[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;41578693]boy it sure seems pretty euphoric in here.
[editline].[/editline]
Right On B/r/other! Fucking Women Don't Deserve To Be On OUR Bank Notes Only Men Because Men Are The Only Ones That Have Achieved Anything Noteworthy In The History Of Everything *tips fedora* Now If You Will Excuse Me, I Have To Go Because My Bitch Cunt Fundie Mother Is Making Me Go To Church With The Rest Of My Family....*Sigh*, If Only I Could Just Sit On r/Atheism All Day And Talk About Carl Sagan....[/QUOTE]
ironic shitposting is still shitposting
also stop strawmanning and stop perpetuating that fucking "euphoria" shit
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;41578693]Right On B/r/other! Fucking Women Don't Deserve To Be On OUR Bank Notes Only Men Because Men Are The Only Ones That Have Achieved Anything Noteworthy In The History Of Everything *tips fedora* Now If You Will Excuse Me, I Have To Go Because My Bitch Cunt Fundie Mother Is Making Me Go To Church With The Rest Of My Family....*Sigh*, If Only I Could Just Sit On r/Atheism All Day And Talk About Carl Sagan....[/QUOTE]
By attempting to make your opponent look stupid all you're doing is demonstrating the weakness of your own stance.
If you've got an argument, make it, instead of making irrelevant assumptions about their character.
[QUOTE=sambooo;41579084]ironic shitposting is still shitposting
also stop strawmanning and stop perpetuating that fucking "euphoria" shit[/QUOTE]
What's this 'euphooria' shit?
Put David Bowie on all the bills.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;41580008]Put David Bowie on all the bills.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://db2.stb.s-msn.com/i/B3/F4729393C367B58B9AF8B30CE59.jpg[/img]
get yourself some Brixton pounds
jane austin is p.awesome tbh
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;41579237]What's this 'euphooria' shit?[/QUOTE]
Google "euphoric atheist"
It's on the same level as saying "muh X" or calling people edgy all the time, posting pictures of knives and saying you cut yourself on the post
Imo it should be worthy of meme bans
[QUOTE=sambooo;41581317]Google "euphoric atheist"
It's on the same level as saying "muh X" or calling people edgy all the time, posting pictures of knives and saying you cut yourself on the post
Imo it should be worthy of meme bans[/QUOTE]
Add "wow so ~brave~" to that list.
I'm not even bothered by Jane Austin replacing Darwin, I'm more concerned about how ugly that design is
[QUOTE=.Isak.;41577605]define "less important"
seriously, even in American schools, unless you're in the bottom dregs of regular classes that teach to standardized tests, you know who jane austen is and you know of her importance in literary history and at least 1 or 2 of the books she wrote.[/QUOTE]
So less important, means having less significance. I hope we can agree on that. I also hope we can agree that while Jane Austen had a huge cultural impact in the West, Darwin (or science in general) has had a huge impact on the world, not just where you live. There's a world out there, outside your house in your Western country. Are you really that self-centered that you hold Western literature impact on Western culture up to more (or equal) importance than global scientific progress?
Yes, culture is nice to have, but not as important
I might be alone in this but I would prefer money without faces of people on them.
I find it sort of uncomfortable for some reason. It feels like the person's face is used for something valuable but entirely and utterly mundane. Not to mention banknotes tend to get dirty and damaged, and that furthermore feels a bit disrespectful when you take such a note and see the face of an important person, underneath it.
I would prefer pictures of some big mementos of the nation. Symbolic places, artefacts, maybe a national flower or animal, or maybe just something nice and entirely abstract.
Why not have Garry instead? Without him we wouldn't be discussing this here right now.
[QUOTE=Desuh;41582543]Why not have Garry instead? Without him we wouldn't be discussing this here right now.[/QUOTE]
Because we didn't get to choose.
[QUOTE=Trumple;41581977]So less important, means having less significance. I hope we can agree on that. I also hope we can agree that while Jane Austen had a huge cultural impact in the West, Darwin (or science in general) has had a huge impact on the world, not just where you live. There's a world out there, outside your house in your Western country. Are you really that self-centered that you hold Western literature impact on Western culture up to more (or equal) importance than global scientific progress?
Yes, culture is nice to have, but not as important[/QUOTE]
Darwins had his time on the note, time for someone else and Jane Austin is a fine candidate.
[editline]24th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41582181]I might be alone in this but I would prefer money without faces of people on them.
