|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote:
We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p
eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things.
hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
It's what I actually believe, but it doesn't really mesh particularly well with a day-to-day level so I largely ignore it for the purposes of living a fulfilling and interesting life.
|
On May 29 2014 22:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's what I actually believe, but it doesn't really mesh particularly well with a day-to-day level so I largely ignore it for the purposes of living a fulfilling and interesting life.
Fair enough, but I've personally resolved it with the knowledge that the universe is constantly being created in every instant. The universe itself can't see the future, so it seems silly that anyone else will be able to. I'd recommend a course in basic quantum mechanics, it introduces some fascinating thoughts to philosophy.
|
I've always thought that the main problem with PUA is that whenever it succeeds, guys who support it run in circles happy for proving it to be true when in fact, it's the woman who was all set for allowing it to "succeed" from the start and the form of this "seduction" hardly mattered for her as long as it was reasonable and socially acceptable.
Breaching wide open doors never felt so fulfilling and profitable.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
I've read a bit on that, including the idea that truly 'random' thoughts, or indeed the initial creation of thought is some kind of quantum process and thus humans don't operate like incredibly complicated flowcharts.
I was being a tad facetious, but would still tend to the belief that a lot of our core personality traits, views and decisions made from that foundation are relatively fixed once you hit adulthood.
|
On May 29 2014 22:39 barbsq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote:
We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things. hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough.
|
On May 29 2014 22:51 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 22:39 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote:
We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things. hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end. given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough.
OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/
|
On May 29 2014 22:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
I've read a bit on that, including the idea that truly 'random' thoughts, or indeed the initial creation of thought is some kind of quantum process and thus humans don't operate like incredibly complicated flowcharts.
I rather like Plato's notion that such thoughts are the remembrance of knowledge long forgotten, inherent in the primitive perfection of the eternal soul.
|
On May 29 2014 22:57 barbsq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 22:51 ComaDose wrote:On May 29 2014 22:39 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote:
We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things. hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end. given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough. OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/
This becomes the new thread for "everything".
Soon people will start posting cat videos in here.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On May 29 2014 22:58 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 22:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
I've read a bit on that, including the idea that truly 'random' thoughts, or indeed the initial creation of thought is some kind of quantum process and thus humans don't operate like incredibly complicated flowcharts. I rather like Plato's notion that such thoughts are the remembrance of knowledge long forgotten, inherent in the primitive perfection of the eternal soul.
Dovetails nicely with Buddism right? (Also Scientology)
|
On May 29 2014 23:05 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 22:57 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:51 ComaDose wrote:On May 29 2014 22:39 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote:
We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things. hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end. given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough. OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/ This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here.
That would be a vast improvement over the psudioscience discussion and creepy discussions on how to pick up the ladies.
|
On May 29 2014 23:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 23:05 urboss wrote:On May 29 2014 22:57 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:51 ComaDose wrote:On May 29 2014 22:39 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote:
We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things. hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end. given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough. OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/ This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here. That would be a vast improvement over the psudioscience discussion and creepy discussions on how to pick up the ladies.
I concur. I find it amazing that the thread hasn't been moderated yet, because this is offensively off topic.
|
On May 29 2014 23:23 Rho_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 23:13 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 23:05 urboss wrote:On May 29 2014 22:57 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:51 ComaDose wrote:On May 29 2014 22:39 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote:
We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things. hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end. given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough. OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/ This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here. That would be a vast improvement over the psudioscience discussion and creepy discussions on how to pick up the ladies. I concur. I find it amazing that the thread hasn't been moderated yet, because this is offensively off topic.
true. This basically has become the PUA debate thread. If you can call it a debate.
|
On May 29 2014 23:44 barbsq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 23:23 Rho_ wrote:On May 29 2014 23:13 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 23:05 urboss wrote:On May 29 2014 22:57 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:51 ComaDose wrote:On May 29 2014 22:39 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote:
We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things. hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end. given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough. OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/ This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here. That would be a vast improvement over the psudioscience discussion and creepy discussions on how to pick up the ladies. I concur. I find it amazing that the thread hasn't been moderated yet, because this is offensively off topic. true. This basically has become the PUA debate thread. If you can call it a debate.
