Gay sheep. From humon.deviantart.com/art/Sheep-262786780. I In 10 mm; Prefer oh; hev" WWY-. Rams enjoy ramming each other. I get it god. Being gay is oka
x

Comments(117):

[ 117 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#30 - unncommon (12/03/2013) [-]
God looks bawss as **** in this.
User avatar #2 - nightmareschild (12/03/2013) [-]
Rams enjoy ramming each other. I get it god.
#52 - ggdhindo (12/03/2013) [-]
RFW
RFW
#53 to #52 - ggdhindo (12/03/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#81 to #53 - iwishiwasazula (12/03/2013) [-]
gay porn is different...
gay porn is different...
User avatar #75 to #53 - aesis (12/03/2013) [-]
I like how there is "MEN" written in the corner, meaning this came directly from some gay porno.
User avatar #93 to #75 - destaice (12/03/2013) [-]
The porn is from You need to login to view this link

The actors are Christian Wilde and Jessie Colter. The name of the video is "He Can Do It Better."

The full video can be found here: You need to login to view this link
#21 - anon (12/03/2013) [-]
But if I **** a sheep, what happens to the sheep?
Me: 1
Sheep: gay
#54 - inforcersorders (12/03/2013) [-]
If you were a sheep, would you **** a sheep? DIRTY SHEEP ****** .
#58 to #54 - Gewdaism (12/03/2013) [-]
YO THIS ************ AIN'T ONE OF US, HE SAID HE'D **** A SHEEP
Jay & Silent Bob Sheep Fckr
#13 - spooooce (12/03/2013) [-]
Thought this was going to be a post about home.  EYE  guess not.
Thought this was going to be a post about home. EYE guess not.
User avatar #29 to #13 - secretdestroyers (12/03/2013) [-]
**** yes, love Kiwiland!
User avatar #105 to #13 - gearshift (12/03/2013) [-]
As an Australian, I feel obligated to point and laugh at you.
User avatar #116 to #105 - spooooce (12/04/2013) [-]
You disappoint me.

I expected 'Sheep-Shagger'. Such a shame.
#59 - turtletroll (12/03/2013) [-]
This is the emblem of my city.

Looks like we are the faggot sheep capital of the world
#61 to #59 - gravdave (12/03/2013) [-]
so you are from preston?
User avatar #62 to #61 - turtletroll (12/03/2013) [-]
Yeah I live there now but i'm from Manchester originally.
#63 to #62 - gravdave (12/03/2013) [-]
Manc master race
User avatar #64 to #63 - turtletroll (12/03/2013) [-]
yes m8 manchestah pride
User avatar #77 to #59 - toguro (12/03/2013) [-]
Hey another Prestonian! Were you there when they switched on the lights?

I wish I still lived in Bolton -_-
User avatar #78 to #77 - turtletroll (12/03/2013) [-]
Nope. Preston usually do a pretty **** job at things like that. The guild festival is a pretty good example of that
User avatar #80 to #78 - toguro (12/03/2013) [-]
Oh it was bad, really really bad.

Well actually there was one guy who played the guitar by literally laying it down and hitting the strings with his fingers so that it made percussion noises too. It was actually really really good.

And yeah the guild festival was a travesty as well, but hey - city with the lowest IQ and lowest life expectancy so, what can you do?
User avatar #89 to #80 - turtletroll (12/03/2013) [-]
Preston is a **** hole though
User avatar #83 to #80 - turtletroll (12/03/2013) [-]
Oh **** is that true?

I honestly can believe it but the lowest in Britain?
User avatar #111 to #83 - toguro (12/03/2013) [-]
Either England or the North West - I can't remember which but yeah.
#68 to #59 - anon (12/03/2013) [-]
Come to live in France.
The emblem of our country is a cock.
#88 - ijiek (12/03/2013) [-]
rams ramming rams
#106 - duckmanfj (12/03/2013) [-]
I think we all know what they're going to be.....

