The literal reading of that was not what I expected.rayshul wrote: Every playboy centerfold.
Pointy, though.
The literal reading of that was not what I expected.rayshul wrote: Every playboy centerfold.
John Greg wrote:Bottom line: I don't want to be so alone.
We have cunts-a-plenty. Name and shame, folks, here's your chance!John Greg wrote:Bottom line: I don't want to be so alone.
...
And no, I don't need a respone to that. I'm just blathering. :snooty:
You are all, well, mostly all, lovely, wonderful people.
So there. :shhh:
I got a woman from New Zealand to post a story about pro wrestling.rayshul wrote:http://www.retroist.com/2013/06/05/trag ... ch-family/ Relevant
Hmm. I don't know what you are saying here, but I support it 110%.We have cunts-a-plenty. Name and shame, folks, here's your chance!
First up, Steerzo, the OFFICIAL Slyme Pit cunt.
Over to y'all...
http://img.pandawhale.com/165596-youre- ... m-TBaQ.gifJohn Greg wrote:Hey, hey, com, I SAID, don't respond.
Chicks dig them. I had two chicks gushing over Hitchens tonight.John Greg wrote:And no, I will not buy a smelly wee beasty ferrret.
I don't know about good but we cook meat at my house.John Greg wrote:Hey-up! Any of you folks into good home cooking?
I am going to start a John Greg's Gustatory Glubberation thread in a couple of days. Think of it as my legacy to the Pit.
It will be almost exclusively pasta recipes.
I hope ya'll 'll follow.
But if you don't well.... :snooty:
You are the 360-minute man.comhcinc wrote:Tonight we went 6 hours. Wooo!
[yoootube]hVU0MW-IGrM[/youtube]
I was aware of the Von Erich family, but this is because I have a creepy interest in famous people who died young.comhcinc wrote:I got a woman from New Zealand to post a story about pro wrestling.rayshul wrote:http://www.retroist.com/2013/06/05/trag ... ch-family/ Relevant
Tell me I am not good.
I do bad homecooking and am very much up for advice. My latest cooking triumph is creating "posh" ramen which involves other ingredients but mainly still ramen.John Greg wrote:Hey-up! Any of you folks into good home cooking?
I am going to start a John Greg's Gustatory Glubberation thread in a couple of days. Think of it as my legacy to the Pit.
It will be almost exclusively pasta recipes.
I hope ya'll 'll follow.
But if you don't well.... :snooty:
Maybe com will let you stroke his ferret on occasion.John Greg wrote:Hey, hey, com, I SAID, don't respond.
And no, I will not buy a smelly wee beasty ferrret.
Here's one for your boys, then.rayshul wrote:I mean they're kids playing dress up and doing confidence building shit. Girls as far as I know like to pretend to be adults more than boys do (who as far as I can tell from mine, like to pretend to be robots). If there were some here and my kids wanted to do it I'd probably bring them to one.
But your beer does.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:That was another cool hangout. Like being in a pub, really. Except, in the pub, my jokes don't fall flat.
Pure nostalgiarayshul wrote: Every playboy centerfold.
My knowledge of such things is spotty at best - most of what I learned came from the Flashman memoirs (mentioned by Jim the Pleb the other day).Brive1987 wrote:Military history. I did Hons in history, I'm going back to my roots. :dance:
Teaching kids that they should 'be exhibitionists to get ahead' isn't a bad message.Kirbmarc wrote: Isn't teaching the kids that they should be exhibitionists to get ahead kind of a bad message, though? Being an attention-seeker from young age isn't a good life plan. You're likely to put too much value in your physical appearance (and to develop body image issues later on) to attract a lot of unwanted attention, and to be valued only for your exhibitionism.
And are those children really empowering themselves or only getting their parents to live vicariously through them? There's a video on youtube about a little girl (about 5) who is forced by her mother to climb up a trapeze and do splits even though she's almost crying.
Also I'm not sure that the environment of child modeling shows is safe for children.
Not all concerns are due to "small-minded provincialism".
... The basic principle is that It is hard to go wrong if you add olive oil, onions & garlic to whatever you cook.rayshul wrote:I do bad homecooking and am very much up for advice. My latest cooking triumph is creating "posh" ramen which involves other ingredients but mainly still ramen.John Greg wrote:Hey-up! Any of you folks into good home cooking?
I am going to start a John Greg's Gustatory Glubberation thread in a couple of days. Think of it as my legacy to the Pit.
It will be almost exclusively pasta recipes.
I hope ya'll 'll follow.
But if you don't well.... :snooty:
Erm ... You are calling me a weirdo? :lol: :lol: :lol:Service Dog wrote: To exaggerate the harm of child pageant competitions is to agree with fundamentalist muslims, Steersman, proud-weirdo AndrewV69, and fundamentalist feminists. I don't trust their cures to be better than the alleged disease.
