💰 Grifter StoneToss (allegedly, formerly Red Panels)

Destacado
Shoulders of Giants:
international-mens-day-cartoon[1].png

C: Happy International Men’s Day.
M: You're welcome.
Archive
 
AltisticRight dijo:
They acknowledge that meat is desirable and tasty, yet vegan types think eating meat was a matter of survival and humans are naturally herbivores, lol.
Presiona para expandir...
Our teeth say we're omnivorous but our ancestors mostly ate plants. We do not have the sharp incisors of cats or dogs. We mostly ate nuts and grains. We also ate literally anything else, but generally after cooking it. The discovery of fire was really our breakout as a species. After that we literally owned the world. Because after inventing cooking we could literally eat every single other species on the planet, which is what we immediately did. This is what turned us into the greatest super-predator the planet ever had.
 
AnOminous dijo:
Our teeth say we're omnivorous but our ancestors mostly ate plants. We do not have the sharp incisors of cats or dogs. We mostly ate nuts and grains.
Presiona para expandir...
Nigga what in that list of things didn’t run away from you when you tried to eat it?
We clubbed shit, we didn’t bite the throat.
 
CivilianOfTheFandomWars dijo:
Nigga what in that list of things didn’t run away from you when you tried to eat it?
We clubbed shit, we didn’t bite the throat.
Presiona para expandir...
The coolest thing about human anatomy is that we're the only animal aside from dogs that's good at long-distance running. A human hunter can keep a gazelle running for 8-12 hours until it collapses and dies, then eat enough to recover and still have leftovers to feed other people. Persistence hunting probably helped catapult us to the top of the food chain because our ancestors didn't need to outfight or outrun anything, just outlast it.
 
Shaka Brah dijo:
The coolest thing about human anatomy is that we're the only animal aside from dogs that's good at long-distance running. A human hunter can keep a gazelle running for 8-12 hours until it collapses and dies, then eat enough to recover and still have leftovers to feed other people. Persistence hunting probably helped catapult us to the top of the food chain because our ancestors didn't need to outfight or outrun anything, just outlast it.
Presiona para expandir...
It’s because we can actually sweat, it’s crazy.
Also, that’s one of the reasons dogs are some of the first animals we ever domesticated, they can actually keep up with us on long hunts.
 
CivilianOfTheFandomWars dijo:
Nigga what in that list of things didn’t run away from you when you tried to eat it?
We clubbed shit, we didn’t bite the throat.
Presiona para expandir...
We actually didn't, though, at least at the start of our ascendancy on top of the pyramid of life. We actually perfected the concept of persistence hunting, where we would literally just outlast our prey, to the point they'd just let us kill them because they were exhausted. We weren't faster than they were. We weren't stronger than they were. We didn't have longer teeth than they had. We'd just decide "I'm going to eat this thing" whatever it was. And then just follow them. And no matter what they did to avoid us, we were more persistent. And eventually, we'd just kill and eat them. No matter what they were. They could be mammoths. They could be tigers. Whatever. We'd eat the motherfuckers.
 
CivilianOfTheFandomWars dijo:
Let me explain to you the Paradox Of Tolerance...
Presiona para expandir...
They always misquote it as if Karl Popper was saying "We need to pre-emptively yeet the frog posters or else we won't get our fully automated luxury gay space communism" when the reality is Popper was saying "We should allow dialogue and debate, unless those tards refuse to talk and just start throwing punches and shooting instead."
 
CivilianOfTheFandomWars dijo:
It’s because we can actually sweat, it’s crazy.
Also, that’s one of the reasons dogs are some of the first animals we ever domesticated, they can actually keep up with us on long hunts.
Presiona para expandir...
Also dogs are incredibly loyal. Their ability to be social definitely made them almost part of the human race.

Why cats though? Why did we also immediately adopt such an antisocial animal? Answer is obvious, considering their behavior. What was the next development for humanity after just being able to kill every single thing we could see? Well obviously farming.

But what happens when you gather lots of grain together? Shit. Rodents. Vermin. Filthy disgusting animals immediately inhabit your stored grain, and then, what they don't eat, they shit all over. Now your grain is garbage.

But then who shows up? Kitties! And they not only eat the rodents, they're even considerate enough they walk off and bury their shit in the sand, instead of fouling up your grain stores.

