x
Click to expand

subaqueousreach

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 24
Steam Profile: subaqueousReach
Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, GBA, DS , Wii, Wii U, Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2, PS3
Interests: Music, Video Games, Architechture
Date Signed Up:3/19/2012
Location:Canada
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#1441
Highest Content Rank:#3471
Highest Comment Rank:#786
Content Thumbs: 3283 total,  3857 ,  574
Comment Thumbs: 12633 total,  15495 ,  2862
Content Level Progress: 79% (79/100)
Level 132 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 133 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 64.8% (324/500)
Level 310 Comments: Wizard → Level 311 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:3
Content Views:130520
Times Content Favorited:82 times
Total Comments Made:4780
FJ Points:14788
Favorite Tags: facebook (3) | People (2)

latest user's comments

#40 - Sorry, I didn't want to post all of google into a comment. I s…  [+] (7 new replies) 01/13/2015 on Cat 0
User avatar #41 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
That's because you're the one making claims that there's "hundreds and hundreds of sources" not me, so congratulations on being that asshole who looks at a religious debate and decides to yell at the atheists for being unable to prove that God doesn't exist.

That isn't an attempt at an appeal to ignorance at all. Right now you're banking that your small collection of shitty sources are better than my lack of evidence I never even claimed existed. This is especially true since I never claimed that my stance came from some scientifically documented shenanigans. I looked before hand and there's an overwhelmingly low amount of anything dedicated to "why do cats bring us animals?" It's all brain science in perception of prey, not ecological foraging techniques. I said that it simply made more sense to compare the hunting behavior of cats to that of dogs than to have come to whatever conclusion some freelance journalism website put into you.

Plus, you're not even basing your opinions on those sources you said existed, you assumed sources existed that conveniently fit what you said, and that there were hundreds of them. Yeah, that's good science.
User avatar #42 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
>Not basing my opinons on the sources

That's half right, I've read most of this shit years ago from different sources stating the same shit.

I like how you assumed I was talking out of my ass until I could find specific pages that helped back me, when you're more or less just shooting out an idea into the air and hoping people say "WOW YOU'RE SMART", regardless of the fact that there's already information contradicting that idea.

None of what I'm saying is some new fangled theory, people figured this shit out when I was 8 years old.
User avatar #43 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
Is this you hoping that by accusing me of what you're doing, you're somehow justified? That wouldn't even be valid if I was doing what you're accusing me of.
User avatar #44 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
I'm accusing you of nothing. I simply pointed out the irony that while you were accusing me of being full of shit and hoping I could find information to back up my claim, you were spouting on about a theory with absolutely no backing in the first place other than you found the other theory ridiculous. And in reality I had already known of this information well before hand.

But I'm no longer interested in debating this with you as now you're simply goading me into a tangent that has nothing to do with the original subject.

It is accepted fact that cats bring dead and injured animals home because they are teaching you to hunt.

The theoylry of them bringing dead animals as a gift to the alpha might make sense, but doesn't explain why they also bring partially wounded animals as well. Therefore, since it doesn't cover all the bases of the subject, it can't be considered fact.

Have a nice day.
User avatar #45 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
There you go again, making absolute claims that what you're saying is absolute fact when the best you have is some backwater online news website and the appeal to ignorance argument.

You're perfect for politics.

The truth is simple, if you're going to make a claim, especially a claim you're going to pose as 100% true, you post the sources. I'm not going to go get them for you. If all you have to say to that is "WELL WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES!"...well the truth is I never have to worry about you joining the scientific community. You'll get laughed out.

No amount of "This conversation is beneath me" will fix that. You can certainly believe it will, but all that'll prove is the freedom of speech allows people to be wrong.
User avatar #46 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
You don't seem to understand how facts work.

Facts are never 100%, since we can never truly know something to that degree. A fact is just a theory that makes the least amount of assumptions about a subject.

You assume domestic cats once behaved like wild dogs and therefore bringing dead animals to the alpha would make sense. However it doesn't explain at all why they would also start to bring injured animals in as well. You also still haven't provided any information to back up your claim whatsoever, but insist that I'm incorrect for no other reason than you disagree.

However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals, then injured animals, and eventually they bring them along on the hunt. This would explain why they bring people dead and injured animals into the home without making any real assumptions other than why they would do this when we feed them. However this can be chalked up to instinctual animal behavior that they can't really help.


But now I've wasted enough time on you cause I have the not so subtle suspicion that you're a troll. If not, you can go on being an ignorant neckbeard who believes all others less intelligent by strawmanning and throwing debates off tangent. I honestly don't care anymore.
User avatar #47 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
You're mistaking fact with theory. And the phrase "However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals..." is precisely what I'm talking about. How do we know this? Because you've told us? Because you posted a couple of incredibly unreliable sources that say it? Seriously, you posted a handful of unreliable as hell sources to support your claim of "there are hundreds of sources (clearly an exaggeration, but why the hell exaggerate?" and when I called you out on it your response was "WELL WHERE ARE YOURS!?" I never said I had sources. I also never said my theory was 100% fact. I just said it made more sense than yours. I even explained why it made more sense than yours. If you want to keep spouting on as your what you're saying is truth because you have a bunch of shit sources that support your claim and I don't, hence why I said you'll just end up laughed out of any scientific organization.

All of the liberties and assumptions you're making and you're giving me shit for not knowing between fact and theory?
#67 - Console gamers don't get as ripped off as you think. …  [+] (10 new replies) 01/13/2015 on mustard races +3
User avatar #77 - pocketstooheavy (01/13/2015) [-]
You've clearly never used Steam...
User avatar #227 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
What makes you think that? I have over 80 games on Steam.

Sure Steam has a lot of sales that go as low as 1 or 2 dollars, but the triple A sales are usually only 25% - 40% off, which Xbox Live and PSN also do for their triple A title sales for the holidays and summer.
User avatar #68 - grasman (01/13/2015) [-]
No PC games are usually cheaper.

By now you can get Assassins Creed Unity for PC for only €19.83. That's $23.41.
I found it for xbox for €25.79.
Not that I want that game but still.

Shadow of Mordor is available for €14.95.
Dark Souls II is now €14.89.
Those two games I couldn't even find for consoles in the onlineshop I usually use.

