Yeah I don't mind a bit of hardstyle, but I prefer stuff that's a little less "singy" and more raw. Some of Endymion's stuff is pretty good, like Raging in the Dancehall and Street Fight.Also Gunz for Hire, Plata o Plomo or Bolivia.I'm more of a drum & bass head to be honest, I love neurofunk stuff like this new one by Current Value and Phace: Wild Thing. And of course older stuff by Ed Rush and Optical or Cause 4 Concern etc. I also like real hardcore stuff, PRSPCT recordings are good, artists like The Outside Agency, Deathmachine, The Hard Way, I:Gor etc. |
|
|
|
|
First game I remember playing was Mario, but the first that really wowed me was Turrican on the C64. The music in it was amazing at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone seen the new episodes yet? X-files was one of my favourite TV shows in the earlier years (season 1-5 mainly, but there were some good episodes in the later seasons).
But to be honest I was disappointed with episode 1, slow and with no real plot, just a lot of skimming over the surface of multiple conspiracy type ideas, none of which had any real substance. I couldn't work out if the "Alex Jones" style character was meant to be a parody or not, either way he was annoying as fuck.
The second episode was better, but still a little disappointing for me, when compared to some of the classic episodes it just didn't cut it IMO.
HOWEVER, episode 3 was simply brilliant - It's a more light-hearted comedy episode, (written by the guy who wrote "Jose Chung's from Outer Space" and "Humbug"). I literally had a massive grin on my face the whole way through. Might watch it again right now actually!
|
|
|
|
The flat earth extends without end in every direction?
That's a good one.
Soon we'll learn that we are inside a sphere not ON one.
What will these kids come up with next?
Well, isn't this right? They simply spout a bunch of stuff about things they know little about. But they don't really have a clear picture of anything that they talk about. Modern cosmology may be wrong. But at least they have reasonable theory to cover almost everything. These flat-earth jokers don't have enough to even explain the few things they might actually have, correctly. And they certainly don't have an all-compassing theory about their flat earth idea. They can't even tell you anything about the whole idea of it. And they are contradictory among the members of their group.  Well I'm sorry if I disappointed you. But com'on man, "modern" theory is a joke, a fairytale. In fact it is nothing modern about it. A complete fraud. It is very hard to unlearn it now, I agree. You will have all the answers you need in time. We are moving on. Meanwhile you can look at this presentation and use your imagination: https://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/universe.pngKey word: "Imagination." One of the funny things to me is the language virtually all flat earth believers use -- words and phrases like: fairytale; hoax; fraud; deception; "just a theory;" magical; indoctrination; etc. These usually indicate when someone has no idea what they're talking about...as if that type of provocative language would actually prove anything to people who 'do' know what they're talking about. Yes, imagination and meditation are powerfull tools that did not came from big bang or from a spinning globe.  Even John Lennon knew that long time ago and wrote a song. Imagine...all the people... I know inside that a moving spining globe equals madness and insanity. This is equation of reality. And we all can restart from here. This is a well put testimony of an ex ball earther, well said so i will share it here: "I was the most rigid skeptic of all this... Ironically, the only reason I found out about Flat Earthers was when El Presidente of the banana republic, Los Estados Unidos, criticized the Flat Earth Society. I was like, "What the fck? Why is he bringing that up? What has it got to do with anything?" Now I know. It's got everything to with this fraudulent paradigm of debt and death, and the obfuscation of the most important Knowledge for us to be free: The Knowledge of the Self, that we are spiritual beings, and the Knowledge of Natural Law, the cosmic algorithms that govern this realm and that are programmed by our behavior. That's why morality is directly proportionate to freedom, and why the sorcerers that run this world must dupe us into violating Natural Law so that we program our own slavery. If we knew our origins, we wouldn't have so much self-loathing as a species, and we wouldn't be taking that out on everything else. We'd rise above it and get rid of all the mind control institutions such as Statism/Money/Religion/Scientism/Politics, etc. I'm not pretending to have the answers, but even a little child could understand that we've been lied to about pretty much everything...?" You just proved his point. You just had a chance to give some evidence, instead you rambled on about mind control and fraudulent paradigms. Wise up. |
|
|
|
At first I thought this thread was about something else... |
|
|
|
Yeah, well, unfortunately....when you go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects, you wind up exactly where we are now. Except that we'd like to argue that certain drugs have been WRONGLY EVALUATED to have extremely harmful effects, so harmful that they should be criminalized.