Fucking-a, you guys went for three and a half more hours after I bowed out? I feel so inadequate :(comhcinc wrote:Tonight we went 6 hours. Wooo!
[youtube]hVU0MW-IGrM[/youtube]
Such advice! You have some serious experience with parenting or child psychology, I assume? Or is this another knee-jerk, unthinking reaction to feminism? If feminism says something is wrong, it must be right, huh? Of course, it is just about always little girls and not little boys, but because feminists insist there is sexism everywhere, that means there is never any real sexism anywhere.Service Dog wrote:Teaching kids that they should 'be exhibitionists to get ahead' isn't a bad message.Kirbmarc wrote: Isn't teaching the kids that they should be exhibitionists to get ahead kind of a bad message, though? Being an attention-seeker from young age isn't a good life plan. You're likely to put too much value in your physical appearance (and to develop body image issues later on) to attract a lot of unwanted attention, and to be valued only for your exhibitionism.
And are those children really empowering themselves or only getting their parents to live vicariously through them? There's a video on youtube about a little girl (about 5) who is forced by her mother to climb up a trapeze and do splits even though she's almost crying.
Also I'm not sure that the environment of child modeling shows is safe for children.
Not all concerns are due to "small-minded provincialism".
Because performing confidently & persuasively in public is a valuable skill for a politican, activist, salesperson, musician, actor, comedian, commentator.
Being an 'attention-seeker' IS a good life-plan. Attention-seekers thrive.
If merely participating in a pageant or fashion runway show is to be quantified as putting "too much" value on your physical appearance, resulting in being valued "only" for your exhibitionism, "body image issues", and "unwanted attention"...
...then it's fair to quantify NOT participating in pageants & modeling... as putting Not Enough value on physical appearance, resulting in obesity, poor cardio, deadly infections due to poor hygiene, and a lifetime alone due to lack of attention.
And are those children who participating in, say, Science Fairs, really empowering themselves or only getting their parents to live vicariously through them? There's a video on youtube about a little girl (about 5) who is forced by her mother to compete in a Spelling Bee, even though she's almost crying.
Also I'm not sure that the environment of Not Being On child modeling shows is safe for children... look at all the non-child models starving in the third world.
To exaggerate the harm of child pageant competitions is to agree with fundamentalist muslims, Steersman, proud-weirdo AndrewV69, and fundamentalist feminists. I don't trust their cures to be better than the alleged disease.
Please take the Steersman pledge. He has never budged on any position and never will, regardless of evidence. You've fought the good fight, and been patient, persistent and even charitable. And while I've enjoyed and been instructed by your interaction with him, I think it is time to stop encouraging his behavior. He has zero empathy, and if he is not a racist, he sure plays one well. I honestly think if folks here ignore him long enough, he'll go away. Failing that he should be mercilessly mocked like Creativity or any other authoritarian ideologue. Life is too short.Kirbmarc wrote:Evidence that Steersman is an authoritarian cunt:
I love me some Paul Bloom.VickyCaramel wrote:Very interesting. I haven't time to read the study but the article says:-Kirbmarc wrote:A really interesting article. Thank you, Skep!Skep tickle wrote:What's the point of moral outrage?
I find this paragraph especially interesting:
Moral outrage is a part of human nature. But it’s worth keeping in mind that the punishment that it triggers is sometimes best explained not as a fair and proportionate reaction, but as a result of a system that has evolved to boost our individual reputations — without much care for what it means for others.
Only in part eh? The roots is it?in a paper published Thursday in the journal Nature, we present evidence that the roots of this outrage are, in part, self-serving.
Sometimes it is best to skip the articles and go straight to the study, something which i haven't had time to do yet.
Something struck me though. I have a vague recollection into studies of groups of chimps and collage students (which amounts to much the same thing) into trust and cheating... how many liberties you can take, and how many times you can cry wolf. Obviously there is only so long that SJWs can cry 'racist', 'misogyny' and 'oppression' before it loses its power, and society completely loses it's trust of them. But I wonder if these constant moral outrages on social media will eventually deaden the overall effect? When you think of the many cases of passers by NOT stopping to help; can experience teach a whole society to ignore the instincts evolution has given us?
I know my immediate reaction to most moral outrages is to roll my eyes... but then again I am still not completely sure who Kim kardashian is either. I might not be normal.
I flew into Miami once and had my bag put through a giant Xray machine because I admitted to possession of a chicken sandwich.Shatterface wrote:What happens in Miami stays in Miami.MarcusAu wrote:Not that I recall, no.comhcinc wrote: You went to Miami, did a lot of party drugs and became super gay?
Good for you!Brive1987 wrote:Military history. I did Hons in history, I'm going back to my roots. :dance:
Yet another series of observations, now scholary, that dangerously confirm our suspicions down to the detail. I would love to see something that is actually challenging it.Guestus Aurelius wrote:<snip>What's the point of moral outrage?
