x
Click to expand

auryn

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:3/17/2012
Last Login:5/30/2015
Location:The Netherlands
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#462
Highest Content Rank:#14558
Highest Comment Rank:#46
Content Thumbs: 96 total,  176 ,  80
Comment Thumbs: 44978 total,  54371 ,  9393
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 65.1% (651/1000)
Level 335 Comments: Practically Famous → Level 336 Comments: Practically Famous
Subscribers:2
Content Views:12978
Times Content Favorited:14 times
Total Comments Made:8261
FJ Points:35534

latest user's comments

#480 - it's a Horizon.  [+] (3 new replies) 05/28/2015 on You're not a sad pepe 0
User avatar #481 - fallenraven (05/28/2015) [-]
sick, what pick ups are those? I got the james heitfield signature for more than half off because of a flaw, the white snakebyte. It came with active emg 81/85
#482 - auryn (05/28/2015) [-]
Seymour Duncans. If I'm not mistaken they came with a SH-2 in the neck and a TB-14 in the bridge.
Not that I especially wanted those pickups but they come standard with either those or active EMG's, not that the EMG's aren't good, on the contrary, but I'll likely be swapping pickups sooner or later and after all the reading and listening to comparisons I was more inclined to the passive pickups due to them being a little more dynamic in nature.

I'm undeceided yet which one to pick yet but the Seymour Duncan Nazgul and Sentient combo seems like a good contender.
When I still wanted the EMG's, I would have gone for an 81/85 or an 81/60 combo, they seem like a good choice.

Half off, for a quality guitar? That's a pretty good damn deal, assuming it's only a cosmetic flaw and not one that affects the playability or tone.
#483 - fallenraven (05/29/2015) [-]
no the tone is perfect, just a crack in the paint. my roommate got an esp recently too and traded out his active emgs for blackout seymours, think he likes them but i dont, the emgs sound more bright and have sharp treble sound i like, to me the seymores seems a little too muted and not as good clean either
#420 - Comment deleted 05/27/2015 on Prove you're not a bot or... 0
#403 - I recently bought an original ESP guitar.  [+] (5 new replies) 05/27/2015 on You're not a sad pepe +2
User avatar #411 - fallenraven (05/28/2015) [-]
post a pic
#480 - auryn (05/28/2015) [-]
it's a Horizon.
User avatar #481 - fallenraven (05/28/2015) [-]
sick, what pick ups are those? I got the james heitfield signature for more than half off because of a flaw, the white snakebyte. It came with active emg 81/85
#482 - auryn (05/28/2015) [-]
Seymour Duncans. If I'm not mistaken they came with a SH-2 in the neck and a TB-14 in the bridge.
Not that I especially wanted those pickups but they come standard with either those or active EMG's, not that the EMG's aren't good, on the contrary, but I'll likely be swapping pickups sooner or later and after all the reading and listening to comparisons I was more inclined to the passive pickups due to them being a little more dynamic in nature.

I'm undeceided yet which one to pick yet but the Seymour Duncan Nazgul and Sentient combo seems like a good contender.
When I still wanted the EMG's, I would have gone for an 81/85 or an 81/60 combo, they seem like a good choice.

