x
Click to expand

phoenixactual

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:1/27/2013
Last Login:4/28/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#14124
Highest Content Rank:#5621
Highest Comment Rank:#4932
Content Thumbs: 370 total,  1405 ,  1035
Comment Thumbs: 1322 total,  2159 ,  837
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 34 Content: Peasant → Level 35 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 76% (38/50)
Level 211 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 212 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:6
Content Views:149719
Times Content Favorited:24 times
Total Comments Made:1780
FJ Points:1541
Favorite Tags: HORMONES (2) | trans (2) | Transgender (2)

latest user's comments

#149 - You legitimately have no idea what the **** you are tal… 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now -2
#133 - Do you have no concept about how massive object collisions work?  [+] (2 new replies) 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now -2
User avatar #143 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
if a brick fall from the sky and a shard from the brick breaking from the fall penetrate you, you die. in the end it's still luck.
#149 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
You legitimately have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, it's like talking to a child here. WE HAVE SCIENTIFIC FUCKING EVIDENCE PROVING THAT THE COLLISION THAT KILLED THE DINOSAURS DID SO BY CHANGING THE CLIMATE, MAKING THE EARTH INHOSPITABLE TO REPTILIAN LIFE. THEY DIDN'T DIE FROM FUCKING SHRAPNEL, WE KNOW IT WAS THE COLD. HOW ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS SIMPLE FUCKING CONCEPT?
#130 - A single major impact event was sufficient to change the clima… 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now -1
#127 - Yet said idea is kind of proven to be ******** , when yo…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now -1
User avatar #151 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
this thing with the whole thousand year, billion year argument is that it's pointless. because before a way to measure time existed, there is no definition of how long a year is. so a day of the 6 days can last as long as it's required.
#158 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Doesn't matter, as far back as recorded history, the earliest forms of life we have found do not fit into the concept of "kinds". Unless you can show me a 500 million year old fossil of a dog playing with a trilobite, your argument is still bullshit.
User avatar #180 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's measured my radation decay, but can the decay be slowed or hastened, we don't know. it's foolish to assume that it can't be, just due to ignorance.
#186 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
So you agree with creationists, then. I'm sorry, good luck with your life
#122 - Then why did animals over a certain size that were nowhere nea…  [+] (5 new replies) 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now -2
User avatar #128 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
in a true cataclysm there will be more than one "Bricks"...
your argument sounds to me that, if i stab a piece of paper and someone on the other side of the planet dies at the same moment, i'm responsible or his death.
#133 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Do you have no concept about how massive object collisions work?
User avatar #143 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
if a brick fall from the sky and a shard from the brick breaking from the fall penetrate you, you die. in the end it's still luck.
#149 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
You legitimately have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, it's like talking to a child here. WE HAVE SCIENTIFIC FUCKING EVIDENCE PROVING THAT THE COLLISION THAT KILLED THE DINOSAURS DID SO BY CHANGING THE CLIMATE, MAKING THE EARTH INHOSPITABLE TO REPTILIAN LIFE. THEY DIDN'T DIE FROM FUCKING SHRAPNEL, WE KNOW IT WAS THE COLD. HOW ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS SIMPLE FUCKING CONCEPT?
#130 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
A single major impact event was sufficient to change the climate drastically enough to kill off large reptiles. If what you say is true, there would be fucking dinosaurs from species that survived walking down the street right now.
#806 - And again, this isn't about social acceptance. I gave up soci… 02/11/2014 on Opinion time 0
#805 - Again, you can't understand it fully, because it's not somethi… 02/11/2014 on Opinion time 0
#94 - With some animals surviving cataclysms, while others don't, ho…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now -2
User avatar #115 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's just simply a matter of luck. for example if a brick fall from the sky, those that it hit will be dead, and those that it missed will live. a cataclysm is simply a "brick on a larger scale"
#122 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Then why did animals over a certain size that were nowhere near the impact die off as well? they were unfit to survive in the resulting conditions, hence survival of the fittest. It's backed by fucking history, dude
User avatar #128 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
in a true cataclysm there will be more than one "Bricks"...
your argument sounds to me that, if i stab a piece of paper and someone on the other side of the planet dies at the same moment, i'm responsible or his death.
#133 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Do you have no concept about how massive object collisions work?
User avatar #143 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
if a brick fall from the sky and a shard from the brick breaking from the fall penetrate you, you die. in the end it's still luck.
#149 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
You legitimately have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, it's like talking to a child here. WE HAVE SCIENTIFIC FUCKING EVIDENCE PROVING THAT THE COLLISION THAT KILLED THE DINOSAURS DID SO BY CHANGING THE CLIMATE, MAKING THE EARTH INHOSPITABLE TO REPTILIAN LIFE. THEY DIDN'T DIE FROM FUCKING SHRAPNEL, WE KNOW IT WAS THE COLD. HOW ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS SIMPLE FUCKING CONCEPT?
#130 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
A single major impact event was sufficient to change the climate drastically enough to kill off large reptiles. If what you say is true, there would be fucking dinosaurs from species that survived walking down the street right now.
#93 - It works better than the alternative of "god made it exac…  [+] (6 new replies) 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now -1
User avatar #119 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
"god made it exactly as is" is a mere interpetation made by some groups, but the essience of creationism is that god is the one that created kinds. while kinds change through generations, the ideal remains .
#127 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Yet said idea is kind of proven to be bullshit, when you consider the fact that billions of years ago, the current kinds didn't fucking exist
User avatar #151 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
this thing with the whole thousand year, billion year argument is that it's pointless. because before a way to measure time existed, there is no definition of how long a year is. so a day of the 6 days can last as long as it's required.
#158 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Doesn't matter, as far back as recorded history, the earliest forms of life we have found do not fit into the concept of "kinds". Unless you can show me a 500 million year old fossil of a dog playing with a trilobite, your argument is still bullshit.
User avatar #180 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's measured my radation decay, but can the decay be slowed or hastened, we don't know. it's foolish to assume that it can't be, just due to ignorance.
#186 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
So you agree with creationists, then. I'm sorry, good luck with your life
#803 - I see myself as I see myself. To deny myself the opportunity … 02/11/2014 on Opinion time 0
#801 - I'm not changing my gender, though, that's the thing. Gender … 02/11/2014 on Opinion time 0
#79 - life as we know it. Without the single celled organism that f…  [+] (8 new replies) 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now -1
User avatar #90 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
"life as we know it"
that is what i mean by circular logics, you know life due your belief in evolution, and then try to prove evolution through "life as we know it". this argument does not work
#93 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
It works better than the alternative of "god made it exactly as is". I'm pretty sure Bill Nye completely destroyed that argument, hence where this whole conversation started in the first place, which brings us full circle
User avatar #119 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
"god made it exactly as is" is a mere interpetation made by some groups, but the essience of creationism is that god is the one that created kinds. while kinds change through generations, the ideal remains .
#127 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Yet said idea is kind of proven to be bullshit, when you consider the fact that billions of years ago, the current kinds didn't fucking exist
User avatar #151 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
this thing with the whole thousand year, billion year argument is that it's pointless. because before a way to measure time existed, there is no definition of how long a year is. so a day of the 6 days can last as long as it's required.
#158 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Doesn't matter, as far back as recorded history, the earliest forms of life we have found do not fit into the concept of "kinds". Unless you can show me a 500 million year old fossil of a dog playing with a trilobite, your argument is still bullshit.
User avatar #180 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's measured my radation decay, but can the decay be slowed or hastened, we don't know. it's foolish to assume that it can't be, just due to ignorance.
#186 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
So you agree with creationists, then. I'm sorry, good luck with your life
#799 - Don't try to say it's ******** , the science backs me up…  [+] (8 new replies) 02/11/2014 on Opinion time 0
User avatar #807 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
but thats the fucking point, youre not a woman, you are what you think a woman is, and thats why i think its pointless. a woman really is nothing different, and thus you wouldnt need to change yourself to fit it, you just want to be what you and society considers a woman to be
User avatar #804 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
im saying it makes no difference if youre male or female.
all those things you do is just you wanting to conform the the gender roles.
it doesnt matter what gender you are, just be the person, stop trying to be something youre not cause you feel the grass is greener on the other side
#806 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
And again, this isn't about social acceptance. I gave up social acceptance from a vast majority the moment I decided to live to make myself happy
#805 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Again, you can't understand it fully, because it's not something you've lived by. I don't live by stereotypes. I am a woman. I play video games, ride motorcycles, and can qualify expert in rifle marksmanship by military standards, with most semi auto weapons. I wear what I want, not what society expects me to wear. Seem to fit in with what you're trying to say? Cause what you're talking about is not changing things that I am miserable without changing
User avatar #802 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
again, youre putting to much weight into gender, it means nothing. dont see yourself as a woman or a man, see yourself as a person
#803 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