I believe that one by one, those sanctions can be lifted. Specific drugs, whose effects are well understood, one at a time. That would solve 80-90 of the problem which might be as good as could be done.
But there couldn't ever be a blanket legalization of feel-goods because in many cases their harmful effects might not be known or fully evaluated. Plus new ones will arise and often.
OK you've lost me now, what do you mean by "go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects"? Are you suggesting this is how the state decides what drugs should be illegal? Because that's absolutely not how it works, most drug laws are due to political reasons and not based on evidence. I think that's what you mean by "wrongly evaluated"? That some of the safest drugs are illegal, and some of the most dangerous are legal? That's certainly true, stuff like weed and psychedelic mushrooms haven't killed anyone, but things like Fentanyl are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. Your idea of legalizing drugs one by one based on their harm profile isn't a terrible idea, far from it. However it still doesn't address the fact that users of drugs that are deemed "too dangerous" will still be criminalized, denying them help, and also that the production of said drugs would stay underground and be unregulated, causing more death and injury to users. Your last sentence demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the drug market works, people are not going to experiment with new untested drugs if there is already a legal option. A good example of this is the rise in "legal high" type drugs, which people only use because the best drugs are illegal. If MDMA, Cannabis, LSD, mushrooms etc. were legal, few people would experiment with lesser known drugs with barely any human experimentation.
As someone with personal experience of this legal high/research chemical market, I can tell you that it does self-regulate itself to a degree. And also that most deaths due to these newer drugs are due to unprofessional vendors mislabelling drugs, or naive users not being careful enough with dosages. A good example of this would be the incidents involving Bromo-Dragonfly or 25i-NBOMe (worth googling). The vast majority of deaths like these would have been avoided if LSD and mushrooms were legal. The vast majority of deaths due to opiates like Heroin are due to impurities and incorrect dosages. By keeping it illegal, these deaths are not being addressed and will continue. From a harm-reduction perspective, it makes sense to legalise them and allow users to access pure product of a known dosage from a controlled laboratory. Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean that every schoolkid is going to start mainlining Heroin. A proper education programme would address things like this, show schoolkids the real evidence of how dangerous certain drugs are, explain the risks of different types of drugs. Tell them that ALL drugs can be dangerous, but if you really want to take them, stick to the safer ones and be careful how you take them. Regardless of whether we agree on all points, you show evidence of a serious depth of knowledge on the subject and should take the time to explain it further. I highlighted a section above, which falls into the category "I'm not so sure about that..." Drugs seem to come in as fads, in the popular market. Given that, I don't think users are inclined to do any more than listen to their excited peers when popping a pill. And they are not capable of judging side effects or risk, in almost all cases. In an atmosphere of legalization, would the users be receptive - more receptive - to discussions about risk and side effects from "old people?" Well, you gotta see heroin addicts with their teeth rotten, and then falling out, to comprehend how disgusting it is... The legal high market is a very interesting subject, and one which is especially pertinent right now as the UK government is about to bring in blanket ban legislation concerning it, called the "Psychoactive Substances Bill. It's a very badly thought out law, and is a great example of why banning things and criminalizing the market isn't always the best option. Here's an opinion piece from the most recent issue of New Scientist if you wanna learn more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2074813-youre-not-hallucinating-mps-really-did-pass-crazy-bad-drug-law/The legal high market really took off in the UK after a drug called mephedrone or 4-MMC became popular. Mephedrone has an effect profile similar to MDMA and amphetamines, and became the party drug of choice for many people, because it was cheap and easy to obtain. Its release also coincided with a drought of MDMA in the UK and Europe (which resulted in high prices and low quality product). It quickly became incredibly popular, the Daily Mail et al heard about it and before long it was banned, and it's been a cat and mouse game ever since: The government bans a drug, then some chemist makes a new drug which bypasses the law, rinse and repeat. This is the reason for the new legislation. If MDMA was legal, there would be no incentive for chemists to design novel recreational drugs which circumvent legislation. The vast majority of users of classic drugs like MDMA, LSD and amphetamines are weekend users who like to party every now and again, they do not come under the media stereotype of a drug addict. If they had a choice between a new, untested drug or the classics that have been used for 30 years plus, the vast majority would pick the classics - no-one wants to die, they just wanna have a good time. Of course there's always been a small segment of drug users/chemists who enjoy experimenting with obscure