subtle vidya tattoos

Having a tattoo qualifies someone as mentally ill.

Mentally stable people don't brand themselves.

well anon thanks for proving that only the mentally ill get tattoos. now post yours so we can all laugh

well you're a mental defective either way, might as well make the thread worth the trouble

alright im going to bed gay cheers for the banter

Mentally stable people should only do things I like

fricking kek yeah they were

t. still exists

I guarantee you this still happens today.
Can we just agree that people regardless of having or not having tattoos are in general crazy

The laws were written by nonhumans to stop the humans from being to noisy since the original plan failed.

Religious tattoos are just as bad as branding yourself with a video game logo
Yes

Considering we have 0 actual 1st or even 2nd party evidence that the vikings ever tattood themselves, and what we consider "viking tattoos" today being modern interpretations and speculation? Sure.

> Revisionist accounts try to incorrectly paint the Vikings as settlers, or traders, or nice people who just occasionally got caught up in fighting. Plenty of Scandinavians were settlers, traders, and nice people—just not the Vikings. For three hundred years, they stole and murdered across much of northern Europe, especially England, and got as far as Constantinople and southern Spain.
> “To the modern mind, it is amazing, almost incomprehensible, how so many thousands of men, over generations, took appalling risks in small boats and continuous hand-to-hand and face-to-face confrontations with edged weapons, for what do not seem to us to have been very great financial returns. Viking armies were often defeated, even exterminated, but there never seemed to be any difficulty recruiting another one.” What made this possible was the Viking mentality.
> [...]
> The single overriding feature was an absolute need to be brave. Cowardice was utterly disgraceful. Part of that was never giving in. Fighting to the last man was a baseline Viking expectation. We can understand that; it’s to some extent part of our own culture (or was, until we were pansified). Another feature, though, is harder for us to grasp—losing isn’t the same as being a loser. Vikings lost all the time; there was no disgrace in that, as long as you kept the right attitude, which was not giving in. If you had to give in physically, not giving in mentally would do. And the best way to show that was to die laughing.
They were pretty crazy

> Revisionist accounts try to incorrectly paint the Vikings as settlers, or traders, or nice people who just occasionally got caught up in fighting. Plenty of Scandinavians were settlers, traders, and nice people—just not the Vikings. For three hundred years, they stole and murdered across much of northern Europe, especially England, and got as far as Constantinople and southern Spain.
> “To the modern mind, it is amazing, almost incomprehensible, how so many thousands of men, over generations, took appalling risks in small boats and continuous hand-to-hand and face-to-face confrontations with edged weapons, for what do not seem to us to have been very great financial returns. Viking armies were often defeated, even exterminated, but there never seemed to be any difficulty recruiting another one.” What made this possible was the Viking mentality.
> [...]
> The single overriding feature was an absolute need to be brave. Cowardice was utterly disgraceful. Part of that was never giving in. Fighting to the last man was a baseline Viking expectation. We can understand that; it’s to some extent part of our own culture (or was, until we were pansified). Another feature, though, is harder for us to grasp—losing isn’t the same as being a loser. Vikings lost all the time; there was no disgrace in that, as long as you kept the right attitude, which was not giving in. If you had to give in physically, not giving in mentally would do. And the best way to show that was to die laughing.
They were pretty crazy

source?

yup. all that other shit about fight to the last man is bs.
what it REALLY means is scalping every old timer geezer they can mug. as soon as settlements could defend themselves against a small army of bandits trawling the coasts, with gunpowder and militiamen, the vikings mysteriously stopped being relevant in human history. hmm.

>Gets called out as a moron
>Posts some gay quote from some gay overthinker
You are white and pale and nobody wants to be anywhere near you and this is why you think your opinion on the world matters. Here's a (You) so you can have another coom

back to africa with your bananas in the mud hut tyrone

I knew this without some online experts saying this

I profit off of mental illness then

smoking pot and non-traditional sex acts are fricking awesome though

i never claimed to be modern

Nah, it's all degenerate. Get your life in order.

should just stamp "damaged" across their forehead and it would be deeper, more meaningful, and much more accurate than any of those tattoos

yes, I don't know how you thought that was a good comeback lmao

what I thought? how about what is verifiable? Perhaps you only don't see the mental illness because you yourself are, in your self righteousness you believe that it is normal

yeah, that is also why some men see them as 'hot', they just see easy/available lay

anon we get it you have tattoos you're ashamed of. no need to get defensive about the permanent reminder of your temporary idea

ive never played a game by todd howard

the truth sets you free

calling behavior you don't like mental illness is what gayboys do to mask their personal problems as being more serious than they are

Post your moron stamp already

>normalgays aren't online
This bro still living in the 1990s.

>people never post memes on reddit or twitter or instagram or any of the other normie sites
Just give up bro, you're embarassing yourself.

he sees that things aren't working out and decides to whip up something new to try

that only works if you believe in predestination

omniscience doesn't rely on predestination otherwise Calvinism wouldn't be special for believing in predestination

God's omniscient by virtue of being omnipresent and creating literally everything

And that relates to the discussion how?

NTA, but the future does not exist in the way you think it does. We have free will, plus there are other nondeterministic forces in the universe. Saying God can't be omniscient unless he knows the future with 100% certainty is a malformed statement. It's like saying you can't see color unless you can see the color 5. It's a meaningless statement.

>I'd like to know what your analogy about color and mathematics means.
It's a bad analogy on second thought.

>predestination is not a defining feature of Christianity to the point where Calvinism is special because of it
Then stop saying God is omniscient, simple as.
>omniscience is complete knowledge, you can estimate the future to a very fine point but chaos theory can stack those small differences to extreme levels so the accuracy ends up falling off the further things get
So god is not omniscient, just very knowledgeable, and there is a point where we can't rely on him knowing what's actually best for humanity.

fricking SIGH
Either you're defining omniscience arbitrarily as a being that doesn't know literally everything or you aren't.
To know everything is to know everything, including what movements each atom is going to make and what synapse is going to fire in every brain cell.
It would be so much easier for christians to just abandon their fundamentally contradictory triomni god

God can be all-knowing without that extending infinitely into the future.

So you don't think it's appropriate to describe a being that knows everything that ever happened in the universe up until now and also knows everything everyone is thinking and doing at every present moment as "all-knowing" just because it doesn't also encompass all future events until the end of eternity?

The way I see it, the future can't be known by anyone because it doesn't exist. Reasonable predictions can be made about what will come in the future based on current knowledge, but any future beyond the present moment doesn't actually exist yet. Under this framework, all there IS to know is everything from the beginning of the universe up until the present moment and therefore an omniscient being would know everything up to that point because that's all there is to know.

Of course God, being omniscient, would be infinitely better equipped to predict the future based on what's known presently because he has perfect information, but that doesn't equate to a perfect knowledge of the future because the future hasn't come to be known yet.