I find it sort of uncomfortable for some reason. It feels like the person's face is used for something valuable but entirely and utterly mundane. Not to mention banknotes tend to get dirty and damaged, and that furthermore feels a bit disrespectful when you take such a note and see the face of an important person, underneath it.
I would prefer pictures of some big mementos of the nation. Symbolic places, artefacts, maybe a national flower or animal, or maybe just something nice and entirely abstract.[/QUOTE]
Nothing like wanking with Darwin watching you
she looks gormless in that drawing
[editline]24th July 2013[/editline]
jane austin was/is more important than charles darwin
Other suggestions for notes (pay attention BoE):
Harold Godwinson (complete with arrow in eye)
The guy that sent the order to charge to the light brigade looking guilty
Disraeli and Gladstone having an arm wrestle
Commemorative "kings that don't speak the same language as their subjects" note (would be quite cramped but I'm sure they'll manage)
Edward VIII signing his abdication
[QUOTE=Eltro102;41582698]she looks gormless in that drawing
[editline]24th July 2013[/editline]
jane austin was/is more important than charles darwin[/QUOTE]
I feel that in their respective fields they've both been as influential as each other really. Sure evolution has more practical value but influence wise they're pretty similar.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;41582698]jane austin was/is more important than charles darwin[/QUOTE]
why
[QUOTE=Eltro102;41582698]she looks gormless in that drawing
[editline]24th July 2013[/editline]
jane austin was/is more important than charles darwin[/QUOTE]
I'd say they're pretty incomparable tbh.
[QUOTE=Hellduck;41582938]Other suggestions for notes (pay attention BoE):
Harold Godwinson (complete with arrow in eye)[/QUOTE]
This got me thinking, was Alfred the Great ever on a banknote? I mean, it would certainly make sense. There would be no England, let alone United Kingdom, without him. Bank of England, call me in fifteen years.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41583070]why[/QUOTE]
because now everyone knows about darwin but not jane austin who is now a important cultural thing
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;41583112]This got me thinking, was Alfred the Great ever on a banknote? I mean, it would certainly make sense. There would be no England, let alone United Kingdom, without him. Bank of England, call me in fifteen years.[/QUOTE]
Could say the same thing about a lot of historical figures, tbph I think William I's probs a bigger deal.
We all know that David Cameron should be on both sides of every note
[QUOTE=Hellduck;41583165]Could say the same thing about a lot of historical figures, tbph I think William I's probs a bigger deal.[/QUOTE]
Duke of Wellington too, who saved us from being conquered by the french and the horrors that would have followed like berets, frogs legs and effective government.
[QUOTE=Hellduck;41583165]Could say the same thing about a lot of historical figures, tbph I think William I's probs a bigger deal.[/QUOTE]
England, as a kingdom, existed prior to the Conqueror landing and killing everything, it was Alfred, his son, and his grandson, who drove back the Danes and brought the Saxon kingdoms together. Yeah, you [I]can[/I] say that about a lot of historical figures, I'm just saying if you're going to credit any historical English figure, may as well be Alfred.
[QUOTE=Hellduck;41583210]Duke of Wellington too, who saved us from being conquered by the french and the horrors that would have followed like berets, frogs legs and effective government.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that does sound pretty terrifying.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;41583213]England, as a kingdom, existed prior to the Conqueror landing and killing everything, it was Alfred, his son, and his grandson, who drove back the Danes and brought the Saxon kingdoms together. Yeah, you [I]can[/I] say that about a lot of historical figures, I'm just saying if you're going to credit any historical English figure, may as well be Alfred.
Yeah that does sound pretty terrifying.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, I just don't like the kings before William I because they don't have numbers after their names and that is incompatible with my regnal OCD
[QUOTE=Hellduck;41583281]Fair enough, I just don't like the kings before William I because they don't have numbers after their names and that is incompatible with my regnal OCD[/QUOTE]
Haha, I was thinking about [I]that[/I] today as well. Counting the Anglo-Saxon kings, isn't Edward the Ninth actually Edward the Eleventh? Oh well.
Or maybe it was Eighth and Tenth, whatever.
uneducated opinions the thread
I wasn't surprised tbh coming into this thread and reading the posts. Facepunch in general just gives me the impression of a fedora-tipping patriarchy that has non-stop circle jerks over 'science and progress!' with little actual understanding of either
[QUOTE=Antdawg;41590406]I wasn't surprised tbh coming into this thread and reading the posts. Facepunch in general just gives me the impression of a fedora-tipping patriarchy that has non-stop circle jerks over 'science and progress!' with little actual understanding of either[/QUOTE]
Well I'm glad you manage to make yourself feel superior to everyone.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