Half off, for a quality guitar? That's a pretty good damn deal, assuming it's only a cosmetic flaw and not one that affects the playability or tone.
#483 - fallenraven (05/29/2015) [-]
no the tone is perfect, just a crack in the paint. my roommate got an esp recently too and traded out his active emgs for blackout seymours, think he likes them but i dont, the emgs sound more bright and have sharp treble sound i like, to me the seymores seems a little too muted and not as good clean either
#36 - yes 05/27/2015 on oh.. +4
#168 - Sure there were certain practical advantagous that eating meat… 05/27/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. 0
#167 - But that isn't saying anything other than that early humans at… 05/27/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. 0
#164 - Well, that is only confirming my earlier point of the plausibl…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/27/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. 0
#167 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
But that isn't saying anything other than that early humans ate meat, something I'm not opposing.
User avatar #165 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Like i mentioned. 5 second google search. ilearned all that shit in a community college. Remember that modern veggies are heavily modified because of heroes like norman baurlog too. Meat is also made of everything a body needs, being a body. As far as thia guy is able to educatedly guess (and im no nutritionist) is that back in those days meat was more advantangeous since it might have been denser in not only calories but nutrition as well, compared to the plants of old at least. meat was also able to be transported great distances and last with the advent of jerky. Ive always been told its the calories though since our brains take so much juice but im babbling at this point
#168 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Sure there were certain practical advantagous that eating meat had in that time, but nothing that indicates that eating meat is the primary and direct cause of the development of our intellect.
#162 - I don't especially need a source. You could just explain it yourself.  [+] (6 new replies) 05/27/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. 0
User avatar #163 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Youve been nothing but polite so I apologize. also forgive any typos, im on mobile. From what ive gathered from my biology classes back when I was in college it went like this and ill give you the short of it. Im also a dropout so take it for what you will (wanted to be a park rangers but colorblond need not apply) Humans started evolving once we began eating meat simply because it was so calorie dense compared to a vegetarian diet on top of being (mostly) available throughout the year. There was a time when our ancestors ate only vegetarian like gorillas but we became scavengers, eating like hyenas and that is what gave us the calories to start developing bigger brains. Little work for damn good pay. Eventually we discovered rocks can be sharp and we started chasing animals, which meant more meat. We started getting smarter and used traps or terrain to kill huge herbivores. the cycle continues so on and so on. Now ill admit we are omnivores for a reason. Plants and shit are important(ask pirates about scurvy). In the end like all things we need a balance.

Heres a link from a 5 second google search in my attempt to fill any gaps

m.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html
#164 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Well, that is only confirming my earlier point of the plausible cause being being spare energy. Just a question of calories, not an inherent quality of meat itself, and not something that couldn't have been done without eating meat.
But I'm actually more interested into what convinced you that meat made us smarter, what was the most compelling argument that made you think it was likely that meat was the major instigator of the development of our intellect.
Surely you must have had your reasons to say that.

(Also, regarding the link, I don't see how an individual 1.5 million year old skull with porotic hyperostosis would be directly suggestive that eating meat made us smarter, even if it was out of malnourishment. Not even taking into account that there may be other causes for porotic hyperostosis including infections and parasites.)
#167 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
But that isn't saying anything other than that early humans ate meat, something I'm not opposing.
User avatar #165 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Like i mentioned. 5 second google search. ilearned all that shit in a community college. Remember that modern veggies are heavily modified because of heroes like norman baurlog too. Meat is also made of everything a body needs, being a body. As far as thia guy is able to educatedly guess (and im no nutritionist) is that back in those days meat was more advantangeous since it might have been denser in not only calories but nutrition as well, compared to the plants of old at least. meat was also able to be transported great distances and last with the advent of jerky. Ive always been told its the calories though since our brains take so much juice but im babbling at this point
#168 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Sure there were certain practical advantagous that eating meat had in that time, but nothing that indicates that eating meat is the primary and direct cause of the development of our intellect.
#160 - No, actually I'm quite happy to have a rational discussion abo…  [+] (8 new replies) 05/27/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. 0
User avatar #161 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
You know what? Ill humor you. Give me some time to find my source and ill be back
#162 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
I don't especially need a source. You could just explain it yourself.
User avatar #163 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Youve been nothing but polite so I apologize. also forgive any typos, im on mobile. From what ive gathered from my biology classes back when I was in college it went like this and ill give you the short of it. Im also a dropout so take it for what you will (wanted to be a park rangers but colorblond need not apply) Humans started evolving once we began eating meat simply because it was so calorie dense compared to a vegetarian diet on top of being (mostly) available throughout the year. There was a time when our ancestors ate only vegetarian like gorillas but we became scavengers, eating like hyenas and that is what gave us the calories to start developing bigger brains. Little work for damn good pay. Eventually we discovered rocks can be sharp and we started chasing animals, which meant more meat. We started getting smarter and used traps or terrain to kill huge herbivores. the cycle continues so on and so on. Now ill admit we are omnivores for a reason. Plants and shit are important(ask pirates about scurvy). In the end like all things we need a balance.

Heres a link from a 5 second google search in my attempt to fill any gaps

m.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html
#164 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Well, that is only confirming my earlier point of the plausible cause being being spare energy. Just a question of calories, not an inherent quality of meat itself, and not something that couldn't have been done without eating meat.
But I'm actually more interested into what convinced you that meat made us smarter, what was the most compelling argument that made you think it was likely that meat was the major instigator of the development of our intellect.
Surely you must have had your reasons to say that.