I see myself as I see myself. To deny myself the opportunity to live as the gender that I know at the core of my being I am causes me great distress. It's not a personal choice, I can't help it. It's easy for you to say something like that, you've never had to live the life a trans person lives. What you're talking about is gender noncomforming, which is totally different
User avatar #800 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
i never implied it was harmful, you on the other hand have constantly asked to be treated specially and implied you have the right to act like a dick if someone doesnt get your exact word of preference right.
youre putting to much weight in to your gender, it doesnt really mean anything about you, youre a person, do what you want but changing your gender doesnt change you or anything really
#801 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
I'm not changing my gender, though, that's the thing. Gender is who you are as a person. Sex is who you are genetically. Genetically, I will always be male, true, but gender wise, I was never male. As a person, I am a woman, so I change my appearance as such to feel more comfortable with life. Do you realize how many trans women kill themselves when they are denied the opportunity to do so? It's a very depressing life when you can't just be yourself. If you wanted some kind of decent answer about this, all you have to do is ask, but do so without misgendering, or sounding like a bit of a dick, that's generally what sets people off.
#66 - Holy **** , that's what evolution is  [+] (10 new replies) 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now +1
User avatar #92 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's not darwin's evolution. darwin believes that evolution is a process of mutations and that negative mutations are removed from the gene pool, and cross-breeding only produce differences, and these differences create species.
#94 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
With some animals surviving cataclysms, while others don't, how can it not be called survival of the fittest? Wouldn't all life on earth be totally extinct by now?
User avatar #115 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's just simply a matter of luck. for example if a brick fall from the sky, those that it hit will be dead, and those that it missed will live. a cataclysm is simply a "brick on a larger scale"
#122 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Then why did animals over a certain size that were nowhere near the impact die off as well? they were unfit to survive in the resulting conditions, hence survival of the fittest. It's backed by fucking history, dude
User avatar #128 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
in a true cataclysm there will be more than one "Bricks"...
your argument sounds to me that, if i stab a piece of paper and someone on the other side of the planet dies at the same moment, i'm responsible or his death.
#133 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Do you have no concept about how massive object collisions work?
User avatar #143 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
if a brick fall from the sky and a shard from the brick breaking from the fall penetrate you, you die. in the end it's still luck.
#149 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
You legitimately have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, it's like talking to a child here. WE HAVE SCIENTIFIC FUCKING EVIDENCE PROVING THAT THE COLLISION THAT KILLED THE DINOSAURS DID SO BY CHANGING THE CLIMATE, MAKING THE EARTH INHOSPITABLE TO REPTILIAN LIFE. THEY DIDN'T DIE FROM FUCKING SHRAPNEL, WE KNOW IT WAS THE COLD. HOW ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS SIMPLE FUCKING CONCEPT?
#130 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
A single major impact event was sufficient to change the climate drastically enough to kill off large reptiles. If what you say is true, there would be fucking dinosaurs from species that survived walking down the street right now.
#72 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Curses, I was in the process of logging in to say this.
#797 - A little light reading for you. 2 of these…  [+] (10 new replies) 02/11/2014 on Opinion time 0
User avatar #798 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
so youre trying to tell me, that you can feel theres something different with your brain. and that this little different feeling constantly urges you to change sex, this little brain abnormality knows that you feel strange about having something between your legs and thus must change this and dress in skirts
#799 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Don't try to say it's bullshit, the science backs me up on this. Or did you just not read any of that? Either way, don't try to force stereotypes out of this, It's not about the clothes, it's about knowing who you are, and feeling comfortable as yourself, instead of living a lie, and being miserable for the rest of your fucking life. How is that remotely harmful to the world? It doesn't affect you, so why do you care? By medical science, I am a woman. the documentation proves it. I may not be genetically female, but who gives a fuck? It's not like I'm going out into public, whipping my dick out in everybody's faces. I'm just trying to live a decent, semi normal life. Why can't you just accept that and let it go?
User avatar #807 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
but thats the fucking point, youre not a woman, you are what you think a woman is, and thats why i think its pointless. a woman really is nothing different, and thus you wouldnt need to change yourself to fit it, you just want to be what you and society considers a woman to be
User avatar #804 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
im saying it makes no difference if youre male or female.
all those things you do is just you wanting to conform the the gender roles.
it doesnt matter what gender you are, just be the person, stop trying to be something youre not cause you feel the grass is greener on the other side
#806 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
And again, this isn't about social acceptance. I gave up social acceptance from a vast majority the moment I decided to live to make myself happy
#805 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Again, you can't understand it fully, because it's not something you've lived by. I don't live by stereotypes. I am a woman. I play video games, ride motorcycles, and can qualify expert in rifle marksmanship by military standards, with most semi auto weapons. I wear what I want, not what society expects me to wear. Seem to fit in with what you're trying to say? Cause what you're talking about is not changing things that I am miserable without changing
User avatar #802 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
again, youre putting to much weight into gender, it means nothing. dont see yourself as a woman or a man, see yourself as a person
#803 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
I see myself as I see myself. To deny myself the opportunity to live as the gender that I know at the core of my being I am causes me great distress. It's not a personal choice, I can't help it. It's easy for you to say something like that, you've never had to live the life a trans person lives. What you're talking about is gender noncomforming, which is totally different
User avatar #800 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
i never implied it was harmful, you on the other hand have constantly asked to be treated specially and implied you have the right to act like a dick if someone doesnt get your exact word of preference right.
youre putting to much weight in to your gender, it doesnt really mean anything about you, youre a person, do what you want but changing your gender doesnt change you or anything really
#801 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
I'm not changing my gender, though, that's the thing. Gender is who you are as a person. Sex is who you are genetically. Genetically, I will always be male, true, but gender wise, I was never male. As a person, I am a woman, so I change my appearance as such to feel more comfortable with life. Do you realize how many trans women kill themselves when they are denied the opportunity to do so? It's a very depressing life when you can't just be yourself. If you wanted some kind of decent answer about this, all you have to do is ask, but do so without misgendering, or sounding like a bit of a dick, that's generally what sets people off.
#61 - But there were only two wolves. How do you get thousands of b…  [+] (12 new replies) 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now 0
User avatar #63 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
two wolves can create a nest of six pups, and these pups can all have slightly different traits, more likely for those with similar traits to breed, so after one generation, you get 3 nests of 6 pups, and each nest have same similarities. then after a few more generations, you get multiple species due to the cross-breeding.
#66 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Holy shit, that's what evolution is
User avatar #92 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's not darwin's evolution. darwin believes that evolution is a process of mutations and that negative mutations are removed from the gene pool, and cross-breeding only produce differences, and these differences create species.
#94 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
With some animals surviving cataclysms, while others don't, how can it not be called survival of the fittest? Wouldn't all life on earth be totally extinct by now?
User avatar #115 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's just simply a matter of luck. for example if a brick fall from the sky, those that it hit will be dead, and those that it missed will live. a cataclysm is simply a "brick on a larger scale"
#122 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Then why did animals over a certain size that were nowhere near the impact die off as well? they were unfit to survive in the resulting conditions, hence survival of the fittest. It's backed by fucking history, dude
User avatar #128 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
in a true cataclysm there will be more than one "Bricks"...
your argument sounds to me that, if i stab a piece of paper and someone on the other side of the planet dies at the same moment, i'm responsible or his death.
#133 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Do you have no concept about how massive object collisions work?
User avatar #143 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
if a brick fall from the sky and a shard from the brick breaking from the fall penetrate you, you die. in the end it's still luck.
#149 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
You legitimately have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, it's like talking to a child here. WE HAVE SCIENTIFIC FUCKING EVIDENCE PROVING THAT THE COLLISION THAT KILLED THE DINOSAURS DID SO BY CHANGING THE CLIMATE, MAKING THE EARTH INHOSPITABLE TO REPTILIAN LIFE. THEY DIDN'T DIE FROM FUCKING SHRAPNEL, WE KNOW IT WAS THE COLD. HOW ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS SIMPLE FUCKING CONCEPT?
#130 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
A single major impact event was sufficient to change the climate drastically enough to kill off large reptiles. If what you say is true, there would be fucking dinosaurs from species that survived walking down the street right now.
#72 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Curses, I was in the process of logging in to say this.
#60 - The simple fact that there is no legitimate way life could exi…  [+] (12 new replies) 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now 0
User avatar #70 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
that's circular logics, you believe that "no legitimate way life could exist without evolution on some scale" because of evolution, then try to prove evolution from that "no legitimate way life could exist without evolution on some scale". overall you are not proving anything. just making a logical fallacy
#140 - fefe (02/11/2014) [-]
Argumentum ad logicam - the "fallacy fallacy". Basically saying that just because an argument contains a fallacy, its conclusion is inherently wrong, which is what you just did.