I haven't checked the prices on playstation network or how it's called and I haven't checked the official xbox prices. But I bet they're higher.
User avatar #229 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
> I haven't looked into any actual facts, but I'll just assume I'm right

Wow, you're a fucking moron.
User avatar #253 - grasman (01/13/2015) [-]
Well, to be honest I don't know where to check those prices.
#263 - seatherten (01/13/2015) [-]
Does it matter? You are kinda right, lets say in my country you pay almost twice as much for a game on console than PC. And this is a fact PC games ARE cheaper.
Unity for PS4 - 50.40 euro
Unity for PC - 33.13 euro
(converted to euros)
User avatar #258 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
You should be able to check them on the Xbox website, but I couldn't tell you for sure, I only ever use my Xbox to explore what they've got on sale or for digital download.

But you shouldn't really go around saying "how things are" when you don't have all the information.
User avatar #260 - grasman (01/13/2015) [-]
A friend of mine recently decided to switch to pc because everything in the playstation network was more expensive than on pc. I don't know the titles anymore but we compared some games and the difference was crazy.
May have been a coincidencxe with those games but that's how it was.
#206 - anonexplains (01/13/2015) [-]
No.

Oblivion in UK is £3

Oblivion on PC is £10.

I doubt your PC could run at any more than 30fps regardless.
#264 - seatherten (01/13/2015) [-]
PC is a nice kingdom
#22 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 01/13/2015 on What should father do 0
#31 - anonexplains Comment deleted by subaqueousreach
#8 - I went into a Denny's and I had a beer, bacon, vanilla, maple …  [+] (4 new replies) 01/13/2015 on Oh, Canada 3 +14
#15 - doctorprofessornv (01/13/2015) [-]
< was the aftermath something like this
#29 - thesmithman (01/13/2015) [-]
Never understood why he runs out of the showers.
User avatar #9 - kyrozor (01/13/2015) [-]
I didn't know I needed this until now
#45 - Attractive ≠ Slut Modelling for a living ≠ Slut …  [+] (2 new replies) 01/13/2015 on What Is Cosplay +5
User avatar #117 - tkfourtwoone (01/13/2015) [-]
Slut Attention whore. Better now, since it's closer to the truth?
User avatar #61 - nudybooty (01/13/2015) [-]
She cheated on her boy friend...he was the one who convinced her to cosplay.
#52 - 5 bucks a month to play online for the year with solid network…  [+] (12 new replies) 01/13/2015 on mustard races -4
User avatar #64 - grasman (01/13/2015) [-]
Well, 5 bucks a month to play anything is still much more than nothing.
I don't play subscription based games. They are dying out anyways.
Also there are games with microtransactions on consoles.

I admit I would've loved to play heavy rain, beyond two souls and the last of us.
But you know I can live without them.
I just think it's sad that only ~1/4 of the gamers get to play such masterpieces just because they're exclusive titles.
And that's bullshit.

The biggest joke is that the xbox has exclusive titles that are not available on windows. Why? It's both microsoft. I bet they could do a decent port for those games in a really short time. But no they manage to sell additional hardware that you need to play the games.

Console gamers actually get ripped off. But apparently they don't notice.
User avatar #67 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
Console gamers don't get as ripped off as you think.

Brand new game titles on PC are often 60 dollars unless they're an indie title, just like consoles. Not to mention Xbox Live and PSN have had holiday and summer sales for years now, just like Steam. They even give away two free games a month outside of those sales.

If you don't like consoles that's fine, but they're really not as terrible as you seem to think. I can understand the concerns about porting and developing for multiple systems, but there's really no way around it by this point.
User avatar #77 - pocketstooheavy (01/13/2015) [-]
You've clearly never used Steam...
User avatar #227 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
What makes you think that? I have over 80 games on Steam.

Sure Steam has a lot of sales that go as low as 1 or 2 dollars, but the triple A sales are usually only 25% - 40% off, which Xbox Live and PSN also do for their triple A title sales for the holidays and summer.
User avatar #68 - grasman (01/13/2015) [-]
No PC games are usually cheaper.

By now you can get Assassins Creed Unity for PC for only €19.83. That's $23.41.
I found it for xbox for €25.79.
Not that I want that game but still.

Shadow of Mordor is available for €14.95.
Dark Souls II is now €14.89.
Those two games I couldn't even find for consoles in the onlineshop I usually use.

I haven't checked the prices on playstation network or how it's called and I haven't checked the official xbox prices. But I bet they're higher.
User avatar #229 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
> I haven't looked into any actual facts, but I'll just assume I'm right

Wow, you're a fucking moron.
User avatar #253 - grasman (01/13/2015) [-]
Well, to be honest I don't know where to check those prices.
#263 - seatherten (01/13/2015) [-]
Does it matter? You are kinda right, lets say in my country you pay almost twice as much for a game on console than PC. And this is a fact PC games ARE cheaper.
Unity for PS4 - 50.40 euro
Unity for PC - 33.13 euro
(converted to euros)
User avatar #258 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
You should be able to check them on the Xbox website, but I couldn't tell you for sure, I only ever use my Xbox to explore what they've got on sale or for digital download.

But you shouldn't really go around saying "how things are" when you don't have all the information.
User avatar #260 - grasman (01/13/2015) [-]
A friend of mine recently decided to switch to pc because everything in the playstation network was more expensive than on pc. I don't know the titles anymore but we compared some games and the difference was crazy.
May have been a coincidencxe with those games but that's how it was.
#206 - anonexplains (01/13/2015) [-]
No.

Oblivion in UK is £3

Oblivion on PC is £10.

I doubt your PC could run at any more than 30fps regardless.
#264 - seatherten (01/13/2015) [-]
PC is a nice kingdom
#51 - >Nothing is completely backwards compatible in this day and…  [+] (6 new replies) 01/13/2015 on mustard races +6
User avatar #145 - crampers (01/13/2015) [-]
Woah Battlefield and controller!? What, how... i... What
User avatar #295 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
My dad and I have played Battlefield together on Xbox 360 since Bad Company came out.
#300 - crampers (01/13/2015) [-]
I don't know why but that brought a tear to my eye
#54 - bendertherobo (01/13/2015) [-]
>I think, considering the xbone was around 500 when it first came out, you could build a pc that would still have better graphics, and even if it were a bit more, you could argue that you'd make the money back through the larger amount of sales on PC, which i guess is being a bit picky at that point, but when making something you have to consider savings alongside cost i think.
>I wasn't saying only consoles had bugs or PC never does, the original comment just implied that PC games had tons of bugs where console games didn't
>the controller vs Mouse is hard to actually argue as it is mostly experience and preference, but i think mice have a higher speed and accuracy potential.

