Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

sorrowofdaedalus    

Rank #58296 on Subscribers
sorrowofdaedalus Avatar Level 285 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Offline
Send mail to sorrowofdaedalus Block sorrowofdaedalus Invite sorrowofdaedalus to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:6/15/2011
Last Login:9/09/2013
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 88 total,  144 ,  56
Comment Thumbs: 8584 total,  12496 ,  3912
Content Level Progress: 60% (3/5)
Level 7 Content: New Here → Level 8 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 79% (79/100)
Level 285 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:1
Content Views:5678
Times Content Favorited:7 times
Total Comments Made:4151
FJ Points:9102

latest user's comments

#66 - Alright, perhaps I should put it this way. I di…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/30/2013 on Catcher In The Rye 0
User avatar #67 - violentpixi (04/30/2013) [-]
But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning
#21 - Focus on the fact that it's a damn cop, and that doesn't chang…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/29/2013 on Pretending to be a bird +5
#33 - nevrit (04/29/2013) [-]
Na man, if one is riding a unicycle that is some serious shit. Balance and leg power, I wouldn't fuck with him.
#131 - It has the best story and the environments are the most creati… 04/29/2013 on He Must Be Having A Bad Day +1
#64 - Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that …  [+] (3 new replies) 04/29/2013 on Catcher In The Rye 0
User avatar #65 - violentpixi (04/29/2013) [-]
You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.
User avatar #66 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/30/2013) [-]
Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.
User avatar #67 - violentpixi (04/30/2013) [-]
But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning
#62 - I find omniscient writing enjoyable for telling nearly any sor…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/28/2013 on Catcher In The Rye 0
User avatar #63 - violentpixi (04/28/2013) [-]
" He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions"

That is the point of the book, he's a self absorbed teenager and that's what teenagers do. People who relate to the character initially are forced to check themselves later on. Make bad decisions, don't think, just do what they like because they can. It seems you still don't understand the point of the book. It's not a bad thing, just don't criticise an aspect of something without exploring the deeper connotations further. It's a popular book for a number of reasons.
User avatar #64 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/29/2013) [-]
Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that that was the point of it, but that's also why I disliked it. It didn't feel like something I could relate to, because no, I can never honestly say I did something during my teenage years without some level of sound reasoning behind it.


I'm not saying I never did anything stupid or incorrectly, I just always had a reason that made sense as for why I think what I'm doing is right, or at the very least, I knew my motivations.

I don't see why my disliking the book because of it's main plot point is so hard for you to understand. One Direction and Niki Minaj are popular musicians for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I enjoy their work any more.
User avatar #65 - violentpixi (04/29/2013) [-]
You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.
User avatar #66 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/30/2013) [-]
Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.
User avatar #67 - violentpixi (04/30/2013) [-]
But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning
#3 - Oh yeah, a Sarcasm font, not like we already have one of those.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/26/2013 on Mature humans +1
#4 - nandaaz (04/26/2013) [-]
So that's why we had to learn cursive writing!
#160 - Hell no. Sell it to science for trillions of dollars so they c… 04/26/2013 on What would you do? +1
#59 - Actually yes, it is. To properly convey the emotions of the ma…  [+] (7 new replies) 04/26/2013 on Catcher In The Rye +1
User avatar #61 - violentpixi (04/27/2013) [-]
I find omniscient writing only enjoyable with large action fantasy spectacular type books because I read them to just experience a journey and story.

However an omniscient author will find it extremely difficult to follow a thread of thought especially if the entire point of the novel is to witness it from a personal perspective. Holden's perspective is egotistical, melodramatic and completely naive to the real world. That's what Catcher is, a perspective novel (similar include Catch 22, Perks of being a Wallflower, Virgin Suicides, Lolita...all incredible books) They may be difficult but if a reader fully involves themselves, it forces them to think.
You can never judge the quality of a novel by the qualities of the POV character. (Lolita being an example, a gorgeous book but the lead character is a disgusting peadophile. It makes you think and challenges you to disconnect.)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but yours seemed to miss the point of the book. You don't have to like Catcher, just say you're not into that kind of narrative.
User avatar #62 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/28/2013) [-]
I find omniscient writing enjoyable for telling nearly any sort of story, because it allows the reader to see multiple aspects and never forces you to place a character somewhere they really shouldn't be just for the sake of the novel's plot. Not that coming up with a reason for a character to be somewhere is necessarily bad, but I find in general it makes for better writing if that doesn't happen often.