(Also, regarding the link, I don't see how an individual 1.5 million year old skull with porotic hyperostosis would be directly suggestive that eating meat made us smarter, even if it was out of malnourishment. Not even taking into account that there may be other causes for porotic hyperostosis including infections and parasites.)
#167 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
But that isn't saying anything other than that early humans ate meat, something I'm not opposing.
User avatar #165 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Like i mentioned. 5 second google search. ilearned all that shit in a community college. Remember that modern veggies are heavily modified because of heroes like norman baurlog too. Meat is also made of everything a body needs, being a body. As far as thia guy is able to educatedly guess (and im no nutritionist) is that back in those days meat was more advantangeous since it might have been denser in not only calories but nutrition as well, compared to the plants of old at least. meat was also able to be transported great distances and last with the advent of jerky. Ive always been told its the calories though since our brains take so much juice but im babbling at this point
#168 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Sure there were certain practical advantagous that eating meat had in that time, but nothing that indicates that eating meat is the primary and direct cause of the development of our intellect.
#75 - Are you implying my mom is hotter than Cobie Smulders.  [+] (2 new replies) 05/27/2015 on Cast of The Avengers In... 0
User avatar #76 - newpulse (05/27/2015) [-]
no i'm implying her face looks like the ass of a 80 year old sudanese tribe leader.
#89 - gabemczombie (05/27/2015) [-]
#49 - Picture is too small 05/27/2015 on Bad water canon! Bad! +1
#73 - She's probably the most ugly woman I've seen to date.  [+] (4 new replies) 05/27/2015 on Cast of The Avengers In... -7
User avatar #74 - newpulse (05/27/2015) [-]
well you've only seen your mom besides her
#75 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Are you implying my mom is hotter than Cobie Smulders.
User avatar #76 - newpulse (05/27/2015) [-]
no i'm implying her face looks like the ass of a 80 year old sudanese tribe leader.
#89 - gabemczombie (05/27/2015) [-]
#102 - mfw watching the behind the scenes material  [+] (1 new reply) 05/27/2015 on The Dark Side Have Better... +2
User avatar #150 - kyotolover (05/27/2015) [-]
Watching the behind the scenes for Phantom Menace is like watching people boarding on a plane that's gonna crash.
#62 - And the girl isn't too shabby either. 05/27/2015 on public transportation +2
#158 - Ironically that's exactly how you make yourself look right now…  [+] (10 new replies) 05/27/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. 0
User avatar #159 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
A perfect heading for your biography. I believe we are done here
#160 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
No, actually I'm quite happy to have a rational discussion about it, and I am curious for your arguments, though seeing how you keep avoiding it and want to end the conversation as soon as I mention it seems to be strongly suggestive that you did not have any in the first place.
So yes, if you've just come to for name-calling and making unfounded claims I guess we're done, for there's no point in that.
But if that isn't the case you're more than welcome to continue.
User avatar #161 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
You know what? Ill humor you. Give me some time to find my source and ill be back
#162 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
I don't especially need a source. You could just explain it yourself.
User avatar #163 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Youve been nothing but polite so I apologize. also forgive any typos, im on mobile. From what ive gathered from my biology classes back when I was in college it went like this and ill give you the short of it. Im also a dropout so take it for what you will (wanted to be a park rangers but colorblond need not apply) Humans started evolving once we began eating meat simply because it was so calorie dense compared to a vegetarian diet on top of being (mostly) available throughout the year. There was a time when our ancestors ate only vegetarian like gorillas but we became scavengers, eating like hyenas and that is what gave us the calories to start developing bigger brains. Little work for damn good pay. Eventually we discovered rocks can be sharp and we started chasing animals, which meant more meat. We started getting smarter and used traps or terrain to kill huge herbivores. the cycle continues so on and so on. Now ill admit we are omnivores for a reason. Plants and shit are important(ask pirates about scurvy). In the end like all things we need a balance.