Ramming
#76 - tsubakicomplex (12/03/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #17 - connorjay (12/03/2013) [-]
I'm Welsh and I ram rams.
User avatar #3 - camerel (12/03/2013) [-]
why is it that in most comics/ funny portrayals of god, hes always drinking a martini?
#4 to #3 - phynight (12/03/2013) [-]
I'm going to guess that it's because it's easy to draw and recognize, and is slightly more sophisticated than the average drink.
User avatar #5 to #4 - camerel (12/03/2013) [-]
why have him drinking anything at all?
#6 to #5 - phynight (12/03/2013) [-]
Because umm, err, because most religions eschew alcohol, so making him a drinker is slightly ironic? Maybe.
#8 to #6 - oedad (12/03/2013) [-]
"Most religion eschew alcohol" Monks invented pretty much every form of western alcohol hence why they are referred to as spirits. Only Major religion i can think of which bans alcohol is Islam which bans everything
User avatar #7 to #6 - camerel (12/03/2013) [-]
and gods stereotypical alcohol trick is pouring vodka into a glass or something then walking away and the bottle and glass float in the air. he can ******* warp space and time to his will, why would he care to do stupid **** with alcohol?
#96 to #3 - thecrayzeeman (12/03/2013) [-]
Because he's classy as **** .
User avatar #115 to #96 - camerel (12/04/2013) [-]
touche.
User avatar #108 - beisenherg (12/03/2013) [-]
so a ram is getting rammed while a ram is ramming another ram?
#92 - anon (12/03/2013) [-]
Who made this? Looks like the same style as satw.
User avatar #94 to #92 - kanadetenshi (12/03/2013) [-]
That's because it's from the artist who does satw, Humon.
#95 to #92 - kuupuuchan (12/03/2013) [-]
That's because it is her art.    
Kudos to you for being observant.
That's because it is her art.
Kudos to you for being observant.
User avatar #79 - tffan (12/03/2013) [-]
I believe God's sense of humor solely revolves around irony.
User avatar #18 - timmity (12/03/2013) [-]
same ratio with humans
User avatar #19 to #18 - wliia (12/03/2013) [-]
I thought the whole "10% of people are gay" was a bit of a myth? True percentage is about 4%.
User avatar #39 to #19 - ningyoaijin (12/03/2013) [-]
4% admit to being gay. 6% are still kidding themselves.
User avatar #50 to #39 - negette (12/03/2013) [-]
Where's your evidence, fagtron?
User avatar #36 to #19 - tulioandmiguel (12/03/2013) [-]
Source? Everywhere I see it it says that about 10% of humans are attracted to the same gender (gays, lesbians, and bisexuals).
User avatar #110 to #36 - wliia (12/03/2013) [-]
www.gallup.com/poll/160517/lgbt-percentage-highest-lowest-north-dakota.aspx

It's for the usa, but I imagine proportions are similar elsewhere. The poll included Gay, Bi, Lesbian, and Transsexual, and 3.5% was the average. Take out those who identify as transexual and its probably lower than that.

A lot of times ratios are just assumed to be 10% when that's a reasonable number, and it just kinda sticks, even if that percentage is completely wrong. Lots of 10% myths that aren't true (ie we use 10% of our brain, 10% of people are gay, etc)
User avatar #26 to #19 - timmity (12/03/2013) [-]
i never said gay
User avatar #9 - artimax (12/03/2013) [-]
Noo... People wonder if you even exist at all
#16 to #9 - anon (12/03/2013) [-]
Why wonder? It can't be known.
User avatar #22 to #16 - mrgreatnamess (12/03/2013) [-]
Not with absolute certainty

But if god got off his fat ass and like conjured something that goes against the laws of physics, like a fountain that goes into nothing and is made of gold and diamonds hovering in the clouds, I'd say he was on the path of convincing people that he's real

But god don't do that **** , because he's a faggot
User avatar #131 to #22 - longboarders (12/04/2013) [-]
Goodbye
User avatar #132 to #131 - mrgreatnamess (12/04/2013) [-]
Take care, buttmangler
User avatar #33 to #22 - longboarders (12/03/2013) [-]
Just a random thought: What if God was only God outside our realm and human inside. Because when he comes to our dimension, he has to follow the laws of physics. So he came in as Jesus and we killed him in our realm. So, in actuality, we really did kill God.
User avatar #34 to #33 - mrgreatnamess (12/03/2013) [-]
Then he's not god

god is omnipotent
Any being that has to do anything is not omnipotent
User avatar #35 to #34 - longboarders (12/03/2013) [-]
Like I said. Outside our realm. Isn't that one of those paradoxes? Where an omnipotent being decided to not be omnipotent? Like I also said: random thought. I'm an atheist, but these thoughts still run through my head.
User avatar #40 to #35 - mrgreatnamess (12/03/2013) [-]
Why would an omnipotent being make itself not-omnipotent?
User avatar #41 to #40 - longboarders (12/03/2013) [-]
You and I would never know. I can't answer that question anymore than you can.
User avatar #42 to #41 - mrgreatnamess (12/03/2013) [-]
I'd dare say that an omnipotent being making itself not omnipotent is the single most stupid act that can ever be committed

