DescentBB

"If I gave you a bowl of skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?"

"Are the other skittles human lives?"

"What?"

"Like. Is there a good chance. A really good chance. I would be saving someone from a war zone and probably their life if I ate a skittle?"

"Well sure. But the point-"

"I would eat the skittles."

"Ok-well the point is-"

"I would GORGE myself on skittles. I would eat every single ★■◆●ing skittle I could find. I would STUFF myself with skittles. And when I found the poison skittle and died I would make sure to leave behind a legacy of children and of friends who also ate skittle after skittle until there were no skittles to be eaten. And each person who found the poison skittle we would weep for. We would weep for their loss, for their sacrifice, and for the fact that they did not let themselves succumb to fear but made the world a better place by eating skittles.

Because your REAL question...the one you hid behind a shitty little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor is, IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND TERRIFIED CHILDREN...

... and what kind of monster would think the answer to that question... is yes?"

"No, I wouldn't. I would find the ★■◆● who poisoned them and make him eat skittles."

callmeslick wrote:"If I gave you a bowl of skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?"

"Are the other skittles human lives?"

"What?"

"Like. Is there a good chance. A really good chance. I would be saving someone from a war zone and probably their life if I ate a skittle?"

"Well sure. But the point-"

"I would eat the skittles."

"Ok-well the point is-"

"I would GORGE myself on skittles. I would eat every single ★■◆●ing skittle I could find. I would STUFF myself with skittles. And when I found the poison skittle and died I would make sure to leave behind a legacy of children and of friends who also ate skittle after skittle until there were no skittles to be eaten. And each person who found the poison skittle we would weep for. We would weep for their loss, for their sacrifice, and for the fact that they did not let themselves succumb to fear but made the world a better place by eating skittles.

Because your REAL question...the one you hid behind a shitty little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor is, IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND TERRIFIED CHILDREN...

... and what kind of monster would think the answer to that question... is yes?"

Hurry up and eat the poisoned skittle so Darwinism can take it's due.

wow, nice lack of human empathy so far.

That's just how some people react to dumb questions, ask one and you get what you deserve...also applies to loaded questions.

which, Spidey, is why I put forth a proposition and asked no questions of anyone. Stupidity revealed in the answers(I'd argue reveals of lack of heart and a lot of bogus bravado)has to stand on its own merits.

Guess woody, grendel and Spidey didn't recognizethe self-sacrifice message.

Are slick and I the only ones to recognize where this ★■◆●ing came from?

I guess I missed the out of thread context...

If the questions is simply "If I gave you a bowl of skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?" - then I'd answer no... but then what does that have to do with E&C?

Well, I guess this is just a perfect example of what can happen when the OP leaves out context.

To me it just looked like someone asking a stupid question, and getting a stupid answer, just like my mother said all those years ago.

“ask a silly question…get a silly answer”

At least give some kind of clue….

Why not just test the skittles to see which ones are poison, throw those ones out, and enjoy regular non-poisoned skittles?

No spidey. There's enough content in the OP to see what they're talking about.

MD-1118 wrote:Why not just test the skittles to see which ones are poison, throw those ones out, and enjoy regular non-poisoned skittles?

Look at it this way. If there were thirty thousand skittles to test, would you have the time to test each and every one? Or would you figure out a way to do it faster?

Yea, there is plenty of “content” in the OP, but it lacks the “context” to realize it was a Trump tweet.

Not all of us give a ★■◆● what Trump is tweeting, or even use that lame crap.

Ferno wrote:Look at it this way. If there were thirty thousand skittles to test, would you have the time to test each and every one? Or would you figure out a way to do it faster?

I don't know anyone who would, let alone could, eat thirty thousand skittles all at once, so... why not just test the ones you intend to eat (maybe a couple dozen at a time, tops?) and throw out the bad ones as you come across them?

I'm assuming this is supposed to be a metaphor for immigrants or something, in which case I say "people aren't skittles, and I hope to god you aren't eating the immigrants."

Say, MD....

You're a "millennial," right?

The Clinton campaign made this video just for you! http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23280

You'll want to vote for her now, right?

I'm pretty sure you would die from eating 30,000 skittles at once even if three of them weren't poisoned.

Nightshade wrote:Say, MD....

You're a "millennial," right?

The Clinton campaign made this video just for you! http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23280

You'll want to vote for her now, right?

If pressed for an answer, I consider myself the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Trail_Generation

Labels are just labels, though. What really matters is that I was born in the best decade. As for the video, no, it doesn't make me want to vote for Hillary. They are, after all, paid actors.

Krom wrote:I'm pretty sure you would die from eating 30,000 skittles at once even if three of them weren't poisoned.

Exactly.

MD-1118 wrote:

Ferno wrote:Look at it this way. If there were thirty thousand skittles to test, would you have the time to test each and every one? Or would you figure out a way to do it faster?

I don't know anyone who would, let alone could, eat thirty thousand skittles all at once, so... why not just test the ones you intend to eat (maybe a couple dozen at a time, tops?) and throw out the bad ones as you come across them?

I'm assuming this is supposed to be a metaphor for immigrants or something, in which case I say "people aren't skittles, and I hope to god you aren't eating the immigrants."

I never said anything about eating.

it's supposed to be analogy -- a really poor one at that. This stems from Trump Jr's twitter image asking everyone if they would eat a bowl full of skittles even if three are poisoned; which is of course referring to immigrants. Dumbest thing I ever saw, and of course it draws from the 'poisoned mushroom' analogy.