Heres a link from a 5 second google search in my attempt to fill any gaps

m.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html
#164 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Well, that is only confirming my earlier point of the plausible cause being being spare energy. Just a question of calories, not an inherent quality of meat itself, and not something that couldn't have been done without eating meat.
But I'm actually more interested into what convinced you that meat made us smarter, what was the most compelling argument that made you think it was likely that meat was the major instigator of the development of our intellect.
Surely you must have had your reasons to say that.

(Also, regarding the link, I don't see how an individual 1.5 million year old skull with porotic hyperostosis would be directly suggestive that eating meat made us smarter, even if it was out of malnourishment. Not even taking into account that there may be other causes for porotic hyperostosis including infections and parasites.)
#167 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
But that isn't saying anything other than that early humans ate meat, something I'm not opposing.
User avatar #165 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Like i mentioned. 5 second google search. ilearned all that shit in a community college. Remember that modern veggies are heavily modified because of heroes like norman baurlog too. Meat is also made of everything a body needs, being a body. As far as thia guy is able to educatedly guess (and im no nutritionist) is that back in those days meat was more advantangeous since it might have been denser in not only calories but nutrition as well, compared to the plants of old at least. meat was also able to be transported great distances and last with the advent of jerky. Ive always been told its the calories though since our brains take so much juice but im babbling at this point
#168 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Sure there were certain practical advantagous that eating meat had in that time, but nothing that indicates that eating meat is the primary and direct cause of the development of our intellect.
#155 - Are you implying that our brains couldn't have developed and e…  [+] (12 new replies) 05/26/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. 0
User avatar #156 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Nah. You seem like the kind of person to ignore evidence.
#158 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Ironically that's exactly how you make yourself look right now by avoiding to provide any rational argument and instead resort to ungrounded insults.
User avatar #159 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
A perfect heading for your biography. I believe we are done here
#160 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
No, actually I'm quite happy to have a rational discussion about it, and I am curious for your arguments, though seeing how you keep avoiding it and want to end the conversation as soon as I mention it seems to be strongly suggestive that you did not have any in the first place.
So yes, if you've just come to for name-calling and making unfounded claims I guess we're done, for there's no point in that.
But if that isn't the case you're more than welcome to continue.
User avatar #161 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
You know what? Ill humor you. Give me some time to find my source and ill be back
#162 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
I don't especially need a source. You could just explain it yourself.
User avatar #163 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Youve been nothing but polite so I apologize. also forgive any typos, im on mobile. From what ive gathered from my biology classes back when I was in college it went like this and ill give you the short of it. Im also a dropout so take it for what you will (wanted to be a park rangers but colorblond need not apply) Humans started evolving once we began eating meat simply because it was so calorie dense compared to a vegetarian diet on top of being (mostly) available throughout the year. There was a time when our ancestors ate only vegetarian like gorillas but we became scavengers, eating like hyenas and that is what gave us the calories to start developing bigger brains. Little work for damn good pay. Eventually we discovered rocks can be sharp and we started chasing animals, which meant more meat. We started getting smarter and used traps or terrain to kill huge herbivores. the cycle continues so on and so on. Now ill admit we are omnivores for a reason. Plants and shit are important(ask pirates about scurvy). In the end like all things we need a balance.

Heres a link from a 5 second google search in my attempt to fill any gaps

m.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html
#164 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Well, that is only confirming my earlier point of the plausible cause being being spare energy. Just a question of calories, not an inherent quality of meat itself, and not something that couldn't have been done without eating meat.
But I'm actually more interested into what convinced you that meat made us smarter, what was the most compelling argument that made you think it was likely that meat was the major instigator of the development of our intellect.
Surely you must have had your reasons to say that.

(Also, regarding the link, I don't see how an individual 1.5 million year old skull with porotic hyperostosis would be directly suggestive that eating meat made us smarter, even if it was out of malnourishment. Not even taking into account that there may be other causes for porotic hyperostosis including infections and parasites.)
#167 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
But that isn't saying anything other than that early humans ate meat, something I'm not opposing.
User avatar #165 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Like i mentioned. 5 second google search. ilearned all that shit in a community college. Remember that modern veggies are heavily modified because of heroes like norman baurlog too. Meat is also made of everything a body needs, being a body. As far as thia guy is able to educatedly guess (and im no nutritionist) is that back in those days meat was more advantangeous since it might have been denser in not only calories but nutrition as well, compared to the plants of old at least. meat was also able to be transported great distances and last with the advent of jerky. Ive always been told its the calories though since our brains take so much juice but im babbling at this point
#168 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Sure there were certain practical advantagous that eating meat had in that time, but nothing that indicates that eating meat is the primary and direct cause of the development of our intellect.
#154 - There is a fundamental difference when it's out of necessity, … 05/26/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. 0
#153 - - "Do the animals we commonly eat have the same mental an… 05/26/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. 0
#152 - Well.. uh.. yeah.. that's kind of the whole point of the vegans 05/26/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. 0
#99 - > "everyone can do whatever they want to do, as long a…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/26/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. -1
User avatar #102 - vikingontour (05/26/2015) [-]
I guess everything can be made into something negative, but let me rephrase it