and novel drugs, out of curiosity. For example people like Alexander "Sasha" Shulgin, who "rediscovered" MDMA and synthesized hundreds of novel psychedelic substances in his laboratory. Sorry, I've started babbling, my point is the novel drug market is a direct result of drug legislation, if the shit was legal in the first place, the legal high market would never have taken off, and most of these new drugs wouldn't exist/be available to consumers. You make some very good points about drug "fads" and people maybe not listening to advice. In my experience, the drug education was terrible in school. Things like "Just Say No!" and "This is your brain on drugs!" are the sort of things I'm talking about, totally bullshit education which is basically lies. By telling kids to not take ANY drugs, because they're ALL gonna kill you, is really stupid. Because when kids realize that some drugs are pretty safe, they think "well they lied about that, so they probably lied about the others", and then they take 10 MDMA pills at once and die. To answer your question, I think kids would be more receptive to drug education if they believed what they were being told, and if it was based on evidence rather than scaremongering. Of course there will always be that one kid who ignores all the advice, but I sincerely believe better education would result in less harm. Regarding heroin addicts, I realize this is a big problem, especially in some areas. Don't forget though, that for every homeless, toothless addict you see on the street, there is another functional one that goes to work every day and pays a mortgage. It's not what the media would have you believe, but they do exist, you just don't notice them. Addiction is a common occurence, and has a lot to do with situation as well as substance. There is an excellent TED talk about this, it's really worth watching if you've got 15mins to spare: https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_everything_you_think_you_know_about_addiction_is_wrong?language=en |
|
|
|
Yeah, well, unfortunately....when you go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects, you wind up exactly where we are now. Except that we'd like to argue that certain drugs have been WRONGLY EVALUATED to have extremely harmful effects, so harmful that they should be criminalized.
I believe that one by one, those sanctions can be lifted. Specific drugs, whose effects are well understood, one at a time. That would solve 80-90 of the problem which might be as good as could be done.
But there couldn't ever be a blanket legalization of feel-goods because in many cases their harmful effects might not be known or fully evaluated. Plus new ones will arise and often.
OK you've lost me now, what do you mean by "go down this road of estimating and validating harmful effects"? Are you suggesting this is how the state decides what drugs should be illegal? Because that's absolutely not how it works, most drug laws are due to political reasons and not based on evidence. I think that's what you mean by "wrongly evaluated"? That some of the safest drugs are illegal, and some of the most dangerous are legal? That's certainly true, stuff like weed and psychedelic mushrooms haven't killed anyone, but things like Fentanyl are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. Your idea of legalizing drugs one by one based on their harm profile isn't a terrible idea, far from it. However it still doesn't address the fact that users of drugs that are deemed "too dangerous" will still be criminalized, denying them help, and also that the production of said drugs would stay underground and be unregulated, causing more death and injury to users. Your last sentence demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the drug market works, people are not going to experiment with new untested drugs if there is already a legal option. A good example of this is the rise in "legal high" type drugs, which people only use because the best drugs are illegal. If MDMA, Cannabis, LSD, mushrooms etc. were legal, few people would experiment with lesser known drugs with barely any human experimentation. As someone with personal experience of this legal high/research chemical market, I can tell you that it does self-regulate itself to a degree. And also that most deaths due to these newer drugs are due to unprofessional vendors mislabelling drugs, or naive users not being careful enough with dosages. A good example of this would be the incidents involving Bromo-Dragonfly or 25i-NBOMe (worth googling). The vast majority of deaths like these would have been avoided if LSD and mushrooms were legal. The vast majority of deaths due to opiates like Heroin are due to impurities and incorrect dosages. By keeping it illegal, these deaths are not being addressed and will continue. From a harm-reduction perspective, it makes sense to legalise them and allow users to access pure product of a known dosage from a controlled laboratory. Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean that every schoolkid is going to start mainlining Heroin. A proper education programme would address things like this, show schoolkids the real evidence of how dangerous certain drugs are, explain the risks of different types of drugs. Tell them that ALL drugs can be dangerous, but if you really want to take them, stick to the safer ones and be careful how you take them. |
|
|
|
Once again, you are all ignoring the best solution for this. We should make all sorts of drugs legal. That will reduce the crime rate and gradually the drug consumption rates will also come down. Countries such as Uruguay and Portugal have legalized drugs, and they have witnessed sharp drop in deaths due to drug overdose.