If I were you, then maybe I would lay off pointing out other's fallacies until you actually learn about fallacies, troll.
User avatar #173 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
im not saying the argument is wrong, i don't know that. i'm merely saying that this argument do not prove your point. and thus irreverent in the debate.
#79 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
life as we know it. Without the single celled organism that first split into 2, nothing would be as it is today. Or do you believe the creationist version of things?
User avatar #90 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
"life as we know it"
that is what i mean by circular logics, you know life due your belief in evolution, and then try to prove evolution through "life as we know it". this argument does not work
#93 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
It works better than the alternative of "god made it exactly as is". I'm pretty sure Bill Nye completely destroyed that argument, hence where this whole conversation started in the first place, which brings us full circle
User avatar #119 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
"god made it exactly as is" is a mere interpetation made by some groups, but the essience of creationism is that god is the one that created kinds. while kinds change through generations, the ideal remains .
#127 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Yet said idea is kind of proven to be bullshit, when you consider the fact that billions of years ago, the current kinds didn't fucking exist
User avatar #151 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
this thing with the whole thousand year, billion year argument is that it's pointless. because before a way to measure time existed, there is no definition of how long a year is. so a day of the 6 days can last as long as it's required.
#158 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Doesn't matter, as far back as recorded history, the earliest forms of life we have found do not fit into the concept of "kinds". Unless you can show me a 500 million year old fossil of a dog playing with a trilobite, your argument is still bullshit.
User avatar #180 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's measured my radation decay, but can the decay be slowed or hastened, we don't know. it's foolish to assume that it can't be, just due to ignorance.
#186 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
So you agree with creationists, then. I'm sorry, good luck with your life
#796 - A little light reading for you. 2 of these…  [+] (8 new replies) 02/11/2014 on Opinion time 0
User avatar #822 - durkadurka (02/11/2014) [-]
I don't get how any of that information makes me wrong. They're basically saying that the root of a desire to be another gender is rooted in chemical variations in the brain. That doesn't make them the other sex, it simply explains where their mentality stems from.
It's the same reason why masculinity and femininity are related to testosterone and estrogen exposure during fetal development.
It's the reason why Einstein was so smart: They found out that his brain had additional folds in crucial locations.
This is nothing new dude. Brains are insanely advanced and unique.
#823 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
We aren't saying it's sex, we're saying it's gender. Gender is what your brain tells you you are. In the case of trans people, the brain says something different than the body. It's hard for you to understand because you've never lived it, but seriously, our brain activity very closely matches the target gender. You've been coming at this from a purely biological standpoint, never once taking into account the extremely powerful mental side to this, that leaves untreated trans people suicidal. Don't try to suggest corrective therapy, that has a near 100% success rate of making things worse
User avatar #824 - durkadurka (02/11/2014) [-]
But you can't just feel that way and be cool with your body?
#826 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
There's the problem. We try, and it causes great emotional pain. It doesn't work like that. You can't hide who you are, it will always try to get out
User avatar #828 - durkadurka (02/12/2014) [-]
Well no, that's the thing; You're denying who you are and are bent on changing it.
#832 - phoenixactual (02/12/2014) [-]
And you have learned absolutely nothing whatsoever from talking to an actual trans person. I'm done here, you're just hopeless
User avatar #833 - durkadurka (02/12/2014) [-]
Well perhaps it's best for me to avoid them, because if they're like you the experience will always be unpleasant. You come off as extremely self centered, so sure that you're important and deserving of everyone's attention. This explains the drive to do things that force people to acknowledge you. The truth is that the world only cares about how much you can offer it, not all of your metaphorical cries of "acknowledge me!".

