|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
United States24753 Posts
On February 25 2013 04:41 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 03:31 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On February 24 2013 23:28 Xiphos wrote:On February 24 2013 23:16 gedatsu wrote:On February 24 2013 23:09 Twinkle Toes wrote:On February 24 2013 19:01 sunprince wrote:On February 24 2013 17:46 Navane wrote:On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
[...]
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here. Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes. No, just too many wrongs on this BS. Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back. We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair. Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects. What? That's really all I can say to that. On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote:
Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before. Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same. Yep, where you can see more feminism dominated countries is where you would mostly find more homosexual males because of the pre-pubescent emasculation done to him by a specific or plural female(s). This in turn makes him rethink about female attraction and renders his sexual orientation different. And vice versa, the region with more masculine men have a less density of homosexuals and more balanced in terms of sexual production. The evolution is a machine that can't be stopped. As matter of fact every day as you are being influenced to do a certain task, you are evolving along with the decision. User was temp banned for this post. I fail to see how this is banworthy. User was warned for this post Why was he warned for this post?
I'll give my third-party perspective:
You can discuss bans/warnings here in a light-hearted fashion. If you simply want to complain about moderation or are going to demand an explanation (not that there is an obligation to justify every ban, but tl tries), it should be done in website feedback.
|
because demand was emphasized in italics i understood the post so much easier. am i really that dumb?
let me try...
banana
|
On February 25 2013 05:26 nunez wrote:
because demand was emphasized in italics i understood the post so much easier. am i really that dumb?
let me try...
banana
Now it all makes sense, the mods forgot to italicize!
Stay on topic, please only discuss bans here.
Also, this thread is only for discussing people who've gotten banned or bans in general in a light-hearted tone. Please use the website feedback forum to question bans or moderation.
Problem solved.
|
On February 25 2013 05:20 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
1. he lost many times in his stream in WoL also
2. there is a lot other players than just pro players in ladder
3. many of idras losses are not just close games, many of those losses are total crushes
Why do you think this is trolling? It is a legitimate question, Idra is such a high caliber pro player, he should have better winrate in ladder against random opponents in ladder.
User was temp banned for this post.
Can't say I'm glad he is 'back'.
|
What the hell, I find a 0 reply thread made by an idiot, click report, and it's already targeted for destruction. Do you guys spend all day F5'ing for threads to report?
|
On February 25 2013 05:45 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
What the hell, I find a 0 reply thread made by an idiot, click report, and it's already targeted for destruction. Do you guys spend all day F5'ing for threads to report?
That would be Coke. ^^
|
As you can see, Coke is too busy reporting threads and posts to even deign to respond.
|
I don't think I've made any reports today, stop derailing.
|
On February 25 2013 05:45 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
What the hell, I find a 0 reply thread made by an idiot, click report, and it's already targeted for destruction. Do you guys spend all day F5'ing for threads to report?
Who needs an F5 key?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/new.php
EDIT: you still need an F5 key 
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On February 25 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote:
The more I attempt to analyse his post the more difficult it is to explain but basically the claim that homosexuality is a result of men rethinking whether women are a good idea after being confronted with a feminist dominated society and then deciding to be gay would be pretty offensive if it weren't so utterly ridiculous. Feminists are not emasculating your children and turning them gay. I could attempt to delve into the multiple layers of wrongness with this, the feminist dominated society, the feminists causing emasculation (because being masculine is apparently incompatible with women having power in society), emasculation causing homosexuality, homosexuality being a choice that you think about and decide which you want, the feminists somehow getting to your children (they're even in your homes!! turning your kids gay) and endless more problems. It gets more illogical the more you delve into it.
He and I had a PM exchange where he further attempted to explain his theories and cited an episode of two and a half men in which a male character joked about having so much trouble getting a stable heterosexual relationship that he ought to form a homosexual relationship with another male character. The evidence was tough to argue against.
