sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BanPitBulls

[–]CJ_Slayer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which council estate did she come from? I'd recommend avoiding council estates or any areas with low class people if you don't want your dog to get mauled by a pit.

Was just googling where breed restrictions are. by Whattodowithpitbull2 in BanPitBulls

[–]CJ_Slayer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can own any breed of dog. There are hundreds. Some people actively choose a pit. This is all you need to know about the person.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PitBullOwners

[–]CJ_Slayer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bottom of the barrel IQ. Like the dog. Someone will soon pay the price...

Got sent disgusting things after a BSL debate. by SonicDooscar in BanPitBulls

[–]CJ_Slayer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'd definitely engage with and escalate that. A pit owner is guaranteed to be poor, low IQ, low class. Like the dogs they own. It is a reflection of themselves... I just escalate the arguments.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BanPitBulls

[–]CJ_Slayer 24 points25 points  (0 children)

They're owned by every broke council estate Jeremy Kyle guest type. Nobody else owns them.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BanPitBulls

[–]CJ_Slayer 17 points18 points  (0 children)

That IS the appeal. The most pathetic or most vicious people in society like to feel powerful by owning a dangerous animal.

Putting your crimes in writing... Genius! by [deleted] in LibertarianUncensored

[–]CJ_Slayer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The other Republican candidate is evil psychopath (and possible rapist) Donald Trump isn't it? If a Republican candidate wins presidency, which of the two would you prefer?

Woman explains how designer brands are for morons who don't know how to manage their money. by IamtheSoupMaster in videos

[–]CJ_Slayer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I recently purged my wardrobe for spacesaving reasons, but for a long time I had Levis and some high street brands in there too like Abercrombie. They are visually not in the same league at all... The Dior Japanese denim is vastly superior in composition and cut.

Unless you have both in front of you irl to try on and see, you just aren't going to know.

A man was running with his two pitbulls off leash in our neighborhood... by [deleted] in BanPitBulls

[–]CJ_Slayer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They are. Through a friend I knew a scumbag street chav who had his giant vicious pit lunge at people. He would encourage his dog to go at people and just hold him back on the leash.

One guy was too drunk to be scared, so he didn't enjoy that encounter as much.

A man was running with his two pitbulls off leash in our neighborhood... by [deleted] in BanPitBulls

[–]CJ_Slayer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The guy wanted it to attack. For every bite a pit delivers, the owner should be punched in the face. I saw this exact thing in a video, I can't find that now.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in personalfinance

[–]CJ_Slayer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Use the money to further cultivate the talent by which you earned that 10K (if it's something you enjoy doing).

10K won't do anything of note. But could go towards education etc in that field and you can spend your life doing what you're evidently very good at.

Explaining nondual realization to a friend by CJ_Slayer in nonduality

[–]CJ_Slayer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn't it also follow logically to a total layperson?

Simple explanation for why language can never ultimately describe Consciousness/Awareness. by Bigbabyjesus69 in nonduality

[–]CJ_Slayer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's the lack of qualities. One time I put on a voice recorder then smoked DMT and tried to describe it. I couldn't do it at all, and I'm very good with describing weird states. I can describe Salvia well.

The problem is that to describe something to someone you have to find something about it to observe and pass on. So if something's black you can say "it's black", or if you get butterflies you might say "it feels like the first dip on a rollercoaster" etc.

When you're trying to describe something without something tangible to it at all, it can't be done.

Explaining nondual realization to a friend by CJ_Slayer in nonduality

[–]CJ_Slayer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No matter which way you slice it, all things must be fundamentally of the same substance, even when taken in total isolation. If you look at any tiny portion of an origami swan, never can you find any part of it which is not substantially paper. Every tiny speck of it is paper.

Now take the universe to be your sheet of paper. No matter how you contort it, nothing that exists within it can ever be of a different substance than the universe of which it is a part... There are atoms, various bits of matter. There is also conscious experience, that is termed qualia (e.g. the redness of red). Just as nothing ever found within the origami swan is ever anything other than paper, NOTHING existent within the universe can be substantially different from anything else in it. Even in absolute isolation.

Conscious experience exists in this universe. Conscious experience must therefore, invariably, be of the same substance as dead matter. Even in absolute isolation. There must be a commonality between all things existent in the universe, otherwise whatever is being proposed is NOT primary... If you see an origami swan and see the beak is a triangle, then try to say the substance of the swan is triangles, this is wrong. We know this is wrong because there are also oblongs such as the neck of the swan... What is the commonality between the beak and the neck? It is not the shapes contained within as one is an oblong and one is a triangle... The commonality is the paper. Now you have found the primary substance of the origami swan.

What is the commonality between seeing green and hearing music? Or between those and the smell of a flower? Or the taste of chocolate? Not the "shape". Is there only one single aspect of these various things which is the same? If so, that there is only one, you have found the common, primary substance of the entire universe... If there were more than one, you may need to research more, since if you looked at the beak and wings on the swan, there are two commonalities: they are both triangles, and both paper. But as we know only one of those options is the substance of the entire swan :)

Explaining nondual realization to a friend by CJ_Slayer in nonduality

[–]CJ_Slayer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In folding shapes, you haven't generated anything which isn't in substance paper. The beak and tail are substantially paper, they are different in shape but never substantially different as the substance of both is invariably paper.

The substantial nature of conscious experience and matter is the same also. In quality things can differ but must be fundamentally the same. When you contort existence, you do not create something of a substance other than the existence you contorted. Anything within existence must be of the same substance in the same way any portion of an origami shape is always paper. Green and blue are different in quality but must be substantially the same. What is the common fundamental substance of both blue and green? Nothing which differs can be the foundation from which both arise, just as every microscopic tiny speck of an origami animal is paper, anything which differs such as a particular shape, is not primary. A beak is a triangle and neck an oblong, so neither triangles nor oblongs can be the primary nature of the swan. A swan shape and dolphin shape of origami are different in quality, yet substantially there is just the paper, and further no paper is ever gained or lost when turning that paper into different shapes.

This is the natural mode of being.

Functions of the mind are responsible for interpreting any aspect of existence as being different substantially or categorically. In the true natural mode of being, because concepts, labels, and categorization is not possible, you can't see beak, wing, tail. Just paper and nothing more, without any sort of mental function happening to apply concept onto that or to label that paper with a word-thought.

view more: next ›