No insulting, good points, easily understood
10/10 Would debate with again.

-1 to me for improperly using this meme, but im lazy so deal with it.
#256 - seatherten (01/13/2015) [-]
With mouses the speed and accuracy is set by the skill of the user. With gamepads well the speed is set and accuracy with lower speed is higher ( its easier to aim) but it drops pretty much on the reaction time wich is most important.
After years of playin with both i kinda learned it.
#257 - seatherten (01/13/2015) [-]
wanted to said in gamepads speed is set automaticlly
#62 - I wouldn't say I'm super smart Or even above averagely s… 01/13/2015 on Clients from Hell is a... 0
#38 - Sources cited. Plenty more to boot. 01/13/2015 on Cat 0
#37 - There's four, you just have to goog…  [+] (9 new replies) 01/13/2015 on Cat 0
User avatar #39 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
Oh, I'm sorry, when you said "a couple hundred sources" I thought you meant "a couple hundred scientifically tested, and peer reviewed" sources, not the online news journal trash that everyone uses.

Seriously, one of the sources just has another article from the exact same website in the "recent studies" redirect. Really?
User avatar #40 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
Sorry, I didn't want to post all of google into a comment. I still see you're avoiding posting any evidence to support your claims.

Get out of here you fucking hypocrite....
User avatar #41 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
That's because you're the one making claims that there's "hundreds and hundreds of sources" not me, so congratulations on being that asshole who looks at a religious debate and decides to yell at the atheists for being unable to prove that God doesn't exist.

That isn't an attempt at an appeal to ignorance at all. Right now you're banking that your small collection of shitty sources are better than my lack of evidence I never even claimed existed. This is especially true since I never claimed that my stance came from some scientifically documented shenanigans. I looked before hand and there's an overwhelmingly low amount of anything dedicated to "why do cats bring us animals?" It's all brain science in perception of prey, not ecological foraging techniques. I said that it simply made more sense to compare the hunting behavior of cats to that of dogs than to have come to whatever conclusion some freelance journalism website put into you.

Plus, you're not even basing your opinions on those sources you said existed, you assumed sources existed that conveniently fit what you said, and that there were hundreds of them. Yeah, that's good science.
User avatar #42 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
>Not basing my opinons on the sources

That's half right, I've read most of this shit years ago from different sources stating the same shit.

I like how you assumed I was talking out of my ass until I could find specific pages that helped back me, when you're more or less just shooting out an idea into the air and hoping people say "WOW YOU'RE SMART", regardless of the fact that there's already information contradicting that idea.

None of what I'm saying is some new fangled theory, people figured this shit out when I was 8 years old.
User avatar #43 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
Is this you hoping that by accusing me of what you're doing, you're somehow justified? That wouldn't even be valid if I was doing what you're accusing me of.
User avatar #44 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
I'm accusing you of nothing. I simply pointed out the irony that while you were accusing me of being full of shit and hoping I could find information to back up my claim, you were spouting on about a theory with absolutely no backing in the first place other than you found the other theory ridiculous. And in reality I had already known of this information well before hand.

But I'm no longer interested in debating this with you as now you're simply goading me into a tangent that has nothing to do with the original subject.

It is accepted fact that cats bring dead and injured animals home because they are teaching you to hunt.

The theoylry of them bringing dead animals as a gift to the alpha might make sense, but doesn't explain why they also bring partially wounded animals as well. Therefore, since it doesn't cover all the bases of the subject, it can't be considered fact.

Have a nice day.
User avatar #45 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
There you go again, making absolute claims that what you're saying is absolute fact when the best you have is some backwater online news website and the appeal to ignorance argument.

You're perfect for politics.

The truth is simple, if you're going to make a claim, especially a claim you're going to pose as 100% true, you post the sources. I'm not going to go get them for you. If all you have to say to that is "WELL WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES!"...well the truth is I never have to worry about you joining the scientific community. You'll get laughed out.

No amount of "This conversation is beneath me" will fix that. You can certainly believe it will, but all that'll prove is the freedom of speech allows people to be wrong.
User avatar #46 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
You don't seem to understand how facts work.

Facts are never 100%, since we can never truly know something to that degree. A fact is just a theory that makes the least amount of assumptions about a subject.

You assume domestic cats once behaved like wild dogs and therefore bringing dead animals to the alpha would make sense. However it doesn't explain at all why they would also start to bring injured animals in as well. You also still haven't provided any information to back up your claim whatsoever, but insist that I'm incorrect for no other reason than you disagree.

However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals, then injured animals, and eventually they bring them along on the hunt. This would explain why they bring people dead and injured animals into the home without making any real assumptions other than why they would do this when we feed them. However this can be chalked up to instinctual animal behavior that they can't really help.


But now I've wasted enough time on you cause I have the not so subtle suspicion that you're a troll. If not, you can go on being an ignorant neckbeard who believes all others less intelligent by strawmanning and throwing debates off tangent. I honestly don't care anymore.
User avatar #47 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
You're mistaking fact with theory. And the phrase "However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals..." is precisely what I'm talking about. How do we know this? Because you've told us? Because you posted a couple of incredibly unreliable sources that say it? Seriously, you posted a handful of unreliable as hell sources to support your claim of "there are hundreds of sources (clearly an exaggeration, but why the hell exaggerate?" and when I called you out on it your response was "WELL WHERE ARE YOURS!?" I never said I had sources. I also never said my theory was 100% fact. I just said it made more sense than yours. I even explained why it made more sense than yours. If you want to keep spouting on as your what you're saying is truth because you have a bunch of shit sources that support your claim and I don't, hence why I said you'll just end up laughed out of any scientific organization.

All of the liberties and assumptions you're making and you're giving me shit for not knowing between fact and theory?
#27 - Except that doesn't explain why they also bring home live anim…  [+] (13 new replies) 01/12/2015 on Cat 0
User avatar #30 - lolollo (01/12/2015) [-]
Can you actually post those sources instead of assuming I'd believe it from you saying they exist?
User avatar #37 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
www.livescience.com/34471-cats-dead-animals.html
mentalfloss.com/article/59879/why-does-my-cat-bring-home-dead-animals
www.petsadviser.com/behaviors/why-cat-bring-dead-animals-mice/
www.cat-world.com.au/why-does-my-cat

There's four, you just have to google "Why does my cat bring home dead animals" or anything along those lines. Now would you mind posting any sources that prove your claim?
User avatar #39 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
Oh, I'm sorry, when you said "a couple hundred sources" I thought you meant "a couple hundred scientifically tested, and peer reviewed" sources, not the online news journal trash that everyone uses.