I hope someday you'll come to realize that there are more important things out there than yourself, that the characteristics we're handed in life shouldn't solely define us, and that other people's rights and feelings are just as important as your own.

Basically, you need to get over yourself.
#827 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
And with stuff that does absolutely no harm to others, there's no legitimate reason to hide it longer than we have to, and when we try, many of us don't survive
#782 - Minimal convinience hell, If I or other trans women go into th… 02/11/2014 on Opinion time 0
#781 - Nazi is a political party, not a mental condition, genius. Yo…  [+] (12 new replies) 02/11/2014 on Opinion time 0
User avatar #784 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
>implying everything you consider male isnt simply taught to you by society
>implying you would put this much weight in wether you wanna have a dick or not if you werent just aiming for social acceptance
#797 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism
www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html
www.apa.org/monitor/2013/04/transgender.aspx
studentaffairs.iub.edu/glbt/library/library-resources/academic-research/transgender-research/
A little light reading for you. 2 of these are legitimate scientific journals, the other is a research resource. Say what you want about Wikipedia, but the page wasn't written by trans people
User avatar #798 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
so youre trying to tell me, that you can feel theres something different with your brain. and that this little different feeling constantly urges you to change sex, this little brain abnormality knows that you feel strange about having something between your legs and thus must change this and dress in skirts
#799 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Don't try to say it's bullshit, the science backs me up on this. Or did you just not read any of that? Either way, don't try to force stereotypes out of this, It's not about the clothes, it's about knowing who you are, and feeling comfortable as yourself, instead of living a lie, and being miserable for the rest of your fucking life. How is that remotely harmful to the world? It doesn't affect you, so why do you care? By medical science, I am a woman. the documentation proves it. I may not be genetically female, but who gives a fuck? It's not like I'm going out into public, whipping my dick out in everybody's faces. I'm just trying to live a decent, semi normal life. Why can't you just accept that and let it go?
User avatar #807 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
but thats the fucking point, youre not a woman, you are what you think a woman is, and thats why i think its pointless. a woman really is nothing different, and thus you wouldnt need to change yourself to fit it, you just want to be what you and society considers a woman to be
User avatar #804 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
im saying it makes no difference if youre male or female.
all those things you do is just you wanting to conform the the gender roles.
it doesnt matter what gender you are, just be the person, stop trying to be something youre not cause you feel the grass is greener on the other side
#806 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
And again, this isn't about social acceptance. I gave up social acceptance from a vast majority the moment I decided to live to make myself happy
#805 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Again, you can't understand it fully, because it's not something you've lived by. I don't live by stereotypes. I am a woman. I play video games, ride motorcycles, and can qualify expert in rifle marksmanship by military standards, with most semi auto weapons. I wear what I want, not what society expects me to wear. Seem to fit in with what you're trying to say? Cause what you're talking about is not changing things that I am miserable without changing
User avatar #802 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
again, youre putting to much weight into gender, it means nothing. dont see yourself as a woman or a man, see yourself as a person
#803 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
I see myself as I see myself. To deny myself the opportunity to live as the gender that I know at the core of my being I am causes me great distress. It's not a personal choice, I can't help it. It's easy for you to say something like that, you've never had to live the life a trans person lives. What you're talking about is gender noncomforming, which is totally different
User avatar #800 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
i never implied it was harmful, you on the other hand have constantly asked to be treated specially and implied you have the right to act like a dick if someone doesnt get your exact word of preference right.
youre putting to much weight in to your gender, it doesnt really mean anything about you, youre a person, do what you want but changing your gender doesnt change you or anything really
#801 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
I'm not changing my gender, though, that's the thing. Gender is who you are as a person. Sex is who you are genetically. Genetically, I will always be male, true, but gender wise, I was never male. As a person, I am a woman, so I change my appearance as such to feel more comfortable with life. Do you realize how many trans women kill themselves when they are denied the opportunity to do so? It's a very depressing life when you can't just be yourself. If you wanted some kind of decent answer about this, all you have to do is ask, but do so without misgendering, or sounding like a bit of a dick, that's generally what sets people off.
#780 - Go ahead and take a good long look at what people have been sa…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/11/2014 on Opinion time 0
User avatar #785 - admiralen (02/11/2014) [-]
youre not polite and you act like people owe it to you to treat you specially.
#383 - A little light reading for you. 2 of thes… 02/11/2014 on Opinion time 0
#366 - No, It's not. Gotta love how you decided to use one example o…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/11/2014 on Opinion time +1
User avatar #369 - tealcanaan (02/11/2014) [-]
Could you link me to an un-biased study that doesn't use generalizations and unbacked assumptions as it's data?
#383 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism
www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html
www.apa.org/monitor/2013/04/transgender.aspx
studentaffairs.iub.edu/glbt/library/library-resources/academic-research/transgender-research/
A little light reading for you. 2 of these are legitimate scientific journals, the other is a research resource. Say what you want about Wikipedia, but the page wasn't written by trans people
#16 - But that just proves that evolution is real  [+] (122 new replies) 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now +126
User avatar #197 - adu (02/11/2014) [-]
As a person who believes that nothing in the bible contradicts evolution or vice versa, I am okay with this.
#234 - fefe (02/11/2014) [-]
"believes that nothing in the bible contradicts evolution"

What in the actual fuck. Did you even READ the bible?

