Suicide by drinking a bottle of minoxidil?

[Rabbi]

Maybe my corspse would grow air by the time I expire.
Sounds worth tbh ngl

 

[Rabbi]

0

 

[Rabbi]

0

Hairpilled again just LDAR

 

[Deleted member 1476]

if u do that i will kill u

 

[Danish_Retard]

Hair growth actually continues post mortem

Also you'll end up with liquid shit and taking some years off a couple of organs but you probably won't get hair.

If you build up a tolerance perhaps you could monkemax.

 

[Deleted member 5393]

my poor kutta

 

[RichardSpencel]

I want on my tombstone:
"Hair lies richardspencel"

 

[Deleted member 1476]

I want on my tombstone:
"Hair lies richardspencel"

Ha! Ha! Fucking comical joke, man. Do another one. Jokes are fucking comical if you ask me. XD

 

[mgtowmadness]

Sounds kinky and based

 

[Baldingman1998]

I actually drank minoxodil when I first got it. I did know it's a topical so I would drink 2 sprays. After 3 days I urinated blood and I had extreme abdominal pain. Then I stopped and now I'm good. The doc said it's ok as long as I stopped. Did some tests and I'm ok afterwards.

 

[MansNotHot]

If you drink it it's gonna get systemic and provide you lushious amount of hair



Cons:
-Death
Pros:
-Chilling in heaven

 

[Bewusst]

Just do it. Tired of you bitching about your hair

 

[Deleted member 12218]

If you drink it it's gonna get systemic and provide you lushious amount of hair



Cons:
-Death
Pros:
-Chilling in heaven

There’s enough afterlifecels here. Death is death and there’s nothing after you die. This is the afterlifepill, swallow it good.

 

[Baldingman1998]

There’s enough afterlifecels here. Death is death and there’s nothing after you die. This is the afterlifepill, swallow it good.

@streege

 

[MansNotHot]

There’s enough afterlifecels here. Death is death and there’s nothing after you die. This is the afterlifepill, swallow it good.

Just take a joke autismus

 

[TsarTsar444]

There’s enough afterlifecels here. Death is death and there’s nothing after you die. This is the afterlifepill, swallow it good.

No proof so cope

 

[Baldingman1998]

No proof so cope

No proof that you get 72 virgins either jfl

 

[Deleted member 12218]

No proof so cope

Ah the classic no proof, no truth coper. You cannot prove unicorns don’t exist so they must exist right? See how retarded that logic is?

 

[TsarTsar444]

No proof that you get 72 virgins either jfl

Indeed jfl, but no proof God doesn't exist either

 

[Baldingman1998]

Indeed jfl, but no proof God doesn't exist either

Agnostic theist is the most rational approach

 

[TsarTsar444]

Ah the classic no proof, no truth coper. You cannot prove unicorns don’t exist so they must exist right? See how retarded that logic is?

Keep coping, you can equate unicorns to a creator, somethinf can't create itself, there needs to be a creator. Muh who created a creator ,jfl a creator can't be created, he was always there. The universe i mathematically perfect and indeed has a master plan behind it
@streege

 

[Deleted member 12218]

Keep coping, you can equate unicorns to a creator, somethinf can't create itself, there needs to be a creator. Muh who created a creator ,jfl a creator can't be created, he was always there. The universe i mathematically perfect and indeed has a master plan behind it
@streege

Nice God of the gaps argument, haven’t heard that one before. If God doesn’t believe in his own greater, by definition, he’s an atheist.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Ah the classic no proof, no truth coper. You cannot prove unicorns don’t exist so they must exist right? See how retarded that logic is?

Are you all so ignorant and lack of basic logics?
Unicorn have nothing that go for them, they have the characteristics of the creation, and its limits.
God as in necessary beeing is the most rational claim due to the very existence, apparition and mainiting of this world probabilistically wise, due to the contingency understanding, and others explanations.
God has a definition, he must be the necessary beeing for this to happen : The sole beeing that is necessary for the rest to be possible, the condition of possibility of the rest.
Eternal, atemporal, out of space and time and totally different than everything that exist because anything that exist in our world, that looks like something of our world or universe is by definition contingent, and related to the creation and can't be God.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Nice God of the gaps argument, haven’t heard that one before. If God doesn’t believe in his own greater, by definition, he’s an atheist.

who created a creator?
It's the lack of understanding that make you feel that, and of knowledge. This is not even an argument from atheist that have a bit of knowledge.
God has a definition, he is the necessary beeing.
So everything else is contingent and rely to him to exist. So he is the sole that has not a creator. It's in the condition of possibility of this world and in his definition.
It's like you saying to me "b b b bbut a male is a woman, a male is a woman", no, a male has a definition agreed upon and it doesn't intersect the one of female;
It's the same low understanding that make some atheist believe god could create a rock that he can't lift, but it's not possible: God has a definition, he is allmighty, if he loses this attribute he is not god, and since god is eternal ie can't change, it means it never was god.
So everything you say, who created a creater, the rock, are logical fallacies that are answered by the contingency and the very definition of words you lack.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

There’s enough afterlifecels here. Death is death and there’s nothing after you die. This is the afterlifepill, swallow it good.

what's the proof you even exist, can you prove it, it's just typical solipsism.
You can't even prove that to us while it's linked to materiality for a part, so how can you prove immateriality doesn't exist when there is no way to find out by materiality and is a consequence of a belief in the rational claim of the existence of the One necessary beeing, and the one sole rational faith?

