Have you actually tasted it or is that a quote from the show?

Real life Cannibal (and near duplicate of Hannibal Lector, so much so that they could have been the same person) Armin Meiwes said so in his biography

He also described his favourite dishes, how to best cook and prepare them, and even detailed that once you eat enough human meat, other meats tend to taste bland and boring

There's also a movie based on it called 'Grimm Love' which I absolutely adored, not for the 'grittiness' of it, but because it actually addressed the question of how far is it acceptable to go in order to feel loved

the ''baskin's Robin' comment'? Do you have a link?

No, but it appeared on this picture nearly every time someone's posted it

As witty a joke as that was, you clever bastard, you; feel free to check through my comment history and see that I have never made that same comment in my life

I have SEEN it roughly three times, if not more

Which comment is that?

Baskins was robbin his father of his watch. theres some joke about it

.... que?

Ohhhhh.

I think that it might have been meant as a joke, just poorly conveyed.

Wait, Queen Elizabeth of England?

Go hard or go home, old chap

Theres no need for rigged elections because there are no elections,the people have no voice even though they are the ones supporting the government with their taxes. There are no popularity contests because the monarchy bans anyone who disagrees with them from being popular. When the monarchy is in control the media was controlled by the monarchy,as the only "truth" that was acceptable is the one that the monarchy adopted. And people with money have always run things,that is true for ever system of governance. All of that amazing training didnt stop Henry the 8th and the countless other monarchs from oppressing the populace and being shit rulers. It should also be noted that overthrowing these monarchs is not simple task,and it wont be as easy as getting decapitated by the razing masses(and do we really want a system where that is a requirement to oust a leader?)

There is a reason the west abandoned monarchies many years ago.

I agree with what your saying but you're talking about the monarchy like we're still in the 15th century when the monarchy actually did shit. Like, had power and treason existed and shit. Now, they do sod all except remind people they're still alive.

I'm anti-royalist too, but on the grounds that the population shouldn't fund the bloodline jobless just because - not because of who they were.

I just did some research, only 16 have jobs which may be cut to 8 or 9 when Charles is throned. Thats not the vast majority.

I actually wrote out a massive reply in a rebuttle to all of this. But my crappy computer decided it wanted to go back a page and erase my reply and I'm too lazy to write it all out again

I'm really sorry about this, and while you have no reason to believe me, please do when I say all of those could be solved provided X type of circumstance (that CAN be brought on deliberately) and that it's no better having a president

It actually isn't that important compared to protests in Turkey, revolutions in Egypt, and covered crises in Russia and China.

When the baby is close to being a monarch, it might be important. But right now I think the media is giving a disproportionate amount of coverage to someone who will only be a major influence in a few decades.

It's fine to be a royalist (hey - it helped in Spain right after Franco's death), but not when there are more important things to be aware about.

You shouldn't be.
Every month all the people in the state have to pay around £30m A MONTH.
Think about all the extra money people would have if there was no royalty?

They're just ordinary people who are so called 'ordained by god'

That sounds like an obscene amount, can you find a link for that?

Furthermore, in my comment below I said I was a royalist because it's part of our national heritage, and that I believe the best type of leader is one raised from birth to be so (that also includes letting money go to the poor. "A king is not he who is served by a million, but he who SERVES a million). I do appreciate the English Royalty, but I am not head-over-heels for them.

Pretty weird to find a royalist now a days, especially outside of the UK. Then again we are hypocrite little shits. We claim not to want them on charge but we celebrate their every move. I personally am a royalist, so I don't get why people complain but then celebrate everything they do. Just say you like them and be done with it.

Quite so. I'm a Royalist because I honestly believe a Monarchy is the best political system to have. No rigged elections, no popularity contests, no media and corporation running things behind the scene. Just one man or woman, trained from birth to be the best ruler they can be, and their word is law (and their head gets chopped off by the commonwealth when they screw up)

That is a political system I can get behind

Theres no need for rigged elections because there are no elections,the people have no voice even though they are the ones supporting the government with their taxes. There are no popularity contests because the monarchy bans anyone who disagrees with them from being popular. When the monarchy is in control the media was controlled by the monarchy,as the only "truth" that was acceptable is the one that the monarchy adopted. And people with money have always run things,that is true for ever system of governance. All of that amazing training didnt stop Henry the 8th and the countless other monarchs from oppressing the populace and being shit rulers. It should also be noted that overthrowing these monarchs is not simple task,and it wont be as easy as getting decapitated by the razing masses(and do we really want a system where that is a requirement to oust a leader?)

There is a reason the west abandoned monarchies many years ago.

I agree with what your saying but you're talking about the monarchy like we're still in the 15th century when the monarchy actually did shit. Like, had power and treason existed and shit. Now, they do sod all except remind people they're still alive.

I'm anti-royalist too, but on the grounds that the population shouldn't fund the bloodline jobless just because - not because of who they were.

I just did some research, only 16 have jobs which may be cut to 8 or 9 when Charles is throned. Thats not the vast majority.

I actually wrote out a massive reply in a rebuttle to all of this. But my crappy computer decided it wanted to go back a page and erase my reply and I'm too lazy to write it all out again

I'm really sorry about this, and while you have no reason to believe me, please do when I say all of those could be solved provided X type of circumstance (that CAN be brought on deliberately) and that it's no better having a president

You do know that the Royal Family rules more than just England, right? Like the commonwealth, which Canada is a part of.

