such doge. . brutally murdered my entire family?.' ''i" i" a' isc 3: 225: "quatkins to thank for that.. Last year, a mailman murdered my neighbours and burned their house Too bad they didn't have a doge Cars crashes seperate by comm kaas


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #50 - votafak (09/07/2013) [-]
Last year, a mailman murdered my neighbours and burned their house
Too bad they didn't have a doge
User avatar #78 to #50 - millhouse (09/07/2013) [-]
Did they have a dog?
User avatar #83 to #78 - sanguinesolitude (09/07/2013) [-]
they didnt
#84 to #50 - unotouchzetaco (09/07/2013) [-]
Here have a dog so it wont happen again
Here have a dog so it wont happen again
#36 - neznanc **User deleted account** (09/07/2013) [-]
Mailman used frisbee. It's super effective.
#10 - Jesusnipples (09/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #82 to #10 - wizzerdofaus (09/07/2013) [-]
That's a hand right?
User avatar #96 to #82 - Jesusnipples (09/07/2013) [-]
No, dogs have paws
#52 - josieabby (09/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#35 - nazashiii has deleted their comment [-]
#18 - muralriver (09/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#66 - iespls (09/07/2013) [-]
so 3d   
so ball   
so animated   
so bounce   
so orbit   
so shibe
so 3d
so ball
so animated
so bounce
so orbit
so shibe
#70 to #66 - iespls (09/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#73 to #66 - iespls (09/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#76 to #66 - iespls (09/07/2013) [-]
so coffee
so hot
so steamy
so energy
so shibe
#69 to #66 - iespls (09/07/2013) [-]
so loaf
would eat
so soft
do shibe
#75 to #66 - iespls (09/07/2013) [-]
so block   
so defense   
so power   
so shocking   
so fighting   
so shibe
so block
so defense
so power
so shocking
so fighting
so shibe
#111 to #66 - galkawhm ONLINE (09/07/2013) [-]
Served broccoli
high fiber
don't like
odd stare
#71 to #66 - iespls (09/07/2013) [-]
so anime-kun
so drawn-kun
so japan-kun
so shibe-kan
#77 to #66 - iespls (09/07/2013) [-]
so small
so hidden
so smart
so shibe
#28 - harbingerwolf (09/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#42 - dreadnaughtguy (09/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#3 - AnonymousDonor (09/06/2013) [-]
the reason dogs bark at all is because of their evolutionary memory
there was a time not long ago when their masters actually needed a dog as a defense - a noble, valiant, and fearsome creature whose bark alone was enough to ward off assailants
you couldn't really see the bark, nor could any master who had been way out in the field all day hear or detect any trace of the times when that dog's voice alone scared would-be-thieves ******** and made them rethink their life; the master came home and there was no evidence - just a dog happy to see the master they loved

can you really confidently say prayer is that much different? nowadays it's easy to laugh at people who believe in its effectiveness, especially when our crude means of understanding ("advanced" though they may be) cannot detect any trace of it actually working
can you really say, given all the old-world accounts of 'gods' and 'deities' (most likely alien-species) that interacted with humans on a daily basis and did in fact respond to prayer, that there is no possible way that the patterns of brainwaves could possibly resonate characteristically in a way that allows a higher being with much more sensitive technology to read it and choose whether or not to do something about it?

it's simply too easy to dismiss possibilities on the notion fact that other people are "just stupid" and not as smart as you - in mathematics, we call that a trivial solution, and it means absolutely nothing
(literally: when you're trying to converge a wave function and you can't figure out the quadratic [or higher power] and you're just looking for the easiest way out, you set it equal to zero, an outcome which is meaningless and useless to everybody)
User avatar #6 to #3 - HarvietheDinkle (09/07/2013) [-]
tl;dr agnosticism ftw (?)
#12 to #3 - beautifull has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #19 to #3 - srskate (09/07/2013) [-]
If the gods and deities of old are aliens, where are they now?

It's much more likely that they were bad ways of explaining the world.
User avatar #20 to #19 - priestoftheoldones (09/07/2013) [-]
If our race gets to the point of personal inter-solar travels, I would find a small planet with intelligent life, but not very intelligent life, and I would make them think of me as a god.
User avatar #94 to #20 - srskate (09/07/2013) [-]
and then leave and never come back or show any signs of actually existing.
User avatar #135 to #94 - priestoftheoldones (09/07/2013) [-]
Yes, it would be hilarious.
User avatar #26 to #3 - gammajk (09/07/2013) [-]
Just because there isn't "no possible way" of it existing, doesn't mean it actually exists.
User avatar #30 to #3 - revanmal (09/07/2013) [-]
Except there are ways to gather data about a dog's bark in terms of effectiveness. We have confessions on record from thieves that homes with barking, aggressive dogs are less appealing to rob, because of the danger inherent in there being an angry wolf-creature on the premises.

