Jump to content

BehindTheMask

BehindTheMask

Member Since 02 Jun 2009
Member ID: 135,415
Currently Not online
Offline Last Active Sep 09 2017 04:31 PM
***--

#6736241 A true guardian

Posted by BehindTheMask on 23 October 2015 - 12:37 PM

I know most of you wont care...but I have a guardian angel.

 

 

I've always felt a certain presence, even when im alone. A calming aura that makes me feel safe and secure, no matter the situation. But I never had the proof that I had a someone watching out for me, until last night.

 

I was walking home from the gas station, having picked up a few snacks for the night. It was lightly raining, and it was getting hard to walk on the terrible roads. I made my way down the first street no problem, when I turned the corner, I was in for a surprise. Two men, about a half a foot taller than me stopped me. Asked me what was in the bag. I showed them the bag of m&ms, kit kats, and monster energy. They smacked it out of my hand. At this point, I knew I was in trouble. 

 

I backed up, saying that I wasnt looking for trouble, and that I'd like to get home. The one on my right said "Well bro you found trouble. They pushed me, and i stepped back more. I was getting a little nervous, but I still wasnt scared. The one on the right grabbed me, and wound up to punch me. The force of his punch was staggering. Bam. Bam. Bam. Three more punches, Three big step backs. I fell to the ground.

 

The other one picked me up and slugged me right in the face. I was dizzy and could barely focus...and thats when I saw a figure bathed in light right behind them. As the one on the left went to give me another taste of his fist, the figure made his way towards them. He grabbed both of them at the same time, and like a windmill, slammed them both to the ground. I got up and I stood in amazement. This angel...this divine protector was single handily fighting them both. With ease, he sent them running off into the night. I was amazed, dumbfounded, and in shock. I couldnt believe my eyes. 

 

This figure came up to me, still glowing, and said "its going to be okay." I nodded absentmindedly. I mustered up the courage to thank them, and asked how I could repay him. "Its nothing", his deep echoed. "When I was in the marines, i learned to stick up for the little guy. I hate seeing punks like them." I went to wipe my hands to shake his hand, but when i looked up he was gone. I looked in all directions, but he was no were to be seen. I could barely make out his face, but i will never forget it. I asked my local pastor about it, and he told me guardian angels everywhere. I described in detail what he looked like, and he was shook to the core.

 

He was feverish as he said "That is no angel, that is one of the most divine beings in all of creation....AND HIS NAME IS JOHN CENA

 

 

 




#6677126 League of Legends

Posted by BehindTheMask on 27 July 2015 - 10:09 PM

Relevant.

 

6DOtmdM.png

 

That's from my fb.  Just took it.

 

wtf? 2 Zeds?

 

n4oOTg7.jpg


  • Dad likes this


#6595325 League of Legends

Posted by BehindTheMask on 12 April 2015 - 08:02 AM

Team Liquid be like

 

11149336_10206291617307127_9117636819648


  • Dad likes this


#6593046 League of Legends

Posted by BehindTheMask on 08 April 2015 - 08:42 AM

Does nobody want to talk anymore? :C Welp, I've got some stuff to say, so here's a list of relevant things!

 

-URF login music is best login music

-Full AP URF Rammus

-UoL is absolutely fantastic

-RIP the CLG potential

-Gonna be a C9 vs TSM finals. Again.

-Bard is really fun, even if he is weird as hell

-Ludens URFcho

-Rush's Vi is best Vi

-My Vi is not best Vi

-The Urfvitational was incredible

-If Jesus played LoL, he'd main Soraka

 

 

C9 vs TSM isnt guaranteed. TiP is strong, and C9 is looking kinda weak. its actually pretty open. TL is gelling and can possibly take a game or two.


  • Dad likes this


#6578327 League of Legends

Posted by BehindTheMask on 11 March 2015 - 06:50 PM

 

 

Uhm, excuse me Aphromoo, could you NOT?  lmao

 

 

Did someone say...Aphromoo?

 


  • Dad likes this


#6577820 League of Legends

Posted by BehindTheMask on 10 March 2015 - 03:09 PM

tfw you steal dragon + get 2 kills with Tibbers on cast

 

Happened yesterday when i was playing support.