Seriously, one of the sources just has another article from the exact same website in the "recent studies" redirect. Really?
User avatar #40 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
Sorry, I didn't want to post all of google into a comment. I still see you're avoiding posting any evidence to support your claims.

Get out of here you fucking hypocrite....
User avatar #41 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
That's because you're the one making claims that there's "hundreds and hundreds of sources" not me, so congratulations on being that asshole who looks at a religious debate and decides to yell at the atheists for being unable to prove that God doesn't exist.

That isn't an attempt at an appeal to ignorance at all. Right now you're banking that your small collection of shitty sources are better than my lack of evidence I never even claimed existed. This is especially true since I never claimed that my stance came from some scientifically documented shenanigans. I looked before hand and there's an overwhelmingly low amount of anything dedicated to "why do cats bring us animals?" It's all brain science in perception of prey, not ecological foraging techniques. I said that it simply made more sense to compare the hunting behavior of cats to that of dogs than to have come to whatever conclusion some freelance journalism website put into you.

Plus, you're not even basing your opinions on those sources you said existed, you assumed sources existed that conveniently fit what you said, and that there were hundreds of them. Yeah, that's good science.
User avatar #42 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
>Not basing my opinons on the sources

That's half right, I've read most of this shit years ago from different sources stating the same shit.

I like how you assumed I was talking out of my ass until I could find specific pages that helped back me, when you're more or less just shooting out an idea into the air and hoping people say "WOW YOU'RE SMART", regardless of the fact that there's already information contradicting that idea.

None of what I'm saying is some new fangled theory, people figured this shit out when I was 8 years old.
User avatar #43 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
Is this you hoping that by accusing me of what you're doing, you're somehow justified? That wouldn't even be valid if I was doing what you're accusing me of.
User avatar #44 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
I'm accusing you of nothing. I simply pointed out the irony that while you were accusing me of being full of shit and hoping I could find information to back up my claim, you were spouting on about a theory with absolutely no backing in the first place other than you found the other theory ridiculous. And in reality I had already known of this information well before hand.

But I'm no longer interested in debating this with you as now you're simply goading me into a tangent that has nothing to do with the original subject.

It is accepted fact that cats bring dead and injured animals home because they are teaching you to hunt.

The theoylry of them bringing dead animals as a gift to the alpha might make sense, but doesn't explain why they also bring partially wounded animals as well. Therefore, since it doesn't cover all the bases of the subject, it can't be considered fact.

Have a nice day.
User avatar #45 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
There you go again, making absolute claims that what you're saying is absolute fact when the best you have is some backwater online news website and the appeal to ignorance argument.

You're perfect for politics.

The truth is simple, if you're going to make a claim, especially a claim you're going to pose as 100% true, you post the sources. I'm not going to go get them for you. If all you have to say to that is "WELL WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES!"...well the truth is I never have to worry about you joining the scientific community. You'll get laughed out.

No amount of "This conversation is beneath me" will fix that. You can certainly believe it will, but all that'll prove is the freedom of speech allows people to be wrong.
User avatar #46 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
You don't seem to understand how facts work.

Facts are never 100%, since we can never truly know something to that degree. A fact is just a theory that makes the least amount of assumptions about a subject.

You assume domestic cats once behaved like wild dogs and therefore bringing dead animals to the alpha would make sense. However it doesn't explain at all why they would also start to bring injured animals in as well. You also still haven't provided any information to back up your claim whatsoever, but insist that I'm incorrect for no other reason than you disagree.

However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals, then injured animals, and eventually they bring them along on the hunt. This would explain why they bring people dead and injured animals into the home without making any real assumptions other than why they would do this when we feed them. However this can be chalked up to instinctual animal behavior that they can't really help.


But now I've wasted enough time on you cause I have the not so subtle suspicion that you're a troll. If not, you can go on being an ignorant neckbeard who believes all others less intelligent by strawmanning and throwing debates off tangent. I honestly don't care anymore.
User avatar #47 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
You're mistaking fact with theory. And the phrase "However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals..." is precisely what I'm talking about. How do we know this? Because you've told us? Because you posted a couple of incredibly unreliable sources that say it? Seriously, you posted a handful of unreliable as hell sources to support your claim of "there are hundreds of sources (clearly an exaggeration, but why the hell exaggerate?" and when I called you out on it your response was "WELL WHERE ARE YOURS!?" I never said I had sources. I also never said my theory was 100% fact. I just said it made more sense than yours. I even explained why it made more sense than yours. If you want to keep spouting on as your what you're saying is truth because you have a bunch of shit sources that support your claim and I don't, hence why I said you'll just end up laughed out of any scientific organization.

All of the liberties and assumptions you're making and you're giving me shit for not knowing between fact and theory?
User avatar #34 - englishtallybopper (01/12/2015) [-]
my thoughts exactly
User avatar #38 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
Sources cited. Plenty more to boot.
#25 - Okay so you obviously didn't read my comment very well... …  [+] (15 new replies) 01/12/2015 on Cat 0
User avatar #26 - lolollo (01/12/2015) [-]
OK, so what should we do about how absurd it is that an animal who is brought food on a near daily basis will assume the individual brining them food can't find food for themselves?

It makes way more sense that the cat is displaying the kill in the same way wolves do for the alpha. Cats and dogs may be different, but they're not that different. Cats may be primarily solitary, but they're still partially pack animal.
User avatar #27 - subaqueousreach (01/12/2015) [-]
Except that doesn't explain why they also bring home live animals. My cat brought home dead birds and mice for two weeks, then started bringing them home live and wounded. She even brought in a baby possum she found and dropped it at my feet.

Not to mention I can find a couple hundred sources that state it's to teach you how to hunt, yet I can't find a single one that says it's due to respecting alpha superiority.
User avatar #30 - lolollo (01/12/2015) [-]
Can you actually post those sources instead of assuming I'd believe it from you saying they exist?
User avatar #37 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
www.livescience.com/34471-cats-dead-animals.html
mentalfloss.com/article/59879/why-does-my-cat-bring-home-dead-animals
www.petsadviser.com/behaviors/why-cat-bring-dead-animals-mice/
www.cat-world.com.au/why-does-my-cat

There's four, you just have to google "Why does my cat bring home dead animals" or anything along those lines. Now would you mind posting any sources that prove your claim?
User avatar #39 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
Oh, I'm sorry, when you said "a couple hundred sources" I thought you meant "a couple hundred scientifically tested, and peer reviewed" sources, not the online news journal trash that everyone uses.

