Dubstepforum.com

I didn`t realize I was upsetting folks enough to make them warn others of my powers.
Some folks need to get their heads out of their internet asses.

I don't believe anyone could simply 'evolve' into something as beautiful and complex as Justin Bieber, there must be some sort of omnipotent daddy figure responsible for his creation.

Justin Biebers dad is...Kevin Federline
but with lots of christian rhetoric...

bright maroon wrote:Justin Biebers dad is...Kevin Federline
but with lots of christian rhetoric...

The first page of this thread made me lol quite a bit.

Heart goes out to xarcane though. Poor guy was pissing in a sea of piss and he didn't even realize it.

nothing is done for the good of anything anymore, things are ONLY done for profit.
i see that, and it jarrs me.
im with OP on this a one...

O Tumma Tum Ladin wrote:I don't believe anyone could simply 'evolve' into something as beautiful and complex as Justin Bieber, there must be some sort of omnipotent daddy figure responsible for his creation.

Been watching some Stewart Lee?

Tragic Gash wrote: yuh may have bn a bit hypocritical there

Nt rly, I don't care what art is and people can call whatever they want art. My point was the thought process behind people calling the stuff they like 'inherently art' while the stuff other people like inherently 'not art'. Pretty much just an ego-boost so people can feel good about what they like.

clifford_- wrote:nothing is done for the good of anything anymore, things are ONLY done for profit.
i see that, and it jarrs me.
im with OP on this a one...

If a 16 year old kid bagging groceries can do it for the paycheck and not for 'the good', then some rich executive in an office can distribute music that a lot of people like for a paycheck too. Nothing wrong with it. People judge the 'super rich' for the most trivial stuff, but when poor people violently rob someone, they're excused and it's all empathy for them. Better yet, the wealthy get blamed for that as well. Profits aren't a bad thing.

Genevieve wrote:

Tragic Gash wrote: yuh may have bn a bit hypocritical there

Nt rly, I don't care what art is and people can call whatever they want art. My point was the thought process behind people calling the stuff they like 'inherently art' while the stuff other people like inherently 'not art'. Pretty much just an ego-boost so people can feel good about what they like.

clifford_- wrote:nothing is done for the good of anything anymore, things are ONLY done for profit.
i see that, and it jarrs me.
im with OP on this a one...

If a 16 year old kid bagging groceries can do it for the paycheck and not for 'the good', then some rich executive in an office can distribute music that a lot of people like for a paycheck too. Nothing wrong with it. People judge the 'super rich' for the most trivial stuff, but when poor people violently rob someone, they're excused and it's all empathy for them. Better yet, the wealthy get blamed for that as well. Profits aren't a bad thing.

the super rich are in a much easier position to do something good for people...

i spose its the sheer greed that jars me.

herbalicious wrote:People are stnuc.

I stopped reading this thread after this. Nothing more needs to be said really

pulkpull wrote:

O Tumma Tum Ladin wrote:I don't believe anyone could simply 'evolve' into something as beautiful and complex as Justin Bieber, there must be some sort of omnipotent daddy figure responsible for his creation.

Been watching some Stewart Lee?

nah he reads my future posts on dubstepforum and then constructs his stand up routines.

Genevieve wrote:

Tragic Gash wrote: yuh may have bn a bit hypocritical there

Nt rly, I don't care what art is and people can call whatever they want art. My point was the thought process behind people calling the stuff they like 'inherently art' while the stuff other people like inherently 'not art'. Pretty much just an ego-boost so people can feel good about what they like.

sry that should read "yuh i may have bn a bit hypocritical there"

clifford_- wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

Tragic Gash wrote: yuh may have bn a bit hypocritical there

Nt rly, I don't care what art is and people can call whatever they want art. My point was the thought process behind people calling the stuff they like 'inherently art' while the stuff other people like inherently 'not art'. Pretty much just an ego-boost so people can feel good about what they like.

clifford_- wrote:nothing is done for the good of anything anymore, things are ONLY done for profit.
i see that, and it jarrs me.
im with OP on this a one...

If a 16 year old kid bagging groceries can do it for the paycheck and not for 'the good', then some rich executive in an office can distribute music that a lot of people like for a paycheck too. Nothing wrong with it. People judge the 'super rich' for the most trivial stuff, but when poor people violently rob someone, they're excused and it's all empathy for them. Better yet, the wealthy get blamed for that as well. Profits aren't a bad thing.

the super rich are in a much easier position to do something good for people...

i spose its the sheer greed that jars me.

I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I find it pretty easy not to violently rob people.