I'm not ignoring that at all, and I agree that drugs should be made legal. It's an unholy shitfuck of a mess that criminalization has created, and any "war" on drugs is a joke. But for those who get addicted--and there are going to always be plenty of them, legalization isn't exactly helping them nor is legalization a cure. And I do have sympathy for addicts, with limits. Some people are born predisposed to addiction, some are not. Bit of an oversimplification, though, to assert that "all drugs" should be made legal. Legal can be thought of as produced by legitimate businesses with quality control in place, then sold at some type of legitimate store or outlet at prices comparable to street prices (otherwise people buy on the street.) It's easy to say this regarding the marihuana issues. I would likely allow legalization of at least some hallucinogenics. LSD, cactus. There's certainly a long track record with these and some understanding of them. What about opiates? All? Some? Why? What about meth? Now what about cocaine and crack? The problem is, by keeping drugs illegal you turn users into criminals, and therefore if they get caught, they go to prison rather than getting help. This setup also actively stops users seeking help (because they are afraid of punishment). I understand your point of view, where you think the more benign drugs like weed and psychedelics should be legalized. But I think all drugs should be legalized. I don't agree with any law which punishes victimless crime, I think as conscious human beings we should have control over what we decide to put in our own bodies without fear of state punishment. The key is education - if everyone was properly educated about the dangers of certain drugs then I believe there would be far less people with drug problems. actually I don't think you believe exactly what you said, bolded above. Suppose there is a cancer drug that kills 1/4 of those who take it. Should it be legalized? Should the entire FDA approval process be discarded? Are you trying to say "all drugs that might make me feel good should be legalized?" Look you're right, I was talking mainly about illegal recreational and therepeutic drugs, but I never said abolish any approval procedures or regulation on drugs. That's a different argument entirely. If anything, I would encourage regulation of illegal drugs because it would prevent countless deaths due to purity levels, dangerous impurities, or one drug being sold as another. Not to mention taking the drug trade out of the hands of ruthless criminal gangs (who not only murder 10s of thousands of people a year, but also use the drug money to fund other lovely side businesses such as human trafficking), and into high quality controlled laboratories. Your example of a cancer drug that kill 1/4 of it's users isn't really what we're talking about here, but I'll give my take on it anyway: First off, it would be subject to multiple trials and research before being allowed for use, and if it killed 25% of users in human trials then it's pretty unlikely it would ever be released. Even if it happened to have pleasurable psychoactive effects, and it was synthesised by some underground chemist, then it would be a ridiculous business strategy to sell it as a recreational drug due to its 25% death rate. Basically that whole point is moot. |
|
|
|
On topic, no of course Sharia Law (or what most people believe SHaria law is) shouldn't be imposed anywhere in the USA (or anywhere else for that matter). Any law based solely on religious texts is dangerous to civilization. But, there's no reason to inherently deny certain parts of Islamic law if they are acceptable under the current laws of a state. One example of this would be Islamic financial laws, whereby interest is not allowed. For example, if someone wants to write up a loan with zero interest, based on Sharia law, then there's no reason why they shouldn't, as long as they are acceptable under state law. There's also a lot of confusion over what exactly Sharia law is. From https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law: There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws that can be called Sharia. It is more like a system of several laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.
Islamic shariah is not implemented in any country of the world, most Muslim countries have their own laws & chosen only few of laws from Islamic shariah. The Shakira law is spreading like cancer. In some of the Muslim majority European cities such as Brussels, Oldham and Burnley, the local laws are no longer in force. On the other hand, the Shakira law is having the ultimate authority. That said, I don't think that it will be easy to impose it in the United States. The Muslim population is quite low there, unlike that in Europe.
You're fucking talking bollocks again Bryant. Local laws are certainly in force in these cities. Are you implying that theives are getting their hands cut off in Brussels, or people are being beheaded in Oldham for adultery? You got any sources for this dangerous nonsense you keep spouting? There may be specific laws that are allowed (such as the zero interest law I mentioned earlier), but they're not being imposed on everyone in the city because that would be against state law. |
|
|
|
The key is education - if everyone was properly educated about the dangers of certain drugs then I believe there would be far less people with drug problems.
