I have no words:
Is Mr. Sookdeo trolling here? Over on Bronysay, where I found this, someone claiming to know him says he was serious, just a bit “confused.” The questions seem sincere to me. Ugh.
We Hunted The MammothBucking the Backlash
We Hunted The MammothI have no words:
Is Mr. Sookdeo trolling here? Over on Bronysay, where I found this, someone claiming to know him says he was serious, just a bit “confused.” The questions seem sincere to me. Ugh.
I once saw someone asking what was wrong with child porn, apparently seriously.
Under intensive cross-examination, it turned out that his ideas of what constituted “child porn” amounted essentially to family snapshots of naked children. In fact, I suspect his notion of adult porn was essentially Playboy.
But I don’t think he’ll be asking that question again. Let’s just say that people posted some rather graphic verbal descriptions of what he appeared to be defending, and leave it discreetly at that.
*fixes
wrongggg again! Anal sex is not an exclusive gay thing you know.* Plus care to say whats so wrong with being gay?
fuck off
*I know that you know it is not just a gay thing though. Your pathetic homophobia in attempt to troll has been noted.
The only rape joke I remember liking was Wanda Sykes’s “detachable pussy” routine. But that’s because she spoke from the woman’s POV and was never like “rape, yay!”
I have a feeling this guy know damn well rape is wrong, but he wants to get everyone talking about it because he gets off on it. Sick, but common. “So tell me in all kinds of details what about rape makes it wrong, hehehe.” Ugh.
Oh, and, I know it’s a troll and I shouldn’t feed it, but consensual pegging: STILL NOT RAPE. Uh, DUH. Non-consensual pegging would be rape because non-consensual ANYTHING (as it pertains to personal bodily integrity and respecting boundaries) is rape.
First Vindicare fails at thermodynamics, and now at understanding sexuality.
Any guess for what’s next?
The idea that women can enjoy rape is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard, Rape is sex against one’s will. If you will it, it’s not rape. Of course I’m speaking of adults.
Someone said he was “serious”??? Ok. I think this brony needs a trip to the glue and gelatin factory.
I’m reminded by The Most Helpful Advice You Can Ever Give Someone With Insomnia, Ever, which is of course “You just need to get some sleep!”
*headdesk**headdesk**headdesk* YES. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR GENIUS COOKIE NOW?
Or reminded OF said advice, even.
lauralot89, what about quantum mechanics? Schrodinger’s rapist? I’m working on a theory, that it’s advisable not to look back in the dark alley, your act of measurement might collapse the rapist’s wave function.
Yes, Vindicare, you’re very shocking. Sooo edgy.
Check this out: HITLER VAGINA POOP RAPE DEAD BABIES MORE POOP DOUBLE HITLER
I am literally the funniest person on the Internet right now
Fun fact: SHroedinger’s Cat was actually an attempt to make quantum mechanics seem ridiculous.
But why has Griffith’s book the cat on it’s cover?
Welp, that’s a quantum mechanics fail if I ever saw one. F. Vindicare, see me after class.
1. A person in an alley is not a quantum mechanical system.
2. A wave function is a meaningless description of a single system in the absence of an ensemble of states, because a wave function is the description of the probabilistic nature of microscopic discrete states.
3. Even if “being a rapist” were a quantum mechanical observable and there were a wave function associated with a person, the act of “looking at the person” would not actually constitute a measurement of whether they were a rapist. As such, no, it wouldn’t “collapse their wave function”. Simultaneous observables.
Don’t try to use physics for stupid trolling purposes. I saw your gross misunderstanding of thermodynamics earlier, too. If you want to sound smart, it helps to BE smart…
“First Vindicare fails at thermodynamics, and now at understanding sexuality.
Any guess for what’s next?”
Gravity, if he can’t follow well understood physics, he’s going to have serious issues figuring that one out.
And Vindicare, homophobia aside as that’s already been addressed, some straight men like getting their prostate involved.
“The only rape joke I remember liking was Wanda Sykes’s “detachable pussy” routine.” — lol, yes, that one is excellent.
A non-rape thought on “surprise sex” — surprise dear/already-a-sex-partner I’m in the mood, you? (ala, surprise, I made cookies, you want some? no? more for me then!)
Context fail as I just woke up — that last bit is meant in the context of having already been discussing it but getting something like “ehh, maybe later, I have homework” — where you’d already be expecting the “and I’m done with that, you still interested?”
Huh. Looks like QuantumSparkle has that name for a reason. 😉
See, Vindicare, the internet isn’t just a place for ignorant asshats.
Fundamental Principle of the Internet: BRONIES RUIN EVERYTHING.
I want to cross stitch this and hang it on my wall.
He doesn’t have an age listed on Facebook, but he seems to be a kid. That’s why he presumably doesn’t know shit.
DAMMIT boys this is why we can’t have nice things.
… take it Rainbow Dash
QuantumSparkle:
So what exactly was my mistake in thermodynamics?
Ergh. Blockquote fail. My web designer cred just took a nosedive.
@QuantumSparkle: You don’t know anything about the real quantum mechanics, you still cling to the old world view of Newton’s rape manual.
So, QuantumSparkle – I can assure you, you really try my patience – explain to me why a macroscopic object isn’t a quantum mechanical system, mmh? If one hydrogen atom is a quantum mechanical system (or do you deny that too?), then so are 10 or 10^23 of them.
And how can it be that you… patriarchal (?) wannabe physicists, make claims like “we can’t talk of an electron having spin up or spin down before we measured it” or “a particle can never have a determinate angular momentum” and suddenly when it comes to rapists you say “that’s not a quantum mechanical system!”… I’m sorry, but your thinking is heavily influenced by a binary world view based on the knight/slavering-beast dichotomy: fine to apply the terms “mixed” or “smeared” to the spin of electrons but when it comes to actual people… no, that would go to far.
And why should the wave function just be a description of discrete states? What an elementary mistake, QuantumSparkle! How embarrassing! Take the wave function of a free particle and measure it’s position… is that discrete? By no means, its continuous therefore you need an integral to calculate probabilities, same is true for momentum or many other physical quantities.