as long as you don´t hurt others, you can do whatever you want.
happy?
#152 - auryn (05/26/2015) [-]
Well.. uh.. yeah.. that's kind of the whole point of the vegans
User avatar #101 - theshinypen (05/26/2015) [-]
Shot themself in the foot
#94 - Humans don't need to eat meat for survival, they choose to do …  [+] (27 new replies) 05/26/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. -3
User avatar #115 - thesecretbear (05/26/2015) [-]
Ok lets take a step back and ask the big questions.

Do the animals we commonly eat have the same mental and emotional compacities as we do? If not it is an entirely different experience.

Is it truly unethical for the top predator to gain sustinance from all lower ones?

If a being is killed un-knowing of it's fate, is it more ethical than letting it know it's fate and have it go through whatever emotional turn it might.

If we look to answers from nature we will find that the very fact that there are humans that give a shit about what an animal thinks and feels, and that we don't just go out and rip them to shreds shows that we have a greater compacity for ethics than does animals.

And just as a bit for me, hunting in many cases helps control animal populations to not get out of control and starve themselves.
#153 - auryn (05/26/2015) [-]
-"Do the animals we commonly eat have the same mental and emotional compacities as we do? If not it is an entirely different experience."
Animals do not have exactly the same mental and emotional capacities as man. But animals do have a basic awareness, a nerve system with a brain, and senses, through which they experience and feel the world. They are capable of experiencing suffering, in fact even to the extent where some animals that have been abused on the long-term will show signs of psychological traumatisation.

-"Is it truly unethical for the top predator to gain sustinance from all lower ones?"
You can't compare humans with animals in this sense, there is a fundamental difference. Humans have risen above animals. There is a certain self-awareness, and a developed intellect which gives us the ability to reason, evaluate, to make judgement, and understand cause and effect.
Animals don't have this, even what intellect they may posess is completely subjugated by instinctive forces. Contrary to humans, animals don't have the choice.
So it's kind of a misleading question, because 1) Ethics means partaining to right or wrong conduct, it doesn't apply to the predators in nature for to do good or wrong you must know good or wrong, and they simply don't have the ability to know. 2) Humans aren't predators per se, they are only predator by choice. We thrive perfectly fine on a vegetarian diet.
Which means that the situation is like this, eating meat is not a necessity for us, but we do it by choice because we enjoy it.
Whether this is perceived as ethical or not is entirely dependant upon your personal moral values, so that's debatable.
For me personally I don't feel it would be ethical of me to expect others to suffer and die for the sake of some shallow sensual enjoyment, and I don't see anything or have never heard a sensible argument that could justify it. For me whether the being is superior or inferior in whatever sense or in every sense is completely beside the matter, because regardless of it I think that good conduct would be to minimize the harm done to others.

-"If a being is killed un-knowing of it's fate, is it more ethical than letting it know it's fate and have it go through whatever emotional turn it might."
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. From what I get you're saying that it's less worse because animals do not know what's coming to them. In which I have to agree that it does make for a less worse experience for the subject than if the opposite were true. But it makes little difference in the the justification of the act itself.
Similarly to how you could rob a man gently or rob him violently, sure there's a difference, but it doesn't change the nature of the deed itself.

-"If we look to answers from nature we will find that the very fact that there are humans that give a shit about what an animal thinks and feels, and that we don't just go out and rip them to shreds shows that we have a greater compacity for ethics than does animals."
Once more I must admit I do not entirely understand why you are saying this, or if there even is a point being made. But I think and I hope that anything relevant to it has already been said in a previous answer.
(And although I do like the sound of 'compacity' (thinking of it as a portmanteau of capacity and compassion ), it's not an actual word. I'll just assume u meant to say capacity.)