Seriously, one of the sources just has another article from the exact same website in the "recent studies" redirect. Really?
User avatar #40 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
Sorry, I didn't want to post all of google into a comment. I still see you're avoiding posting any evidence to support your claims.

Get out of here you fucking hypocrite....
User avatar #41 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
That's because you're the one making claims that there's "hundreds and hundreds of sources" not me, so congratulations on being that asshole who looks at a religious debate and decides to yell at the atheists for being unable to prove that God doesn't exist.

That isn't an attempt at an appeal to ignorance at all. Right now you're banking that your small collection of shitty sources are better than my lack of evidence I never even claimed existed. This is especially true since I never claimed that my stance came from some scientifically documented shenanigans. I looked before hand and there's an overwhelmingly low amount of anything dedicated to "why do cats bring us animals?" It's all brain science in perception of prey, not ecological foraging techniques. I said that it simply made more sense to compare the hunting behavior of cats to that of dogs than to have come to whatever conclusion some freelance journalism website put into you.

Plus, you're not even basing your opinions on those sources you said existed, you assumed sources existed that conveniently fit what you said, and that there were hundreds of them. Yeah, that's good science.
User avatar #42 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
>Not basing my opinons on the sources

That's half right, I've read most of this shit years ago from different sources stating the same shit.

I like how you assumed I was talking out of my ass until I could find specific pages that helped back me, when you're more or less just shooting out an idea into the air and hoping people say "WOW YOU'RE SMART", regardless of the fact that there's already information contradicting that idea.

None of what I'm saying is some new fangled theory, people figured this shit out when I was 8 years old.
User avatar #43 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
Is this you hoping that by accusing me of what you're doing, you're somehow justified? That wouldn't even be valid if I was doing what you're accusing me of.
User avatar #44 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
I'm accusing you of nothing. I simply pointed out the irony that while you were accusing me of being full of shit and hoping I could find information to back up my claim, you were spouting on about a theory with absolutely no backing in the first place other than you found the other theory ridiculous. And in reality I had already known of this information well before hand.

But I'm no longer interested in debating this with you as now you're simply goading me into a tangent that has nothing to do with the original subject.

It is accepted fact that cats bring dead and injured animals home because they are teaching you to hunt.

The theoylry of them bringing dead animals as a gift to the alpha might make sense, but doesn't explain why they also bring partially wounded animals as well. Therefore, since it doesn't cover all the bases of the subject, it can't be considered fact.

Have a nice day.
User avatar #45 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
There you go again, making absolute claims that what you're saying is absolute fact when the best you have is some backwater online news website and the appeal to ignorance argument.

You're perfect for politics.

The truth is simple, if you're going to make a claim, especially a claim you're going to pose as 100% true, you post the sources. I'm not going to go get them for you. If all you have to say to that is "WELL WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES!"...well the truth is I never have to worry about you joining the scientific community. You'll get laughed out.

No amount of "This conversation is beneath me" will fix that. You can certainly believe it will, but all that'll prove is the freedom of speech allows people to be wrong.
User avatar #46 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
You don't seem to understand how facts work.

Facts are never 100%, since we can never truly know something to that degree. A fact is just a theory that makes the least amount of assumptions about a subject.

You assume domestic cats once behaved like wild dogs and therefore bringing dead animals to the alpha would make sense. However it doesn't explain at all why they would also start to bring injured animals in as well. You also still haven't provided any information to back up your claim whatsoever, but insist that I'm incorrect for no other reason than you disagree.

However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals, then injured animals, and eventually they bring them along on the hunt. This would explain why they bring people dead and injured animals into the home without making any real assumptions other than why they would do this when we feed them. However this can be chalked up to instinctual animal behavior that they can't really help.


But now I've wasted enough time on you cause I have the not so subtle suspicion that you're a troll. If not, you can go on being an ignorant neckbeard who believes all others less intelligent by strawmanning and throwing debates off tangent. I honestly don't care anymore.
User avatar #47 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
You're mistaking fact with theory. And the phrase "However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals..." is precisely what I'm talking about. How do we know this? Because you've told us? Because you posted a couple of incredibly unreliable sources that say it? Seriously, you posted a handful of unreliable as hell sources to support your claim of "there are hundreds of sources (clearly an exaggeration, but why the hell exaggerate?" and when I called you out on it your response was "WELL WHERE ARE YOURS!?" I never said I had sources. I also never said my theory was 100% fact. I just said it made more sense than yours. I even explained why it made more sense than yours. If you want to keep spouting on as your what you're saying is truth because you have a bunch of shit sources that support your claim and I don't, hence why I said you'll just end up laughed out of any scientific organization.

All of the liberties and assumptions you're making and you're giving me shit for not knowing between fact and theory?
User avatar #34 - englishtallybopper (01/12/2015) [-]
my thoughts exactly
User avatar #38 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
Sources cited. Plenty more to boot.
#40 - At first I thought you were calling me "jack off" 01/12/2015 on Evil Clone +4
#7 - I call everyone bud, but I still know everyone's name. bud is … 01/12/2015 on This hit close to home for... 0
#21 - What in the **** are you talking about?  [+] (17 new replies) 01/12/2015 on Cat 0
#23 - anonexplains (01/12/2015) [-]
a cat bringing you a dead mouse is not teaching you to hunt. The mouse is dead, you did not witness it. The cat made to attempt to kill the creature in front of you.
User avatar #25 - subaqueousreach (01/12/2015) [-]
Okay so you obviously didn't read my comment very well...

>Cats teach their kittens to find their own food
>by first bringing them dead animals so that they can recognize what to hunt
>then they bring them injured animals that are easy to catch

Cats don't learn things the same way people do. Fucking Orcas do the same thing for their young to teach them how to hunt seals. They'll start by killing seals and bringing them back to the young, then they'll start injuring seals and leaving them in open water for the young to catch themselves.

Just because cats live with people doesn't mean they fully understand how people work. They're still going to do cat shit and teaching shitty hunters how to hunt is what cats do.