I mean, it's cool that you're okay with evolution, but the fact that you say that NOTHING in the bible contradicts it seems to suggest that you haven't even read it...
User avatar #242 - adu (02/11/2014) [-]
Do you have any points you'd like to make? Or are you interpreting everything as literal?
User avatar #148 - TeChNoItUP (02/11/2014) [-]
It is but it doesn't go against the Bible. The only thing about evolution that goes against the bible is the creation of new species which has not been observed. Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. So, I don't understand people who believe that evolution disproves God. It literally makes no sense.

User avatar #195 - adu (02/11/2014) [-]
Even that doesn't go against evolution, unless you're a biblical literalist.
User avatar #199 - TeChNoItUP (02/11/2014) [-]
I am confused. It literally is evolution in a nut shell. That is what that verse basically says. That species produce after their own kind and change. If you take it literal, it is evolution. But not creating new species evolution. It is talking about creating different kinds of the same species.

So lets separate, one - I am saying that the evolution part that says new kinds of the same species are created due to otuside circumstances and cross breeding is in that verse.

two- The part of evolution which has no basis and has never been observed where new species are created due to that. That part is not in that verse and is the most unscientific part of the theory. Since it hasn't been observed, it doesn't even pass the first part of the scientific method which i find hilarious. Please, use it in all your arguments. It makes my job easier.
User avatar #249 - ninjaroo (02/12/2014) [-]
There is no such thing as a different kind of the same species. That makes no sense. A species is any group of similar organisms that can reproduce under natural conditions. If there were two kinds of the same species, they're either not be able to reproduce or they'd be too similar to call a second kind.
Oh, and by the way, new species being produced has been observed in botflies in the laboratory and in ring species in the wild. Not to mention that watching it happen isn't the only kind of observation, concluding that it happened based on things like humans having a fused chromosome that basically matches two of chimpanzees chromosomes is a gigantic flashing neon sign saying "The distant ancestors of these organisms were the same species"
#201 - adu (02/11/2014) [-]
You're right about one thing, I guess. It does all depend on interpretation. Pretty sure you're wrong about the observation bit, though. The observation is in the remnants of lost species and the inferences we can make from DNA and fossil records, as well as all of the observed facts that we know about genetic mutations and natural selection.

"New kinds of the same species" is indeed micro evolution, but believing in micro evolution and not macro evolution is rather silly. That's like believing that a child can grow, but refusing to believe in the existence of adults. Micro evolution is just macro evolution in a smaller time sample. Corgis and huskies have the same ancestors, just mutated down different paths based on environment and breeding across hundreds or thousands of years. If such significant differences can arise from just a few hundred or thousand years of genetic mutation, why is it hard to believe in greater mutations across millions or even billions of years?

It's all perfectly compatible with a figurative interpretation of the Bible. God's design for humanity, making us in his image, didn't have to happen immediately, and Hebrew word for the word "Day" is the same as the one for the word "Age", so I'd hardly accept the King James translation as anything more than a vague historical reference. Evolution could have easily been the medium to creating humanity as we see it. Nothing in the Bible says that it couldn't, not unless you interpret things literally, but then you'd also have to believe that bats are birds and the earth has corners.
#203 - fefe (02/11/2014) [-]
#150 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Nobody on here said it disproves god, just that history has proven time and time again that the biblical sense of things is fucking bullshit
User avatar #152 - TeChNoItUP (02/11/2014) [-]
I am not going to argue with someone who has done no research on the subject. You do not know what you are talking about.
#153 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
I've been researching this stuff since I was a fucking child, I have read the bible cover to cover, I have lived both sides of the fucking argument, don't try to argue this shit with me, you will fail miserably
User avatar #160 - TeChNoItUP (02/11/2014) [-]
I am arguing nothing. You are making yourself look like a fool. I also find that those type of atheists that were once Christians are usually the most disrespectful little shits. You are no exception apparently. I have no respect for you.
#166 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
I'm not an atheist, I just never accepted religion over science. science allows people to believe in some kind of god, because it's not disproven. Just because I study science doesn't mean I'm atheist, asshole
User avatar #179 - TeChNoItUP (02/11/2014) [-]
Well, I certainly couldn't tell the difference. It is like I am talking to a child. Well, I probably am if you honestly think that the Bible isn't historically accurate. It really is historically accurate. The empires it talks about most likely existed especially the Roman empire. The way the Bible describes the Roman empire is very similar to what people have found. If we talk about old testament historical accuracy, it would be extremely hard to find stuff that old with that much information. However, the kingdom of David has a high probability of having existed. They have found james the brother of Jesus's grave with high probability that it is indeed James. You have done no research, and you have no idea what you are talking about. So, the historical accuracy point has little to no grounds. It is highly unlikely with what we have found to conclude otherwise. I say again, you do not know what you are talking about.
#187 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Some of it is, that doesn't mean I have to take it's version on our existence literally.
User avatar #192 - TeChNoItUP (02/11/2014) [-]
No, you don't but that is where your argument and opinion ends. Keep your opinions and "facts" to yourself. Ignorant piece of shit.
User avatar #157 - genu (02/11/2014) [-]
Someones awfully vulgar today.
#161 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Cause I tend to get just a little pissed when people act like I have no idea what I'm talking about
User avatar #164 - genu (02/11/2014) [-]
Understandable just remember you seem more professional when you keep your cool.
#167 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Easy for you to say, you're not the one who has spent 3 days arguing against plain lunacy until their hands were shaking
User avatar #183 - TeChNoItUP (02/11/2014) [-]
You started the argument with me. I have no sympathy for you and your piece of shit life. Go fuck yourself and maybe realize that it's you thats causing you're supposed terrible "situation". I hate people like you and always will.
#209 - fefe (02/11/2014) [-]
k.
User avatar #169 - genu (02/11/2014) [-]
Then ignore them and enjoy other content, I feel like that's what this site was for not to stress yourself.
User avatar #52 - skypatrol (02/11/2014) [-]
If said species had perfect genetic makeup in the ark, then when the mated every possibility would be... Possible.
AaAa mating with an AaAa would produce a very diverse population
#99 - aceonfire (02/11/2014) [-]
There are more than just two hair colors, eye colors, etc. When speaking in terms of dogs, the variety of expressed alleles amongst different breeds is so vast that it arising from just two different sets of genes is highly improbable, only truly possible through genetic mutation across time, which either way plays directly into the theory of evolution.
User avatar #103 - skypatrol (02/11/2014) [-]
Perfect genetic diversity among the ancestors would be able to give you all of the differences that we see today.
Not saying evolution is impossible.. bla bla bla
Im saying that its possible without evolution too.
User avatar #250 - ninjaroo (02/12/2014) [-]
No it really wouldn't... You're talking about a single breeding pair being capable of producing offspring of every eye color, every hair color, every size and shape and tail length, every combination of fluffy and rough and long and short, aggressive and submissive, shedders or not shedders, and a million other variables. That's simply not possible.
User avatar #65 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
very life form is unique as it's god's will to re-population the species due to tho flood. the cross breeding is just the way to do that
User avatar #68 - skypatrol (02/11/2014) [-]
okay youre a terrible troll
User avatar #74 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
that's argumentum Ad hominem, accusing me of trolling is irreverent to the debate. while it can appeal to retards, but it will not work on the smart people of funnyjunk.
User avatar #77 - skypatrol (02/11/2014) [-]
youre a -288 troll that cant put together a cohesive sentence.
#81 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
again, attacking me personally is not a counter of my point, and it doesn't disproves my theory of cross-breeding
User avatar #34 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it does prove there is some sort of "evolution" if you count cross breeding "evolution", but darwin's theory is absolute bs
#60 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
The simple fact that there is no legitimate way life could exist without evolution on some scale just proves Darwin's theories, genius
User avatar #70 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
that's circular logics, you believe that "no legitimate way life could exist without evolution on some scale" because of evolution, then try to prove evolution from that "no legitimate way life could exist without evolution on some scale". overall you are not proving anything. just making a logical fallacy
#140 - fefe (02/11/2014) [-]
Argumentum ad logicam - the "fallacy fallacy". Basically saying that just because an argument contains a fallacy, its conclusion is inherently wrong, which is what you just did.

