HORY SHET, ANON
NICE

we executed that really well in the end

I'm so offended. At least i can know i'm better than you

No, musical tastes =/= better personal quality and you're proving that nicely.

Well, seeing as you are so insecure about it all, it would seem i have both a better musical taste than you, and better qualities than you

Tell me again, what you know about my musical tastes?

you don't like daft punk

Says who?

says you, but i can't expect someone of your level of intellect to remember that. it happened almost 2 whole hours ago!

You DO realize you were replying to a second person... right?

This? Coming from the guy who was berating poor Schmitty for being a "simpleton"? Don't worry guy, I won't take it personally you obviously can't grasp the situation.

Heed the kitty.

What if you did?

Then that would me make just as big as a pretentious asshole as you.

I'm so offended. At least i can know i'm better than you

No, musical tastes =/= better personal quality and you're proving that nicely.

Well, seeing as you are so insecure about it all, it would seem i have both a better musical taste than you, and better qualities than you

Tell me again, what you know about my musical tastes?

you don't like daft punk

Says who?

says you, but i can't expect someone of your level of intellect to remember that. it happened almost 2 whole hours ago!

You DO realize you were replying to a second person... right?

This? Coming from the guy who was berating poor Schmitty for being a "simpleton"? Don't worry guy, I won't take it personally you obviously can't grasp the situation.

Heed the kitty.

A gargantuan simpleton it is then.

Why? Because I don't like Daft Punk? What if I said the same about you because you don't like Kanye West's music?

What if you did?

Then that would me make just as big as a pretentious asshole as you.

I'm so offended. At least i can know i'm better than you

No, musical tastes =/= better personal quality and you're proving that nicely.

Well, seeing as you are so insecure about it all, it would seem i have both a better musical taste than you, and better qualities than you

Tell me again, what you know about my musical tastes?

you don't like daft punk

Says who?

says you, but i can't expect someone of your level of intellect to remember that. it happened almost 2 whole hours ago!

You DO realize you were replying to a second person... right?

This? Coming from the guy who was berating poor Schmitty for being a "simpleton"? Don't worry guy, I won't take it personally you obviously can't grasp the situation.

Heed the kitty.

What about it with Kanye removed? www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vWGHSblRU

Meh, songs that just repeat the same thing over and over again don't really appeal to me all that much, the reason I like Kanye's version better is because it has verses rather than just the same set of words.

can't say I agree with you but I respect your opinion regardless.

either you are a shoddy mummer, or just a gargantuan simpleton

What the fuck is wrong with being a mummer!?

Or maybe I'm just not a big fan of Daft Punk.

A gargantuan simpleton it is then.

Why? Because I don't like Daft Punk? What if I said the same about you because you don't like Kanye West's music?

What if you did?

Then that would me make just as big as a pretentious asshole as you.

I'm so offended. At least i can know i'm better than you

No, musical tastes =/= better personal quality and you're proving that nicely.

Well, seeing as you are so insecure about it all, it would seem i have both a better musical taste than you, and better qualities than you

Tell me again, what you know about my musical tastes?

you don't like daft punk

Says who?

says you, but i can't expect someone of your level of intellect to remember that. it happened almost 2 whole hours ago!

You DO realize you were replying to a second person... right?

This? Coming from the guy who was berating poor Schmitty for being a "simpleton"? Don't worry guy, I won't take it personally you obviously can't grasp the situation.

Heed the kitty.

Actually,she doesn't.In the books,it's often said that since she began to hunt, food was never absent from their table,little as it was.

Am I the only one upset that they didn't detail around the food in the movie as much as they did in the book? In the book she fucking omnomnomed so much when she got to the Capital and in the movie she was all bitchy the entire time.

Yeah, they left some important details out. It might be trivial,but I'm more upset they didn't include the "She doesn't know the effect she can have." thingy as well.

The worst detail that was left out was the Mutts. In the first book the biggest thing that hit me was when Katniss realised that the Mutts were the other Tributes who had died. It would have taken five seconds in the film to show a unique tattoo on one of the Tributes, and on one of the Mutts. It was one of the best moments in the book, and the first idea of just how very cruel the capital was.

I had forgotten about that.That too.Yes.I was so mad about that as well,I mean, sure those were some badass, scary-looking mutties there, but what struck Katniss so deep was their association with the tributes.

I know bro, the film did them well, but they missed such an opportunity. The Mutts in the book were a huge psychological punch to the nuts (hehe that rhymed), imagine what it would have been like in the film. The entire audience would instantaneously release a chorus of "HOLY FUCK". The bit that annoyed me though, was how easy it would have been to include it in the film, a little extra make-up in the form of a tattoo or heterochromatic eyes on a tribute, and then the same extra shown on a Mutt, and bam, shocking realisation. Especially when you realise that Rue was one of them.

