Well, I get your point and partially agree, but at the same time it kind of comes into conflict with the game's concept of injecting yourself with morphine-on-steroids- and it magically sets, fuses, and heals broken bones, so honestly that one doesn't bother me.

I can understand that. I can partially, maybe even more than that, agree with you.

Erens dad turned Eren into a normal Titan and then made Eren eat him, Thats how far ive come in the manga anyway, i guess Eren doesnt remember is because turning into a titan at an age that young makes it difficult? Either that of he suppress the memories because of how traumatic it is

Your 1.57 billion figure, as I've just checked, was taken and published in 2009, last renewed for publication copyright in 2010. To quote that British glaces dude, it's 2015. I'm not saying my figures are exact, but at least they are updated. So I wouldn't exactly call that an error.
But in all honesty, I don't really care enough to defend myself. As I've said, even is shenro mistakenly thought there were 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, he's still an idiot for claiming "there was a study done and 25% of Muslims are ISIS".
If he's not an idiot, then what would you call him? Because that statement was just downright stupid.

And also, calling me a cunt isn't helping your point that people shouldn't be cunts.
But I must say, I like the word cunt and applaud its usage.

1.57 is a number dating back to 2010 by the Pew Research center. There has been steady growth, the most up to date number I could get from census data is 2.08 billion, numbers are from the lads at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. I rounded some number because of laziness.
And he's still an idiot if he thought that 25% of the 2010 1.57 billion were IS. But he's deleted his comment and blocked me, so maybe I was a bit too mean. My apologies.

Nonetheless, a numbers error equal to the combined populations of England, France, and Germany is still a major fault point, especially when talking about something as grand scaled as the Muslim population. Aside from all that, however, come on man, don't be a cunt.

Your 1.57 billion figure, as I've just checked, was taken and published in 2009, last renewed for publication copyright in 2010. To quote that British glaces dude, it's 2015. I'm not saying my figures are exact, but at least they are updated. So I wouldn't exactly call that an error.
But in all honesty, I don't really care enough to defend myself. As I've said, even is shenro mistakenly thought there were 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, he's still an idiot for claiming "there was a study done and 25% of Muslims are ISIS".
If he's not an idiot, then what would you call him? Because that statement was just downright stupid.

And also, calling me a cunt isn't helping your point that people shouldn't be cunts.
But I must say, I like the word cunt and applaud its usage.

and weather ready to roast invading forces

id say a serious portion is the fault of the west. and that any attempt to just throw human lives at the problem till it goes away is more or less useless

I can certainly agree with a serious portion being the west's fault, but at the same time I think it's important to note that before, during, and in between foreign intervention in this area, all of those countries find several different ways to kill each other. Looking at this list I'm gonna post at the bottom, even when removing western participation, there's still a massive amount of infighting and civil war.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East

ADMIN IS MY PERSONAL BODYGUARD, BITCHES

Pretty sure he's one of the actors from Game of Thrones, no idea whom he plays as I haven't seen it.

the hill

Yep! Googled it, you were right; thanks mate

a little blackening is one thing, but when the bark is nearly half an inch thick you've overdone the meat, good luck having any juices left in it, and the taste would be absent. you should see some pink in the meat and theirs is nearly as brown as a dark wood, I bet eating it would be like sawdust. and "being a cunt"? I'm sorry, but have you ever had vinegar BBQ sauce? it tastes exactly like I described. nice job jumping on the bandwagon of bad taste and not knowing good BBQ from overhyped trash BBQ.

huh. I guess I've had too much filet mignón and entricot recently and didn't grow up in the Glorious South, so I never got "BBQ" or "Brisket". When we BBQd, we got amazing steaks and did 'em up right on the grill - maybe a little seasoning, but don't destroy the natural beef flavours with shittons of sauce. Ribs of course is a completely other issue.

But if you say it's good, I'll take your word for it. Now I just gotta find an authentic American BBQ place in Europe...

if you can find a place go for it, it's great.

brisket is a completely different cut and cook of beef. it isn't supposed to nor does it taste anything like a steak.

Although, you are right, it's been burnt to shit.
A little charring is fine, as long as it's still bloody on the inside.

bit it wasn't bloody on the inside - it was dry as fuck. And I personally think charred flesh tastes disgusting. A perfect outside tastes amazing, and I#m used to it, and I don't see any reason why someone can burn their meat.