I'm not judging the book by the point of view, I'm judging the book by my opinion of it. I understood the point of the book, but when you don't bother to spellcheck a book because it's "how the character would've written it", you're already making the assumption that I'll forgive it because of how much I enjoyed the character. That's the problem; I have to enjoy the character for me to enjoy the book, because the character is what it was about. Note that this doesn't mean I have to support the character's actions or ideals, it simply means the character must be enjoyable to read about. The pedophile in Lolita still manages to create a sound, personable character, and the whole reason it's enjoyable is because it manages to create a perfectly normal man with a large crack in his mindset. the problem with Catcher isn't that I think the character himself was bad in terms of who he was, I thought he was bad in terms of how he was written. In a boring, predictable manner.

Holden was an uninteresting character for me. He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions, and it was nothing but a dull experience for me to read about this guy whining about himself, then making an obviously horrible choice, and then to top it all off ** his being surprised at the outcome.**

That's why I disliked the book.
User avatar #63 - violentpixi (04/28/2013) [-]
" He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions"

That is the point of the book, he's a self absorbed teenager and that's what teenagers do. People who relate to the character initially are forced to check themselves later on. Make bad decisions, don't think, just do what they like because they can. It seems you still don't understand the point of the book. It's not a bad thing, just don't criticise an aspect of something without exploring the deeper connotations further. It's a popular book for a number of reasons.
User avatar #64 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/29/2013) [-]
Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that that was the point of it, but that's also why I disliked it. It didn't feel like something I could relate to, because no, I can never honestly say I did something during my teenage years without some level of sound reasoning behind it.


I'm not saying I never did anything stupid or incorrectly, I just always had a reason that made sense as for why I think what I'm doing is right, or at the very least, I knew my motivations.

I don't see why my disliking the book because of it's main plot point is so hard for you to understand. One Direction and Niki Minaj are popular musicians for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I enjoy their work any more.
User avatar #65 - violentpixi (04/29/2013) [-]
You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.
User avatar #66 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/30/2013) [-]
Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.
User avatar #67 - violentpixi (04/30/2013) [-]
But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning
#57 - I understand first person perfectly well, but it wasn't enjoya…  [+] (9 new replies) 04/25/2013 on Catcher In The Rye +1
User avatar #58 - violentpixi (04/25/2013) [-]
No it's not. Visually, third person is ideal but an emotional account is impossible from third person. First person is to indicate emotion and direct characterization. Catcher, as a day in the life novel, is solely an emotional and character novel.
User avatar #59 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/26/2013) [-]
Actually yes, it is. To properly convey the emotions of the main character in a manner that appeals to a wide audience without losing any since of individuality in the individual that you are writing for is incredibly hard, and the usual output is that most first person novels end up in two camps:

Generic Blob Man goes through some tough shit where he does only what the majority of people would do in a situation and without any real self reflection beyond what can be fished out of the first two feet of what is an otherwise deep swimming pool.

And Maincharacter McPersonpants who is so clearly they're own character that despite being IN their head you can't figure out why the hell they are doing anything that they do other than that they seem to desire to be some kind of a person, and as wonderful as it is that they are well rounded and not just a faceless portal in to the realm of the story, they are also such opinionated asswipes that you really don't feel like you're able to relate to them, unless you're that one specific guy that's just like them.


The best kind of First Person Writing is directly in the middle, and Catcher in the Rye leans more towards the second than the first, in that the main character is purposefully dumb and unlikeable, reducing the audience of people that relate to him as those who consider or considers their past selves as dumb and unlikeable.

Also, third person is all fine and good, but I prefer Omniscient the best. You get the same emotional account, without any of the aggravation of first person.
User avatar #61 - violentpixi (04/27/2013) [-]
I find omniscient writing only enjoyable with large action fantasy spectacular type books because I read them to just experience a journey and story.

However an omniscient author will find it extremely difficult to follow a thread of thought especially if the entire point of the novel is to witness it from a personal perspective. Holden's perspective is egotistical, melodramatic and completely naive to the real world. That's what Catcher is, a perspective novel (similar include Catch 22, Perks of being a Wallflower, Virgin Suicides, Lolita...all incredible books) They may be difficult but if a reader fully involves themselves, it forces them to think.
You can never judge the quality of a novel by the qualities of the POV character. (Lolita being an example, a gorgeous book but the lead character is a disgusting peadophile. It makes you think and challenges you to disconnect.)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but yours seemed to miss the point of the book. You don't have to like Catcher, just say you're not into that kind of narrative.
User avatar #62 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/28/2013) [-]
I find omniscient writing enjoyable for telling nearly any sort of story, because it allows the reader to see multiple aspects and never forces you to place a character somewhere they really shouldn't be just for the sake of the novel's plot. Not that coming up with a reason for a character to be somewhere is necessarily bad, but I find in general it makes for better writing if that doesn't happen often.


I'm not judging the book by the point of view, I'm judging the book by my opinion of it. I understood the point of the book, but when you don't bother to spellcheck a book because it's "how the character would've written it", you're already making the assumption that I'll forgive it because of how much I enjoyed the character. That's the problem; I have to enjoy the character for me to enjoy the book, because the character is what it was about. Note that this doesn't mean I have to support the character's actions or ideals, it simply means the character must be enjoyable to read about. The pedophile in Lolita still manages to create a sound, personable character, and the whole reason it's enjoyable is because it manages to create a perfectly normal man with a large crack in his mindset. the problem with Catcher isn't that I think the character himself was bad in terms of who he was, I thought he was bad in terms of how he was written. In a boring, predictable manner.

Holden was an uninteresting character for me. He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions, and it was nothing but a dull experience for me to read about this guy whining about himself, then making an obviously horrible choice, and then to top it all off ** his being surprised at the outcome.**

That's why I disliked the book.
User avatar #63 - violentpixi (04/28/2013) [-]
" He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions"

That is the point of the book, he's a self absorbed teenager and that's what teenagers do. People who relate to the character initially are forced to check themselves later on. Make bad decisions, don't think, just do what they like because they can. It seems you still don't understand the point of the book. It's not a bad thing, just don't criticise an aspect of something without exploring the deeper connotations further. It's a popular book for a number of reasons.
User avatar #64 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/29/2013) [-]
Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that that was the point of it, but that's also why I disliked it. It didn't feel like something I could relate to, because no, I can never honestly say I did something during my teenage years without some level of sound reasoning behind it.


I'm not saying I never did anything stupid or incorrectly, I just always had a reason that made sense as for why I think what I'm doing is right, or at the very least, I knew my motivations.

I don't see why my disliking the book because of it's main plot point is so hard for you to understand. One Direction and Niki Minaj are popular musicians for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I enjoy their work any more.
User avatar #65 - violentpixi (04/29/2013) [-]
You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.
User avatar #66 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/30/2013) [-]
Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.
User avatar #67 - violentpixi (04/30/2013) [-]
But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning
#123 - Girlfriends come pre-neutered.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/25/2013 on Bo Burnham everybody. 0
User avatar #127 - IAmManbearpig (04/25/2013) [-]
yeah but you don't get the satisfaction of instilling fear of castration with a hot knife.
either way, lesbian or no, I hope to raise my daughter in a way where she won't let herself end up with a shitty boy/girlfriend. i'm sure that's easier said than done, however.
#16 - The writing in that book pissed me off the most. I know it was…  [+] (11 new replies) 04/25/2013 on Catcher In The Rye -1
User avatar #42 - violentpixi (04/25/2013) [-]
You don't understand first person do you.
User avatar #57 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/25/2013) [-]
I understand first person perfectly well, but it wasn't enjoyable. It's very hard to write well in first person.
User avatar #58 - violentpixi (04/25/2013) [-]
No it's not. Visually, third person is ideal but an emotional account is impossible from third person. First person is to indicate emotion and direct characterization. Catcher, as a day in the life novel, is solely an emotional and character novel.
User avatar #59 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/26/2013) [-]
Actually yes, it is. To properly convey the emotions of the main character in a manner that appeals to a wide audience without losing any since of individuality in the individual that you are writing for is incredibly hard, and the usual output is that most first person novels end up in two camps:

Generic Blob Man goes through some tough shit where he does only what the majority of people would do in a situation and without any real self reflection beyond what can be fished out of the first two feet of what is an otherwise deep swimming pool.

And Maincharacter McPersonpants who is so clearly they're own character that despite being IN their head you can't figure out why the hell they are doing anything that they do other than that they seem to desire to be some kind of a person, and as wonderful as it is that they are well rounded and not just a faceless portal in to the realm of the story, they are also such opinionated asswipes that you really don't feel like you're able to relate to them, unless you're that one specific guy that's just like them.


The best kind of First Person Writing is directly in the middle, and Catcher in the Rye leans more towards the second than the first, in that the main character is purposefully dumb and unlikeable, reducing the audience of people that relate to him as those who consider or considers their past selves as dumb and unlikeable.

Also, third person is all fine and good, but I prefer Omniscient the best. You get the same emotional account, without any of the aggravation of first person.
User avatar #61 - violentpixi (04/27/2013) [-]
I find omniscient writing only enjoyable with large action fantasy spectacular type books because I read them to just experience a journey and story.

However an omniscient author will find it extremely difficult to follow a thread of thought especially if the entire point of the novel is to witness it from a personal perspective. Holden's perspective is egotistical, melodramatic and completely naive to the real world. That's what Catcher is, a perspective novel (similar include Catch 22, Perks of being a Wallflower, Virgin Suicides, Lolita...all incredible books) They may be difficult but if a reader fully involves themselves, it forces them to think.
You can never judge the quality of a novel by the qualities of the POV character. (Lolita being an example, a gorgeous book but the lead character is a disgusting peadophile. It makes you think and challenges you to disconnect.)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but yours seemed to miss the point of the book. You don't have to like Catcher, just say you're not into that kind of narrative.
User avatar #62 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/28/2013) [-]
I find omniscient writing enjoyable for telling nearly any sort of story, because it allows the reader to see multiple aspects and never forces you to place a character somewhere they really shouldn't be just for the sake of the novel's plot. Not that coming up with a reason for a character to be somewhere is necessarily bad, but I find in general it makes for better writing if that doesn't happen often.


I'm not judging the book by the point of view, I'm judging the book by my opinion of it. I understood the point of the book, but when you don't bother to spellcheck a book because it's "how the character would've written it", you're already making the assumption that I'll forgive it because of how much I enjoyed the character. That's the problem; I have to enjoy the character for me to enjoy the book, because the character is what it was about. Note that this doesn't mean I have to support the character's actions or ideals, it simply means the character must be enjoyable to read about. The pedophile in Lolita still manages to create a sound, personable character, and the whole reason it's enjoyable is because it manages to create a perfectly normal man with a large crack in his mindset. the problem with Catcher isn't that I think the character himself was bad in terms of who he was, I thought he was bad in terms of how he was written. In a boring, predictable manner.

Holden was an uninteresting character for me. He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions, and it was nothing but a dull experience for me to read about this guy whining about himself, then making an obviously horrible choice, and then to top it all off ** his being surprised at the outcome.**

That's why I disliked the book.
User avatar #63 - violentpixi (04/28/2013) [-]
" He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions"

That is the point of the book, he's a self absorbed teenager and that's what teenagers do. People who relate to the character initially are forced to check themselves later on. Make bad decisions, don't think, just do what they like because they can. It seems you still don't understand the point of the book. It's not a bad thing, just don't criticise an aspect of something without exploring the deeper connotations further. It's a popular book for a number of reasons.
User avatar #64 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/29/2013) [-]
Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that that was the point of it, but that's also why I disliked it. It didn't feel like something I could relate to, because no, I can never honestly say I did something during my teenage years without some level of sound reasoning behind it.


I'm not saying I never did anything stupid or incorrectly, I just always had a reason that made sense as for why I think what I'm doing is right, or at the very least, I knew my motivations.