I agree with you completely, but I must disappoint you. I'm no bro, thank you, nevertheless. Little Rue was so perfect,the whole audience was sobbing when she died,just imagine the /horror/ it'd cause... Let's just hope they won't screw up the second movie now that Gary Ross departed.

The second movie was screwed up the second they changed the story behind the pin. They can still have it, but how would they end it without the Resistance people? Who were only there because of the message the pin sent.

I don't think so, tbh. It annoyed me that they didn't include Madge's story, but they have paid heed to the pin itself, especially with Cinna. And Rue. So, I think it'll be justified.

Eh, maybe, I still think it would have been better if they had Madge's story to go with it. But you're right, they could probably still do the whole resistance thing. The thing I'm really looking forward to is the taps in Capitol in the third one.

You mean the pods? That'll just bring HG to the next sci-fi level. Also, Boggs and seeing that Coin bitch get killed by Katniss...

I won't last through Peeta's madness,though. Nuh-uh. Not a chance.

Yeah, and the whole point with the mockingjay pin that she got, they changed that so much and I thought it was very important the way she got it in the book. Not just "Oh she bought it herself".

Exactly! Imo, it showed partially that not all people associated with authority are evil killing machines, Madge was the only friend she had. Plus,it would add up in the third movie, to show that there were losses from both sides and that the Capitol thought even their own men were expendable.

I still think the movie was very good of course, it's just small things like that, that do indeed have a large impact annoy me to no avail.

I thought it was a damn good adaptation myself. I know what you mean,those things annoy me,but on the other hand, the fact that they made Haymitch blonde doesn't. Or Cinna black. I don't mean to sound racist or anything like that, but in the books he's described as 'pale', if I recall correctly and I had imagined him otherwise.

I loved their version of Cinna, and those things like that don't bother me at all, just small things that mean more in the grand schemes of things exactly like Madges moms pin, her mom was a survivor of the hunger games, it's pretty significant. Unless I remember wrong and it was just her mothers friend who was in the games.

It was Madge's mother's sister who was in the Games, and it was her who was friends with Katniss' mother herself. I'm just quite sure they're going to change the ending, label it as too 'depressing' or something of the sort. I hope they keep up the quality of the films and not turn it into another teenage-fangirl franchise,because it's much more than that.

** Spoiler Alert**

When Primrose died it was like the biggest "Fuck you and everything you're about moment" I've ever witnessed. Lol

I've read the books...4 or maybe 5 times. I got used to everything,the killings, the cruelty, the threats. I still loved them so much as to finish one book per day. When I began to read the third one, every fucking time, my day got ruined, I felt so damn depressed and hopeless, I had to stop reading, take a breath and a break from the agony, then continue. It's worse every time, because I get more and more attached to the characters who die.
SPOILER
I mean, when Finnick dies...I don't know man...Rue's and Finnick's deaths affected me more than Prim's,I have to admit, but godammit, it all started because of her, then Collins is like "I'll scar you for your literary life." and just bombs her up.

The books were extremely well written, and probably one of my favorite series. Finnick was so boss with his trident. I can't wait for the next movie to come out.

I have a thing for tormented and witty characters and as Finnick was a combination of both, he became my best friend almost instantly.

Of course we all know Peeta is best character.

I want to destroy Cato so bad. Also Woody Harrelson mad a damn good Haymitch I think.

Let us lie no longer- Ceasar kicked ass.

He was an exceptional host.

And Thresh was so dope, you had no doubt he ran the place.

You seem to know quite a bit about the hunger games so I'll ask you. I've only ever seen the movie, and at the end they "create" those dog creatures with computers or whatever. Do you know what the explanation of that is? Do they just have that awesome technology or is the game happening inside some kind of weird place where computer simulation appear real?

I am not quite sure if they presented that very well in the movie. It took a bit of time and preparation, but yes, their technology is very advanced (after all it's sci-fi). Those are species artificially created, mutations or "mutts" as they are most commonly known. Mockingjays -the bird on Katniss' pin- were created after the jabberjays, mutations created by the Capitol, and mockingbirds mated. Trackerjackers -the bees that killed Glimmer- are also mutations. Those dog-like creatures are mutations that were created in order to cause fear, anguish and horror to Katniss; in the books, they have the tribute's eyes. Whether they're the real eyeballs themselves or not isn't specified.
In short, yes the mutts are very much real.

.... touche salesman....

That's the point a misused meme and a comment that states the obvious

i don't know what that other dude said (because he's a pussy), but i agree with you regardless

Thanks

Asserting that there is something impossible for an omnipotent being is limiting him from the beginning, and as such the question in itself is a logical fallacy.

Well schmitty we find ourselves in a loop

I claim that God does not need to be bound by his creation, and you claim that he would (or is) be.

This isn't a means of a logical problem anymore, but a question that can not possibly be answered by natural logical process.