I agree with the principle but the evidence of what happens to you if you overdo your 'shit' is painfully visible all across the planet. Some people are hard wired to get fucked up no matter how much they're informed. And almost everyone suffers from 'it won't be me' syndrome. Yeah you're right, but at least with the proper education people will do things like weigh and test their drugs properly, and maybe stick to less dangerous and less addictive drugs. I certainly don't think throwing people in prison will solve anything. |
|
|
|
Jesus fucking wept, so a shit rapper thinks the same thing as you, is this relevant in any way to the debate? It's also pretty weird that he uses a sample of NdGT... so is this like a diss track or something? Again, seeing as you're the self-proclaimed expert on Flat Earth physics, explain to me how gravity works. Or if you think gravity is a "scam", explain why. Self-proclaimed hah, looks like you're the one making this proclamation. You demand a complete and definitive explanation for gravity yet physicists themselves admit they don't even understand its cause. example: "Everything is a source of gravity, for reasons that we ultimately do not understand." -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/QA/listing.php?id=195I postulate that the forces attributed to the magical action of gravity can be explained by more conventional forces like density and more but asking for complete theorem with proofs from a lonely basement dwelling neckbeard furiously mashing his keyboard at all hours of the night is like trying to get blood from a stone.  OK, maybe you misunderstood (to be fair the question wasn't well stated by myself). No, I don't want a complete explanation for gravity. I just want to know why gravity acts in the same way all over the Earth, i.e. why does everything fall straight down anywhere on the planet. You disagree with the "perpetual upward acceleration" idea, and you also seem to disagree with the popular theory of gravity (because this simply would not work on a flat earth - on a flat earth, as you move towards the rim, gravity would stop acting straight down and would begin to pull objects sideways). Earlier you said you knew the answer and would explain it after I explained why a helium balloon acts as it does. the joint answered your question more than satisfactorily, so now you should simply answer the original question, no more sidestepping. Or if you can't answer, you should admit that maybe the flat earth theory you are so convinced of has a serious flaw, and therefore isn't "confirmed" in the slightest. Density is not a force btw, it's just mass/volume. gravity is a concept, the only proof it exists are the fact the very dense items fall to the ground a lot quicker than low density items, if this is your only argument i suggest you go back to school, maybe a jewish school, as those guys dont get taught the same tripe us so called normal people get taught.... look at your own school report card "pupil is really grasping this CONCEPT" yet you chose to take those concepts as fact, i myself have gave plenty of evidence for flat earth, and also produced working scale model, funny how when asked for working scale models of sphere or even hollow earth you all ignore me, and jump on the next "perceived" weak mind.... show us some working scale models or accept the earth is flat, either way works for me, not interested in theory im a court or treat me like a court, hearsay and conjecture aint work shit, physical evidence please.... waits patiently, as there is no physical evidence supporting sphere or hollow earth .......................... So that's a long way of saying "OK fair enough I don't have a fucking clue why gravity acts like it does!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjZuGas6yRQ |
|
|
|
Once again, you are all ignoring the best solution for this. We should make all sorts of drugs legal. That will reduce the crime rate and gradually the drug consumption rates will also come down. Countries such as Uruguay and Portugal have legalized drugs, and they have witnessed sharp drop in deaths due to drug overdose.
I'm not ignoring that at all, and I agree that drugs should be made legal. It's an unholy shitfuck of a mess that criminalization has created, and any "war" on drugs is a joke. But for those who get addicted--and there are going to always be plenty of them, legalization isn't exactly helping them nor is legalization a cure. And I do have sympathy for addicts, with limits. Some people are born predisposed to addiction, some are not. Bit of an oversimplification, though, to assert that "all drugs" should be made legal. Legal can be thought of as produced by legitimate businesses with quality control in place, then sold at some type of legitimate store or outlet at prices comparable to street prices (otherwise people buy on the street.) It's easy to say this regarding the marihuana issues. I would likely allow legalization of at least some hallucinogenics. LSD, cactus. There's certainly a long track record with these and some understanding of them. What about opiates? All? Some? Why? What about meth? Now what about cocaine and crack? The problem is, by keeping drugs illegal you turn users into criminals, and therefore if they get caught, they go to prison rather than getting help. This setup also actively stops users seeking help (because they are afraid of punishment). I understand your point of view, where you think the more benign drugs like weed and psychedelics should be legalized. But I think all drugs should be legalized. I don't agree with any law which punishes victimless crime, I think as conscious human beings we should have control over what we decide to put in our own bodies without fear of state punishment. The key is education - if everyone was properly educated about the dangers of certain drugs then I believe there would be far less people with drug problems. |