We aren't using miraculous energy detectors or somthing to gauge the effectiveness of prayer - it's all statistical analysis. Prayer has had little to no effect in any non-biased study beyond what could reasonably be explained as the placebo effect or confirmation bias. I don't denounce prayer because I think I'm smarter than everyone who does, I denounce it because it has never been proven to work in any sort of practical way. I don't believe in homeopathy, crystal energy healing, or chakras, either. Yeah, maybe those things DO work in some capacity in ways we don't understand, but it's a waste of time to do them if the effects are so minute or so random that they cannot be reliably reproduced.
User avatar #92 to #3 - ningyoaijin (09/07/2013) [-]
I'm a Physics student, and what?
User avatar #13 to #3 - beautifull (09/07/2013) [-]

Unless you're dyslexic
#27 to #3 - tbeaz (09/07/2013) [-]
So what I got from that was that Dog = goD, I always knew my hypothesis was correct.
User avatar #89 to #3 - asongulol (09/07/2013) [-]
such opinion
very intellect
#33 to #3 - dcj (09/07/2013) [-]
Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Take all the possible answers, and the simplest one is usually the correct one.

You suppose that gods/aliens/superfish answered prayers at some point, and the echoes of that have filtered down our genes, the way that the bark did for dogs. At least, if I'm understanding you correctly.

But that's the thing. It's supposition. 'Maybe' has no practical scientific meaning. Evidence or no evidence for your theories, that's how it works.

If you uncover evidence supporting your theory, cool. If you prove it, even better. The status quo will change, and science reflects the new set of evidence.

Until then, we can only assume that our current evidence, supplied by our current means of getting it, gives us the best view of the truth. And we soldier on, as sure as we can be.

It's a cool idea, even if my athiest fedora despises it. But Occam's Razor, sir. It stands.
#128 to #33 - AnonymousDonor (09/07/2013) [-]
i too sir am a scientist (assuming your response is indicative of the same) and i absolutely despise occam's razor
partly because "simplest" is a highly subjective term but mostly because everything that we do know is evidence against it - perhaps occam was trying to explain the path down a potential energy surface but even then....

that being said, never forget how strong a place supposition holds within science
there must always be supposition before there can be proof (because if you don't begin with a hypothesis, how in hell are you going to be able to experiment on it?)
i could go further, pointing out the quantum bayesian aspects of experimentalist (yano the whole "changing the outcome by observing it" detail?) but i'm quite hung over this morn
#34 to #33 - jackassalope (09/07/2013) [-]
While i agree with you for the most part, invoking Occam's Razor is not generally a good idea when debating. It relies on the assumption that the simpler explaination is in fact better, there is no way to prove such a thing. You then need to actually determine which explaination is simpler, and except in very specific domains that cant truly be done. "Simplicity" in a philosophical sense is often determined by the language you are speaking in. The Tibetan language has single words for spiritual concepts that take paragraphs in english to describe.

As far as the assumption that the simpler answer is better, science is constantly doing the opposite. Orbits were once thought to be circular, and eliptical orbits are far more complicated. We assumed these elliptical paths were 3 dimensional, but then found them to be far easier to explain in spacetime. Eventually quantum mechanics have us assuming there are in fact 11 dimensions. Quantum physics by the way debunked the idea that electrons "orbit" and instead has them modeled mathematically in a way that fits all observations but so abstract that no one can truly explain mechanically, we can only tell you the probability of an electron being in a certain area.

Occam's razor stands. Until it doesn't. You can never dismiss an idea with it.
User avatar #86 to #34 - baaltomekk (09/07/2013) [-]
No Occam's Razor relies on the observation, that in most cases, the simplest answer is the correct one. So in the end, it is a matter of probability. Occam's Razor could be rewriten like: "If you really have no clue what the right answer is, pick the simplest answer and hope for the best"
#134 to #86 - jackassalope (09/07/2013) [-]
That just makes occam's razor an approximation. Its a razor that can't actually cut. At best it says "this probably isn't true" and at worst is based on an assumption that cant be made.
And the fact is, in formal environments, it simply isn't an accepted argument. Because it isn't an argument, its a guess based on trends in unrelated fields.

To quote better minds: "Aristotle [...] chided Plato for hypostatizing The Good. You see, Plato was always running around asking what makes for a Good Musician, or a Good General. By using the word Good in all these inquiries, he came to believe that all these activities have something fundamental in common, that there is a general concept of Good that gets instantiated in being a good musician, general, etc. But that, of course, is nonsense on stilts, since what makes for a good musician has nothing whatsoever to do with what makes for a good general.
Analogously, suggests Sober, the various uses of Ockham’s razor have no metaphysical or logical universal principle in common — despite what many scientists, skeptics and even philosophers seem to think. Williams was correct, group selection is less likely than individual selection (though not impossible), and the cladists are correct too that parsimony is usually a good way to evaluate competitive phylogenetic hypotheses. But the two cases (and many others) do not share any universal property in common."