-"And just as a bit for me, hunting in many cases helps control animal populations to not get out of control and starve themselves."
Natural regulates itself infallible, it didn't need humans for population control the millions of years before mankind and it isn't dependant upon them now. Even if a balance is disturbed, through the many interdependent factors in a ecosystem it will regain an equilibrium one way or the other.
This shouldn't be a deceiding factor in the matter. In fact, I suspect nature is better off without artificial population control.
User avatar #111 - Garblestickleshlop (05/26/2015) [-]
Eating both plants and animals is what led to the success of our survival. Yes, nowadays those who live in wealthier societies can survive without meat, but not everywhere. Should those people just die so some cattle can get eaten by wolves instead?
#154 - auryn (05/26/2015) [-]
There is a fundamental difference when it's out of necessity, and you'll see that any of the previous statements made don't apply in such a case.
Naturally It's only a question of ethics if there is a choice to start with.

The answer to your question should be self-explanatory.
User avatar #100 - theshinypen (05/26/2015) [-]
thats retarded. Meat gave us brainpower. Ill humor you and say you meant in the modern day. We dont need any food at all. give scientists an hour and a half, they will develop a nutrient paste that gives us every single nutrient we need for that day. Wont be tasty but hell. Eating things for enjoyment is a bad thing.
#155 - auryn (05/26/2015) [-]
Are you implying that our brains couldn't have developed and evolved from plant based protein and fats?
Be my guest and specifically tell me why it is so. As far as I know there really is no direct relationship, nutrion wise.

The "meat made us smarter" is just a grossly speculative, ill-founded, disjointed and in this case a meaningless hypothesis, because it appoints indirect causes as spare energy, freeing up time and other causes that aren't aren't exclusively inherent to meat.
In fact there could be more arguments in favor of plant carbs (and their conversion to glucose) having had a more beneficial impact on the brain, than the animal fats and proteins.

User avatar #156 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Nah. You seem like the kind of person to ignore evidence.
#158 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Ironically that's exactly how you make yourself look right now by avoiding to provide any rational argument and instead resort to ungrounded insults.
User avatar #159 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
A perfect heading for your biography. I believe we are done here
#160 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
No, actually I'm quite happy to have a rational discussion about it, and I am curious for your arguments, though seeing how you keep avoiding it and want to end the conversation as soon as I mention it seems to be strongly suggestive that you did not have any in the first place.
So yes, if you've just come to for name-calling and making unfounded claims I guess we're done, for there's no point in that.
But if that isn't the case you're more than welcome to continue.
User avatar #161 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
You know what? Ill humor you. Give me some time to find my source and ill be back
#162 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
I don't especially need a source. You could just explain it yourself.
User avatar #163 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Youve been nothing but polite so I apologize. also forgive any typos, im on mobile. From what ive gathered from my biology classes back when I was in college it went like this and ill give you the short of it. Im also a dropout so take it for what you will (wanted to be a park rangers but colorblond need not apply) Humans started evolving once we began eating meat simply because it was so calorie dense compared to a vegetarian diet on top of being (mostly) available throughout the year. There was a time when our ancestors ate only vegetarian like gorillas but we became scavengers, eating like hyenas and that is what gave us the calories to start developing bigger brains. Little work for damn good pay. Eventually we discovered rocks can be sharp and we started chasing animals, which meant more meat. We started getting smarter and used traps or terrain to kill huge herbivores. the cycle continues so on and so on. Now ill admit we are omnivores for a reason. Plants and shit are important(ask pirates about scurvy). In the end like all things we need a balance.

Heres a link from a 5 second google search in my attempt to fill any gaps

m.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html
#164 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Well, that is only confirming my earlier point of the plausible cause being being spare energy. Just a question of calories, not an inherent quality of meat itself, and not something that couldn't have been done without eating meat.
But I'm actually more interested into what convinced you that meat made us smarter, what was the most compelling argument that made you think it was likely that meat was the major instigator of the development of our intellect.
Surely you must have had your reasons to say that.