I'm always astounded at how people can fit so much stupid into so little space. Also I think two and a half men is probably the worst source for an argument I have seen used.
|
On February 25 2013 06:17 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote:
The more I attempt to analyse his post the more difficult it is to explain but basically the claim that homosexuality is a result of men rethinking whether women are a good idea after being confronted with a feminist dominated society and then deciding to be gay would be pretty offensive if it weren't so utterly ridiculous. Feminists are not emasculating your children and turning them gay. I could attempt to delve into the multiple layers of wrongness with this, the feminist dominated society, the feminists causing emasculation (because being masculine is apparently incompatible with women having power in society), emasculation causing homosexuality, homosexuality being a choice that you think about and decide which you want, the feminists somehow getting to your children (they're even in your homes!! turning your kids gay) and endless more problems. It gets more illogical the more you delve into it.
He and I had a PM exchange where he further attempted to explain his theories and cited an episode of two and a half men in which a male character joked about having so much trouble getting a stable heterosexual relationship that he ought to form a homosexual relationship with another male character. The evidence was tough to argue against. I'm always astounded at how people can fit so much stupid into so little space. Also I think two and a half men is probably the worst source for an argument I have seen used.
I can't quite remember who it was, but a now permed user once used Family Guy in an argument in the old election thread. I believe he used it to prove that religion has been the source of all conflict throughout history.
|
babylon was just temp banned for 30 days by KwarK.
That account was created on 2011-04-20 08:44:55 and had 6012 posts.
Reason: By request.
All my favorite posters banning themselves 
|
On February 25 2013 06:17 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote:
The more I attempt to analyse his post the more difficult it is to explain but basically the claim that homosexuality is a result of men rethinking whether women are a good idea after being confronted with a feminist dominated society and then deciding to be gay would be pretty offensive if it weren't so utterly ridiculous. Feminists are not emasculating your children and turning them gay. I could attempt to delve into the multiple layers of wrongness with this, the feminist dominated society, the feminists causing emasculation (because being masculine is apparently incompatible with women having power in society), emasculation causing homosexuality, homosexuality being a choice that you think about and decide which you want, the feminists somehow getting to your children (they're even in your homes!! turning your kids gay) and endless more problems. It gets more illogical the more you delve into it.
He and I had a PM exchange where he further attempted to explain his theories and cited an episode of two and a half men in which a male character joked about having so much trouble getting a stable heterosexual relationship that he ought to form a homosexual relationship with another male character. The evidence was tough to argue against. I'm always astounded at how people can fit so much stupid into so little space. Also I think two and a half men is probably the worst source for an argument I have seen used.
I had someone use a topic on a body building/ pua forum for proof that homosexuality was a choice, except the op was asking if it was true, but the people responding to him informed him that it wasn't and calling him names when he insisted it was true.
|
On February 25 2013 06:27 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 06:17 imallinson wrote:On February 25 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote:
The more I attempt to analyse his post the more difficult it is to explain but basically the claim that homosexuality is a result of men rethinking whether women are a good idea after being confronted with a feminist dominated society and then deciding to be gay would be pretty offensive if it weren't so utterly ridiculous. Feminists are not emasculating your children and turning them gay. I could attempt to delve into the multiple layers of wrongness with this, the feminist dominated society, the feminists causing emasculation (because being masculine is apparently incompatible with women having power in society), emasculation causing homosexuality, homosexuality being a choice that you think about and decide which you want, the feminists somehow getting to your children (they're even in your homes!! turning your kids gay) and endless more problems. It gets more illogical the more you delve into it.
He and I had a PM exchange where he further attempted to explain his theories and cited an episode of two and a half men in which a male character joked about having so much trouble getting a stable heterosexual relationship that he ought to form a homosexual relationship with another male character. The evidence was tough to argue against. I'm always astounded at how people can fit so much stupid into so little space. Also I think two and a half men is probably the worst source for an argument I have seen used. I can't quite remember who it was, but a now permed user once used Family Guy in an argument in the old election thread. I believe he used it to prove that religion has been the source of all conflict throughout history.