I personally enjoy bitter and sour food.
Better than spicy or sickeningly sweet.

I agree with your preference, when i was a kid me and my mom used to like a lighter colored bbq, no extra sauces the seasoning was enough. while my brother and my dad used to like charred meat with sour bbq sauce.

I've grown to like sour sauce but i still don't get the charring.
Bitter just isn't my thing.

Maybe they inherited a love for vinegar sauces from the British. I find vinegar to be gross on its own, and it smells awful, but like any other ingredient it has its uses in cooking. For instance, with honey, OJ/lemon juice and soy sauce it makes for a mean stir fry.

Its actually a Salmon Shark

also referred to as Lamna ditropis

if this were QI youd get a Klaxxon, wrong again sorry.

Well in that case, it's clearly a big fish. Says so in the picture.

Its actually a Salmon Shark

also referred to as Lamna ditropis

arrows lose velocity over distance. while its extreamly hard to catch an arrow at 20 feet, and 50 feet its significantly easier.

I'm gonna try re-write that last comment, then I'm bailing this stupid argument:

Your argument is now that it wouldn't be possible for a man to catch an arrow if it was launched from a bow with a high poundage, fired lethally. You're probably dead-to-rights.

But that was not the claim I was arguing. They said, absolutely, that it was physically impossible for a person to have reaction speeds quick enough to catch an arrow in mid-air. That stupid first video I posted, whether or not they were shitty 30 pound bows, proves that simply isn't the case.

Saying it's not valid because the arrow is less deadly than it would be were it fired from a more powerful bow is irrelevant. The equipment used is still a fucking bow and arrow, and could still do plenty of damage in the right hands - just like a snub .38 is still a gun, even when compared to an anti-tank rifle.

Claiming it's absolutely impossible to do something, when only arguing for the absolute high-end of that something, is biased and stupid. People have caught arrows mid-flight. However uncommon, people have been shown to have reaction times fast enough to do so, even if only at lower to mid range bows.

Moreover, I don't even remotely disagree with your comment about the skin being unable to take that kind of punishment. But that had NOTHING to do with what was said. OP claimed it was physically impossible to react fast enough to catch an arrow, and it's just not the case.

And if he had said "no one would catch an arrow shot from an extremely powerful bow, used with lethal intent" I wouldn't have argued half as much. It's not nitpicking when he said, very matter of fact, "it's physically impossible".

My argument, and red-the-fuck-thumb me all you damn want, was that people HAVE caught arrows fired from bows before. Would the shots necessarily have been kill-shots, if they struck a living target? Probably fucking not, but they're still arrows, and they're still being fired from bows, they're still sticking in their targets.

I take fuck all back. He said it was impossible. It's not.

It's worth mentioning that if a medieval archer (especially an english longbowman) were to look at this video, they'd laugh their ass off and call him a whimp. Why? Because he's using a 30 pound bow - the thing 12-yearolds used in the middle ages in order to train and become strong enough to use the big boy bows. Hunting bows had around 60 pounds of draw weight, while war bows were usually around 120. The biggest, most absurdly powerful war bows, which could be used by only the most elite and massive archers, could reach as much as 180+ - over 6 times the draw weight of Andersens' little babby bow. That's why he can prance around like a fairy and fire from any position - he's using the bow equivalent of an airsoft gun. That shit would be absolutely useless against actual real-life opponents, because it'd just bounce off their armor. And before you go "Yeah, but he got through the armor in the video", he was using extremely thin arrows that basically went through the rings of the armor and slightly embedded themselves in the gamberson. That shit wouldn't even hurt, let alone be life-threatening. Real life longbow arrows were almost as thick as your pinkie finger and designed to use their sheer mass to punch through stuff. If you were to fire THAT with a PROPER warbow, it'd probably go straight through the target as if it weren't even there.

Anderson's bow isn't even a 30 pound bow, it's a baby 10 pound bow useful for nothing else than speedshooting. A ~35 pound bow is what your average adult male will use for modern recurve target archery (By twisting the string, you can safely adjust the bow's poundage by up to 14 either way, so you can get it up to 49)

It's weak, but I doubt it's THAT weak. I mean, if you just picked up the arrows and chucked them at the target, it'd do more damage than a 10 pound bow.