  • Dad likes this


#6558870 League of Legends

Posted by BehindTheMask on 01 February 2015 - 04:01 PM

C9 fans where u at? 

 

1-3 the dream

 

http://gfycat.com/An...lackwidowspider


  • Dad likes this


#6547475 "feminazi"

Posted by BehindTheMask on 09 January 2015 - 10:28 AM

Let's not. I really dislike this argument and don't see much validity to it. Don't compare two different things to explain why the other is wrong. I see your point, but you have to take things case-by-case. Not lump them all in one pot as the same idea. You're basically saying "Oh well we'd have to look at other things too so don't bother fixing this."

Again. I won't agree ever with the idea that it's okay to be against equality, simple as that.

 

You miss the point of what I wrote. I was making a comparison to show you that harm in and of itself is not a good enough basis to limit things. If harming others is always wrong, then we have an obligation to prevent as much harm as possible. These leads to ridiculous scenarios where we have to ban cars, and other useful things that help up. My point was for you to redefine what is necessary harm and what isn't.

 

The latter. "they" in this case refers to those who don't believe in equality.

And that argument is the one I see most. And it's ridiculously flawed. They are allowed free speech but free speech is NOT a pass to do whatever you like, as many people think it is.

It's not anti-equality. Only in the basic, most general idea of equality is it. It is not against equality to defend equality against people who do not want equality. Obviously if you want the equality movement to go anywhere you need to be against people who are against it. That's so obvious I don't even get why I have to defend it.

 

You are correct is saying it is not against equality to defend equality against anti-equality people. However, you there is a difference in defending equality, and then preventing people from expressing their view points. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean they don't have a right to say it.

 

Hold up, you're speaking on this as if it's something we currently have. This is a hypothetical scenario, this is not reality. 

 

You just labeled yourself as "a collection of my own ideas, thoughts, emotions etc." Perhaps your ideas, thoughts, emotions, etc aren't as exclusive to you as you might think. Words that help you define common idealogical ground are nothing to be afraid of. Whether you are a feminist or not depends on your answer to the yes or no question of "Do women deserve equal rights to men?" That's all feminism is at root base, one could be more specific by identifying their particular approach to feminism, but that's all that decides whether you're a feminist in general. I don't think it's dogma, but stigma, that you're speaking of. Stigma seems like the thing that this thread is really objecting to, not the word "feminazi" alone but the attitudes that come with it.

 

Fights for freedom doesn't always entail a mutual, open-ended and mature discussion. The problem of what to do when it gets to that point has been played out over and over and over again and has led to a whole lot of bloodshed. That hasn't stopped people from returning to that point and more blood being shed. Heart to hearts, when they work, are ideal. They are the best course of action for any disagreement. That is, when they work.

1) You're right.

2) In the most purest form, I am a feminist, but beyond that, I am unaware of any specifics of feminism.

3) They don't. I understand there is a lot of blood being shed, and it hurts. I encourage these open discussions because thats all I really can/want to do.

 

This is the last post I will make in reply to this line of argument.

You have to be against people who don't want equality in order to make equality work. That much is blatantly obvious. Logically and emotionally obvious.

And okay, and I said the same. You can say what you want sure. I'm against the people who are preventing equality. I've said that multiple times.

Hence why I am checking out of this, my point has been made.

 

You've been missing the point, no one is saying you are wrong about being pro-equality, or even disliking anti-equality people. However, you still must give them the same rights you would want for any other person. People have different world views, so although they may be anti-equality, in their mind they are justified in saying what they want. If you want to progress against anti-equality, you have to be able to understand their core beliefs and prove how they are wrong. People have cognitive dissonance, and the more firm they are in their believe, the strong they cling to it.




#6547294 "feminazi"

Posted by BehindTheMask on 08 January 2015 - 09:39 PM

I think the main problem lies when the "other side" is a side that's trying to cause harm to others. The "other side" of equality are people who don't want equality. Which is simply a harmful opinion. And not just harmful to a few people, but to everyone.

 

Sure you can have an opinion, but speaking out against something like equality, or fair treatment I still feel is wrong. There are certain things you just HAVE to limit when it comes to freedom of speech I think. And it's fairly clear in many cases what is spreading misinformation and hate. That's what my point is. Those instances need to be stopped.