Ferno wrote:I never said anything about eating.

it's supposed to be analogy -- a really poor one at that. This stems from Trump Jr's twitter image asking everyone if they would eat a bowl full of skittles even if three are poisoned; which is of course referring to immigrants. Dumbest thing I ever saw, and of course it draws from the 'poisoned mushroom' analogy.

Yeah, I was just taking the analogy to the logical extreme. Makes it easier to see how ridiculous it is.

I would have used the term 'pants-on-head retarded', but that works too.

For those who are still confused or in doubt...

Sorry slick, this is our problem:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government has mistakenly granted citizenship to at least 858 immigrants from countries of concern to national security or with high rates of immigration fraud who had pending deportation orders, according to an internal Homeland Security audit released Monday.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/19/us ... tizenship/

Nobody dies from eating chicken.

People die from choking on the bones…(or the flesh)
People die from eating too much chicken…
And even though people can be allergic to chicken, very few people die from it.

Let’s make America fact based again……what a ★■◆●ing joke.

Nobody dies from eating chicken, you say.

You just agreed with it.

Spidey wrote:People die from choking on the bones…(or the flesh)
People die from eating too much chicken…
And even though people can be allergic to chicken....

I don't understand how this is not eating chicken. How do the bones get in your throat? How do you have a fatal allergic reaction to chicken if it doesn't enter your bloodstream? Can you absorb enough chicken through your skin for a fatal reaction? How is eating too much chicken not eating chicken? So many questions here...

And yes…just as you fail to understand how “water freezes at 0 degrees” is lacking enough parameters to make it a fact, I wouldn’t expect you to understand the reasoning here.

Spidey wrote:“water freezes at 0 degrees” is lacking enough parameters to make it a fact...

What in gods name are you talking about?

Does anyone understand him? He has this habit of dropping snarky one-liners from left field.

Well I can’t really help it if you have memory problems and can’t remember the reference.

I only raised it because my attempts to explain what constitutes an actual fact failed then, as to render another explanation a waste of my time.

I seem to remember some thread that ended up requiring the good old phase diagram of water, showing that you can have solid ice into the multiple hundreds of degrees Celsius assuming the water is under sufficient pressure. But that is all I remember, the rest was the usual mindless drivel.

Well the point I was trying to make is…if you can’t explain the difference between absolute facts and relative truths to someone, then surely you would fail trying to explain the difference between eating chicken and choking on it.

Spidey wrote:And yes…just as you fail to understand how “water freezes at 0 degrees” is lacking enough parameters to make it a fact, I wouldn’t expect you to understand the reasoning here.

You're right. We can't understand reasoning that's completely backwards.

Spidey wrote:Nobody dies from eating chicken.

People die from choking on the bones…(or the flesh) caused by putting the chicken in your mouth, chewing, then swallowing. otherwise known as eating
People die from eating too much chicken…caused by eating.
And even though people can be allergic to chicken caused by eating

I have to wonder... are you four years old? I just don't understand how someone who went through school, and possibly college would make such an imbecilic assertion.

LOL

Eating chicken is when it goes down the esophagus.
Choking is when it goes down the wind pipe.

Spidey wrote:LOL

Eating chicken is when it goes down the esophagus.
Choking is when it goes down the wind pipe.

you talk as if there are two different entrances.

Eating is defined as chewing and swallowing food.

“Swallowing, sometimes called deglutition in scientific contexts, is the process in the human or animal body that makes something pass from the mouth, to the pharynx, and into the esophagus, while shutting the epiglottis. Swallowing is an important part of eating and drinking. If the process fails and the material (such as food, drink, or medicine) goes through the trachea, then choking or pulmonary aspiration can occur. In the human body the automatic temporary closing of the epiglottis is controlled by the swallowing reflex.”

When you fail to swallow, you fail to eat.

I'm aware of the definition. Hiding behind the definition of a word does not absolve you of your semantics.

Even your own definition shows that swallowing has completed as soon as food arrives at the point between the pharynx and the esophagus.

I did pay attention in biology.

Now.. are you going to continue down this indefensible path, or would you like to get back to the original topic?

"I never inhaled"

vision wrote:"I never inhaled"

That's a legitimate distinction to make though, as any smoker worth his salt (and some that aren't) can tell you; the distinction being which type of cancer you're more likely to contract.

The simple act of eating the chicken in and of itself isn't what kills. It's the consequences that follow (generally over time - obesity, cholesterol/plaque buildup, etc.) that do. I think that was the point Spidey was making.

But it doesn't change the point that more Americans die as a direct consequence of consuming chicken than from allowing Syrian refugees into the country.

Krom wrote:But it doesn't change the point that more Americans die as a direct consequence of consuming chicken than from allowing Syrian refugees into the country.

True, but as I said I think his qualm was more with the 'fact' that chicken is deadly to eat than the idea that it's generally worse than Syrian refugees. I could be wrong, of course, but that's just, like, my opinion, man. He'll probably clarify at some point anyway.

Both of your posts are correct, but I was going to give Ferno the last word because having a debate with him is like being on a bad acid trip.

I just enjoyed the irony of the meme that touted facts while not being exactly factually correct itself. I understand people get the basic message, and I was just busting on a technicality.

This bad acid trip has one more thing to say.

What you call a technicality is really hard biological definitions.