Aerik

- friends
39,735 link karma
22,893 comment karma
send messageredditor for
what's this?

TROPHY CASE


  • Five-Year Club

    Verified Email

I'm sure this has been posted before, but I thought r/freethought would enjoy. by millybartinin Freethought

[–]Aerik 0 points1 point ago

You're completely right! I also have seen it more than enough times (a couple times even back to back), and he definitely doesn't say anything after "tricker," in the movie.

I'm sure this has been posted before, but I thought r/freethought would enjoy. by millybartinin Freethought

[–]Aerik 0 points1 point ago

I dunno, I think the thought of the quote is fine enough. It draws a line between having a hypothesis and having a tenet of doctrine. I just don't think we should train ourselves to associate it with chris rock. Just saying "rufus in Dogma" would've been enough.

Also I don't think the quote is even accurate. I've seen the movie plenty of times. I'm pretty sure he skips right from "tricker..." to " People die for it, people kill for it. The whole of existence is in jeopardy right now, because of the Catholic belief structure, regarding this plenary indulgence bullshit. Bartlteby and Loki, whether they know it or not, are exploiting that belief. And if they're successful, you and me, all of this, ends in a heartbeat. All over a belief. "

That latter part in the image macro wasn't in the movie. Maybe it's even in former editings of the script, maybe somebody has a DVD with a deleted scene where he says it all, but it was definitely edited out when we all saw it and bought the DVD. Maybe people reported it for that, thinking the quote is erroneous. Only Trioate actually said the quote is wrong (and apology upvotes are due, imo). But it got 2 reports, so I hesitate to conclude that the reports were for valid reasons.

Think Like a CHRISTIAN Man by Negro_Napoleonin BlackAtheism

[–]Aerik 1 point2 points ago

living together causes divorce, eh?

More like living together is highly correlated with getting married.

By that logic, nothing predicts divorce like getting married. 50% of all marriages in the US end up in divorce. Therefore, there is nothing more dangerous to marriage... than people getting married.

Barry Obama by [deleted]in Libertarian

[–]Aerik 2 points3 points ago

once again you guys are racist and fucking stupid.

Most non-conservatives are furious with Obama for doing that shit. you are the ones making a racial thing out of it. A racist thing, even.

"The failed manhood of white knights" - upvoted the AVFM for some anti-male shaming tactics. Just sad, r/MR by Aerikin againstmensrights

[–]Aerik[S] 4 points5 points ago

Actually they think that any time you defend a woman against any kind of harm, it's white knighting. They actually insist that men only defend women to get into their pants. Because of this, it is MRAs themselves who are insisting on strict gender roles, believing men are driven by sex above all else at all times.

So I get slut shaming is wrong, but what do you say or think about women who have multi kids from multi dads. by Collective82in AskFeminists

[–]Aerik 0 points1 point ago

Still just slut-shaming. Same shit, different day. That's pretty much all my reactions to your "questions." SSDD

What's more irresponsible? If it were one guy and they had multiple kids, vs if it were from multiple guys. So what?

It's only a 'predicament' in the sense that culturally men are trained to think love is conditional upon whether or not it's their own seed or not. That's a problem with those men, not the woman who birthed 'em.

"man commits suicide after girlfriend threatens to abort his child" - way to turn women's reproductive rights into terrorism against men, r/MR. In no way are you a hate hub, right? by Aerikin againstmensrights

[–]Aerik[S] 3 points4 points ago

You're a hub in the sense that you attract pure hatred and refuse to do anything that might actually repel it, instead choosing to allow these extreme bigots of doing the work of harassing/threatening your critics for you.

I'm sure this has been posted before, but I thought r/freethought would enjoy. by millybartinin Freethought

[–]Aerik[M] 5 points6 points ago

FYI, chris rock didn't write the script, so this is a bunch of crap

Edit: but not a reportable coil of poop. Come on people. The report button isn't a super downvote button.

Never really thought of it like that. by TomTheScouserin pics

[–]Aerik 2 points3 points ago

A better comic I've seen talked about the trope of telling depressed people to "get over it." It compared depression to having your hand cut off. It showed a guy with his hand cut off, still bleeding, being told in various situations how he's either making it up, the pain can't be that bad, and that he should just get over it. Finally he was shown just giving up on his couch, sighing, "I can't."

The point was, psychological illness and injury is much like physical injury. It takes time to heal. It really hurts. And you can't pretend it away. Maybe it will never heal. Leaving it alone makes it worse. Some treatments help, some don't. It's very real, and it does not make one a bad person.

Il128 to manboobz "Fuck you, Dave. I hope you get Liver cancer. " (+6/-4) keep it classy, r/MR by Aerikin againstmensrights

[–]Aerik[S] 4 points5 points ago

They have many policies they don't actually enforce in any way.

They have a policy against doxxing, yet they officially endorse sites that do, and still haven't banned users who have been caught doxxing or writing for those sites (agentorangemrm, jontheother, girlwriteswhat, avoiceformen, krazie316, barbarosssaa, etc)

Question about using the word rape when alcohol is involved. by Collective82in AskFeminists

[–]Aerik 1 point2 points ago

If you as a person are aware that another person is drunk, and you have sex with them, you are a rapist. No ifs, ands or buts. If you're capable of making that distinction, then you are not inebriated enough yourself to an extend that nullifies your ability to consent. Because of that, you are also held responsible for your decisions respecting the consent of others.

That is where the line is. Not "are you drunk or not" like the way it keeps getting disingenuously framed.

If you have the thought "well we're both drunk so it's ok" then you're obviously still self-aware enough that you are not beyond consenting yourself. Therefore, you are cognizant, and liable for what you do in respect to others' consent, lack of consent, or ability consent or lackthereof.

All you people just trying to cite the letter of the law: fucking bullshit. If we're going to have a real argument, a proposition and exposition of principles to come to a conclusion on a point of interest, then cowtowing to the law, is insufficient, it is unscrupulous and to dodge the issue. We are supposed to be talking about what defines rape as an actual thing, not on what some judiciary has considered it to be. A principle, not a convention.

view more: next