Do you wonder why Egyptians worshipped them? Stop. The reason should be obvious. They literally helped us establish civilization.
 
Illiterate Wanderer dijo:
They always misquote it as if Karl Popper was saying "We need to pre-emptively yeet the frog posters or else we won't get our fully automated luxury gay space communism" when the reality is Popper was saying "We should allow dialogue and debate, unless those tards refuse to talk and just start throwing punches and shooting instead."
Presiona para expandir...
He also hated communists.
 
AnOminous dijo:
Also dogs are incredibly loyal. Their ability to be social definitely made them almost part of the human race.

Why cats though? Why did we also immediately adopt such an antisocial animal? Answer is obvious, considering their behavior. What was the next development for humanity after just being able to kill every single thing we could see? Well obviously farming.

But what happens when you gather lots of grain together? Shit. Rodents. Vermin. Filthy disgusting animals immediately inhabit your stored grain, and then, what they don't eat, they shit all over. Now your grain is garbage.

But then who shows up? Kitties! And they not only eat the rodents, they're even considerate enough they walk off and bury their shit in the sand, instead of fouling up your grain stores.

Do you wonder why Egyptians worshipped them? Stop. The reason should be obvious. They literally helped us establish civilization.
Presiona para expandir...
Glad to know we’re all staying on topic in this thread.
 
AnOminous dijo:
We actually didn't, though, at least at the start of our ascendancy on top of the pyramid of life. We actually perfected the concept of persistence hunting, where we would literally just outlast our prey, to the point they'd just let us kill them because they were exhausted. We weren't faster than they were. We weren't stronger than they were. We didn't have longer teeth than they had. We'd just decide "I'm going to eat this thing" whatever it was. And then just follow them. And no matter what they did to avoid us, we were more persistent. And eventually, we'd just kill and eat them. No matter what they were. They could be mammoths. They could be tigers. Whatever. We'd eat the motherfuckers.
Presiona para expandir...

I never realised before that telemarketing was the job most like our ancestors.

Illiterate Wanderer dijo:
They always misquote it as if Karl Popper was saying "We need to pre-emptively yeet the frog posters or else we won't get our fully automated luxury gay space communism" when the reality is Popper was saying "We should allow dialogue and debate, unless those tards refuse to talk and just start throwing punches and shooting instead."
Presiona para expandir...
Their interpretation is closer to the truth than yours. Here's a quote:

"I do not imply for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force..."

He is saying that if you can not counter intolerant philosophies by rational argument, that they should be suppressed.

It has the same problem; who gets to decide who is and isn't tolerant?

And the answer is always: Those with the power to suppress others.

IanMeterCheong dijo:
Idk if this has been posted here or not (maybe im late but)Ver archivo adjunto 1737677
Hey kids, always rememeber!
TROOONSHIP IS MAGIC
Presiona para expandir...
Someone better ban stonetoss, he's forcing people to incite violence against him again.

CivilianOfTheFandomWars dijo:
Glad to know we’re all staying on topic in this thread.
Presiona para expandir...

Welcome to the stonetoss thread.
 
Última edición:
Lemmingwise dijo:
Their interpretation is closer to the truth than yours. Here's a quote:

"I do not imply for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force..."

He is saying that if you can not counter intolerant philosophies by rational argument, that they should be suppressed.

It has the same problem; who gets to decide who is and isn't tolerant?
Presiona para expandir...
You need the whole context.

Karl Popper dijo:
Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Presiona para expandir...
You know like how woketards refuse to engage in dialogue/debate about wokeism, and you can see examples of them screeching at people "Don't talk to that guy he's a fascist nazi homophobe blah blah blah"
 
Illiterate Wanderer dijo:
You know like how woketards refuse to engage in dialogue/debate about wokeism, and you can see examples of them screeching at people "Don't talk to that guy he's a fascist nazi homophobe blah blah blah
Presiona para expandir...
I get that. I just think the margins are a lot thinner, maybe just in our time, but maybe also in his.

If you take his statement completely at face value, then you only need to establish that any group is unwilling to have an honest debate. But I think that even honest good groups are easy to frame as if they don't want an honest debate.

You have the foundation for suppresion of speech, now you just need an excuse to use it on x group.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo