The greatest Omegle conversation ever



     Posts: : 760

    The greatest Omegle conversation ever

    Post by Hushimo on July 23rd 2011, 4:56 pm

    Omegle wrote:You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

    Stranger: Hello.

    You: I think I might be insane.

    Stranger: I know for sure I have something sick in the head.

    Stranger: But hey, at least I am no Jew.

    You: Anti-semitism? Classy.

    Stranger: Well, it is more like that Jews are against us Caucasians, not as much the opposite.

    Stranger: It's a self-defence reaction.

    You: It's not self-defense if they never attacked.

    Stranger: Well, they continuously do.

    Stranger: After all, an ideology based on concepts like racial superiority, life spaces, absolute right to exterminate inferior nations... it cannot but breed hate and havoc.

    You: Judaism promotes racial superiority?

    Stranger: Never heard about the Chosen People?

    Stranger: Of course it does.

    Stranger: The basic concept is that if you are born Jewish, you are superior to other races because god told you so.

    Stranger: Well, you can trade that Jewish with Aryan or any other variation on the theme, the root is always the same.

    Stranger: That sick book called the Bible.

    Stranger: In this sense, nobody was more Jewish than Hitler. When it comes to perspectve on life, I mean.

    You: There's a separation of interpretation among different Christian sects.

    You: Jews tend to focus more on the old testament, while baptists or methodists follow the new testament.

    Stranger: Which is more or less the same.

    Stranger: The accursed root is the same.

    You: Which I find confusing, if two halves contradicting themselves are in the same book, why include them?

    Stranger: Actually, the malignity of the Gospel sometimes manages to override even that of the Old Testament.

    Stranger: Oh, they are perfectly fitting each other.

    You: The old testament depicted a much more harsh and unforgiving God, demanding absolute obedience.

    You: While the new testament was more of peace.

    Stranger: And the New Testament does not?

    Stranger: Oh, no.

    Stranger: Absolutely not.

    Stranger: Christ states in more than one point that those who do not follow him will be sent to perpetual fire, called Gehenna.

    Stranger: And he says too that "Those who are not with us are against us".

    Stranger: And so on.

    Stranger: It is more subtle, that is sure.

    You: A refinement of language.

    Stranger: But after all, it was written one thousand years after the Old Testament. Meanwhile, Greeks and Romans managed to kick some sense even into those horribly thick heads.

    You: Maybe most followers just tend to ignore the parts they refuse to acknowledge to make the religion seem more attractive.

    You: Marketing techniques.

    Stranger: Actually, in at least one point the New Testament is incredibly more wicked than the Old one.

    You: Oh?

    Stranger: After all, the god of the Old Testament killed his enemies, turned them into stone, sentenced them to death mauled by whales and so on.

    Stranger: But well, once they were dead, peace. All over.

    Stranger: Christ conceived this idea, that if you did something he did not like, you'd burn for the whole eternity.

    Stranger: The idea of a perpetual punishment in the afterlife is a peak of malignity which the Old Testament never reached.

    You: I suppose that has some validity to it.

    Stranger: Oh, yes. It makes perfect sense.

    Stranger: Furthermore, there is this thing... that when Christ says "your neighbour", he means everybody.

    Stranger: He means just other fellow Jews.

    You: That I find difficult to believe.

    Stranger: Like, when the Pagan woman asks him to be healed from menorrhea, Christ pretends he does not hear.

    Stranger: He heals her only when she says: "Please, Christ, heal me, because even we pagan dogs deserve a bone sometime".

    Stranger: Which says it all.

    You: Which verse is that?

    Stranger: Eh, I have to ask Google.

    Stranger: Wait a moment.

    Stranger: It's been fifteen years, since I last read the Bible.

    You: That's 89% of my entire life.

    Stranger: 89, even.

    Stranger: I gave up on religion very young.

    You: What?

    You: Did you just claim to be 89?

    Stranger: 89%, you said.

    You: Yes, just the way you worded it confused me.

    Stranger: "And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he (Christ) did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."" (Matthew Chapter 15 verse 22)

    Stranger: Sort of definitive, I think.

    You: Wow.

    You: How arrogant.

    Stranger: Well, that's how it goes with religions, comrade.

    Stranger: Just to say... this thing, of Christ come to save the whole humanity, is bs invented by Paul.

    Stranger: Who was possibly one of the three worst humans ever, but surely a wizard, when it came to marketing.

    You: The apostle?

    Stranger: Indeed.

    Stranger: The inventor of some of the worst ideas ever, seriously.

    Stranger: Maybe even worse than his master.

    Stranger: Jesus was just a slacker who hardly felt like working in his father's carpentry shop.

    Stranger: Paul was someone who even managed to earn something out of the Christendom mess.

    Stranger: And set into it with this precise aim in mind.

    You: Do you believe that Jesus was an actual person, or just a character in someone's fiction?

    Stranger: Blah, there have probably been thousands of Jesuses.

    Stranger: One worth the other.

    Stranger: The world's always filled up with telemarketers trying to sell you love potions.

    Stranger: One is worth the other.

    Stranger: A Joshua, a Ioachim or a Benjamin, it does not change much.

    Stranger: The real Jesus probably was just a vagrant bullshitting people around. The only one, though, who managed to get cruficied.

    You: So I shared my finding with one of my associates who studies Christianity, and his rebuttal thus far is: "was she a believer in God, or did she view him as some sort of "guru" is the question"

    You: What would you say to that?

    Stranger: She who?

    You: The woman who begged for her daughter to be healed.

    Stranger: What does it change?

    Stranger: The point is that Christ replied he had come only for Israel.

    Stranger: Your friend is trying to turn the omelette around. What we are discussing here is Jesus, not the woman.

    You: Possibly. He says that it would change depending on how the woman viewed Jesus may have provoked a response from him.

    You: Much like how he overthrew the animal market.

    Stranger: No, it would not.

    Stranger: The reply was not: "No, because your faith is not steady".

    Stranger: The reply was: "No, I am here only for people with cut cocks".

    You: Can't deny that.

    Stranger: Eh.

    Stranger: Sorry, but this passage is quite tough to overthrow.

    You: I meant I agree with you.

    Stranger: Yes, I mean. Sorry for your friend.

    You: Ah, understandable.

    You: Why do you think the Bible gained the popularity that it did?

    Stranger: A question of market economy.

    Stranger: It was not popular until Christ, for obvious reasons.

    Stranger: It was two thousand years late in compare with the much more evolved Greek-Roman world and culture.

    Stranger: But.

    Stranger: Paul offered, so to say, the biggest share for the lowest price.

    Stranger: In other words, life in paradise in exchange with atonement, even at the very last breath.

    Stranger: Other religions forced rites of purifications, some would never consider atonement as something relevent to the gods - or even the juridicial system.

    Stranger: The Greek-Roman system of beliefs for sure excluded such an idiotic idea, that the repentance of one final moment could cancel a life of crimes.

    Stranger: But Christendom offered the most for the least.

    You: That would indeed explain the massive amount of hypocrites flooding its current populace of followers.

    Stranger: That explains why Christendom made the Roman Empire crumble, too.

    You: Condeming others for acts that they themselve have committed, with haughty disregard that they're contradicting themselves.

    You: How?

    Stranger: Rome was founded on the solidity of a very modern system of law, which, in turn, was of course founded on the certainty of penalty.

    Stranger: Once you introduce the idea of perpetual forgiveness, and the stupid idea that repentance can cancel the crime, such a system, based on evidence and objectiveness, cannot but crumble - in other words, once you are no longer sure that you'll incur in a penalty, you have no more brakes.

    You: As soon as they realize there's leniency, they'll take advantage of it.

    Stranger: In way shorter words, yes.

    You: I

    You: Enter typo.

    You: I'd like to clarify that I find condescending atheists to be equally as annoying as fundamentalist Christians.

    You: Which brings me to my next question.

    You: You've made it clear that your stance is in opposition to most established religions, so what is it that you do believe in? Nothing isn't an adequate answer.

    Stranger: I believe in whisky.

    Stranger: And football.

    Stranger: I am a barbarian.

    You: If you hadn't proven your intellectual prowess beforehand I would have dismissed those responses as the belief system of someone average, which is the worst thing someone can be anymore.

    You: So does your whiskey have any demands? Do you obey it, or is it a free system?

    Stranger: Seriously, boy. I am an idiot. You can trust me.

    Stranger: And well, actually it's some months I do not drink anymore.

    Stranger: I don't really know what I believe in.

    Stranger: A few years ago I'd have said socialism.

    Stranger: By now, I would rather say I think that for the moment it is quite proved, but like all scientific theories it could be dismissed tomorrow, and it'd be no loss.

    Stranger: I really have no idea.

    Stranger: I believe I love a certain red-haired girl, I believe that my new guitar is the best one I ever had.

    Stranger: And then I don't know.

    You: A principle of uncertainty it seems.

    You: I can sympathize.

    Stranger: No, it's just that I really believe in nothing.

    Stranger: There are some things I know are proved.

    Stranger: Some others that are supposed.

    Stranger: At most I can suppose some things, yes.

    You: Then do you suppose that there may be an underlying truth to everything, or are you more inclined to believe that all is extraneous and random chaos with no distinguishable pattern or order?

    Stranger: Uhm.

    Stranger: I cannot see why a world with no underlying truth should be prey to chaos, deprived of pattern or order.

    Stranger: Think to how tidy and efficient the reactions in a cell are.

    Stranger: There is no superior will directing them.

    Stranger: It is just a matter of concentrations.

    Stranger: And yet. It is surprising how everything in a living organism is so tightly regulated - by something totally blind, sensible merely to concentrations and chemical balances.

    You: Do you think that there are some concepts that no one can truly comprehend, or are we as humans just too weak-minded to understand them?

    Stranger: Yes, Heisenberg's principle.

    You: Because that has to be one of the only reasons I take the Bible with any hint of sincerity anymore, because, I can't recall which passage, but in a paraphrased way, we were told that all of God's ways are beyond what we can understand.

    Stranger: That is a quick escape.

    You: Then again, that could just be a lazy plothole filler to cover up everything simultaneously.

    You: Yes.

    Stranger: As a matter of fact, if you notice, all the progress in the history of humanity has been made in defiance of this.

    Stranger: We improved our lives only when we tried to understand something that seemed impossible to understand.

    Stranger: There is no reason to believe that a limit will be reached.

    Stranger: It might, but it might not. We have not enough elements to answer to this question reasonably.

    You: Quite true.

    You: Would you say that any idea of morality was just something for primitive man to rely on as a means of mental comfort, to make them feel better in an illusion of security in a higher power or absolute?

    Stranger: Morality is a way of social cohesion.

    Stranger: I beg you to notice that it is valid only within your cultural frame of reference.

    You: I'm well aware.

    Stranger: In other words: it is by far not true that some things, like say homicide, are condemned all through any human society.

    Stranger: As a rule of thumb, homicide and anything else is a crime only when it happens within your social group.

    Stranger: If you kill an enemy in war, you get a medal.

    You: Yes, double standards abound.

    You: Even in the ten commandments.

    You: Thou shalt not kill, but more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other cause.

    Stranger: Indeed.

    Stranger: That's exactly so.

    Stranger: The idea of morality actually is quite ridiculous, really.

    Stranger: Humans act on behalf of their social group, as a rule of thumb.

    Stranger: You are someone only when you are among people who know you and share your parametres.

    Stranger: A man lost in the ocean is nobody anymore.

    You: Just as time loses its relevance when we leave our gravitational proximity.

    Stranger: Why gravitational proximity?

    You: Stephen Hawking proposed that time only exists in the presence of gravity.

    Stranger: On the basis of which scientific proof?

    You: If you leave Earth or another celestial body, there is no time.

    Stranger: And, what's your name?

    You: Hold on, let me see if I can find it.

    You: What's yours?

    Stranger: No, because I have the doubt that you are someone I know.

    Stranger: Although, no.

    You: Found it.

    Stranger: You sound like an about eighteen male probably from the US.

    You: "In the late 1960s, he and his Cambridge friend and colleague, Roger Penrose, applied a new, complex mathematical model they had created from Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. This led, in 1970, to Hawking proving the first of many singularity theorems; such theorems provide a set of sufficient conditions for the existence of a gravitational singularity in space-time. This work showed that, far from being mathematical curiosities which appear only in special cases, singularities are a fairly generic feature of general relativity."

    You: Seventeen, but close enough.

    Stranger: And the rest was right?

    You: Yes.

    Stranger: Good.

    Stranger: Then you are nobody I know.

    Stranger: Do you think that Obama is going to solve the default mess?

    You: He hasn't given me any reason that he will, so no.

    Stranger: Well, he always gave in to Republican requests, until now.

    Stranger: No reason to believe he won't even this time.

    You: It's all about the reputation for him, see how many people he can please.

    Stranger: Eh.

    Stranger: I cannot say I ever was an enthusiastic fan.

    You: Nor I.

    Stranger: Three years ago, I already thought that he was gonna be one of the worst.

    You: Did he meet your expectations?

    Stranger: Yes.

    Stranger: Inanity is worse than anything.

    You: How true.

    Stranger: I am considering the idea of cooking something.

    Stranger: It's almost 11 pm.

    Stranger: And another day's gone.

    You: To go on an irrelevant tangent for a moment, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that this has got to be the single most productive conversation I've ever had the pleasure of engaging in on Omegle.

    Stranger: I don't think I said anything that interesting.

    Stranger: Just heaps of obviousnesses.

    Stranger: But I don't really think I am going to cook in this exact moment.

    Stranger: I have long reaction times.

    You: What do you mean?

    Stranger: That between the moment when I say "I should cook", and the one when I actually go and cook, a really long time might go by.

    You: Oh yes, the same happens to me.

    You: Also, I assume you live somewhere in central Europe, yes?

    Stranger: Naw, Southern Europe.

    Stranger: I live in the hot, stinky, noisy and fascist-ridden Italy.

    You: Why not leave?

    Stranger: Money, comrade.

    Stranger: I am disgustingly poor.

    You: I am the same.

    Stranger: I actually wrote to Berlin exactly the other day.

    Stranger: But they still haven't replied.

    Stranger: About the possibility of transferring there.

    Stranger: I have to wait.

    You: I don't very much like it where I am either.

    You: Never really supported the idea of patriotism.

    Stranger: No smart people like the places where they were born.

    Stranger: Oh, well.

    You: Is that so?

    Stranger: I am quite open-minded.

    Stranger: About several things.

    Stranger: Surely patriotism is not something fitting me.

    Stranger: Italy, even.. national values: food.

    Stranger: Which actually is possibly the best thing in life.

    Stranger: But hardly something I'd build a nation upon.

    You: What do you think of such abstract concepts as love, honor, dignity, and respect? Just another social fabrication? Existing nowhere else outside of our minds?

    You: Surely these have inspired people, but where they falsely inspired?

    Stranger: Love is a set of quite well defined chemical reactions.

    Stranger: Honour, dignity, well. Point is that this kind of things all have a singular trait in common: everybody gives to these words a different meaning.

    You: It's all a frame of reference.

    Stranger: So, well. People have died and fought for these, but maybe each of these fought for something different, in their own minds.

    You: Based off of this, perhaps perspectivism is the closest we've come to a rational conclusion about life?

    Stranger: I am too old to look for conclusions about life.

    Stranger: It's summer.

    Stranger: Beer. A football match. Ten minutes of up-and-down before going to sleep. It's all.