I don't see why my disliking the book because of it's main plot point is so hard for you to understand. One Direction and Niki Minaj are popular musicians for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I enjoy their work any more.
User avatar #65 - violentpixi (04/29/2013) [-]
You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.
User avatar #66 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/30/2013) [-]
Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.
User avatar #67 - violentpixi (04/30/2013) [-]
But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning
#32 - Comment deleted 04/25/2013 on 5 Very good reasons to... 0
#27 - You mean like Musaka? 04/25/2013 on Fucking amazing. 0
#33 - Actually wouldn't mind if my kids are gay . I'd act…  [+] (18 new replies) 04/25/2013 on Bo Burnham everybody. +6
User avatar #46 - IAmManbearpig (04/25/2013) [-]
I think it would be easier to scare off a boyfriend.
User avatar #57 - wheresthefudge (04/25/2013) [-]
Yeah, but a shitty girlfriend can't get your daughter pregnant.
User avatar #63 - IAmManbearpig (04/25/2013) [-]
neither can a boyfriend if you chop his balls off
User avatar #123 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/25/2013) [-]
Girlfriends come pre-neutered.
User avatar #127 - IAmManbearpig (04/25/2013) [-]
yeah but you don't get the satisfaction of instilling fear of castration with a hot knife.
either way, lesbian or no, I hope to raise my daughter in a way where she won't let herself end up with a shitty boy/girlfriend. i'm sure that's easier said than done, however.
#64 - wheresthefudge (04/25/2013) [-]
True enough, I suppose.
#47 - stopthemadness (04/25/2013) [-]
or kill
User avatar #50 - paradox (04/25/2013) [-]
i like how your name says stop the madness but you comment says murder
#51 - stopthemadness (04/25/2013) [-]
I'm complicated like that
User avatar #52 - paradox (04/25/2013) [-]
well i fuckin like it. have 2 thumbs
#53 - stopthemadness (04/25/2013) [-]
for your thumbs, you get thumbs!
User avatar #58 - paradox (04/25/2013) [-]
well fuck, why not thumb the whole page?
User avatar #83 - lateday (04/25/2013) [-]
thumb me
#98 - fistmyass (04/25/2013) [-]
Fist me...
#129 - stopthemadness (04/25/2013) [-]
rape me
#147 - fistmyass (04/26/2013) [-]
If you insist...
#148 - stopthemadness (04/26/2013) [-]
i demand it
User avatar #92 - paradox (04/25/2013) [-]
ok. does anyone else need a thumb?
#150 - >First time playing DND, just messing around. > We'… 04/25/2013 on Every time +4
#37 - Ancient Wolf. I'm not old! 04/24/2013 on Moon Moon Returns +1
#14 - DON'T YOU KNOW THAT ******* KILLS THEM!?!?!!? … 04/24/2013 on MURDERER +1
#57 - This the exact reason why this anime bores me to tears. No rea… 04/24/2013 on You obviously don't know 0
#33 - They do. 04/24/2013 on Russell Brand vs the WBC 0
#31 - I doubt it would help their cause at all. Socie…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/24/2013 on Russell Brand vs the WBC +1
User avatar #32 - theonlyjero (04/24/2013) [-]
I suppose so.
Either way, WBC sucks.
User avatar #33 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/24/2013) [-]
They do.
#137 - Yes it would have. 04/24/2013 on Graphics don't make a good... -1
#50 - What isn't cute about that? I wish my girlfriend bark…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/24/2013 on Wanna go to the park? +12
#93 - millex (04/24/2013) [-]
#375 - No, actually, it's not. The word escape implies exactly what i…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/24/2013 on all natural +1
#403 - nickmandemon (04/30/2013) [-]
Escape implies that you need to get away. I don't know how to explain that differently. And if you smoke pot you would understand that all this "leaving reality" stuff that you're talking about is a little ridiculous. Thats a better argument against something like lsd or something like that. And great for you if you think that those activities are more fun. Thats what you like to do and I'm not going to criticize you for it, unlike the way you're treating me for smoking "pot". And for you're information, weed has never killed anyone. That is one of the biggest arguments for its legalization. And regarding the legal issue; I don't know where you live, but I live in America, which was FOUNDED on the belief that if there is a law that the majority of the country doesn't agree with, then we have the right to change it. And if i enjoy smoking marijuana, I'm not gonna fucking wait for the government lollygagging and taking forever with legalization. And if flouting the law because you don't agree with it is wrong... are you calling people like Harriet Tubman bad people? Of course, I'm not comparing myself to her, I'm just asking you to defend what you said. And if you've admitted that you've never smoked weed, how do you know it's a shitty way to have fun? You sound like a person with a very narrow minded manner of thinking. And if I'm childish for having fun with risks, rather than spending my life surrounded by caution and metaphorical pillows, then so be it. Fun's best when it's spiked with danger. Maybe one day you will realize this, and i believe that day will be a great turning point in your life. I don't know why other people doing what they like to do bothers you so much, but maybe you should think about how it would feel if someone just started yelling at you and criticizing you about the way you live your life when they don't even know you as a person. And by the way, I've deftly refuted every argument you've presented. I literally address everything you say.
#371 - EFFECTS. ** My bad. 04/24/2013 on all natural -1
#370 - Deadly lung cancer is directly tied to smoking cigarettes, but…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/24/2013 on all natural -1
User avatar #371 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/24/2013) [-]
EFFECTS. ** My bad.