(Also, regarding the link, I don't see how an individual 1.5 million year old skull with porotic hyperostosis would be directly suggestive that eating meat made us smarter, even if it was out of malnourishment. Not even taking into account that there may be other causes for porotic hyperostosis including infections and parasites.)
#167 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
But that isn't saying anything other than that early humans ate meat, something I'm not opposing.
User avatar #165 - theshinypen (05/27/2015) [-]
Like i mentioned. 5 second google search. ilearned all that shit in a community college. Remember that modern veggies are heavily modified because of heroes like norman baurlog too. Meat is also made of everything a body needs, being a body. As far as thia guy is able to educatedly guess (and im no nutritionist) is that back in those days meat was more advantangeous since it might have been denser in not only calories but nutrition as well, compared to the plants of old at least. meat was also able to be transported great distances and last with the advent of jerky. Ive always been told its the calories though since our brains take so much juice but im babbling at this point
#168 - auryn (05/27/2015) [-]
Sure there were certain practical advantagous that eating meat had in that time, but nothing that indicates that eating meat is the primary and direct cause of the development of our intellect.
User avatar #116 - thesecretbear (05/26/2015) [-]
I mean we would still need the calories for energy.

That's why we developed so well in the first place, cooking mean food allowed us to digest more of the calories in it, and thus had more energy, so we evolved larger more developed brains.
User avatar #117 - theshinypen (05/26/2015) [-]
I figured calories were also assumed in this.
User avatar #118 - thesecretbear (05/26/2015) [-]
ah, fair enough. Seems like that would be the main hurdle in creating that though.
User avatar #119 - theshinypen (05/26/2015) [-]
I dont think itd be a problem at all.
User avatar #97 - vikingontour (05/26/2015) [-]
I just think that we like to eat meat should not be compared to burning, gassing, abusing and enslaving people.

some animals eat both vegetables and meat, but should they be denied it because they can survive with just one of those.

everyone can do whatever they want to do, as long as they dont hurt others. so if someone does not want to eat meat then please go ahead. just don´t go and say others are evil for eating meat.

But in the end, its just my opinion
#99 - auryn (05/26/2015) [-]
>"everyone can do whatever they want to do, as long as they dont hurt others."

...
User avatar #102 - vikingontour (05/26/2015) [-]
I guess everything can be made into something negative, but let me rephrase it

as long as you don´t hurt others, you can do whatever you want.
happy?
#152 - auryn (05/26/2015) [-]
Well.. uh.. yeah.. that's kind of the whole point of the vegans
User avatar #101 - theshinypen (05/26/2015) [-]
Shot themself in the foot
#93 - I also believe animals are inferior to man, but I'm a vegetari… 05/26/2015 on You Rage, You Lose. 0
#28 - What do you mean imagine? 05/26/2015 on Methane +1
#43 - But still, you would've expected participants in an Earth day …  [+] (1 new reply) 05/26/2015 on Irony 0
#45 - tehnatural (05/26/2015) [-]
The sheer number of cups makes bins impractical.. It takes a few of the water station volunteers ~half an hour to clean it all up after the last runner goes through and they start wrapping up. It's just easier that way.. I'll admit it makes for a funny picture though
#25 - I don't know, but you could download software for that. … 05/25/2015 on Problem Solvers 0

items

Total unique items point value: 0 / Total items point value: 0
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #62 - maybetraffy (09/05/2014) [-]
you're not ajrin
#64 to #62 - auryn ONLINE (09/05/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #65 to #64 - maybetraffy (09/06/2014) [-]
death by dying
User avatar #63 to #62 - ajrin (09/05/2014) [-]
no he's not
#37 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
here have more LEARNING on FJ
#42 to #37 - auryn ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
The fact that you think this would even annoy me the slightest cheers me up.

I wish I could thumb that comment up.
User avatar #46 to #42 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
so when someone else posts something educational and not funny to you, you bitch, when i do it, you want to thumb me up

logic is a white woman and youre the ****** raping her
#49 to #46 - auryn ONLINE (04/25/2014) [-]
I didn't bitch.

I tried to explain the fallacy in your assumptions.

On the other hand, you started by rebuking the people who had a different opinion.
Haha, that hypocrisy thing again, huh.
User avatar #29 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
You're literally on a track to get yourself banned from too many thumbs down because you feel the need to post your opinion. You know that, right?
#30 to #29 - auryn ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
I need over 7500 more red thumbs to get close to that, so I've got a while.