 

Let's apply your logic to my car situation.

 

If cars are causing harm to people, and they are, just look at the number of injuries, car accidents, deaths by car, then don't we need to put an end to the harm caused by cars? Anyone who wants cars to continue to be used is wrong. Its not just harmful to motorists driving, but also pedestrians as well. its harmful to everyone. Ban cars, and no one can speak about this, because they are automatically wrong. No need for discussion, this is in your best interest.

 

Clearly this seems like a ludicrous argument. Harm in and of itself is not the end all, be all, decider of what limits free speech. There is more to it than just the black and white. There needs to be a distinction. What levels are harm are acceptable, which levels are not? Is lying okay? Is there ever a time where lying can be an option? I'm not going to answer these questions, because I dont know them myself. Its up to the person reading this to decide what the answers are, and to justify their thoughts with facts and evidence.




#6547275 Attack in Paris

Posted by BehindTheMask on 08 January 2015 - 09:05 PM

http://www.pri.org/s...lieve-it-or-not

 

(directed at OP - because they said that the world is becoming more violent)

 

Also, to the topic at hand:

 

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but by love. That is the eternal rule. We shouldnt be hating the Muslim people(or is it Islamic? I seriously have no clue, someone please fill me in(this is not sarcasm, i swear))). Their religion is not the problem. It is the terrorist groups who commit this hateful acts. If you want to be angry, be angry at those causing harm.




#6547274 "feminazi"

Posted by BehindTheMask on 08 January 2015 - 08:55 PM

 

"If we are all equal", then how could we not be equal? Either your words would be powerless, in which case your freedom of expression would be in vain, or your words would hold power and we would not be equal. Equality inherently involves the concession of certain freedoms that would compromise others' freedoms thus rendering them unequal. Eventually one has to pick a side.

 

 

 

The term "feminazi" as used in the context that Rapidfire is taking issue at certainly goes against equality and feminism, with or without scare quotes. I hold that truth to be self-evident. Although I do totally agree with you about misinformation (or dare I say disinformation) that certain free speakers employ to compromise the freedoms of Muslims. 

 

 

 

I do not label myself a feminist or an egalitarianism, because labels only put up barriers between people and ideas.

 

They can also facilitate the flow of ideas between people. Besides, assumptions are a prerequisite to living as well as inevitable, so if you don't label yourself then you can count on others to do so for you. If you're not a feminist and egalitarian, then what are you?

 

 

Point A: My asking the OP those questions was to raise awareness that you can find someone "evil" but you should still be aware, and should defend, their rights as you would be aware of, and defend, the rights of your like-minded peers. I do agree with you, that equal-ness eventually ends. That, although we are all granted the same protections, rights, etc, our individual pursuits of happiness are not equal.

 

Point B: My original point was that the anti-feminist group(hereto referred as group A) labels "feminazis"(who are feminists)hereto referred as group F), as...well...evil people(hence the nazi symbolism), and Group F labels Group A as "bigots" or whatever they do(im not entirely sure). When both groups decide that name calling and bickering is more important that discussion of ideas, that is something I have trouble with.

 

Point C: Referring back to point B, labels can only get you so far. We need to openly discuss and explore different ideas. To answer your question "then what are you" my answer is simple - I am a collection of my own ideas, thoughts, emotions etc. I share similar ideas of feminism and egalitarianism, but to be honest, im not 100% versed in all their dogmas and belief systems to label myself, not that I would anyway.

 

To be honest I get what you're saying. But it feels more of a...pointless nit-pick than a good point. You know what the idea is that they are trying to get across, and even agree with it. So all of this just seemed like one big "Hey I want to bring up a unnecessary point". At least that's how it feels.

 

The tags were more put there out of annoyance at the continued misunderstanding of the equal rights stuff, from what I can tell. And obviously someone will present their opinion in a way to say they think it's the best one. Because no one would hold an opinion they didn't think was best. If that makes any kind of sense.