So unless god is a retard (And I mean the biggest retard ever, literally) I don't see why he would do that.
It makes absolutely no sense for that border to exist when there's an omnipotent deity that can just wave his tentacle and remove it.

If you can come up with a reason why an omnipotent being would let that barrier stay, I'm all ears. But so far it just sounds like a bunch of nothing
User avatar #43 to #42 - longboarders (12/03/2013) [-]
And that shows that you are a very close-minded person. You need to expand your mind a little more. I never said he would. I said what if. I am done talking to you.
User avatar #44 to #43 - mrgreatnamess (12/03/2013) [-]
How is it closed minded? I went with the idea, and promptly shot it down due to stupidity.

It's like if I said
"What if there are little leprechauns in our jackets, and they're actually the ones who do gravity, and they do it because they want to be firemen when they grow up"
and asked you to take that seriously.
It's stupid and it doesn't make any sense.

I'm not closed minded.
I'm just not a stoner who says "woow dude, that's like, it makes like, sense and stuff, wooow"
It's stupid
User avatar #46 to #44 - longboarders (12/03/2013) [-]
*sigh* My point was that you have no idea what it is like to be an omnipotent being. You don't know what he thinks, how he feels, etc. You cannot call it stupid because you are mortal. No one has the right to call it stupid because no one knows. We don't even know if such a being CAN feel. We have no idea. For you to call it stupid and shut it down immediately is ignorant. You COULD accept that fact that you can't know what it is like. My best guess is that you used to be a part of some religion, but something pissed you off to a degree where you regretted every minute wasted on it and now you have a grudge against anyone who believes in a higher power and just want to call them stupid. But that is my thoughts of you. After our conversation, my mind won't be changed and neither will yours. We will continue on and not even remember this conversation. I guarantee you I will forget it by dinner. So good day to you, sir.
User avatar #66 to #46 - mrgreatnamess (12/03/2013) [-]
"My point was that you have no idea what it is like to be an omnipotent being"
True, but I can speculate based on logic and my own experiences as a sentient being.

"We don't even know if such a being CAN feel"
If the being is omnipotent (which we've already established) it can do anything, be it feel, cry, whatever. There is literally nothing an omnipotent being can't (that's kinda what omnipotence means)

"You COULD accept that fact that you can't know what it is like."
That's a given.

"My best guess is that you used to be a part of some religion,"
Your best guess is a ****** guess. What does that tell us about your mental capabilities?
I've never been religious in any shape or form. Born to "christian" parents who never did much to include me in their religion.

"We will continue on and not even remember this conversation."
And that's why I'm good at this whole "thinking" thing and you're not.
I'll remember. I'll learn.
You'll stay a scrub.
#102 to #66 - anon (12/03/2013) [-]
No, you can't speculate at all.
Logic for us may not be the same for an omnipotent being, seeing as we're all retarded in comparison.
User avatar #112 to #102 - mrgreatnamess (12/03/2013) [-]
Then it's equally pointless to posit the "what if"
User avatar #118 to #66 - longboarders (12/04/2013) [-]
I am actually very good at this "thinking" thing. It is why I finished high school with flying colors without even trying. Its why my friends come to me for advice above even their most trusted friends. Its why I stare at the night sky every night thinking about how beautiful and wonderful our universe is. It is why I wonder about which theory is right, string theory, multiverse theory, etc. It is what keeps me up at night when I am alone at nights and what keeps me coming back here to distract me from my thoughts, making dumbs arguments with people like you over a what-if scenario that I knew was ridiculous from the moment, but decided to keep supporting my argument. I know it is ridiculous for an omnipotent being to decide to become non-omnipotent. But I believe it ridiculous because I would love to be omnipotent. I don't know why one would give it up. I am corrupted, bias, relatively limited to information, and mortal. So, I decide not make a decision on something that I have no idea about.
User avatar #124 to #118 - mrgreatnamess (12/04/2013) [-]
It's pointless to speculate about something that you yourself said is impossible to know anything about.
But you did, based on your own knowledge.
So I replied, based on my own knowledge.