Oh wow. Some people are hilarious 
|
your Country52797 Posts
On February 25 2013 06:27 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 06:17 imallinson wrote:On February 25 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote:
The more I attempt to analyse his post the more difficult it is to explain but basically the claim that homosexuality is a result of men rethinking whether women are a good idea after being confronted with a feminist dominated society and then deciding to be gay would be pretty offensive if it weren't so utterly ridiculous. Feminists are not emasculating your children and turning them gay. I could attempt to delve into the multiple layers of wrongness with this, the feminist dominated society, the feminists causing emasculation (because being masculine is apparently incompatible with women having power in society), emasculation causing homosexuality, homosexuality being a choice that you think about and decide which you want, the feminists somehow getting to your children (they're even in your homes!! turning your kids gay) and endless more problems. It gets more illogical the more you delve into it.
He and I had a PM exchange where he further attempted to explain his theories and cited an episode of two and a half men in which a male character joked about having so much trouble getting a stable heterosexual relationship that he ought to form a homosexual relationship with another male character. The evidence was tough to argue against. I'm always astounded at how people can fit so much stupid into so little space. Also I think two and a half men is probably the worst source for an argument I have seen used. I can't quite remember who it was, but a now permed user once used Family Guy in an argument in the old election thread. I believe he used it to prove that religion has been the source of all conflict throughout history.
Oh man, I want to see that argument.
|
On February 25 2013 10:14 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 06:27 frogrubdown wrote:On February 25 2013 06:17 imallinson wrote:On February 25 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote:
The more I attempt to analyse his post the more difficult it is to explain but basically the claim that homosexuality is a result of men rethinking whether women are a good idea after being confronted with a feminist dominated society and then deciding to be gay would be pretty offensive if it weren't so utterly ridiculous. Feminists are not emasculating your children and turning them gay. I could attempt to delve into the multiple layers of wrongness with this, the feminist dominated society, the feminists causing emasculation (because being masculine is apparently incompatible with women having power in society), emasculation causing homosexuality, homosexuality being a choice that you think about and decide which you want, the feminists somehow getting to your children (they're even in your homes!! turning your kids gay) and endless more problems. It gets more illogical the more you delve into it.
He and I had a PM exchange where he further attempted to explain his theories and cited an episode of two and a half men in which a male character joked about having so much trouble getting a stable heterosexual relationship that he ought to form a homosexual relationship with another male character. The evidence was tough to argue against. I'm always astounded at how people can fit so much stupid into so little space. Also I think two and a half men is probably the worst source for an argument I have seen used. I can't quite remember who it was, but a now permed user once used Family Guy in an argument in the old election thread. I believe he used it to prove that religion has been the source of all conflict throughout history. Oh man, I want to see that argument.
I think I would enjoy seeing that also. Normally when poeple cite things like that I just think, "Can't argue with that logic, now can I?"
|
On February 25 2013 10:14 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 06:27 frogrubdown wrote:On February 25 2013 06:17 imallinson wrote:On February 25 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote:
The more I attempt to analyse his post the more difficult it is to explain but basically the claim that homosexuality is a result of men rethinking whether women are a good idea after being confronted with a feminist dominated society and then deciding to be gay would be pretty offensive if it weren't so utterly ridiculous. Feminists are not emasculating your children and turning them gay. I could attempt to delve into the multiple layers of wrongness with this, the feminist dominated society, the feminists causing emasculation (because being masculine is apparently incompatible with women having power in society), emasculation causing homosexuality, homosexuality being a choice that you think about and decide which you want, the feminists somehow getting to your children (they're even in your homes!! turning your kids gay) and endless more problems. It gets more illogical the more you delve into it.
