|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #1599 on CommentsLevel 314 Comments: Wizard
OnlineSend mail to RageRambo Block RageRambo Invite RageRambo to be your friend flag avatar
How many ways can you kill a man with his own liver?
- Pictures 33
- YouTube 1
- Animated Gifs 1
- Favorites1 new143
- Friends 23
- Comments16 new2797
- Channels 3
- All 3007
latest user's comments
|#677071 - Comment deleted||09/29/2013 on Video Games Board - console...||0|
|#677067 - I have 50 hours or so in the game. I have never met up with an… [+] (4 new replies)||09/29/2013 on Video Games Board - console...||0|
|#177 - R*'s FW any other game.||09/27/2013 on Rockstar||+11|
|#674192 - Look REALLY hard at the URL [+] (1 new reply)||09/26/2013 on Video Games Board - console...||0|
|#954 - **RageRambo turns around** Yes?||09/26/2013 on RageRambo's profile||0|
|#180 - **RageRambo rolls 2,419**||09/26/2013 on Black guy name generator||0|
|#250 - 100% [+] (1 new reply)||09/25/2013 on So this happened.||0|
|#123084 - It's 100% real. Unfortunately.||09/24/2013 on Hating - file complaints,...||0|
|#123077 - I want to strangle people. [+] (8 new replies)||09/24/2013 on Hating - file complaints,...||0|
|#123076 - Comment deleted [+] (1 new reply)||09/24/2013 on Hating - file complaints,...||0|
|#26 - Here's some very fun reading. You rage you lose. [+] (10 new replies)||09/24/2013 on So this happened.||+6|
#30 - mitchr (09/24/2013) [-]
That one linked to this one:
And I find it much dumber.
#34 - mitchr (09/24/2013) [-]
And now this.
They shot other students with an airsoft gun. The article ignores that and says they were doing something "90% of boys in America do".
Well, I know nobody who shoots other people with a fucking airsoft gun jesus fucking christ this shit is just fucking god dammit.
#46 - fastbackmustang (09/24/2013) [-]
i kinda agree with the gun one don't get me wrong i am pro gun but it is common for schools to have jurisdiction over you from the time you walk out your door to school until the time you get home they were waiting for the bus and shot other kids now i don't know shit about airsoft guns i have heard they can hurt like a bitch also school can expel you for getting into trouble with the law outside of school if they believe you are a bad influence
#48 - mitchr (09/24/2013) [-]
Instead the article ignores it, assumedly because they can't write an argument worth shit in the first place.
|#24 - Here.||09/24/2013 on Most PC gamers nowadays||+2|
|#671304 - DSP. Period.||09/23/2013 on Video Games Board - console...||0|
|#23 - Except Christians have done alot of work for founding modern s… [+] (40 new replies)||09/23/2013 on yes||+11|
#49 - Sethorein (09/23/2013) [-]
eeeeeeh... He wasn't a religious academic though, he was an academic who so happened to also be religious.
The problem isn't with religion not approving of science in general, just when science appears to conflict with religion's pressupositions. After all, if you've built your entire Church on a foundation that says God made the earth in 7 days and someone else says the earth is billions of years old... you can't really reconcile it without serious changes being made to one or the other. Now religion is finally coming around to evolution... ish... but that doesn't mean there aren't dozens of other places where religion and science disagree and whenever that happens religion is more than content to stay mired in presupposed notions.
Tl;dr: presupposition can suck a dick.
#107 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
You are missing the point. People keep saying religion retards scientific progress but many of histories greatest scientific minds progressed the field while believing in the biblical God. The fact that these men have had such an impact is just to point out that their beliefs do not hinder them from knowledge and scientific pursuits.
#113 - Sethorein (09/23/2013) [-]
Ah but you need to separate contemporary religion and historical religion.
Initially the Church controlled academia, almost every literate person came from the church and most science was done with the Church's approval. There was certain retardation of science by the church in that time because obviously a scientist could not publish papers if he felt the Church would condemn him for it.
That aside they were harmonious. However, in contemporary times the divide has grown. Science is no longer beholden to religion and as a result papers are released that directly refute religious principles. Everyone thought homosexuality was evil, science proved it was genetic. Everyone thought being left handed was evil, science proved... well it's just genetic. Everyone thought the earth was maybe 10000 years old, science proved it was much much older.