Debates have rules. This is more the classic Internet argument of "no read what I wrote and then you prove me wrong!"
|
On May 29 2014 22:24 barbsq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 22:13 r.Evo wrote:On May 29 2014 21:20 MoltkeWarding wrote:On May 29 2014 17:59 r.Evo wrote:
What the heck guys. Pickup-/dating communities and "PUA" in general (keep in mind that I can count the people from those communities on one hand that enjoy associating with that word) are not scientific communities. The roots however lie in a scientific approach to the topic of dating. Have idea, test out idea, compare results with others and work out what works best for which kind of people.
Now, if you're asking whether certain methods and approaches within the pickup communities have a scientific background (note the difference to "PUA is science!"): Of course they do. Pickup communities by definition look at various concepts when it comes to human interaction, apply them to dating and try to figure out how "efficient" they are.
You take something that is in most cases incredibly simple like rapport and look how various non-dating related groups try and work with it. What makes the pickup communities classic "pseudo-scientific" is that they don't discriminate at all. Your average community doesn't care if information as to "How to build rapport?" comes from their grandmother, a salesman, a shrink, NLP students or a professor of psychology - they look at what those people do, try it out in field and try to figure out whether it works for them. If it does, they share it with others that share the same basic interest and that is, in a nutshell, how every single concept that is commonly accepted in various dating communities is built up.
One has to understand that such an approach is both "not scientific" (there won't be an officially peer reviewed paper since the peers doing the reviewing are similar to people on teamliquid talking about how and why a guide for something SC2 or Dota related is shit or awesome) but also incredibly advanced at the same time since the community is almost exclusively outcome oriented in the pursuit of its goals.
Gaming is actually a pretty damn awesome comparison - have you ever seen a scientific peer reviewed document that talks about which fingers are most efficient at pressing which keys in which order? I haven't, but I'd listen to people from a starcraft forum more than anyone else on the topic because they're trying to figure it out by practicing it.
If, for whatever reason, you end up having more sex than before after approaching girls with your face painted pink you can be pretty damn sure that the one group of people genuinely interested in how the heck that worked will be the PUA communities. In Germany there is a well-established conceptual differentiation between the academic and applies sciences. The Realschule as originally conceived was designed to emphasise tacit over explicit knowledge. What is explicit is generally better at creating networks of relations and meanings than they are at engineering specific outcomes. In the English language the word "science" has come to mean only codified, transferable knowledge. As Alan Sandage said: "Physicists, by and large, are Platonists who seek reality in the archetypes behind the scenes. Non-scientists, by and large, are Kierkegaardians for whom the subjectivity of life and thought is more real than scientific models." This is merely a semantic shift, what is more important is the almost cult-like gullibility with which the mass of dilettantes have come to worship the name of "science", and seek to tear down the legitimacy of their opponents by tarring their thoughts with the label of "pseudo-science," when that pseudo-science may be of great instrumental value. Thank you for this, I was already wondering why it feels weird trying to explain this difference in English, but I actually didn't think about this being a concept that just isn't established as strongly elsewhere. For me I have issues understanding how someone can see such a process (Theory -> Experiment -> Observation -> Exchange of results with others -> Repeat) as not scientific. Essentially a child exploring the world around it trying to understand how it works is no different from people in a starcraft forum trying to find the best strategies or literally anyone who tries to become better at anything that isn't mostly explored or solved yet (which includes something like pickup). The major difference to straight up academic science is that when trying to understand the conclusions and solutions one has to think for oneself if the things presented make sense or not. A big deal is that the way the majority of users seem to think about "PUA" is treating it as one coherent and complete unit when in reality it's a huge muddy pool of hundreds upon hundreds of ideas, methods and mindsets to achieve one common goal. In fact saying "PUA is stupid and doesn't work" or "PUA has nothing to do with science" is equivalent to saying "Starcraft guides on Teamliquid don't work, I tried some and lost and where are my peer-reviewed papers on why build xyz is supposed to make me win more?!" Particularly itchy is the alacrity with which many posters are willing to brush the Rodger problem under the rug as mere "psychopathy" and nothing more. Is this not an act of psychopathy in itself? Or does psychopathy only manifest itself when the object of our responsibilities is a normative social abstraction, rather