|
On December 10 2013 06:08 Millitron wrote: If Hitler had been killed in 1944 by a drunk driver, would we now honor drunk drivers as heroes? What if the drunk driver was himself?
|
On December 09 2013 22:00 75 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2005 08:28 s21 wrote: How many questions are going to be asked on this thread before it dies? Your username is apt.
On December 10 2013 06:08 Millitron wrote: If Hitler had been killed in 1944 by a drunk driver, would we now honor drunk drivers as heroes?
Hitler killed Hitler. Do we honor Hitler as a hero?
|
On December 10 2013 07:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 22:00 75 wrote:On February 13 2005 08:28 s21 wrote: How many questions are going to be asked on this thread before it dies? Your username is apt. Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 06:08 Millitron wrote: If Hitler had been killed in 1944 by a drunk driver, would we now honor drunk drivers as heroes? Hitler killed Hitler. Do we honor Hitler as a hero? depends on your beliefs lol
|
who would be a better dancer, steven hawking with michael jacksons legs? or michael jackson with steven hawkings legs? assume they still have their own innate abilities and bottom-half hawking gets a wheelchair.
|
On December 10 2013 10:59 ishboh wrote: who would be a better dancer, steven hawking with michael jacksons legs? or michael jackson with steven hawkings legs? assume they still have their own innate abilities and bottom-half hawking gets a wheelchair.
I don't know why but this made me laugh pretty hard
|
Why are all animal babies, real or plush, so adorable, but human babies so ugly? Toy babies are freaky looking!
|
Because animals got fur, and everything small with a lot of skin showing looks disgusting. Well, basically everything with a lot of skin showing looks disgusting, the only reason we are able to look over that for some humans is sexual attraction. Pretty much any human that you would not be sexually attracted to also doesn't really look good with too much skin showing.
Meanwhile fluffy fur makes everything adorable.
|
|
On December 10 2013 11:09 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 10:59 ishboh wrote: who would be a better dancer, steven hawking with michael jacksons legs? or michael jackson with steven hawkings legs? assume they still have their own innate abilities and bottom-half hawking gets a wheelchair. I don't know why but this made me laugh pretty hard
What really got me was the added condition in that second statement, so that a proper debate could be had. Like "This is srs bsns, so let's make this a fair fight and assume innate abilities... and bottom-half hawking gets a wheelchair. Discuss." Awesome haha.
|
|
On December 10 2013 11:29 Chairman Ray wrote: Why are all animal babies, real or plush, so adorable, but human babies so ugly? Toy babies are freaky looking! because we are human and we are really good at recognizing flaws and differences in human faces and bodies, and the more realistic they get, the creepier they are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
|
Northern Ireland23732 Posts
Human babies can be pretty damn adorable, some look horrible though agreed. Don't tell their parents that is the rule of thumb
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 09 2013 23:39 AntsKiller wrote:Hi guys! Last Weekend there were some amazing Starcraft Highlight videos published by WCS Starcraft. They were splitted into two videos: Day 1 and Day 2: I am sure you share my opinion that they did just an amazing job, I love these kind of videos, especially this one. Just a great movie. That's kind of a movie I definitly show to my "Non-Starcraft-Fans"-friends. Well done. After spending some time at searching for the music that is used in this two videos I got a really desperated, cause I didn't find the songs, as well as some of my friends didn't! In the commends of the youtube videos were no information either. Can someone help at finding the song names of these videos?
Yes.
|
Flammable, Inflammable, and Nonflammable, why are there three?
|
On December 10 2013 23:47 PandaCore wrote: Flammable, Inflammable, and Nonflammable, why are there three?
Because inflammable comes from the latin inflamare, to inflame. I guess if anything, "flammable" shouldn't exist (except when referring to internet forums, maybe?).
|
On December 10 2013 23:47 PandaCore wrote: Flammable, Inflammable, and Nonflammable, why are there three? And why doesn't unflammable exist?
|
If DotA was a fruit, what fruit is it?
|
On December 10 2013 23:47 PandaCore wrote: Flammable, Inflammable, and Nonflammable, why are there three?
Nonflammable is different, it actually means that it doesn't easily catch on fire. Flammable and Inflammable largely mean the same thing, that something catches fire easily. Not sure about elsewhere but in the US "Flammable" is pretty much exclusively used as inflammable could be misinterpreted by a lot of people.
|
On December 11 2013 00:24 harodihg wrote: If DotA was a fruit, what fruit is it?
An apple. Tasty, a lot of people like them, and unlike fruits which you have to peel you can eat it comfortably with one hand.
|
On December 10 2013 23:57 scFoX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 23:47 PandaCore wrote: Flammable, Inflammable, and Nonflammable, why are there three? Because inflammable comes from the latin inflamare, to inflame. I guess if anything, "flammable" shouldn't exist (except when referring to internet forums, maybe?). flammable comes from flammare which means to set on fire. So really, both are perfectly correct, even from an etymological standpoint.
|
|
|
|