He switches between two bows to trick the watcher into thinking he's using the heavier one the whole time. Every time he does speed-shooting, he uses a 10 pound bow. I can't manage to find the video I which pointed this out, or I'd link it.

Ooooooooooooooooh. I thought it was just the camera angle that made the bow look different.

Good point. I guess I should elaborate for people who don't understand what you mean.

Arrows couldn't do jack shit against plate armor unless it were REALLY shitty and cheap or an arrow got in through the visor, which isn't unheard of, but was pretty rare. However, very few people wore plate armor. Because it was pretty damn expensive, had to be custom made for you, so it fits properly and required a lot more maintenance, it was worn pretty much exclusively by noblemen, because they were the only ones that could afford it and hire squires to maintain their weapons and armor. The vast majority of soldiers, just had a gambeson, which is basically a really thick padded coat, and a helmet. This offered nowhere near the protection of plate armor, but it was still pretty good at stopping stabs and small cuts. Because most footmen had shields to block with or were in a polearm formation, which helped keep the enemy at bay, they didn't need all that much armor, so the gambesons was more than adequate. The soldiers who could afford it also sometimes wore mail on top of the gambeson, which was great at stopping cuts and slashes, but didn't do jack shit against arrows or spears. Which is bad, because arrows and spears were the most common thing on the battlefield.

So, in short. Your average soldier had padded armor and maybe mail, which was good at stopping cuts and sometimes protected against arrows, while knights and other nobles wore plate and were pretty much invincible unless their horse fell on top of them or they were knocked down and someone stabbed them in the eye with a dagger, while they were down. Lars Andersens' arrows wouldn't be able to do anything against any of them. I'm pretty sure even if he hit someone in the visor of the helmet, the arrow wouldn't be powerful enough to bend the metal and slip inside.

If a medieval archer were to look at that video, he'd flip out and have you burned at the stake for being a witch.

That too.

Also, you can pull an arrow out of the ground and fire it back it it's not too fucked up.
Can't do that with a bullet.

Arrows often snapped or shattered on impact, because of the absurd force behind them, so it's actually not that easy to fire back and arrow unless you're fighting on some really soft dirt, so the arrows don't break.

Wow, that first video was good at rebuking what he said, but that lady seems like a cunt...

wow look on those thumb downs
some really butthurt idiots who have no idea about archery

That youtube vid and dailydot article you linked were both utterly retarded. "cringe and deal with your Western privilege"

The geekdad is the best explanation.

They absolutely did amount to quite a lot in the eyes of the nation. The War Hawks were simply the first politicians to call for war. Even before then, war was the dominant opinion among the people.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_War_of_1812_in_the_United_States
Support for war was a negligible factor until they had already burned the capital. We couldn't afford it, we didn't have proper troops for it, and when it did start, we were completely stopped in our tracks less than a year in. Both sides were ridiculously unprepared, the U.S especially so, and we came out worse for it. It's pretty widely accepted that the U.S declared war because we just wanted to fight a war- despite knowing our ridiculous shortcomings, we declared a war on the second most powerful nation in the world anyway.

>Pretty much just wanted to fight a war
They were capturing our own citizens, hanging them, and funding a guerrilla war against our Western settlers.
They fucking attacked one of our own warships off our own coast.

And alltogether their provocations didn't amount to much in the eyes of the nation. The war hawks were the ones who pushed war, and the only reason the President listened to them was because they were the political and social elite of the time.

They absolutely did amount to quite a lot in the eyes of the nation. The War Hawks were simply the first politicians to call for war. Even before then, war was the dominant opinion among the people.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_War_of_1812_in_the_United_States
Support for war was a negligible factor until they had already burned the capital. We couldn't afford it, we didn't have proper troops for it, and when it did start, we were completely stopped in our tracks less than a year in. Both sides were ridiculously unprepared, the U.S especially so, and we came out worse for it. It's pretty widely accepted that the U.S declared war because we just wanted to fight a war- despite knowing our ridiculous shortcomings, we declared a war on the second most powerful nation in the world anyway.