than a unique human being? I don't think that's an issue at all. In a nutshell the reason people commit crimes like that is because they go nuts. I don't think anyone who isn't a psychopath can fully understand the mindset and reasoning of one. Sure, there are dozens of factors that can be questioned when we ask "Why did this end like it did?" but in the end it can be thought of like any other disease: Some specific combination of influences for a specific individual caused it to not work properly anymore. - This does not imply at all that any of those specific influences in any quantity will cause the same in someone else. The key aspect of science that I think is missing from your view is that the scientific method is designed such that you make an effort to prove your hypothesis WRONG. In really good science, you keep pushing and pushing on your theory until it breaks, and then when it does, you change it to make it better. The fact that science is falsifiable is a real key aspect that is missing here. This is really important because it helps you narrow down causation as opposed to correlation. For the same reasons, you also need things like control groups and large cohorts to be able to substantiate claims based on standardized criteria. PUA does not offer this, it is simply a large collection of anecdotal evidence. And while that has value of its own, it is NOT SCIENTIFIC. Please don't get me wrong, I have no opinion on PUA, either positive of negative (hell I hardly even knew the community existed until a few days ago), but claiming it is science is bullshit. This does not, however, detract from any value it might have, as you have correctly pointed out. edit: to be fair, I think your misconceptions about science are not among the worst, and I find that approaching things in the 'hypothesis->experiment->observe->report" (edit2: I also was very deliberate about replacing your word theory with hypothesis  , I'm hoping to spread this terminology so that theory doesn't get diluted) methodology is, overall, a good one. However, this is more akin to exploration than it is to science. I get frustrated sometimes that science has become such a muddy thing in pop-culture, when it is specifically designed to try and avoid that. Hell, even some of the top PI's at my university that I've worked with don't really get the scientific process.
As I said, for me it's not even a discussion about whether pickup is a science or not. It's not. But that's also completely irrelevant if people are debating whether it's a community that can offer immense improvement for the quality of life of an individual. In the end it comes down to the various pickup communities being the only place an individual (both male and female) can go when they want to improve the way they deal with the opposite sex among people with the exact same goal.
But, welp, the majority of the discussion still seems stuck in "I gave it label X and I associate label X with horrible things so it must be horrible" with lots and lots of uninformed opinions around. It's literally equivalent to the media almost exclusively blaming violent video games in other cases.
PS: Cheers for the hypothesis vs theory, I knew something was wrong. =P
|
On May 29 2014 23:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 23:44 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 23:23 Rho_ wrote:On May 29 2014 23:13 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 23:05 urboss wrote:On May 29 2014 22:57 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:51 ComaDose wrote:On May 29 2014 22:39 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote:
We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things. hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end. given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough. OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/ This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here. That would be a vast improvement over the psudioscience discussion and creepy discussions on how to pick up the ladies. I concur. I find it amazing that the thread hasn't been moderated yet, because this is offensively off topic. true. This basically has become the PUA debate thread. If you can call it a debate. Debates have rules. This is more the classic Internet argument of "no read what I wrote and then you prove me wrong!"
well, i thought that there were a couple of redeeming posts in this mess, and I didn't want to devalue them by calling it a shit-flinging circus. But yeah....
On May 30 2014 00:03 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 22:24 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:13 r.Evo wrote:On May 29 2014 21:20 MoltkeWarding wrote:On May 29 2014 17:59 r.Evo wrote:
What the heck guys. Pickup-/dating communities and "PUA" in general (keep in mind that I can count the people from those communities on one hand that enjoy associating with that word) are not scientific communities. The roots however lie in a scientific approach to the topic of dating. Have idea, test out idea, compare results with others and work out what works best for which kind of people.
Now, if you're asking whether certain methods and approaches within the pickup communities have a scientific background (note the difference to "PUA is science!"): Of course they do. Pickup communities by definition look at various concepts when it comes to human interaction, apply them to dating and try to figure out how "efficient" they are.