He and I had a PM exchange where he further attempted to explain his theories and cited an episode of two and a half men in which a male character joked about having so much trouble getting a stable heterosexual relationship that he ought to form a homosexual relationship with another male character. The evidence was tough to argue against. I'm always astounded at how people can fit so much stupid into so little space. Also I think two and a half men is probably the worst source for an argument I have seen used. I can't quite remember who it was, but a now permed user once used Family Guy in an argument in the old election thread. I believe he used it to prove that religion has been the source of all conflict throughout history. Oh man, I want to see that argument.
it was pretty much just what you'd imagine it would be
|
Found it. It was from your friend and mine, NeMeSiS3.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=1457#29135
Relevant part:
+ Show Spoiler +Also I used the Crusades as an example, you're nitpicking semantically. If you predate religion before monotheism and go WAY back most wars were fought over who's god had the bigger penis, move towards the rise of Zoroastrianism with his monotheistic principle and then you had the neo-Jewish monotheistic principles (arguably at one point they were polytheistic then monotheistic, this is still argued today but my studies have shown a sort of Hindu polytheistic view while maintaining the principle of a single entity such that I would agree they were monotheistic before Zoroastrianism made it immensly popular) but then we had religious feuding day in and day out for centuries. This is how religion sort of went. and to finally end it This is how religion (it specifies christianity where the dark ages suppressed religious advances but all religions can be equated in this manner, or so I've seen through studies). Let alone the fact that religion is used almost entirely to manipulate god fearing indivduals (hitler against jews is a prime example of using christian faith to demonize the Jews in Germany). Hope that cuts it, anywho that's my take good day.
|
United States24753 Posts
On February 25 2013 10:31 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 10:14 The_Templar wrote:On February 25 2013 06:27 frogrubdown wrote:On February 25 2013 06:17 imallinson wrote:On February 25 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote:
The more I attempt to analyse his post the more difficult it is to explain but basically the claim that homosexuality is a result of men rethinking whether women are a good idea after being confronted with a feminist dominated society and then deciding to be gay would be pretty offensive if it weren't so utterly ridiculous. Feminists are not emasculating your children and turning them gay. I could attempt to delve into the multiple layers of wrongness with this, the feminist dominated society, the feminists causing emasculation (because being masculine is apparently incompatible with women having power in society), emasculation causing homosexuality, homosexuality being a choice that you think about and decide which you want, the feminists somehow getting to your children (they're even in your homes!! turning your kids gay) and endless more problems. It gets more illogical the more you delve into it.
He and I had a PM exchange where he further attempted to explain his theories and cited an episode of two and a half men in which a male character joked about having so much trouble getting a stable heterosexual relationship that he ought to form a homosexual relationship with another male character. The evidence was tough to argue against. I'm always astounded at how people can fit so much stupid into so little space. Also I think two and a half men is probably the worst source for an argument I have seen used. I can't quite remember who it was, but a now permed user once used Family Guy in an argument in the old election thread. I believe he used it to prove that religion has been the source of all conflict throughout history. Oh man, I want to see that argument. I think I would enjoy seeing that also. Normally when poeple cite things like that I just think, "Can't argue with that logic, now can I?"
Isn't this essentially ad hominem? Someone says "please see resource x" and you notice resource x is from a certain television show, and so you say "haha your argument is bad."
If someone said "I can prove Jesus and Moses used guns to conquer the Romans; see this Family Guy episode:" then you have every right to not take it seriously since family guy is not an appropriate source for such historical facts. However, if they say "this clip makes a really good argument about topic x" you shouldn't discredit it because of where it is from, even if it is from Jersey Shore, Sesame Street, or whatever else.
However, you can choose to ignore such evidence if you think the source is ridiculous (ignore, not discredit by prejudging it).
|
Oh Nemesis...you really did remind me of Brian Griffin in the worst way possible
Sam summed up these type of "rationalists" pretty well
kids, this is what happens when your education is Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Family Guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