Some religions adapted and worked along with science, but you'll find a great deal of religions do not. You cannot ignore this. You cannot ignore when certain religious groups take science out of context in order to promote bigotry. This is the problem that needs to be addressed. The rest is just details. How do we make the Church liable for their different sects and their abuse of science and their misleading of their followers.
#117 - Sethorein (09/23/2013) [-]
Did your pastor share that research with you, friend? I've read a paper to do with studies done on homosexuals and transgendered individuals which found the hormones in their brains more closely resembled the gender and sexual orientations that they identified with than that which they were born with. I'd prefer not to have to look them up for you because it's been like a year and goodness knows it's a hassle to sift through google scholar.
Oh and science would never be hurt by anything because science has no bias. Science just says "we have a question" then "we ran a bunch of tests and think we got an answer" then "we're gonna proofread" ad infinitum. Religion ruins science nowadays because religious scientists have this chip on their shoulder where they need to already have their conclusion written before they run their tests. That's not a very fun way of doing science. Where's the discovery if you're just trying to validate presupposition?
#118 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
Science would "hurt" something because if a theory is presented and found to be false it is hurt. That isn't even an argument and a non point on your side. I also never stated my religious beliefs in this discussion and you just assumed and attacked me for some imaginary pastor.
I have several homosexual friends who constantly throw this stuff about and I have had numerous discussions about it. Not one person has provided a scholarly source on homosexuality in genetics that wasn't simply theory or unfounded speculation. The argument you just presented was basically that imbalances in biological make up could cause a person to identify more with the opposite sex.
That is not genetics determining sexuality. That is an issue of social normative. A man could be born with a lack of testosterone and a brain that identifies more with female traits but that doesn't make him gay, it makes him more likely to prefer men. It also refers to societies idea of what is masculine and feminine. We see a dress and make up as feminine but nothing about those things presents an innate feminine quality, we assign those to it ourselves. So the functions of the brain that are more related to the opposite gender are a social matter and I guarantee you that there will be brains similar to those of homosexuals that are heterosexual. If it is genetic it would be fact not happenstance.
#129 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
Wow, why did you even bother linking that? You did exactly what I said the other people did. You provided a source that told me the biological traits of each gender but it didn't even mention homosexuality as a result of any of it. It only stated the average number of particular cells and molecules within the minds of each gender. I don't think that article was even presenting a theory on the origin of homosexuality. It was a case for why people associate themselves with a certain gender. Did you even read it?
#135 - Sethorein (09/23/2013) [-]
It literally said that Transgendered individuals had the same neural network as the gender they identified with. You think maybe having the same brain makeup as the opposite gender may add validity to trans individuals feeling like "a woman trapped in a man's body"?
#145 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
Do you know what "literally" means? because it does not say that anywhere in the article and the way you worded it means it should be in there verbatim. The only thing they said was that the imbalances studied make a clear case for an origin of gender identity disorder. They are researching a psychologically imbalance within the brain, it isn't even about homosexuality. You didn't even understand an abstract that you included into the discussion yourself. I sincerely hope you randomly googled that and didn't do earnest research because that would be embarrassingly off topic.
#147 - Sethorein (09/23/2013) [-]
Jesus christ, and you think I'M bad at debating?
Here, let me spoon feed it to you
"Regardless of sexual orientation, men had almost twice as many somatostatin neurons as women" - biological difference between males and females
"The number of neurons in the BSTc of male-to-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females" "In contrast, the neuron number of a female-to-male transsexual was found to be in the male range" - we have data that supports transexuals having the same structures in their brain as the sex they identify with
"The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder." <-Our findings support the idea that transexuals are telling the truth when they say they feel like they belong as the opposite sex.
Have I made it clear enough for you?
#149 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
I can read the argument, thanks for rehashing it again and proving to me it has nothing to do with the origin of homosexuality but instead the problem on a personality disorder within the brain.
It seems the only thing you are good at is repeating yourself so thanks for all of this waste of time and text, I assure you that this discussion has gone nowhere and I will return to my normal daily activities while you stew on it.
#120 - Sethorein (09/23/2013) [-]
What do you think causes testostherone deficiency.