You take something that is in most cases incredibly simple like rapport and look how various non-dating related groups try and work with it. What makes the pickup communities classic "pseudo-scientific" is that they don't discriminate at all. Your average community doesn't care if information as to "How to build rapport?" comes from their grandmother, a salesman, a shrink, NLP students or a professor of psychology - they look at what those people do, try it out in field and try to figure out whether it works for them. If it does, they share it with others that share the same basic interest and that is, in a nutshell, how every single concept that is commonly accepted in various dating communities is built up.
One has to understand that such an approach is both "not scientific" (there won't be an officially peer reviewed paper since the peers doing the reviewing are similar to people on teamliquid talking about how and why a guide for something SC2 or Dota related is shit or awesome) but also incredibly advanced at the same time since the community is almost exclusively outcome oriented in the pursuit of its goals.
Gaming is actually a pretty damn awesome comparison - have you ever seen a scientific peer reviewed document that talks about which fingers are most efficient at pressing which keys in which order? I haven't, but I'd listen to people from a starcraft forum more than anyone else on the topic because they're trying to figure it out by practicing it.
If, for whatever reason, you end up having more sex than before after approaching girls with your face painted pink you can be pretty damn sure that the one group of people genuinely interested in how the heck that worked will be the PUA communities. In Germany there is a well-established conceptual differentiation between the academic and applies sciences. The Realschule as originally conceived was designed to emphasise tacit over explicit knowledge. What is explicit is generally better at creating networks of relations and meanings than they are at engineering specific outcomes. In the English language the word "science" has come to mean only codified, transferable knowledge. As Alan Sandage said: "Physicists, by and large, are Platonists who seek reality in the archetypes behind the scenes. Non-scientists, by and large, are Kierkegaardians for whom the subjectivity of life and thought is more real than scientific models." This is merely a semantic shift, what is more important is the almost cult-like gullibility with which the mass of dilettantes have come to worship the name of "science", and seek to tear down the legitimacy of their opponents by tarring their thoughts with the label of "pseudo-science," when that pseudo-science may be of great instrumental value. Thank you for this, I was already wondering why it feels weird trying to explain this difference in English, but I actually didn't think about this being a concept that just isn't established as strongly elsewhere. For me I have issues understanding how someone can see such a process (Theory -> Experiment -> Observation -> Exchange of results with others -> Repeat) as not scientific. Essentially a child exploring the world around it trying to understand how it works is no different from people in a starcraft forum trying to find the best strategies or literally anyone who tries to become better at anything that isn't mostly explored or solved yet (which includes something like pickup). The major difference to straight up academic science is that when trying to understand the conclusions and solutions one has to think for oneself if the things presented make sense or not. A big deal is that the way the majority of users seem to think about "PUA" is treating it as one coherent and complete unit when in reality it's a huge muddy pool of hundreds upon hundreds of ideas, methods and mindsets to achieve one common goal. In fact saying "PUA is stupid and doesn't work" or "PUA has nothing to do with science" is equivalent to saying "Starcraft guides on Teamliquid don't work, I tried some and lost and where are my peer-reviewed papers on why build xyz is supposed to make me win more?!" Particularly itchy is the alacrity with which many posters are willing to brush the Rodger problem under the rug as mere "psychopathy" and nothing more. Is this not an act of psychopathy in itself? Or does psychopathy only manifest itself when the object of our responsibilities is a normative social abstraction, rather than a unique human being? I don't think that's an issue at all. In a nutshell the reason people commit crimes like that is because they go nuts. I don't think anyone who isn't a psychopath can fully understand the mindset and reasoning of one. Sure, there are dozens of factors that can be questioned when we ask "Why did this end like it did?" but in the end it can be thought of like any other disease: Some specific combination of influences for a specific individual caused it to not work properly anymore. - This does not imply at all that any of those specific influences in any quantity will cause the same in someone else. The key aspect of science that I think is missing from your view is that the scientific method is designed such that you make an effort to prove your hypothesis WRONG. In really good science, you keep pushing and pushing on your theory until it breaks, and then when it does, you change it to make it better. The fact that science is falsifiable is a real key aspect that is missing here. This is really important because it helps you narrow down causation as opposed to correlation. For the same reasons, you also need things like control groups and large cohorts to be able to substantiate claims based on standardized criteria. PUA does not offer this, it is simply a large collection of anecdotal evidence. And while that has