Well then I bid you a good day and maybe someday we can solve this problem.

also someone thumbed you down, people don't seem to be able to understand the difference between discussion and argument.

then I revert back to the question of whether or not God is bound by his creation

It may be a concept that we can never understand, such as our inability to understand a lack of time.

For instance before the big bang (or whatever initial existence of matter) there was no matter, if there was no matter than there was no gravity, and if there was no gravity then there was no time.

Try to imagine a lack of time, not time frozen, but a complete lack of time. In a similar way we may not be able to understand what binds a being that created our sense of logic.

Also Descartes
Y is absolutely omnipotent" means that "Y" can do everything absolutely. Everything that can be expressed in a string of words even if it can be shown to be self-contradictory, "Y"is not bound in action, as we are in thought by the laws of logic."

I don't profess to know all about or agree completely with the Big Bang Theory. My original question was just questioning the original statement of "Omnipotent being means everything is 100% possible". However I do think that an omnipotent being can be bound by its creation but that it also bound by certain standing laws such as my original questioning of your statement.

Asserting that there is something impossible for an omnipotent being is limiting him from the beginning, and as such the question in itself is a logical fallacy.

Well schmitty we find ourselves in a loop

I claim that God does not need to be bound by his creation, and you claim that he would (or is) be.

This isn't a means of a logical problem anymore, but a question that can not possibly be answered by natural logical process.

Well then I bid you a good day and maybe someday we can solve this problem.

depends on whether or not he creator of logic is bound by his creation, considering he isn't bound by time I'd assume not

but if so WIKIPEDIA
A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or Richard Swinburne is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he can't, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18 which says it is "impossible for God to lie." This raises the question, similar to the Euthyphro Dilemma, of where this law of logic, which God is bound to obey, comes from. According to these theologians, this law is not a law above God that he assents to but, rather, logic is an eternal part of God's nature, like his omniscience or omnibenevolence. God obeys the laws of logic because God is eternally logical in the same way that God doesn't perform evil actions because God is eternally good. So, God, by nature logical and unable to violate the laws of logic, cannot make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it because that would violate the law of non contradiction by creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force. This is similar to the Hebrews 6:18 verse, which teaches that God, by nature honest, cannot lie.

part 2

Another common response is that since God is supposedly omnipotent, the phrase "could not lift" doesn't make sense and the paradox is meaningless.[12][13] This may mean that the complexity involved in rightly understanding omnipotence---contra all the logical details involved in misunderstanding it---is a function of the fact that omnipotence, like infinity, is perceived at all by contrasting reference to those complex and variable things which it is not. But, an alternative meaning is that a non-corporeal God cannot lift anything, but can raise it (a linguistic pedantry) - or to use the beliefs of Christians[verification needed] and Hindus (that there is one God, who can be manifest as several different beings) that whilst it is possible for God to do all things, it is not possible for all his incarnations to do them. As such, God could create a stone so heavy that, in one incarnation, he was unable to lift it - but would be able to do something that an incarnation that could lift it couldn't.

So basically by redefining "omnipotent" to not actually mean all-powerful, they explain away contradictions within Christianity. By that definition of "omnipotent" I, too, am omnipotent because I can do all things within my nature.

also someone thumbed you down, people don't seem to be able to understand the difference between discussion and argument.

then I revert back to the question of whether or not God is bound by his creation

It may be a concept that we can never understand, such as our inability to understand a lack of time.

For instance before the big bang (or whatever initial existence of matter) there was no matter, if there was no matter than there was no gravity, and if there was no gravity then there was no time.

Try to imagine a lack of time, not time frozen, but a complete lack of time. In a similar way we may not be able to understand what binds a being that created our sense of logic.

Also Descartes
Y is absolutely omnipotent" means that "Y" can do everything absolutely. Everything that can be expressed in a string of words even if it can be shown to be self-contradictory, "Y"is not bound in action, as we are in thought by the laws of logic."

I don't profess to know all about or agree completely with the Big Bang Theory. My original question was just questioning the original statement of "Omnipotent being means everything is 100% possible". However I do think that an omnipotent being can be bound by its creation but that it also bound by certain standing laws such as my original questioning of your statement.

Asserting that there is something impossible for an omnipotent being is limiting him from the beginning, and as such the question in itself is a logical fallacy.

Well schmitty we find ourselves in a loop

I claim that God does not need to be bound by his creation, and you claim that he would (or is) be.

This isn't a means of a logical problem anymore, but a question that can not possibly be answered by natural logical process.

Well then I bid you a good day and maybe someday we can solve this problem.

some where some fucking penguin is not getting laid because you are the worst wingman ever

thats fine, penguins barely have wings anyways

BEKUZ ITZ 1337 trollOLOLOLOLOLOOO COMIKZ XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD




No, but seriously, I hate OP for being born.