 

And I actually do disagree that everyone is allowed to say whatever they want. Freedom of Speech is good, but there's a point where it's not. (Which is why it's illegal to yell "fire" in a public place if there's no fire). Spreading misinformation is one of those things. Racism and sexism is another. If it only serves to be harmful I am perfectly okay with not allowing it. (There are of course circumstances where this isn't the case.)

 

Oh another thing. Labels aren't bad. They don't make you unable to listen to other view points. The only purpose of a label is to explain an idea without having to go into detail every time. Just because someone gives themselves a certain label does not mean they have to follow it exactly. For instance a Democrat can agree with certain Republican views and still be a Democrat.

 

Point A

 

Point B

 

Point C: To clarify, I do not 100% believe that labels are truly terrible, but people so focus on the label itself that they miss the point of the idea behind it. For example, I am a Baltimore Ravens fan. If someone said "hey, im a Pittsburgh Steelers fan" Id probably make fun of them because of the label, and not why they are a Steelers fan(even though I only jest about stuff, I dont hate any steelers fans unless they act terrible. This doesnt just apply to sports, but also to politics, religion, gamers(PC MASTERRACE vs Console, Sony vs Nintendo vs MS, etc), and a lot of aspects of life.

 

 

 

My main point of MY(emphasis to clarify im different than op) original post, is that I wanted the OP, and everyone reading this thread, to take a look at the views they hold, why they hold them, and to analyze their thought processes behind having them. Its so easy to get in the mindset of "im right, and if you disagree then you are a terrible person." Introspection is important regarding personal beliefs and defending said believes.

 

tl;dr Be wary of your views, make sure you are effectively communicating your view, and be sure to listen to the other side. You may not see eye to eye, but you can speak heart to heart.




#6547113 "feminazi"

Posted by BehindTheMask on 08 January 2015 - 04:31 PM

If we are all equal, then would you defend my right to say "I believe that Tuesday follows Monday", "All bachelors are unmarried" and "I think women dont deserve equal rights?"

 

Just because you dont like what people are saying doesn't mean they don't have the same rights of free speech you do. You can disagree with what their message is, but they still have the right to say it. For me, I think that people who spread misinformation about (picking a "random" topic here) Islam are reprehensible, but I still hold their right to say it.

 

Your tags are "just read" and "be educated", like your view point is the only worthwhile view point. That by allowing discussion is forbidden because if we disagree we go against "equality" and "feminism."

 

I do not label myself a feminist or an egalitarianism, because labels only put up barriers between people and ideas. I'd much rather openly discuss the issues in a constructive, free thinking conversation.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, nor am i making any other statements to the validity of any other possible arguments. I found it peculiar how you rationalized your view points.




#6538935 The Supernatural

Posted by BehindTheMask on 19 December 2014 - 07:09 PM

Heyo, another verbal warning. Stick to Miscellaneous for badly executed jokes with incorrect spoiler tags ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡ °)

Any more off-topic posts, and I'll probably just move the topic to Misc.

 

Since when did spoilers change lol.

 

Also, lighten up, your pants are on too tight.

 

 

But yeah, the believe in the supernatural is kinda dumb. its all anecdotal evidence or blurry photos claiming "oh my gosh ghosts exist!!!!"




#6510721 A Look Into YCM's History - A Request of Sorts

Posted by BehindTheMask on 02 November 2014 - 02:20 PM

Uhm, wat?  Everyone knows Tkill >.>  <3

 

 

 

 

First, what are you doing here?  <3

 

Second, I met Matt (Shadius) through the old irl trade section.  <3

 

Third, Draco will always be relevant.  We're just too afraid to admit it.

 

And finally, Frunk IS YCM history.  xD  Wait, he has a FB?  This concerns me.  Saying that, Browarod has a FB too iirc.  Wtf.

 

Firstly, <3

 

Secondly, Shadius is one of da bes evar

 

Third, Draco got super butt blasted over nothing and blocked me on FB and stuff. top keks all around.

 

Yeah, Frunk has a FB, i used to talk to him all the time. He's legit as *whispers softly so my parents dont hear* heck.


  • Dad likes this


#6476717 League of Legends

Posted by BehindTheMask on 30 August 2014 - 07:17 PM

TSM_Logo_1.png

 

IMPLYING YOU CAN STOP DYRUS FROM WORLDS

 

GET WRECKED LMQ