value of its own, it is NOT SCIENTIFIC. Please don't get me wrong, I have no opinion on PUA, either positive of negative (hell I hardly even knew the community existed until a few days ago), but claiming it is science is bullshit. This does not, however, detract from any value it might have, as you have correctly pointed out. edit: to be fair, I think your misconceptions about science are not among the worst, and I find that approaching things in the 'hypothesis->experiment->observe->report" (edit2: I also was very deliberate about replacing your word theory with hypothesis , I'm hoping to spread this terminology so that theory doesn't get diluted) methodology is, overall, a good one. However, this is more akin to exploration than it is to science. I get frustrated sometimes that science has become such a muddy thing in pop-culture, when it is specifically designed to try and avoid that. Hell, even some of the top PI's at my university that I've worked with don't really get the scientific process. As I said, for me it's not even a discussion about whether pickup is a science or not. It's not. But that's also completely irrelevant if people are debating whether it's a community that can offer immense improvement for the quality of life of an individual. In the end it comes down to the various pickup communities being the only place an individual (both male and female) can go when they want to improve the way they deal with the opposite sex among people with the exact same goal. But, welp, the majority of the discussion still seems stuck in "I gave it label X and I associate label X with horrible things so it must be horrible" with lots and lots of uninformed opinions around. It's literally equivalent to the media almost exclusively blaming violent video games in other cases. PS: Cheers for the hypothesis vs theory, I knew something was wrong. =P
I very much agree with your mentality, I just felt like I need to clarify since I am heavily invested in science, and since science is VERY concerned with semantics and in a specific kind of clarity, I felt that the PUA community should not be grouped with them. As I said before, I haven't done enough research into PUA to be able to say one thing or another about it (most of my opinions about it have come from this thread, which is totally hearsay), but I do know enough about science and the scientific method to be able to weigh in on whether or not PUA is scientific or not. And, of course, I also agree with your sentiment that putting the tag SCIENCE on something or even removing it doesn't necessarily say anything about its value. There are plenty of unscientific things that provide great value and plenty of scientific things that are basically useless. Science just tells you HOW you got your knowledge, not whether or not it's useful.
tl:dr, the word science is very important to me XD
|
On May 29 2014 21:38 Jibba wrote:Alpha/beta/omega has a specific connotation within zoology that doesn't apply to humans, because we're not pack hunters and we don't have true pecking orders. In this case it's just an artificial label attached to confidence, which is something that varies based on setting and context. I'm not sure if you're intending to do it, but you should not use the PUA alpha/beta terminology when discussing scientific articles and animal behavior, because it's just going to confuse things and misleads people into thinking alpha males/females really exist within human society.
I'm interested in your statement 'we're not pack hunters and we don't have true pecking orders'. Can you elaborate on this please?
|
It doesn't matter if the pua stuff is science or not, point is if you go out and have a few drinks with your buddies you don't use the newest scientific conversation techniques, you just are a normal person. So why do people feel the need just because they're talking to the opposite sex to fall into some kind of armchair psychology mode, which is super awkward and obvious to every half-intelligent listener anyway?
|
On May 30 2014 00:45 Nyxisto wrote:
It doesn't matter if the pua stuff is science or not, point is if you go out and have a few drinks with your buddies you don't use the newest scientific conversation techniques, you just are a normal person. So why do people feel the need just because they're talking to the opposite sex to fall into some kind of armchair psychology mode, which is super awkward and obvious to every half-intelligent listener anyway?
Say that you go out to meet up with a girl, you need to know what you gotta say in order to impress them.
You gotta plan out a certain string of topics' general trends.
And you know that you want to go to a fancy restaurant but can't afford it. So you work a bit overtime to make up for the money.
She likes this type of flowers, so you gotta sometime plan ahead to go to a florist so she'll be "woo"ed by.
If you are doing these things, then you are applying PUA.
All of those things seems relative so-called "normal" or "innocent", the matter of the fact as humans, we all do these things subconsciously and PUA took notice of these details and found ways to expound upon them.
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
|
On May 29 2014 23:05 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 22:57 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:51 ComaDose wrote:On May 29 2014 22:39 barbsq wrote:On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote:
We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things. hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end. given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough. OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/ This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here.
........proceed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
225
EPT