What?

IKR it's called a wing dang doodle

Yeah, if I was a girl I'd probably be able to relate to her. I actually recommended it to my friend who is a girl that plays video games.

Well I wouldn't say not relatable, I can see a lot of people (most internet users) can kind of relate with this show and the things she does in the show. She has no real social life who wants all the idiots in the world to be murdered while playing video games in her room.

1. Making incorrect assumptions 2. Lengthy responses 3. Smart-ass remarks at the end of your comments. All reasons that led me to assume you were mad. If you aren't mad, then you really need to work on your diction, because that shit is confusing the crap out of your audience me . And you're planning your arguments as if you're talking with someone who doesn't believe phenomena. Read my first comment, I I didn't discredit the other arguments, I just stated which one I thought was most legitimate.

I didn't make any assumptions in my second comment

It shocks me that you actually think the length of a paragraph alone is a sign of attitude (of any sort)

My remark wasn't 'smart-assed' in my second comment. I simply said "Stupidity is no excuse to wipe away phenomena". You'd just as easily hear the same thing in any type of debate regarding extraordinary circumstances revolving around ordinary things

I never thought you didn't believe in phenomena, you just said the animal explanation is the best, I rebuttled in that it didn't explain the further action taken by some dogs, you excused that with the stupidity of dogs, I rebuttled in that instinct is more powerful than intelligence in most cases (and the instinct to live the strongest of them all), then YOU replied with a smart-assed comment, then I did the same in turn.

okay bro, no reason to get upset, its just content about dogs...

You obviously didn't even read through the entire text. If you did, you'd realize that I'm not upset, I'm not trying to justify the dogs actions (just saying it would be illogical and against nearly every form of evolution), I'm just saying the whole 'a dog is dumb' argument doesn't explain why EVERY dog has done it, in the same place, and then sometimes does it again

Okay bro? No reason to get upset, it's just a comment

1. Making incorrect assumptions 2. Lengthy responses 3. Smart-ass remarks at the end of your comments. All reasons that led me to assume you were mad. If you aren't mad, then you really need to work on your diction, because that shit is confusing the crap out of your audience me . And you're planning your arguments as if you're talking with someone who doesn't believe phenomena. Read my first comment, I I didn't discredit the other arguments, I just stated which one I thought was most legitimate.

I didn't make any assumptions in my second comment

It shocks me that you actually think the length of a paragraph alone is a sign of attitude (of any sort)

My remark wasn't 'smart-assed' in my second comment. I simply said "Stupidity is no excuse to wipe away phenomena". You'd just as easily hear the same thing in any type of debate regarding extraordinary circumstances revolving around ordinary things

I never thought you didn't believe in phenomena, you just said the animal explanation is the best, I rebuttled in that it didn't explain the further action taken by some dogs, you excused that with the stupidity of dogs, I rebuttled in that instinct is more powerful than intelligence in most cases (and the instinct to live the strongest of them all), then YOU replied with a smart-assed comment, then I did the same in turn.

Dogs are dogs.

Dogs are dogs, but nearly every animal has an instinct for self-preservation. That being said, even if they DID do it out of sheer stupidity, they jump off the ledge in order to REACH the animals, they wouldn't hike all the way back up top to try again because the whole point of jumping down was to be able to get them from an easier point. Just as well, they always jump off on the same side and exact same place, while the commotion of the dog would probably scare whatever critters are down there into running away from the noise, which would mean the dog would logically go to the other side, or try ANOTHER way

Stupidity is no excuse to wipe away a phenomena

okay bro, no reason to get upset, its just content about dogs...

You obviously didn't even read through the entire text. If you did, you'd realize that I'm not upset, I'm not trying to justify the dogs actions (just saying it would be illogical and against nearly every form of evolution), I'm just saying the whole 'a dog is dumb' argument doesn't explain why EVERY dog has done it, in the same place, and then sometimes does it again

Okay bro? No reason to get upset, it's just a comment

1. Making incorrect assumptions 2. Lengthy responses 3. Smart-ass remarks at the end of your comments. All reasons that led me to assume you were mad. If you aren't mad, then you really need to work on your diction, because that shit is confusing the crap out of your audience me . And you're planning your arguments as if you're talking with someone who doesn't believe phenomena. Read my first comment, I I didn't discredit the other arguments, I just stated which one I thought was most legitimate.

I didn't make any assumptions in my second comment

It shocks me that you actually think the length of a paragraph alone is a sign of attitude (of any sort)

My remark wasn't 'smart-assed' in my second comment. I simply said "Stupidity is no excuse to wipe away phenomena". You'd just as easily hear the same thing in any type of debate regarding extraordinary circumstances revolving around ordinary things

I never thought you didn't believe in phenomena, you just said the animal explanation is the best, I rebuttled in that it didn't explain the further action taken by some dogs, you excused that with the stupidity of dogs, I rebuttled in that instinct is more powerful than intelligence in most cases (and the instinct to live the strongest of them all), then YOU replied with a smart-assed comment, then I did the same in turn.