#25 to #3 - hailarty (09/07/2013) [-]

About the dog's barking. First thing to know about dog's evolution, is that in the beginning they were wolves, which were domesticated by humans, and then bred favoring certain genes in order to get most useful companions. Barking of the dog was not meant to "scare of the intruders" rather then alert the owner that some human, or creature has entered the property, so that the owner could greet the visitors, fight the intruders or hunt down animals that come near by. (I haven't read many researches on that so that's only my opinion, based on few articles I've read"
About the power of prayer: I see your point, that prayer can somehow affect some "higher beings" and they can then effect your life based on the prayer. But this is a bit to much theoretical and holds to many assumptions to be applied in practice. Reason: you are assuming that there is a higher power(aliens,god, ect), you are assuming it's close enough to hear you, you are assuming it cares enough to help, you are assuming it has the ability to help/interfere. Based on the logic, that we should pray because there MIGHT be somewhere who can hear you and wants to help you, is a very long shot. Following the same logic, it would be a good idea to dance a "rain-dance" whenever you are thirsty because "it MIGHT work". In the end prayer applied in practice becomes a superstition which isn't based on anything else then speculations, therefore I don't really see the point putting this idea into practice. Even though when I was a kid (when I was religious) I used to pray a lot, now when I stopped I can conclude the results: statistically the amount of good/bad things happening does not change whether I prayed or not. Sometimes **** just happens, sometimes good thins happen, ratio hasn't really changed when I stopped praying.
#131 to #25 - AnonymousDonor (09/07/2013) [-]
and yano that's fair

personally the only reason i believe in prayer as much as i do is because it's actually worked with a ~74% success rate ever since i was a kid
and usually within minutes of my asking for it
not to mention that it literally costs nothing - a mere 10 seconds of a mental message to my God asking "please do __ for ___ if it's not too much trouble" is entirely harmless and, given the chance (as you agreed) that it MIGHT actually work, the cost/benefit ratio is off the charts

i will warrant that sometimes people go overboard - they hold prayer as a higher power than the actions of actually doing something about it and so end up ensuring their prayer is never 'answered' (because seriously, if a God was listening, how the hell do you think the prayers are answered? through the actions of yourself and others...)

but yano if you tried it as a kid and you didn't see results (or, possibly, you simply didn't recognize them) then i mean i'm not gonna go ******* on you for it
it takes a "leap of faith" if you will to be able to rationally accept something with such low probability
but for what it's worth, much less probable things have happened... and frequently
#126 - newforomador (09/07/2013) [-]
Such pull
Very resist
#21 - scarmanagent (09/07/2013) [-]
needs more doge
#112 - baconface (09/07/2013) [-]
Did somebody say doge?
#60 - Greevon (09/07/2013) [-]
I think the lightbulb killed his family in a ritual to honor Yog-Sothoth.   
"Brutally murdered my entire family? I! I! A'isc!"
I think the lightbulb killed his family in a ritual to honor Yog-Sothoth.
"Brutally murdered my entire family? I! I! A'isc!"
#46 - wtfjapan (09/07/2013) [-]
What dog race is that? :3
#48 to #46 - notgabenewell (09/07/2013) [-]
They're Shiba Inus.

Adorable little ******* .
User avatar #54 to #48 - amegaara (09/07/2013) [-]
Ohforf whats your problem? why you thumbin down nice doge?
User avatar #55 to #54 - Ohforf ONLINE (09/07/2013) [-]
Because I don't find them funny. They're very cute, yes, but they're still overused in my opinion.

tl;dr, I got opinions, thumb me down if you want.
#57 to #55 - amegaara (09/07/2013) [-]
he didnt say that this picture was funny the guy was asking about the dog race and the other dude said shiba inus (which is the real name of that breed) he didnt say anything about this dog being funny he just said that they are cute.....
he didnt say that this picture was funny the guy was asking about the dog race and the other dude said shiba inus (which is the real name of that breed) he didnt say anything about this dog being funny he just said that they are cute.....
User avatar #58 to #57 - Ohforf ONLINE (09/07/2013) [-]
That .gif gets funnier the longer I stare at it.

But back to the point, you're right. Apologies.
#49 to #48 - wtfjapan (09/07/2013) [-]
They sure are :3
#39 - crazyolitis (09/07/2013) [-]
What dogs say when they bark.
#11 - iamspika (09/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)