but facebook told me i have 220 iq
honestly never pissed in a shower, everything has to be clean, and i don't have time to scrub the drain

Well the idea is that you get it directly down the drain.
And, as a liquid thats then going to be washed over by water, dirty water, soapy water and all manner of other things. I'd say the overall dirtiness of the drain stays about the same.
It's still just a personal thing, whatever. But it doesn't really have a large downside (or upside) beyond personal preference.

the soap molecules stick to dirt
if it already has dirt, there's nothing to grab.

? If there's dirt in your piss I think you should see a doctor.
I meant that all the liquid going over and down the drain would push most of it down and wash it over pretty thoroughly.
Dirt/soap buildup would be a bigger cleanliness issue as detrimental effects would occur much faster. (higher germ density, degradation of drainpipes, clumping & lowering drain effectiveness)

i already need a doc

Urine isn't that unclean compared to feces. Unless you currently have a UTI. Urine is filtered waste from your blood stream. It isn't purified water by any means, but water without even soap can easily clean it off, no problem. The germs on your skin are far worse than those in your urine. (Registered Nurse)

Fair enough, I'm browsing on a phone so either the search showed differently or I'm blind and didn't notice it.

However, no it isn't the same effect, it's talking about a property of him vs a property of what he's covered in, and I'm specifically talking about what effect HE has, not what effect what he's covered in has. That's just the wording I'm arguing the effect of, the effect of a small child jumping on a fire is probably similar whether he is retardant or just has retardant covering him.

As for it being a better pun, meh, they both have "retard" in them which is all our really needs, and while you could say that "fire retarded" has a closer-matching double meaning, you could also say that "fire retardant" is a much more common phrase and so would be more appropriate. When the nitpicking is this fine, it's kinda subjective is what I'm getting at.

i sure could use a fuck

close enough i feel satisfied

idk i hardly vote
but mlp is eyebleedingly sad

I realise I'm getting into pedantic arguing over the wording of a crappy pun, but I'm not doing anything else right now so screw it.
I used "fire retardant" because I was talking about he himself and the effect he'd have on fires, not about what he was covered in and therefore how likely he'd be to burn as would be implied by "fire retarded". According to you anyway, I've never heard the phrase" fire retarded" before and can't find much on it with a quick Google search, so I'm taking your word for it that people use that phrase.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fire-retarded
It was the first thing on google when I searched 'fire retarded'.
If he was fire retarded, it would amount to the same thing just saying that he himself isn't fire retardent but has a fire retardent acheiving the same effect.

And then you'd have retarded in the pun, not retardent, so it'd be a better pun

Fair enough, I'm browsing on a phone so either the search showed differently or I'm blind and didn't notice it.

However, no it isn't the same effect, it's talking about a property of him vs a property of what he's covered in, and I'm specifically talking about what effect HE has, not what effect what he's covered in has. That's just the wording I'm arguing the effect of, the effect of a small child jumping on a fire is probably similar whether he is retardant or just has retardant covering him.

As for it being a better pun, meh, they both have "retard" in them which is all our really needs, and while you could say that "fire retarded" has a closer-matching double meaning, you could also say that "fire retardant" is a much more common phrase and so would be more appropriate. When the nitpicking is this fine, it's kinda subjective is what I'm getting at.

If I remember correctly, Goku hadn't actually managed to hit the full power of super saiyan god when it stopped. Super saiyan blue is the comparable to a saiyan transforming to super saiyan 1 after they've managed to reach the point that goku does after super saiyan god thats sorta complicated, so without explanation the process goes -become as powerful as Goku was after his body adapted to red hair mode -go psuedo yellow hair mode -thats blue hair mode.
The offensive power of blue and red appear to be rather equal, but the actual energy usable in red appears to be far greater than in blue.
I don't think they ever actually directly state which is more powerful (or that they're equal) but Weiss says that blue is comparable to red this hints that red is still more powerful, as is usually meant when people say 'comparable to' and definitively states that they're close . My main reasoning behind the two is that with super saiyan god, Goku manages to keep using deeper and deeper reserves of energy, while in super saiyan blue, his energy reserves appear far more limited.

While they did say that Goku had absorbed the power of super saiyan god after he returned to his base form, but Goku also says that he wants to attain that power for himself, which shows that while he is far stronger, he isn't still at the level of true super saiyan god, which I would hazard a guess to being more akin to being the super saiyan 2 if we called super saiyan blue as super saiyan 1

>>#38, >>#35,

Admin made them mp4 instead of webm now, so that they play on all devices and browsers since some didn't support webm.

I thought of that before I posted the comment.
But I reeaally wanted to use that picture

But retarded means something different to retardant.

fire retarded means covered in a fire retarder material.
So its effect comes out the same, I'm just not saying his squishy little tard ograns are flameproof

I realise I'm getting into pedantic arguing over the wording of a crappy pun, but I'm not doing anything else right now so screw it.
I used "fire retardant" because I was talking about he himself and the effect he'd have on fires, not about what he was covered in and therefore how likely he'd be to burn as would be implied by "fire retarded". According to you anyway, I've never heard the phrase" fire retarded" before and can't find much on it with a quick Google search, so I'm taking your word for it that people use that phrase.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fire-retarded
It was the first thing on google when I searched 'fire retarded'.
If he was fire retarded, it would amount to the same thing just saying that he himself isn't fire retardent but has a fire retardent acheiving the same effect.

And then you'd have retarded in the pun, not retardent, so it'd be a better pun

Fair enough, I'm browsing on a phone so either the search showed differently or I'm blind and didn't notice it.

However, no it isn't the same effect, it's talking about a property of him vs a property of what he's covered in, and I'm specifically talking about what effect HE has, not what effect what he's covered in has. That's just the wording I'm arguing the effect of, the effect of a small child jumping on a fire is probably similar whether he is retardant or just has retardant covering him.

As for it being a better pun, meh, they both have "retard" in them which is all our really needs, and while you could say that "fire retarded" has a closer-matching double meaning, you could also say that "fire retardant" is a much more common phrase and so would be more appropriate. When the nitpicking is this fine, it's kinda subjective is what I'm getting at.