Although I once managed to get over 9000 red thumbs within 3 weeks on my previous account.
Definitely worth the ********** .
#36 to #30 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
so you admit to what i said

you troll for fun
#38 to #36 - auryn ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
I hardly do, check my previous comments.

And even if I did, it wouln't make a difference, my intentions doesn't take away from my arguments, even if I were trolling it doesn't mean I'm not right, and most certainly doesn't make any of what you said any less ridiculous. lol.
User avatar #39 to #38 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
ahem....9000 red thumbs in 3 weeks = Troll
#40 to #39 - auryn ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
You're point being?
User avatar #41 to #40 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
stating my fact
youre a troll who comes here to be a dick for a giggle

again ill hope you hit puberty soon
#43 to #41 - auryn ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Yes, I come here for a giggle.

You're point being?
#45 to #43 - konradkurze (04/24/2014) [-]
* comes here for a giggle   
* bitches at me for having a different opinion
* comes here for a giggle
* bitches at me for having a different opinion
#47 to #45 - auryn ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
I didn't bitch at you for having a different opinion.

I tried to explain some things to you that you had, and still have, difficulty understanding.
Things like that people might have thumbed the content down for other reasons.
User avatar #53 to #47 - konradkurze (04/25/2014) [-]
well you obviously dont know funnyjunkers

if you ever paid attention to them. they largely bitch at anything that contradicts mainstream ideals of political corectness

in the case of this pic, providing the non-PC truth about race/species, the FJ kids would bitch about it being 'racist'

then again you seem to devote your time to ************ others instead of paying attention to them
#52 to #47 - konradkurze has deleted their comment [-]
#48 to #47 - konradkurze has deleted their comment [-]
#51 to #48 - auryn ONLINE (04/25/2014) [-]
Read back all the comments of our conversation and you'll find that 90% of the ************ is done by you. I've said a thing or two but you resort to ungrounded insults pretty much every comment.

Hypocrisy much?
#50 to #48 - auryn ONLINE (04/25/2014) [-]
Read back all the comments of our conversation and you'll find that 90% of the ************ is done by you. I've said a thing or two but you resort to ungrounded insults pretty much every comment.

Hypocrisy much?
#44 to #43 - auryn ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Your*
#31 to #30 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
WHAT, 9000?!?!
#32 to #31 - auryn ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Haha, yeah.

It was on the ponytime channel, bronies are very easily to startle.
#33 to #32 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
What if I told you that I'm a brony?
What if I told you that I'm a brony?
#34 to #33 - auryn ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#35 to #34 - drewsky (01/18/2013) [-]
Well, then good day, sir.
Well, then good day, sir.
User avatar #14 - wittyuser (05/31/2012) [-]
your user name is my name without the L
inb4 cool story bro
#15 to #15 - auryn ONLINE (05/31/2012) [-]
I picked Auryn because I liked the symbol of the talisman and what it represents, both depicting duality and infinity.
User avatar #55 to #15 - Falkor (05/21/2014) [-]
you didn't pick it for the neverending story? : (
#56 to #55 - auryn ONLINE (05/21/2014) [-]
Ofcourse I did!

That's why I chose it in the first place.
User avatar #57 to #56 - Falkor (05/21/2014) [-]
i just looked up what talisman was, lol
User avatar #12 - kylecolb (05/05/2012) [-]
are you on bodybuilding.com? do you have a profile there? love that site
#13 to #12 - auryn ONLINE (05/05/2012) [-]
I've read an assload of articles and threads on that site, but I don't have a profile.
#10 - sharkwaffle **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#7 - neededllama (04/02/2012) [-]
So you're gonna keep trolling?
Also, why did you choose this name, and not another Trek name?
Did you not want to be known as Trek anymore?
#8 to #7 - auryn ONLINE (04/02/2012) [-]
I figured I'll just keep a low profile this time and keep the trolling to a minimum.

User avatar #3 - coolponyboy (03/29/2012) [-]
hey whats up?
#6 to #3 - auryn ONLINE (03/31/2012) [-]
The sky.
#4 to #2 - auryn ONLINE (03/29/2012) [-]
 Friends (0)