This is scientific fucking fact. You're pretty fucking ignorant, anon.
User avatar #26 - lolollo (01/12/2015) [-]
OK, so what should we do about how absurd it is that an animal who is brought food on a near daily basis will assume the individual brining them food can't find food for themselves?

It makes way more sense that the cat is displaying the kill in the same way wolves do for the alpha. Cats and dogs may be different, but they're not that different. Cats may be primarily solitary, but they're still partially pack animal.
User avatar #27 - subaqueousreach (01/12/2015) [-]
Except that doesn't explain why they also bring home live animals. My cat brought home dead birds and mice for two weeks, then started bringing them home live and wounded. She even brought in a baby possum she found and dropped it at my feet.

Not to mention I can find a couple hundred sources that state it's to teach you how to hunt, yet I can't find a single one that says it's due to respecting alpha superiority.
User avatar #30 - lolollo (01/12/2015) [-]
Can you actually post those sources instead of assuming I'd believe it from you saying they exist?
User avatar #37 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
www.livescience.com/34471-cats-dead-animals.html
mentalfloss.com/article/59879/why-does-my-cat-bring-home-dead-animals
www.petsadviser.com/behaviors/why-cat-bring-dead-animals-mice/
www.cat-world.com.au/why-does-my-cat

There's four, you just have to google "Why does my cat bring home dead animals" or anything along those lines. Now would you mind posting any sources that prove your claim?
User avatar #39 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
Oh, I'm sorry, when you said "a couple hundred sources" I thought you meant "a couple hundred scientifically tested, and peer reviewed" sources, not the online news journal trash that everyone uses.

Seriously, one of the sources just has another article from the exact same website in the "recent studies" redirect. Really?
User avatar #40 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
Sorry, I didn't want to post all of google into a comment. I still see you're avoiding posting any evidence to support your claims.

Get out of here you fucking hypocrite....
User avatar #41 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
That's because you're the one making claims that there's "hundreds and hundreds of sources" not me, so congratulations on being that asshole who looks at a religious debate and decides to yell at the atheists for being unable to prove that God doesn't exist.

That isn't an attempt at an appeal to ignorance at all. Right now you're banking that your small collection of shitty sources are better than my lack of evidence I never even claimed existed. This is especially true since I never claimed that my stance came from some scientifically documented shenanigans. I looked before hand and there's an overwhelmingly low amount of anything dedicated to "why do cats bring us animals?" It's all brain science in perception of prey, not ecological foraging techniques. I said that it simply made more sense to compare the hunting behavior of cats to that of dogs than to have come to whatever conclusion some freelance journalism website put into you.

Plus, you're not even basing your opinions on those sources you said existed, you assumed sources existed that conveniently fit what you said, and that there were hundreds of them. Yeah, that's good science.
User avatar #42 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
>Not basing my opinons on the sources

That's half right, I've read most of this shit years ago from different sources stating the same shit.

I like how you assumed I was talking out of my ass until I could find specific pages that helped back me, when you're more or less just shooting out an idea into the air and hoping people say "WOW YOU'RE SMART", regardless of the fact that there's already information contradicting that idea.

None of what I'm saying is some new fangled theory, people figured this shit out when I was 8 years old.
User avatar #43 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
Is this you hoping that by accusing me of what you're doing, you're somehow justified? That wouldn't even be valid if I was doing what you're accusing me of.
User avatar #44 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
I'm accusing you of nothing. I simply pointed out the irony that while you were accusing me of being full of shit and hoping I could find information to back up my claim, you were spouting on about a theory with absolutely no backing in the first place other than you found the other theory ridiculous. And in reality I had already known of this information well before hand.

But I'm no longer interested in debating this with you as now you're simply goading me into a tangent that has nothing to do with the original subject.

It is accepted fact that cats bring dead and injured animals home because they are teaching you to hunt.

The theoylry of them bringing dead animals as a gift to the alpha might make sense, but doesn't explain why they also bring partially wounded animals as well. Therefore, since it doesn't cover all the bases of the subject, it can't be considered fact.

Have a nice day.
User avatar #45 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
There you go again, making absolute claims that what you're saying is absolute fact when the best you have is some backwater online news website and the appeal to ignorance argument.

You're perfect for politics.

The truth is simple, if you're going to make a claim, especially a claim you're going to pose as 100% true, you post the sources. I'm not going to go get them for you. If all you have to say to that is "WELL WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES!"...well the truth is I never have to worry about you joining the scientific community. You'll get laughed out.

No amount of "This conversation is beneath me" will fix that. You can certainly believe it will, but all that'll prove is the freedom of speech allows people to be wrong.
User avatar #46 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
You don't seem to understand how facts work.

Facts are never 100%, since we can never truly know something to that degree. A fact is just a theory that makes the least amount of assumptions about a subject.

You assume domestic cats once behaved like wild dogs and therefore bringing dead animals to the alpha would make sense. However it doesn't explain at all why they would also start to bring injured animals in as well. You also still haven't provided any information to back up your claim whatsoever, but insist that I'm incorrect for no other reason than you disagree.

However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals, then injured animals, and eventually they bring them along on the hunt. This would explain why they bring people dead and injured animals into the home without making any real assumptions other than why they would do this when we feed them. However this can be chalked up to instinctual animal behavior that they can't really help.


But now I've wasted enough time on you cause I have the not so subtle suspicion that you're a troll. If not, you can go on being an ignorant neckbeard who believes all others less intelligent by strawmanning and throwing debates off tangent. I honestly don't care anymore.
User avatar #47 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
You're mistaking fact with theory. And the phrase "However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals..." is precisely what I'm talking about. How do we know this? Because you've told us? Because you posted a couple of incredibly unreliable sources that say it? Seriously, you posted a handful of unreliable as hell sources to support your claim of "there are hundreds of sources (clearly an exaggeration, but why the hell exaggerate?" and when I called you out on it your response was "WELL WHERE ARE YOURS!?" I never said I had sources. I also never said my theory was 100% fact. I just said it made more sense than yours. I even explained why it made more sense than yours. If you want to keep spouting on as your what you're saying is truth because you have a bunch of shit sources that support your claim and I don't, hence why I said you'll just end up laughed out of any scientific organization.