I'll give you a hint, it's not lack of red meat in your diet.
Also, if you have identical hormonal levels to a woman as a man you are going to think and behave incredibly femininely and lets face it, the hormones that dictate attraction will be almost identical to that of a womans. You cannot discount the biological components of behaviour and just assume it's a choice and that because society said it's okay SUDDENLY everyone became gay. Gayness existed forever. Gayness has been found in dozens of species besides humans. The only difference now is that we don't kill gay people when we see them.
If you define gayness as a societal thing would you want society to return to condemning homosexuality? After all, if it's just society's approval that causes it, surely if we all start gaybashing like in Russia it will cure those ill with it.
#125 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
Wow, you are really bad at discussion. Not only are you making unrelated assumptions and statements but your argument changes topic just about every sentence.
A deficiency in testosterone would not CAUSE homosexuality, as I already stated. It may make a person more inclined to prefer the same gender but it does not determine it at birth. That alone undermines your whole argument. Also "think and behave like a woman" would be a social construct. What a woman behaves like has varied from era to era because what we determine to be lady like as a people changes how they act, so that is not something rooted in genetics as much as popular opinion.
I never mentioned condemning homosexuality at all, the fact that you even bring it up shows how poor your stance is. You are making personal attacks without provocation. If you don't have enough knowledge or courtesy to carry on a discussion without outlandish and ungrounded slander than I suggest you just go ahead and end the discussion.
#131 - Sethorein (09/23/2013) [-]
I didn't change the subject at all... I replied to your assertion that hormones don't affect a person's sexual orientation...
At birth most of our genome isn't bloody expressed. That alone undermines your argument. Puberty literally flips our bodies upside down and how does it do that? WITH HORMONES! How does it decide which hormones to flood us with? GENES.
Behave like a woman is genetic in certain respects. There are certain genetic differences between men and women. Some simple stuff would be men being better with spatial reasoning and women being better at determining colour differences. They evolved as the hunter gatherer roles were established and women were responsible for sifting through the earth for roots and preparing them properly which required very keen vision while men needed to navigate hunting routes and needed good direction.
If you look closely I didn't attack you at all, I attacked what your position espouses. If we all were to believe what you believe then wouldn't it make sense to condemn homosexuality? Are you going to offer your stance or just scream at me for making a logical inference?
#138 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
No you definitely made personal attacks on me twice. First you tried to demean me with a comment about a pastor as if I was a brainwashed theologian and then you asserted that I was a homophobe out to attack homosexuals. It is upsetting that you would be so crude as to attempt such a thing and pitiable to then try and hide it. You didn't make any logical points and you have pretty much just ignored everything I said while constantly repeating your flawed stance on the argument.
I stated that homosexuality has no evidence to suggest it is determined on a genetic level at birth. I clearly explained multiple times how your presentation of the differences in male and female genes has nothing to do with my statement and your rebuttal everytime has been to repeat yourself and in most cases try to insult me. In fact, this last time you tried to insult me again by saying I am screaming at you when I am being far more logical and factual in this discussion.
If you would prefer just to tell me again that men and women are different, therefore homosexuals are genetic and end it with an insult then I appreciate your waste of time and say good day to you as of now.
#148 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
Wow, those questions have nothing to do with my statement and you are trying to make the discussion more personal since you have no ground to stand on. I don't care about homosexuals at all. If they want to get married and buy houses, then they should go do it. It affects me none. I told you plainly, more times then I should have to that my argument is that genetics don't determine sexuality at birth and you continually change the subject and provide unrelated arguments and evidence. I suggest you look up common courtesy of debates before you attempt another debacle or at the very least stay on topic.
P.S. religion has nothing to do with this discussion and if you want to be butthurt over it I suggect you find a religion thread to troll rather than a discussion on genetics and.
#150 - Sethorein (09/23/2013) [-]
In one line tell me your argument. This has literally turned into you boo hooing while I have to keep trying to decipher what the fuck your argument is. I'm asking you simple questions give me answers.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN ARGUING?
Can you answer that or is it too personal?
For the love of god you try my patience...
#41 - kyuubey (09/23/2013) [-]
Actually it's because of his religious views that he held back his potential. If you read any of his works you'll see that he never mentions god in any of them, because he understood most of it.