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#33 - Womens Study Major (08/03/2012) [-]
eat a dick douche
#35 to #33 - Womens Study Major (03/05/2013) [-]
sorry im retarded i take that back
User avatar #32 - cryotaneko (06/16/2012) [-]
Happy one year anniversary of starting FJ. Congrats, dude.
User avatar #23 - xjessicajynx (11/27/2011) [-]
I am quite fond of you find sir, you make valid arguments and seem like a decent human being :OOOOO
User avatar #24 to #25 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/27/2011) [-]
Why thank you. I would be glad to have you as a friend, and I sincerely apologize of any of the trash that you met that give football players a bad name.
User avatar #25 to #26 - xjessicajynx (11/27/2011) [-]
Haha, I don't personally pick on football players, there is always a douchebag in EVERY place in life. Like hell, I know a player football player, my player ex who was a skater, I know a redneck who beat his 14yr old pregnant girlfriend, I know a teacher who beat his wife. There are assholes everywhere, they arent just all packed in a football team haha
User avatar #26 to #27 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/27/2011) [-]
Yeah, assholes know no bounds. the stereotype is always about the football players picking on the drama geeks, but honestly, I think nowadays football players have to deal with more **** about being gay than thesbians do during high school.
User avatar #27 to #28 - xjessicajynx (11/27/2011) [-]
Like most football players are chillin with the cheerleaders who are ironically also band geeks who also associate with drama kids who associate with goths who associate with punks who associate with emos who associate with rappers (poetry=rap) and rappers associate with blacks and blacks associate with rednecks soooo in the end, there arent any real stereotypes anymore, just ignorant people
User avatar #28 to #29 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/27/2011) [-]
I guess so, I always preferred the punk girls myself. Hell, I'm now a 30 year old psychologist and my significant other shaves her head.
#29 to #30 - xjessicajynx (11/27/2011) [-]
<---- my hair as of 2 months ago but now picture it neon purple bc thats the new colour I have and a little bit shorter lol But I had to give my ex the shirt back D:
User avatar #30 to #31 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/27/2011) [-]
Hah, just remember, no matter how old you get, never outgrow the things that you love.
User avatar #31 to #32 - xjessicajynx (11/27/2011) [-]
Pretty much then, I will never outgrow talking, writing, cooking, playing my music (I play 13+ instruments) singing, belly dancing, and dance dance revolution lol
#4 - sarahsa (11/07/2011) [-]
Gay love is beautiful and you are a dick for thinking otherwise.
User avatar #5 to #4 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/07/2011) [-]
Ooh, I'm a monster and a dick for thinking differently, that just screams "respect my opinions". Try reading my reply all the way through before posting ignorant ******** on my profile.
User avatar #6 to #5 - sarahsa (11/07/2011) [-]
I know it is your opinion, but it pisses me off when people think it is sick and wrong >_> There is nothing wrong with loving people.
User avatar #7 to #6 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/07/2011) [-]
Anatomy and History suggest otherwise, Like I said in my reply though, just because it is unnatural, doesn't mean it isn't part of who you are. You need to accept that. I'm a sick and unnatural person, but I accept that, I practice it, and I'm happy because I do. There is no point in changing what can't be changed, and there is no point in trying to make something that is wrong seem right.
User avatar #8 to #7 - sarahsa (11/07/2011) [-]
Anatomy and history aren't necessarily correct though, now are they? And you realize it is not just humans that are gay, they have seen a number of species of birds also practicing homosexual acts, among other species. And I'm not saying you have to change, but even if you keep think it is unnatural, doesn't mean it is. And are you saying that being gay is wrong and you can't make it right?
User avatar #9 to #8 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/07/2011) [-]
Well, the basics, yes, they are. And you realize new species are discovered every day, which means that being gay among the animals is still unnatural and different comparatively?
What I am saying is that it IS unnatural, but that doesn't mean you need to change it, and it is just ridiculous to try to say it is normal when it's not. I'm saying that being gay is something that you must accept, realize is different, and revel in that difference. I'm in to watersports and bondage, I realize it is sick and wrong, I accept that, I live out my fetish because it is part of me, and it makes me happy. Gays shouldn't try to force others to think something is right when it clearly isn't, they should simply accept the fact that they are gay, and that is different, and be happy the way they are.