All of the liberties and assumptions you're making and you're giving me shit for not knowing between fact and theory?
User avatar #34 - englishtallybopper (01/12/2015) [-]
my thoughts exactly
User avatar #38 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
Sources cited. Plenty more to boot.
#11 - Don't worry, everyone finds their client one day. You'll know …  [+] (2 new replies) 01/12/2015 on Clients from Hell is a... 0
User avatar #16 - progex (01/12/2015) [-]
I like you and your replies. Are you like super smart or something?
User avatar #62 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
I wouldn't say I'm super smart Or even above averagely smart , I just say what comes to mind.
#9 - That isn't exactly "Clients from Hell" worthy. That'…  [+] (4 new replies) 01/12/2015 on Clients from Hell is a... +10
User avatar #10 - infernalinsolence (01/12/2015) [-]
Yeah. I suppose. I haven't had many clients from hell because I explain my role fairly clearly.
User avatar #11 - subaqueousreach (01/12/2015) [-]
Don't worry, everyone finds their client one day. You'll know because the whole time you're talking to them you'll be screaming internally.

Or, you know, externally...
User avatar #16 - progex (01/12/2015) [-]
I like you and your replies. Are you like super smart or something?
User avatar #62 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
I wouldn't say I'm super smart Or even above averagely smart , I just say what comes to mind.
#22 - Dominos has a whole page of coupons and deals for you to pick … 01/12/2015 on Pizzaweed Pepperoni... 0
#13 - Are you the one who got rekt?  [+] (1 new reply) 01/12/2015 on Ping Pong 0
User avatar #27 - sirsolo (01/13/2015) [-]
y...yes
#26 - I very much dislike obese people.  [+] (1 new reply) 01/12/2015 on Tropic of Cancer 0
#27 - anonexplains (01/12/2015) [-]
Me too, many of them are fucking obnoxious and loud...
#17 - Except you're absolutely wrong. Cats learn from exper…  [+] (19 new replies) 01/12/2015 on Cat 0
#20 - anonexplains (01/12/2015) [-]
because setting a book down in front of someone is teaching them right

fucking stupid people sometimes
User avatar #21 - subaqueousreach (01/12/2015) [-]
What in the fuck are you talking about?
#23 - anonexplains (01/12/2015) [-]
a cat bringing you a dead mouse is not teaching you to hunt. The mouse is dead, you did not witness it. The cat made to attempt to kill the creature in front of you.
User avatar #25 - subaqueousreach (01/12/2015) [-]
Okay so you obviously didn't read my comment very well...

>Cats teach their kittens to find their own food
>by first bringing them dead animals so that they can recognize what to hunt
>then they bring them injured animals that are easy to catch

Cats don't learn things the same way people do. Fucking Orcas do the same thing for their young to teach them how to hunt seals. They'll start by killing seals and bringing them back to the young, then they'll start injuring seals and leaving them in open water for the young to catch themselves.

Just because cats live with people doesn't mean they fully understand how people work. They're still going to do cat shit and teaching shitty hunters how to hunt is what cats do.

This is scientific fucking fact. You're pretty fucking ignorant, anon.
User avatar #26 - lolollo (01/12/2015) [-]
OK, so what should we do about how absurd it is that an animal who is brought food on a near daily basis will assume the individual brining them food can't find food for themselves?

It makes way more sense that the cat is displaying the kill in the same way wolves do for the alpha. Cats and dogs may be different, but they're not that different. Cats may be primarily solitary, but they're still partially pack animal.
User avatar #27 - subaqueousreach (01/12/2015) [-]
Except that doesn't explain why they also bring home live animals. My cat brought home dead birds and mice for two weeks, then started bringing them home live and wounded. She even brought in a baby possum she found and dropped it at my feet.

Not to mention I can find a couple hundred sources that state it's to teach you how to hunt, yet I can't find a single one that says it's due to respecting alpha superiority.
User avatar #30 - lolollo (01/12/2015) [-]
Can you actually post those sources instead of assuming I'd believe it from you saying they exist?
User avatar #37 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
www.livescience.com/34471-cats-dead-animals.html
mentalfloss.com/article/59879/why-does-my-cat-bring-home-dead-animals
www.petsadviser.com/behaviors/why-cat-bring-dead-animals-mice/
www.cat-world.com.au/why-does-my-cat

There's four, you just have to google "Why does my cat bring home dead animals" or anything along those lines. Now would you mind posting any sources that prove your claim?
User avatar #39 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
Oh, I'm sorry, when you said "a couple hundred sources" I thought you meant "a couple hundred scientifically tested, and peer reviewed" sources, not the online news journal trash that everyone uses.

Seriously, one of the sources just has another article from the exact same website in the "recent studies" redirect. Really?
User avatar #40 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
Sorry, I didn't want to post all of google into a comment. I still see you're avoiding posting any evidence to support your claims.

Get out of here you fucking hypocrite....
User avatar #41 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
That's because you're the one making claims that there's "hundreds and hundreds of sources" not me, so congratulations on being that asshole who looks at a religious debate and decides to yell at the atheists for being unable to prove that God doesn't exist.

That isn't an attempt at an appeal to ignorance at all. Right now you're banking that your small collection of shitty sources are better than my lack of evidence I never even claimed existed. This is especially true since I never claimed that my stance came from some scientifically documented shenanigans. I looked before hand and there's an overwhelmingly low amount of anything dedicated to "why do cats bring us animals?" It's all brain science in perception of prey, not ecological foraging techniques. I said that it simply made more sense to compare the hunting behavior of cats to that of dogs than to have come to whatever conclusion some freelance journalism website put into you.

Plus, you're not even basing your opinions on those sources you said existed, you assumed sources existed that conveniently fit what you said, and that there were hundreds of them. Yeah, that's good science.
User avatar #42 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
>Not basing my opinons on the sources

That's half right, I've read most of this shit years ago from different sources stating the same shit.

I like how you assumed I was talking out of my ass until I could find specific pages that helped back me, when you're more or less just shooting out an idea into the air and hoping people say "WOW YOU'RE SMART", regardless of the fact that there's already information contradicting that idea.

None of what I'm saying is some new fangled theory, people figured this shit out when I was 8 years old.
User avatar #43 - lolollo (01/13/2015) [-]
Is this you hoping that by accusing me of what you're doing, you're somehow justified? That wouldn't even be valid if I was doing what you're accusing me of.
User avatar #44 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
I'm accusing you of nothing. I simply pointed out the irony that while you were accusing me of being full of shit and hoping I could find information to back up my claim, you were spouting on about a theory with absolutely no backing in the first place other than you found the other theory ridiculous. And in reality I had already known of this information well before hand.