    Stranger: If I were to give a rational conclusion about life, it'd be 42.

    You: Relative to where I am, that's the only thing that matters to me, I just worry to much about things I'm uncertain about. I used to find some comfort in sports, hobbies, and what have you, but I suppose acedia and existential angst got the better of me and have caused me to view them differently.

    You: Just can't seem to enjoy anything anymore.

    You: Maybe I'm just a whiny bugger, oh well.

    Stranger: I worry about lots of things, as a rule of thumb.

    Stranger: I am paranoid, they say.

    You: Who isn't these days?

    Stranger: I am for sure.

    Stranger: You never know what can happen, really.

    You: Can't blame one anymore, with the advent of surveillance technology, data, and miscellaneous information collection, nearly anything is possible at this point. I mean, everything has always been possible, the only difference now is how conveniently we can achieve those possibilities.

    Stranger: Comrade, I really am starving, now that I notice it.

    Stranger: on MSN, should you feel like it.

    Stranger: Although I am not on often anymore, lately.

    You: Thank you.

    You: Duly noted.

    Stranger: Eh.

    Stranger: Sorry.

    Stranger: but.

    Stranger: My stomach is growling quite a lot.

    You: I understand.

    Stranger: And given that I am disgustingly underweight, I have to heed its commands.

    You: As am I.

    Stranger: Good luck.

    You: You as well.

    Stranger: Maybe we shall talk in a future.

    Stranger: Adieu.

    Your conversational partner has disconnected.

      : Male

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 6559

    Re: The greatest Omegle conversation ever

    Post by Shade on July 23rd 2011, 4:59 pm

    That's a complex argument...

    And it's confused me more than ever.

    Still, my thoughts on Judaism are as neutral as ever.
    The Freedom Fighter

      : Male

    Age: : 29
     Posts: : 5812

    Re: The greatest Omegle conversation ever

    Post by The Freedom Fighter on July 23rd 2011, 9:45 pm

    Was that Mly?


    To the first forum that gave me a chance. Thank you. You will be missed.

      : Male

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 6559

    Re: The greatest Omegle conversation ever

    Post by Shade on July 24th 2011, 4:42 pm

    The Freedom Fighter wrote:Was that Mly?

    I doubt it.

    Probably some random Omegle user...


     Posts: : 760

    Re: The greatest Omegle conversation ever

    Post by Hushimo on July 24th 2011, 5:40 pm

    Shade wrote:
    The Freedom Fighter wrote:Was that Mly?

    I doubt it.

    Probably some random Omegle user...

    There's your answer.

      : Male

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 6559

    Re: The greatest Omegle conversation ever

    Post by Shade on July 24th 2011, 5:42 pm

    Hushimo wrote:
    Shade wrote:

    I doubt it.

    Probably some random Omegle user...

    There's your answer.

    Well, it's not that surprising.

    I'm not sure Mly even uses Omegle...
    The Freedom Fighter

      : Male

    Age: : 29
     Posts: : 5812

    Re: The greatest Omegle conversation ever

    Post by The Freedom Fighter on July 24th 2011, 6:48 pm

    I was joking.


    To the first forum that gave me a chance. Thank you. You will be missed.

      : Male

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 6559

    Re: The greatest Omegle conversation ever

    Post by Shade on July 25th 2011, 2:43 am

    The Freedom Fighter wrote:I was joking.

    Oh, right.

    I was about to say...

    Still, it's quite an interesting conversation...
    The Ad


     Posts: : 17

    Re: The greatest Omegle conversation ever

    Post by The Ad on July 25th 2011, 2:56 am

    Lol, wow. Wow is all I can say.
    The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

      : Male

    Age: : 86
     Posts: : 2334

    Re: The greatest Omegle conversation ever

    Post by Schnickelfritz on August 2nd 2011, 10:42 am

    I'm a complete racist, I'll admit it. I most definitely prefer Human.

    Sponsored content

    Re: The greatest Omegle conversation ever

    Post by Sponsored content