 

[Deleted member 12218]

Are you all so ignorant and lack of basic logics?
Unicorn have nothing that go for them, they have the characteristics of the creation, and its limits.
God as in necessary beeing is the most rational claim due to the very existence, apparition and mainiting of this world probabilistically wise, due to the contingency understanding, and others explanations.
God has a definition, he must be the necessary beeing for this to happen : The sole beeing that is necessary for the rest to be possible, the condition of possibility of the rest.
Eternal, atemporal, out of space and time and totally different than everything that exist because anything that exist in our world, that looks like something of our world or universe is by definition contingent, and related to the creation and can't be God.

Didn’t know my old pastor had a looksmax account

You are literally arguing using the God of the gaps just like your other buddy. Enough of this reality bullshit out of this world crap. Just because we don’t have the explanations for our universe and it’s full properties, doesn’t mean we can jump on the religious bandwagon.

And who’s to say your specific religion is right anyway? Isn’t funny how most kids raised religious develop the same religion as their parents, so much for God calling out to them. At the end of the day religion is a cope to make you feel better about your shit circumstances and life which is why it’s the hardest pill to swallow. I hope you can put your cope aside and accept the truth someday.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Agnostic theist is the most rational approach

you don't even know what that means.
Agnostic = you don't know if god exist or doesn't exist, so you say nothing. This is not a rational belief because there are not 50/50 chances of both position, logically and empirically as i said with the summary of the arguments i showed.
And theism = you believe in a God that revealed himself.
What you mean is probably simplistic deism. Again you all talk and don't know basics.

 

[Rabbi]

how the fuck did this turn into a theology seminar

 

[Deleted member 12218]

how the fuck did this turn into a theology seminar

Damn right, I can tell this streege kid is enjoying this tho

 

[Baldingman1998]

you don't even know what that means.
Agnostic = you don't know if god exist or doesn't exist, so you say nothing. This is not a rational belief because there are not 50/50 chances of both position, logically and empirically as i said with the summary of the arguments i showed.
And theism = you believe in a God that revealed himself.
What you mean is probably simplistic deism. Again you all talk and don't know basics.

Agnostic means you can't know. Theist means you believe in a god or creator. So I believe ina. God but not religion and I can change my mind regarding god based on new evidence etc. The burden of proof is in religion regardless not on agnosticism because agnosticism is the most honest approach. Not knowing is the only reality Wich is true

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Just because we don’t have the explanations for our universe and it’s full properties, doesn’t mean we can jump on the religious bandwagon

the universe is contingent, so it doesn't matter, for it to exist there must be a necessarity beeing, or else contingency can't exist, it's in the VERY DEFINITION and basic logics of the fields.

And who’s to say your specific religion is right anyway?

using rational argument to reach the most probabilistic position, that's all can reason do.
methaphysically atheism = a belief and a non rational one.
So we can prove rationally that theism>atheism
then monotheism>polytheism and the affiliated
then one monotheism only is rational enough in his core theology and contains no contradictions and is the sole totally preserved.

Even science is a belief.
I adressed all these point in another thread, where i summarized it, and all your genealogically fallacies can't tackle it.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Agnostic means you can't know. Theist means you believe in a god or creator. So I believe ina. God but not religion and I can change my mind regarding god based on new evidence etc. The burden of proof is in religion regardless not on agnosticism because agnosticism is the most honest approach. Not knowing is the only reality Wich is true

what you say is deism.
And i already adressed all those points.

 

[Deleted member 12218]

the universe is contingent, so it doesn't matter, for it to exist there must be a necessarity beeing, or else contingency can't exist, it's in the VERY DEFINITION and basic logics of the fields.


using rational argument to reach the most probabilistic position, that's all can reason do.
methaphysically atheism = a belief and a non rational one.
So we can prove rationally that theism>atheism
then monotheism>polytheism and the affiliated
then one monotheism only is rational enough in his core theology and contains no contradictions and is the sole totally preserved.

Even science is a belief.
I adressed all these point in another thread, where i summarized it, and all your genealogically fallacies can't tackle it.

Your fancy words hurt my head, reminds me of school.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Your fancy words hurt my head, reminds me of school.

It's always the same with atheist tbh. They come with great claims, and once you explain a bit of their own issue, beliefs and limits of their position they have no much to say, or disappear.
It's actually easier to be a "degen", go full hedonism, than to restrain yourself by his Will, it's easier to just accept the world you live in, than questioning it, and doing a rational journey to see if every claim they made is rational, if the world has a rational meaning and if there is a meaning in this life, it's better to tell yourself "fuck left and right and don't think and don't care cuz you'll die and tada", than to question yourself, i know it hurts, and you are all great copers, but it is what it is, this quest is no game, because in both cases, the positive or the negative, it impacts every aspect of life.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

@TsarTsar444 here you go

 

[Deleted member 3043]

and to clarify i have no issue with any of you, i'm just sad that beeing human, we don't all use our tools to the deepest and never question ourselves to the fullest on average.
Nothing was created in vain, by definition and, there is no any counter example of that, so why not trying to actualize our human nature instead of letting our animality take over ?