And it's stupid to even think about, just like it's stupid to think about the leprechauns.
Nobody would ever give my leprechaun theory a second thought. They'd dismiss it immediately, because IT'S ******* RETARDED.
But we don't know
User avatar #125 to #124 - longboarders (12/04/2013) [-]
Yeah, but you are comparing leprechauns, an Irish fable made hundreds of years ago to a religion as old as human records. Alright consider this. He is omnipotent. Therefore he can create another him, except not omnipotent. Simply human. Does that make better sense to you? Jeezus, you really don't know how to leave stuff alone. Did I rustle your jimmies or something?
User avatar #126 to #125 - mrgreatnamess (12/04/2013) [-]
I made up something quite specific, and compared it to your specific thing.
Both of which are retarded

"He is omnipotent. Therefore he can create another him, except not omnipotent. Simply human. Does that make better sense to you?"
Well of course it does.

"Did I rustle your jimmies or something? "
Not at all. You just made a retarded suggestion and wouldn't let it go.
User avatar #127 to #126 - longboarders (12/04/2013) [-]
Are we done here?
User avatar #128 to #127 - mrgreatnamess (12/04/2013) [-]
Got any more retarded suggestions about omnipotent beings?

If so, then no.
User avatar #129 to #128 - longboarders (12/04/2013) [-]
It really wasn't a suggestion. It was just a random thought. Literally, if I didn't type it out here, I would have forgotten almost instantly after I thought it up.
User avatar #130 to #129 - mrgreatnamess (12/04/2013) [-]
Probably would have been better off just forgetting it.
It might pollute your oh-so-great brain that people flock to get advice from
User avatar #101 to #41 - Sethorein ONLINE (12/03/2013) [-]
So your argument is:

"I see you made a valid inconsistency with the god fable, so here have a paradox. Oh, so you're questioning why this paradox would even occur if the causation of said paradox would result in a theoretically rational entity doing something inconceivably harmful to itself... well I can't explain that... But hey the paradox exists. Therefore, you are wrong."

It's not about open mindedness, it's about the silliness of just coming up with excuses to believe in something that doesn't prove itself. You're making the issue more complicated because you want a certain outcome. It's confirmation bias at its worst.
User avatar #117 to #101 - longboarders (12/04/2013) [-]
I also said that I am an atheist. It was just a random thought. And just because I can't explain it, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It is a what-if scenario. What-if. And why is it complicated? Because you don't understand it? And I simply said I can't, rather, won't try to explain it because I don't know what it is like to be omnipotent. I am not going to even pretend I know.
User avatar #119 to #117 - Sethorein ONLINE (12/04/2013) [-]
The point is that the burden of proof lies with those making the claim and those making the claim are trying to justify having no proof.

If you have no proof your claim has no legs to stand on, regardless of what paradoxes you try to employ.
User avatar #120 to #119 - longboarders (12/04/2013) [-]
then my claim shall slither like a snake. I honestly do not give a **** about this entire thread. I just decided to support my argument.
User avatar #121 to #120 - Sethorein ONLINE (12/04/2013) [-]
If a man makes his argument a worm he shall not complain if it is trodden upon... a paraphrasing of Kant.
User avatar #123 to #122 - Sethorein ONLINE (12/04/2013) [-]
g'night.
User avatar #14 - wolviewolverine (12/03/2013) [-]
FJ - not a day without gay propaganda
#25 - anon (12/03/2013) [-]
1 of 10 is the human ratio too
User avatar #28 to #25 - trollmobile (12/03/2013) [-]
the human ratio includes bisexual people, i think.
while in this post, they say 1 in 10 rams prefer other rams
as in, they'd rather **** a ram than a sheep.
while the 1 in 10 for humans includes people that like both, or have a mild preference towards one or the other.
User avatar #67 to #25 - badsamaritan ONLINE (12/03/2013) [-]
Actually its less. About 3% of Americans are gay.
User avatar #71 to #67 - melontwilight (12/03/2013) [-]
America doesn't represent all humans tho
User avatar #23 - kennyh (12/03/2013) [-]
I love when people say "animals do X so humans can do X"
If you want to **** a dude go **** a dude but don't bring animal behavior into it.
"Your honor animals kill so it is ok that I killed that family"
"hm, you are correct, case dismissed, next we have a woman who ate her baby"
"...animals do it"
User avatar #98 to #23 - Sethorein ONLINE (12/03/2013) [-]
Dude... most human behaviours can be observed in animals. Genes are remarkably conservative that way.

