indication that he is lying than he isnt.
#263 to #260
-
carnivoreapples (01/08/2016) [-] He never explicitly said the woman was from 1955.
The commenter claimed the woman was from 1955.
End of case.
The commenter claimed the woman was from 1955.
End of case.
#265 to #263
-
iqequalzero (01/08/2016) [-] The commenter thinks he intended for the picture to be passed off as being from 1955
Theres nothing to say he didnt.
Not end of case.
Theres nothing to say he didnt.
Not end of case.
#318
-
sodaddict (01/08/2016) [-] I think the first one was meant to be an example and not a supposed picture from 1955.
#177
-
ryanroyazzopardi (01/08/2016) [-] **ryanroyazzopardi used "*roll picture*"**
**ryanroyazzopardi rolled image** so i looked up aria giovanni on red tube and discovered she can self fist
**ryanroyazzopardi rolled image** so i looked up aria giovanni on red tube and discovered she can self fist
#148
-
deroderpderp (01/08/2016) [-] I honestly could not give less of a **** about the whole clavatninenine thing.
The reason I dont use tumblr or reddit or some other site is to not have to deal with drama.
The reason I dont use tumblr or reddit or some other site is to not have to deal with drama.
#114
-
beardedzombie (01/08/2016) [-] You know FJs stooped to its lowest low when it starts taking from reddit
#145 to #114
-
clavatninenine (01/08/2016) [-] Its even worse when people post content with the "iFunny" logo on the bottom. Sonwere close, but not there yet.