If I were you, then maybe I would lay off pointing out other's fallacies until you actually learn about fallacies, troll.
User avatar #173 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
im not saying the argument is wrong, i don't know that. i'm merely saying that this argument do not prove your point. and thus irreverent in the debate.
#79 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
life as we know it. Without the single celled organism that first split into 2, nothing would be as it is today. Or do you believe the creationist version of things?
User avatar #90 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
"life as we know it"
that is what i mean by circular logics, you know life due your belief in evolution, and then try to prove evolution through "life as we know it". this argument does not work
#93 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
It works better than the alternative of "god made it exactly as is". I'm pretty sure Bill Nye completely destroyed that argument, hence where this whole conversation started in the first place, which brings us full circle
User avatar #119 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
"god made it exactly as is" is a mere interpetation made by some groups, but the essience of creationism is that god is the one that created kinds. while kinds change through generations, the ideal remains .
#127 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Yet said idea is kind of proven to be bullshit, when you consider the fact that billions of years ago, the current kinds didn't fucking exist
User avatar #151 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
this thing with the whole thousand year, billion year argument is that it's pointless. because before a way to measure time existed, there is no definition of how long a year is. so a day of the 6 days can last as long as it's required.
#158 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Doesn't matter, as far back as recorded history, the earliest forms of life we have found do not fit into the concept of "kinds". Unless you can show me a 500 million year old fossil of a dog playing with a trilobite, your argument is still bullshit.
User avatar #180 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's measured my radation decay, but can the decay be slowed or hastened, we don't know. it's foolish to assume that it can't be, just due to ignorance.
#186 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
So you agree with creationists, then. I'm sorry, good luck with your life
#38 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
To anyone else being enraged by this, this guy's a -288 troll.
User avatar #42 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
why would anyone be enraged by this, it's the truth.
i was actually expecting greens.
#44 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
Not to mention that you claimed there were fewer kinds. How the hell did we get species?
User avatar #46 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's just cross breeding, like how we can cross breed a horse and an ass to get a mule.
or cross breed different wolves with similar properties to get us dogs. the whole confusion about evolution is as simple as that.
#61 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
But there were only two wolves. How do you get thousands of breeds of dogs from 2 wolves? For that matter, how do you get millions of species from just one single celled organism at the dawn of life itself, without Darwin evolution?
User avatar #63 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
two wolves can create a nest of six pups, and these pups can all have slightly different traits, more likely for those with similar traits to breed, so after one generation, you get 3 nests of 6 pups, and each nest have same similarities. then after a few more generations, you get multiple species due to the cross-breeding.
#66 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Holy shit, that's what evolution is
User avatar #92 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's not darwin's evolution. darwin believes that evolution is a process of mutations and that negative mutations are removed from the gene pool, and cross-breeding only produce differences, and these differences create species.
#94 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
With some animals surviving cataclysms, while others don't, how can it not be called survival of the fittest? Wouldn't all life on earth be totally extinct by now?
User avatar #115 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
it's just simply a matter of luck. for example if a brick fall from the sky, those that it hit will be dead, and those that it missed will live. a cataclysm is simply a "brick on a larger scale"
#122 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Then why did animals over a certain size that were nowhere near the impact die off as well? they were unfit to survive in the resulting conditions, hence survival of the fittest. It's backed by fucking history, dude
User avatar #128 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
in a true cataclysm there will be more than one "Bricks"...
your argument sounds to me that, if i stab a piece of paper and someone on the other side of the planet dies at the same moment, i'm responsible or his death.
#133 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
Do you have no concept about how massive object collisions work?
User avatar #143 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
if a brick fall from the sky and a shard from the brick breaking from the fall penetrate you, you die. in the end it's still luck.
#149 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
You legitimately have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, it's like talking to a child here. WE HAVE SCIENTIFIC FUCKING EVIDENCE PROVING THAT THE COLLISION THAT KILLED THE DINOSAURS DID SO BY CHANGING THE CLIMATE, MAKING THE EARTH INHOSPITABLE TO REPTILIAN LIFE. THEY DIDN'T DIE FROM FUCKING SHRAPNEL, WE KNOW IT WAS THE COLD. HOW ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS SIMPLE FUCKING CONCEPT?
#130 - phoenixactual (02/11/2014) [-]
A single major impact event was sufficient to change the climate drastically enough to kill off large reptiles. If what you say is true, there would be fucking dinosaurs from species that survived walking down the street right now.
#72 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Curses, I was in the process of logging in to say this.
#48 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
So you believe that we humans have cross bred species since the beginning of our existance, including ourselves.