|
|
|
Jesus fucking wept, so a shit rapper thinks the same thing as you, is this relevant in any way to the debate? It's also pretty weird that he uses a sample of NdGT... so is this like a diss track or something? Again, seeing as you're the self-proclaimed expert on Flat Earth physics, explain to me how gravity works. Or if you think gravity is a "scam", explain why. Self-proclaimed hah, looks like you're the one making this proclamation. You demand a complete and definitive explanation for gravity yet physicists themselves admit they don't even understand its cause. example: "Everything is a source of gravity, for reasons that we ultimately do not understand." -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/QA/listing.php?id=195I postulate that the forces attributed to the magical action of gravity can be explained by more conventional forces like density and more but asking for complete theorem with proofs from a lonely basement dwelling neckbeard furiously mashing his keyboard at all hours of the night is like trying to get blood from a stone. OK, maybe you misunderstood (to be fair the question wasn't well stated by myself). No, I don't want a complete explanation for gravity. I just want to know why gravity acts in the same way all over the Earth, i.e. why does everything fall straight down anywhere on the planet. You disagree with the "perpetual upward acceleration" idea, and you also seem to disagree with the popular theory of gravity (because this simply would not work on a flat earth - on a flat earth, as you move towards the rim, gravity would stop acting straight down and would begin to pull objects sideways). Earlier you said you knew the answer and would explain it after I explained why a helium balloon acts as it does. the joint answered your question more than satisfactorily, so now you should simply answer the original question, no more sidestepping. Or if you can't answer, you should admit that maybe the flat earth theory you are so convinced of has a serious flaw, and therefore isn't "confirmed" in the slightest. Density is not a force btw, it's just mass/volume. |
|
|
|
Any wonder? Perhaps now Americans will come to learn there is a difference between socialism and communism.
I had a discussion about this with someone the other day, they had exactly this misconception, but I wasn't 100% sure what the difference is. As far as I can tell, the way Marx talked about it anyway, is that socialism is a logical step towards communism, but not the same thing. Socialism involves the sharing of economic resources fairly between the population, whereas communism includes this, but also involves breaking down the class system itself. With communism, the workers actually own everything, and are paid based on their need rather than the work they've done. But with socialism, they are instead paid based on the work they've done, and the state owns everything. Am I thinking along the right lines? I find it a little complicated if I'm honest... |
|
|
|
Haha, saw this the other day, I love how the guy is just constantly cracking up throughout: "Her tits are like RIGHT HERE DUDE" |
|
|
|
My Mind   Hah, Scanners! I'm surprised that this thread isn't filled with Americans showing off their guns, shows how much the user base on this forum has changed in the last few years... Not that that's good or bad, just interesting. |
|
|
|
narcos and mr.robot
Same for me. Actually I have just finished Narcos and it was quite good. I don't like the direction Mr. Robot is heading, maybe I will drop it. Yeah it got weird and a lot of people gave up on it. Mr Robot is well worth watching to the end, there are some twists and then stuff makes more sense. Anyone who likes Breaking Bad should check out Better Call Saul - it's not as action-packed as BB but has amazing writing and acting. As someone mentioned Rick & Morty is brilliant, excellent animation with some deep characters and really inventive,original writing. I recently watched Ash vs Evil Dead and that's great fun, if you're a fan of the Evil Dead films or slasher comedy horror you will love it. Other honourable mentions: Fargo - Cleverly written, atmospheric and gory - "Big crime in a small town" True Detective - Dark crime drama with beautiful cinematography (Season 1 is epic, give season 2 a miss IMO) The Knick - Gritty hospital drama set 100 years ago Attack on Titan - Gnarly anime series about giants that attack and eat humans for no apparent reason Death Note - Another gnarly anime series about a kid who discovers a notebook; anyone's name he writes in the book dies shortly afterwards... |
|
|
|
Jesus fucking wept, so a shit rapper thinks the same thing as you, is this relevant in any way to the debate? It's also pretty weird that he uses a sample of NdGT... so is this like a diss track or something? Again, seeing as you're the self-proclaimed expert on Flat Earth physics, explain to me how gravity works. Or if you think gravity is a "scam", explain why. |
|
|
|
|
Fact is, if the moon landings were faked, then that means that the whole Space Race and the Cold War were both elaborate hoaxes. And that means in turn, that every aggressive action by both the USA and Russia against each other was also a hoax. The shit just gets exponentially more unlikely with every logical step, to the point that it becomes utterly ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