But when he got stuck with a problem regarding the stability of the solar system he suddenly started mentioning god, you know why? Because he couldn't figure it out. And it wasn't till a century till Laplace came and figured it out.
So even Newton, one of the most brilliant minds let religion hold him back, and i'm confident he could've done it because he's fucking Newton.
#106 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
You took that from a Neil Degrass Tyson lecture and if that were really true then he would have simply mentioned God instead of inventing a new type of math to explain elliptical motions. It wasn't until he was genuinely stumped that he declared that God must be a very powerful deity in order to have created something so complex that he couldn't even fathom how it operated. He wasn't held back by religion he acknowledged that the universe was more complex than even he could figure out despite his best efforts.
#57 - goldenglimmer (09/23/2013) [-]
I don't know which of "Newton's work" you've read, but I could paraphrase him for you.
Very rarely do people read up on Newton's take on metaphysics, because his research within physics is so profoundly insightful, and is the basis for much of today's modern science. However, his relationship to both are related to each other.
You want to know why Newton did what he did? Do you want to know what drove him to discover some of the most important secrets about the physical world? He wanted to, in his own words, "reveal the glory of God".
Ignorant atheists love to describe "religion" as a veil that clouds our mind, but our intellect is neither diminished nor inhibited by "religion". It is our will that is can be restrained, or misdirected, and not only by "religion" but by any philosophy or mindset. They call all faiths "religion" and them throw them into a tiny box which they brand "inferior", and then scoff at those who disagree with their progressive secularism. This, in itself, is supremely arrogant, and misguided, because the word "religion" encompasses many VASTLY different ways of thinking.
I would humbly agree that many religions hinder development. I would argue that Christianity in its true form does quite the opposite. It creates incentive, promotes personal liberty and self-realization, and, like with Newton, naturally instills an incandescent inquisitiveness. There is a difference within "religion", and anytime anyone begins a statement with "Religion is...", I am initially prone to take whatever follows with a grain of salt.
#34 - chudboy (09/23/2013) [-]
I mean I'm not against revealing if someone is religious if they've done good. But to me it doesn't matter at all, its all about the person. Sure religion might of taken part in teaching and what not, but still it doesn't matter. The religion is taking credit, rather than the person who fully deserves it. It's like creating a stereotype and blaming the whole religious organisation when someone in that faith has done something terrible. The whole religion shouldn't get blamed.
#27 - chudboy (09/23/2013) [-]
Just because a person was religious, doesn't mean the whole religion is held accountable for such discoveries or even tragedies. Thank or blame the person, not the whole organisation. That's why I despise such statements like "but Christianity created/discovered this" No, religion is out of the question here. It was the person/people that deserve the credit. We never see "an atheist scientist discovered the cure for aids" because atheism didn't have anything to do with it.
|#22 - I thought he was Insanity Wolf as a human. [+] (1 new reply)||09/23/2013 on NO!!!! IT"S NOT POSSIBLE!!!!!||0|
|#21 - Comment deleted||09/23/2013 on NO!!!! IT"S NOT POSSIBLE!!!!!||0|
|#669443 - For those who have beaten GTA 5. You get a psychiatric e… [+] (1 new reply)||09/21/2013 on Video Games Board - console...||0|
|#952 - **RageRambo runs and jumps onto a building** [+] (2 new replies)||09/21/2013 on RageRambo's profile||0|
|#950 - **RageRambo rolls his eyes and takes off his jacket** … [+] (4 new replies)||09/20/2013 on RageRambo's profile||0|
|#948 - It's alright. I've had it too. Just sleep and pain meds. [+] (6 new replies)||09/20/2013 on RageRambo's profile||0|
|#946 - It happens to the best of us. You'll be fine in a few days. [+] (8 new replies)||09/20/2013 on RageRambo's profile||0|
|#6 - He beat Superman to death. [+] (1 new reply)||09/17/2013 on Now It All Makes Sense||+6|
|#51 - YFW you join the navy.||09/17/2013 on I loved this opportunity||+1|
|#57 - Yes. This is the same thing as when I made it.||09/16/2013 on 'Murica||0|
|#4 - My content was reposted... How do I feel about this? … [+] (13 new replies)||09/16/2013 on 'Murica||+143|