k.
User avatar #53 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
humans are already present during noah's ark, but we did cross breed in order to get different races, due to different cultures. for example, asians believe that small eyes are a measure of beauty so only people with small eyes bred. and blacks thinks beauty is measured by the skin tone, so they eventually became black from the cross-breeding. it's as simple as that.
and no, the cross breeding is not controlled by humans, but by god's infallible system of beauty that he have imposed on all living things.
#76 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
I am at least 84.6% sure god gave humans willpower to make choices. Not force a system on who we can and can't breed with.
User avatar #84 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
now, that's a counter point!!! i'm so glad to see one of these after a hundred fallacies.
now on to my reply.
god did give human free-will, and the whole reason of these cross-breeding is due to freewill. now if you have the choice of breeding an ugly or a attractive woman, you would always choose the attractive woman (personality is part of attractiveness), and that's the definition of freewill, and because people will choose their defination of beauty, cross breeding happen, and eventually you will get species.
#89 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Slight tweak to your reply. Mates weren't necessarily chosen for their 'attractiveness' but more their ability to survive, which also flows into only the ones that did survive have the chance to mate. Thus, survival of the fittest - Darwin
User avatar #101 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
the problem of this argument is that ability to survive is very difficult to measure by humans and others creatures of god. so when something want to mate and they need to find another quick, they cannot be given the other's examinations. so instead they look for physical attractiveness.
do you think that the colors on birds help it to survive? no, it just make them easier to spot by predators, but it do make them more attractive to females, so they are the only ones who can breed , thus darwin is wrong on this point.
#105 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Um, colors in birds do help it to survive. Put a black bird in a snowy area for example. Once again you prove Darwin right because if the birds that are easier to spot by predators get hunted by said predators, then all that is left to mate are the more camo'd birds. Also, if they need to find a mate quick, I think they will go for whatever they can, not the most attractive.
#108 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
i'm not talking about camos, but actual colorfulness like this
#114 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
animals.pawnation.com/cardinals-adaptations-survive-7775.html
You shouldn't judge a book by its cover. Your only looking at one quality instead of the bird as a whole.
User avatar #121 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
i'm talking individual traits. and the color for males doesn't help it survive. if darwin is correct than both males and females would be brown.
#126 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
You can't just talk about one trait, it's the mixture of traits that allowed it to survive. They have 1 negative trait of being red and then 5,6,or more traits that help it survive which is why the red trait gets to be carried on.
User avatar #155 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
if the survival of the fittest is true, then that one negative trait will be filtered out. since some birds will have the all these traits and some will have all the traits but not be red, due to the principle infinite possibility. and the ones with no red will survive and their gene will be passed on.
the essence of darwin's theory is that pretty much all negative traits will be removed, but this is not the fact.
#163 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
You sir, are absolutely correct. You just so happen to be in the middle of this evolution from red birds to brown, not the end. Evolution takes time and I'm not talking a couple years or so, but actual long lengths of time.
User avatar #178 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
then, we will wait and see who is correct than. we will never know in our life time, that is but a will of god.
#87 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
God never gave us free will. We had to take it by the Apple of Eden, and thus God condemned humans. Have you even read the Bible?
User avatar #135 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
if we don't have free will then we couldn't have taken the apple. it's all part of god's plan.
#136 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
We didn't take the apple by free will, they were commanded to do so by Lucifer through a snake.
User avatar #175 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
but god had much more power than lucifer, and thus we had the freewill to choose the snake's suggestion. it's merely a plan devised by god to show us the correct way.
#189 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
I'm done talking to you. You're just a delusional idiot who can't face the facts.
User avatar #190 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
same can be said of you
#191 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
You have yet to disprove evolution and prove creationism.
#67 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
Just don't. Not even you are this stupid.
User avatar #78 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
you knows, argumentum ad absurdum is a fallacy, just because you are not smart enough to understand my argument and find my argument absurd does not mean it is false.
#85 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
You aren't using any arguments. The Bible was, is, and will never be a reliable source. We base our facts through documented research, which clearly shows the development of specific species. We even have hand proof evidence that the offspring of black people who worked as slaves in the US gradually have become lighter in their skin.
User avatar #102 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
i'm not basing my point on the bible, actually i'm not even christian and don't even own a bible. i'm basing my point on experiments such as the silver fox project and confirms that species can be produced by cross breeding and others.
#142 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
Also, claiming that you're not religious and still use, I quote:

" but by god's infallible system of beauty that he have imposed on all living things."

is just stupid.
User avatar #156 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
dude, there is more religions than Christianity...
#134 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
Wow, you really are stupid. Cross breeding is a part of Darwinism, he conducted several experiments in which he stated the two points:

Evolution through environment
Evolution through genes

The genetic part being the one of cross breeding and mutations.