User avatar #10 to #9 - sarahsa (11/07/2011) [-]
Does it matter if something is different? No, it doesn't, nor does it make it wrong.
And what is wrong with having those sort of fetishes? I don't think it is wrong if it makes you happy.
And gays aren't trying to force people that being gay is right, they are just trying to be accepted. So many gay people kill themselves because they are called unnatural and gross. So who is more sick, the guy that happens to like another guy, or the people driving them to kill themselves?
As long as there happy, people should just accept them as they are.
User avatar #11 to #10 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/07/2011) [-]
Being a psychologist, I can hardly say that someone who has a belief that is negative is any more sick than a person who has an unnatural sexual preference.
Something that is unnatural is wrong, but there should not be unhappiness because you are wrong. There should be acceptance of it. Wrong and bad are two different things, and that is what I think is the mistake people make.
It is wrong to have the fetishes I have because they aren't normal or natural, and aren't beneficial to reproduction, it is only out of happiness and pleasure that I do it, it is wrong, but I accept that, it isn't bad, just because it's wrong.
User avatar #12 to #11 - sarahsa (11/07/2011) [-]
Why is being gay even labled as 'unnatural'? What about it makes it that? Because it doesn't help with reproduction? Alright, you say your fetish is wrong because it doesn't help reproduction, but if you haven't noticed, we just hit 7o billion people. We don't need to keep reproducing.
User avatar #13 to #12 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/07/2011) [-]
We don't NEED to, but reproduction is the only natural reason for sex. It is labeled as unnatural because it IS. Like I said, science proves so. I'm not sure if you read my other comments at all, but I mentioned I am a hellenic polytheist. The ancient greeks were known for being openly gay, but the religion also shares a philosophy of accepting that just because something isn't unnatural, doesn't make bad, and true happiness can only be found through acceptance of what is unnatural, you need to accept what is wrong with you the same way you accept what is right about you.
User avatar #14 to #13 - sarahsa (11/09/2011) [-]
I understand that, but still, just because science proves something, doesn't make it correct. Anyway, that is actually pretty cool that you are a hellenic polytheist, and I get what you mean when you say just because something is unnatural, doesn't make it bad, and that you just have to accept something to be happy even if it is 'unnatural'.
Even though you don't support gays, you are clearly not overly against it, and you actually have some very interesting views, so I apologize for insulting you earlier :)
User avatar #15 to #14 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/09/2011) [-]
Thank you for your apology. Please understand that I don't support what isn't meant to be, but I will ALWAYS support love, even if it isn't "right". If I may ask, why is it that you so fervently support homosexuality?
User avatar #16 to #15 - sarahsa (11/10/2011) [-]
Well, I'm glad you support love always. I'm not sure, I just feel that no matter what the gender of the people, if they love each other, then it shouldn't matter, and it may also be because I think it is really cute.
User avatar #17 to #16 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/10/2011) [-]
That fair enough. But, you catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar. Believe it or not, even people that are homophobic or put up an angry first impression are willing to appeal to reason if you probe them with questions, reply in a generally calm manner, and make strong points. Isn't the point of the argument to get the other party to see your side?
User avatar #18 to #17 - sarahsa (11/12/2011) [-]
I see you point, but I have met plenty of people who won't listen to reason >_>
User avatar #19 to #18 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/13/2011) [-]
Reason tempered with zeal often strikes down understanding.
User avatar #20 to #19 - sarahsa (11/14/2011) [-]
Yeah, I suppose, I just wish some people could open there eye more.
User avatar #21 to #21 - sorrowofdaedalus (11/14/2011) [-]
People will listen, you just need to be patient. Being angry just makes people close their eyes more.
User avatar #22 to #22 - sarahsa (11/15/2011) [-]
People may eventually listen, but that doesn't mean it won't go through one ear and out the other.
User avatar #1 - barturia (08/05/2011) [-]
we reached the limit on the replys. too bad because i had alot more jokes.
User avatar #2 to #1 - sorrowofdaedalus (08/05/2011) [-]
Well ain't that a KICK in the head?
 Friends (0)