However, we are unique in the development of our frontal cortex. That's why we don't get to kill each others families.
User avatar #24 to #23 - willindor (12/03/2013) [-]
It's about people calling something unnatural.
User avatar #32 to #24 - honkan (12/03/2013) [-]
I'm not supporting his view, but I'd call eating a baby unnatural too. It's something to do with what's natural for *humans*.
User avatar #45 to #32 - mrgreatnamess (12/03/2013) [-]
And what's natural for humans?

Some would argue that living in cities is unnatural.
I'd disagree and say it's very much human nature.
User avatar #47 to #45 - honkan (12/03/2013) [-]
Well, human nature is pretty much a contradiction in itself. What's viewed as natural for humans is very much decided by society. I see the fault in my statement, perhaps I should call eating babies inhumane? Can't really think of a fitting and relevant word.
User avatar #48 to #47 - mrgreatnamess (12/03/2013) [-]
Amoral would be more fitting, in my opinion, as long as it's understood that morals are also subjective.
User avatar #49 to #48 - honkan (12/03/2013) [-]
Sounds good.
User avatar #100 to #47 - lateday (12/03/2013) [-]
I always thought saying "nature" and "humanity" is one big disguised show of ego. Like... Why are humans, of all creatures, the only ones separated from nature? How come a guy killing a deer is unnatural, while a leopard killing a deer (or gazelle wtv) is natural? We are nature. We are part of the whole actions of nature itself. River dams are construction made by beavers, still considered nature. Why are cities any different? If we define natural as "any thing not manmade" then I guess that's fine. For linguistic purposes.
User avatar #104 to #100 - honkan (12/03/2013) [-]
I was referring to that definition yeah. But for the rest of the thread I believe we're using the definition of nature as "the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something". The separation used in most of the thread was between human nature, and the nature of animals. I guess that's what you're disagreeing with? I can definitely see reasons both to separate the two, and reasons to include humans with animals. But the reasons for the latter are mostly biological and science related.
User avatar #37 to #24 - kennyh (12/03/2013) [-]
I'm not saying it is wrong or unnatural. I am just saying the argument that "animals do it so humans should" is a poor argument.
User avatar #69 to #37 - Crusader (12/03/2013) [-]
But that's not the argument at all.

The argument is that homosexuality is man-made, but if it occurs in animals, then it isn't.

No one is claiming that because animals do something that it's OK, no one claims that it's OK to breed with your mother/sister/aunt maybe in Utah no one claims that it's OK to eat your offspring OK, well, maybe in Florida no one claims that it's OK to kill you're brother because he is living too close to you.
#107 to #69 - thegrimgenius (12/03/2013) [-]
Floridian here, that's disgusting
We prefer eating our friends, without offspring, who's going to help you?
User avatar #72 to #69 - kennyh (12/03/2013) [-]
Right. But people DO claim that. And that is what I say is an incorrect argument.
There ARE people who say "if animals do it, people can, since that is natural.
I'm NOT saying being gay is wrong.
I'm saying that particular argument is wrong.
But whatever. 12 year olds will read half of my argument and thumb me down thinking I am being a bigot when what I am saying is the opposite of what they think I am.
User avatar #99 to #72 - lateday (12/03/2013) [-]
I will thumb you down for that last sentence. Just to be clear.
User avatar #113 to #99 - kennyh (12/03/2013) [-]
And from your avatar it is clear you are also 12. So my point holds.
User avatar #114 to #113 - lateday (12/03/2013) [-]
Oh no. I agree with what you said. It is kinda the appeal to nature fallacy. But that last sentence was really unnecesary and made you seem a little bit too opinionated and jerkish.
[ 117 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)