Try looking up Darwinism before you even claim something like that.
User avatar #141 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
there are similarities between Darwinism and the essence of creationism, that's for sure. but what i'm saying is Darwin is wrong in the survival of the fittest thing and one cannot disprove creationism just because of the effect of cross-breeding.
#144 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
You can't disprove creationism even with the Big Bang Theory. Nobody knows for sure what the universe was like in the very beginning. And no, Darwin is not wrong at all. Several species have died already as a result of climate changes, territorial expansion and subjecating to humans.
User avatar #171 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
if we kill a thing, it will die. if we kill a specie, it will die. it's the heart of human caused extinctions.
#188 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
Right. Because the Ice Age didn't exist or anything. I'm fairly certain we didn't make Sabretooths or mammoths go extinct.
#80 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
No, that's what facts, observation and proof is for. You make assumptions but state zero facts. Your only reference is a single book. When I write reports I need to cite multiple sources, not just one.
User avatar #88 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
and you are doing the same thing. you assuming that what i'm saying is false because that you assume i'm using a single book as my resource. that's argumentum ad absurdum, and a fallacy on your part instead of mines.
i actually gathered some of my data from creditable experments such as the domesticated silver fox experiment in russia
#95 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
First, it's reductio ad absurdum. Second, I never said your argument was absurd, I was stating that you aren't providing proof which isn't an assumption. If you look back at your previous statements you lack proof. Finally, the silver fox experiment that you so quickly added to your own repertoire actually proves darwin because it proves natural selection.
User avatar #113 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
no the experiment disproves darwin's theory, because it's not natural selection, but a systemically designed system of cross-breeding with a goal of creating another specie of domesticated foxes.
#124 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Woah woah woah, slow down. I just realized that you are talking about cross-breeding. The silver fox experiement didn't cross-breed, they used one breed. The siberian fox.
#120 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
"Belyaev and Trut believe that selecting for tameness mimics the natural selection that must have occurred in the ancestral past of dogs, and more than any other quality, must have determined how well an animal would adapt to life among humans."
It's an experiment to artificially control natural selection to see the process.
User avatar #131 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
exactly my point. it's a system of selected crossbreedings to study the historical cross-breeding that happened when we domesticate dogs.
#138 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
It's. Not. Cross-Breeding. Btw, so you are pro-evolution now? You seem to be standing by the ideas of evolution and the developing of physiological traits through selective breeding.
#43 - comradewinter (02/11/2014) [-]
Explain how we have different races and species, then. Things that we can not date back to earlier ages. Or how dinosaurs didn't live around the same time as common animals.
User avatar #35 - nustix (02/11/2014) [-]
Hmm I think that posting links of gore in NSFW was more effective. Why don't you post the images themselves it will fool people more easily.
#45 - mathematics has deleted their comment.
User avatar #47 - theincrediblegoose (02/11/2014) [-]
If you watched the debate and remained on Ken's side the entire time, there's something wrong with you.
User avatar #50 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
ken was a writer, while bill was the president for his science cult. clearly bill has more experience debating, and Ken would barely have enough experience to follow up with a point. however the truth out there is not dependent on the skill of each debater.
i think Ken lost because he was a horrible debater who cannot catch on the fallacies made by Bill while Bill is great at catching Ken's fallacies. but simply denoucing the debater doesn't effect the truth.
#83 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Has nothing to do with the skill of the debater as to why Bill won; has everything to with the proof that each debater prepared going into the debate. When one person provides tons of different facts and reasons while the other holds up a single book, not even the best debater in the world can beat that.
User avatar #106 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
exactly, Ken lost because he didn't know how to gather proofs, unlike a skilled debater like bill. there are plenty of proofs against darwin's theory all around us such as the fact that some birds have colorful feathers, that attract predictors, which make it less likely to survive, and others.
#111 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Ken Ham worked as a researcher, you stand by a guy who couldn't even do his job. Also. the birds that have colorful feathers and survive predators have other traits allowing it to survive. Speed, size, and feeding patterns are just a few of them.
User avatar #123 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
i'm not standing for Ken, he's a retarded twat. i'm stand for the thing he's debating for. and that's what mattered.
#129 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Then I pose you the same question he received. What, if anything, can change your mind?
User avatar #146 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
the thing about god's work is that we, humans, are not intelligent enough to understant god's designs, and all these experiments only offer clues for us the follow. through further experiments creationism can be adopted to fit them, but there is no way we can understand creationism for sure.
#154 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Then why are the experiments not leading towards creationism, but away from it? Also, I want to pose you an idea. When there were things that humans did not understand or could not comprehend, such as the sun rising and setting. An explanation was made up by one or a select few. Then it was adopted by all until it was later disproved and a new explanation that made more sense and could be proved was given. What I am talking about is the Greek god Apollo. What if this god that you are so adamantly following is just another Greek god being used to explain something that is a little more difficult than the sun rising and setting to truly answer?
User avatar #159 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
all we know is that god created us all, and that is all.
we can gather clues but we can never know the answer.
that's creationism.
#165 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Know... Greeks KNEW that Apollo carried that sun across the sky. Where's Apollo?
User avatar #177 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
we can never know... the theory of apollo is designed by the greeks to explain god with the current facts of the time, and everything we have now is created with our current facts.
#181 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
There seems to be this fun trend of gods being disproved over time until gods have boiled down to only being an explanation of very generalized or vague things that are more difficult to disprove due to the nature of what they explain. Just give it time.
User avatar #184 - mathematics (02/11/2014) [-]
maybe some time we can have the tech to speak to god, and we can stop this whole debate.
#185 - Exletlalis (02/11/2014) [-]
Or, maybe the negative trait of god will be filtered out...
#15 - Bugs still need a place to land, and water is notoriously bad for that 02/11/2014 on It all makes sense now +2

items

Total unique items point value: 610 / Total items point value: 860
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#14 - greedtheavaricious ONLINE (07/28/2014) [-]
You are not really considering suicide, are you?
User avatar #13 - redwrench ONLINE (07/28/2014) [-]
Queen-Don't Try Suicide
User avatar #12 - psychadelicace (06/25/2014) [-]
soooooooo...what did you post that got you banned?
User avatar #11 - bruinslover ONLINE (06/24/2014) [-]
never knew you like to post shemales....subscribing.
User avatar #7 - youmotherfather (02/19/2014) [-]
Don't do it tho. Don't kill yourself. Don't even think about it.
#8 to #7 - phoenixactual (02/19/2014) [-]
No plans to
User avatar #9 to #8 - youmotherfather (02/19/2014) [-]
Ok, good to hear.
User avatar #6 - funnymidget (02/08/2014) [-]
:Hey, I seen you havin a Bad day. Don't be feeling down fr losin your job man. It's all gon' be good. Currently, I'm going through something that I have no Idea how to handle. I'm not able to see me son, and I've bee going thru so much stress with the drama. But lets not make this about me. You have a probably beautiful girlfriend, who loves you more than anything, and though you may have autsim, you strike me as a good guy. Trust me, suicide isn't worth it. It's just a Permant Solution to a temporary problem. I had a friend about 3 years ago kill himself because people bullied him for the way her looked. He was one of my only friends, and I was just devastated. Trust me, you taking your own life will hurt more people than it will help. For the sake of those who love you, and for your own sake, please, Just keep your mindset on the positive things in life. Though there may not be many, just focus on the few that are. It'll all be worth it in theend when you have a gril at your right, a child on yourleft, and you can call yourself a family.
User avatar #5 - mayormilkman (11/28/2013) [-]
butts
#1 - fefe (07/15/2013) [-]
Hows the transition going?
#2 to #1 - phoenixactual (07/16/2013) [-]
it's going fairly well, 6 months in, somewhat surprising changes for this short of time
 Friends (0)