But I'm no longer interested in debating this with you as now you're simply goading me into a tangent that has nothing to do with the original subject.

It is accepted fact that cats bring dead and injured animals home because they are teaching you to hunt.

The theoylry of them bringing dead animals as a gift to the alpha might make sense, but doesn't explain why they also bring partially wounded animals as well. Therefore, since it doesn't cover all the bases of the subject, it can't be considered fact.

Have a nice day.
User avatar #45 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
There you go again, making absolute claims that what you're saying is absolute fact when the best you have is some backwater online news website and the appeal to ignorance argument.

You're perfect for politics.

The truth is simple, if you're going to make a claim, especially a claim you're going to pose as 100% true, you post the sources. I'm not going to go get them for you. If all you have to say to that is "WELL WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES!"...well the truth is I never have to worry about you joining the scientific community. You'll get laughed out.

No amount of "This conversation is beneath me" will fix that. You can certainly believe it will, but all that'll prove is the freedom of speech allows people to be wrong.
User avatar #46 - subaqueousreach (01/14/2015) [-]
You don't seem to understand how facts work.

Facts are never 100%, since we can never truly know something to that degree. A fact is just a theory that makes the least amount of assumptions about a subject.

You assume domestic cats once behaved like wild dogs and therefore bringing dead animals to the alpha would make sense. However it doesn't explain at all why they would also start to bring injured animals in as well. You also still haven't provided any information to back up your claim whatsoever, but insist that I'm incorrect for no other reason than you disagree.

However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals, then injured animals, and eventually they bring them along on the hunt. This would explain why they bring people dead and injured animals into the home without making any real assumptions other than why they would do this when we feed them. However this can be chalked up to instinctual animal behavior that they can't really help.


But now I've wasted enough time on you cause I have the not so subtle suspicion that you're a troll. If not, you can go on being an ignorant neckbeard who believes all others less intelligent by strawmanning and throwing debates off tangent. I honestly don't care anymore.
User avatar #47 - lolollo (01/14/2015) [-]
You're mistaking fact with theory. And the phrase "However, we know that domestic cats teach their young to hunt by first bringing them dead animals..." is precisely what I'm talking about. How do we know this? Because you've told us? Because you posted a couple of incredibly unreliable sources that say it? Seriously, you posted a handful of unreliable as hell sources to support your claim of "there are hundreds of sources (clearly an exaggeration, but why the hell exaggerate?" and when I called you out on it your response was "WELL WHERE ARE YOURS!?" I never said I had sources. I also never said my theory was 100% fact. I just said it made more sense than yours. I even explained why it made more sense than yours. If you want to keep spouting on as your what you're saying is truth because you have a bunch of shit sources that support your claim and I don't, hence why I said you'll just end up laughed out of any scientific organization.

All of the liberties and assumptions you're making and you're giving me shit for not knowing between fact and theory?
User avatar #34 - englishtallybopper (01/12/2015) [-]
my thoughts exactly
User avatar #38 - subaqueousreach (01/13/2015) [-]
Sources cited. Plenty more to boot.
#37 - But in that case he might just grab two rocks that he won't ch…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/12/2015 on Evil Clone +2
User avatar #39 - samoaspider (01/12/2015) [-]
alright, then jack off
he jacks off 2 times more

go on a fap-a-thon
he dies because of recieving 2x more pleasure
#40 - subaqueousreach (01/12/2015) [-]
At first I thought you were calling me "jack off"
#35 - ... Would you not choke on the first rock?  [+] (4 new replies) 01/12/2015 on Evil Clone +2
User avatar #36 - samoaspider (01/12/2015) [-]
nobody wins, huh

unless its small enough to not choke on
User avatar #37 - subaqueousreach (01/12/2015) [-]
But in that case he might just grab two rocks that he won't choke on, because he's better than you.
User avatar #39 - samoaspider (01/12/2015) [-]
alright, then jack off
he jacks off 2 times more

go on a fap-a-thon
he dies because of recieving 2x more pleasure
#40 - subaqueousreach (01/12/2015) [-]
At first I thought you were calling me "jack off"
#2 - Somewhat related, my brother and I were on our way to pick up …  [+] (1 new reply) 01/12/2015 on Is This The Krusty Crab? +60
User avatar #5 - ludislavonac (01/12/2015) [-]
cool story bro no really, I kinda chuckled
#11 - *which Only one god is referred to as God. 01/12/2015 on r/Atheism 0

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1050
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#12 - kolpster (11/11/2013) [-]
My most unrelated image.

I will marry you
#11 - SnacksJr (07/11/2013) [-]






You and your Hawkeye.
#10 - anonexplains (03/19/2013) [-]
do trolls even grow beards??

is that possible

someone should edit the troll's sprites to have beards

BEARDSTUCK
#9 - pinesol (11/27/2012) [-]
I like your avatar
#7 - thegreatgp (09/28/2012) [-]
'SuP Bro?
'SuP Bro?
User avatar #8 to #7 - subaqueousreach ONLINE (09/28/2012) [-]
Not a lot bud, just finished working graveyard shift and browsin' the web before I pass out.

Yourself?
User avatar #1 - xxelmarcocfcxx (06/05/2012) [-]
Hey sorry for that asshole that replied to you on the feels channel. I had commented back before I checked his page and realised his account got banned in a sea of red thumbs, hah.
User avatar #2 to #1 - subaqueousreach ONLINE (06/05/2012) [-]
Oh, I don't really remember the assholes I bump into on Funnyjunk. Mind linking me the specific comment so I might thank you properly? =P
User avatar #4 to #2 - xxelmarcocfcxx (06/05/2012) [-]
Disregard that entire thing, here it is:
/channel/feels/feels/yXzTGlK/
User avatar #5 to #4 - subaqueousreach ONLINE (06/06/2012) [-]
Oh I remember that now, yeah thanks a bunch for standing up for me ^_^

I'm glad he got banned, we definitely need less people like that on the internet (and the world) in general, let alone Funnyjunk.
User avatar #3 to #2 - xxelmarcocfcxx (06/05/2012) [-]
All right, I can't find the exact link, but it was on the feels channel on a mother post, and you were explaining how your mother sent you and yoour brothers out to a back alley everytime you went somewhere, and he said it was too bad you were a brony. I replied to him saying just because he's a brony his emotional hardship doesn't matter, **** you. Something like that. Anyway that was before I clicked on his channel and found out he had been banned.
 Friends (0)