<snip>
I love me some Paul Bloom.
My only beef with that article is how they use the word "trustworthy." It invites the reader to infer that SJW keyboard activists are honest in general ( :lol: ), whereas it seems to me that the researchers are really only suggesting that virtue-signalers can be "trusted" to put some of their resources where their mouths are within certain contexts related to their moral outrage. It's not "trustworthy" so much as "devotedly partisan" or, if you will, "having drunk the Kool-Aid."
Hey, wasn't there a study a few years back suggesting something like the opposite? that keyboard activists were in fact less likely than others to donate money to their professed pet causes? I can't recall the details, so I might be way off.
Anyway, yeah, it's clear that moral outrage is related to genuine feelings of disgust (see Paul Rozin, Jon Haidt), and that acting on it publicly—even with mere words of condemnation—solidifies your in-group reputation, rallies the troops, and deepens the lines separating your "tribe" from the others. Of course, we non-SJWs do it too, and I'm sure I'm doing it as I write this, but it isn't a way of life for us like it is for them. (SWIDT?)
I play chess, but I am no grandmaster. There used to be an online area for people to play against one another, chess, Go and Oware, but it disappeared long ago. Never tried chess by email.Malky wrote:Cap'n Fluffybunny - you play chess? Perhaps we could arrange a game some day? Also invitation for anyone else to play if they wish. Happy to play "correspondence" by emails and trust you not to use an engine. Happy for anyone to suggest conditions for a game as well.
Guestus Aurelius wrote:
I love me some Paul Bloom.
My only beef with that article is how they use the word "trustworthy." It invites the reader to infer that SJW keyboard activists are honest in general ( :lol: ), whereas it seems to me that the researchers are really only suggesting that virtue-signalers can be "trusted" to put some of their resources where their mouths are within certain contexts related to their moral outrage. It's not "trustworthy" so much as "devotedly partisan" or, if you will, "having drunk the Kool-Aid."
Hey, wasn't there a study a few years back suggesting something like the opposite? that keyboard activists were in fact less likely than others to donate money to their professed pet causes? I can't recall the details, so I might be way off.
Anyway, yeah, it's clear that moral outrage is related to genuine feelings of disgust (see Paul Rozin, Jon Haidt), and that acting on it publicly—even with mere words of condemnation—solidifies your in-group reputation, rallies the troops, and deepens the lines separating your "tribe" from the others. Of course, we non-SJWs do it too, and I'm sure I'm doing it as I write this, but it isn't a way of life for us like it is for them. (SWIDT?)
I like this version more than the standard, even if it has a tendency to switch directions more often, probably due to the bias to see brighter areas are foreground.AndrewV69 wrote:I am just going to leave this here
Ferrets are cute enough, but you couldn't do better than a guinea-pig for company. They snuggle and burble and are the closest you can get to a tribble.John Greg wrote:
And no, I will not buy a smelly wee beasty ferrret.
Christ, anyone can do Spaghetti Carbonara. Do I post the recipe here, or will there be a separate thread?rayshul wrote:I do bad homecooking and am very much up for advice. My latest cooking triumph is creating "posh" ramen which involves other ingredients but mainly still ramen.John Greg wrote:Hey-up! Any of you folks into good home cooking?
I am going to start a John Greg's Gustatory Glubberation thread in a couple of days. Think of it as my legacy to the Pit.
It will be almost exclusively pasta recipes.
I hope ya'll 'll follow.
But if you don't well.... :snooty:
Remember, the answer to the WWII question is: "The Sherman."Brive1987 wrote:Military history. I did Hons in history, I'm going back to my roots. :dance:
With that sort of music, I can tell you straight up as someone involved in the field, it's almost ALL the producer and a few minions (e.g. programmers - not in the coding sense, but in the sense of people who are adept with sequencer programs) and maybe a couple of session musicians. But most of it's pure computer artistry, there's very little input from the singer - unless the singer is really really good, of course.Semi wrote:
And she's basically done. Artists like Ke$ha are like bananas. They have a very short shelf life if they are not constantly performing and releasing hits and making the scene, which she has NOT been doing for years. She's up against hitting her stale date. If she were supremely talented, then she might push on through this, but she can barely sing.
Nobody out there is waiting for the next Ke$ha album.
Also the answer to "What's a great stress reliever?"Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Remember, the answer to the WWII question is: "The Sherman."Brive1987 wrote:Military history. I did Hons in history, I'm going back to my roots. :dance:
Oh yes, by all means, DO post your Carbonara recipe here. Let's see if I'll get to point and laugh or just nod approvingly.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Christ, anyone can do Spaghetti Carbonara. Do I post the recipe here, or will there be a separate thread?
You beat me to it. :DPhil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh yes, by all means, DO post your Carbonara recipe here. Let's see if I'll get to point and laugh or just nod approvingly.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Christ, anyone can do Spaghetti Carbonara. Do I post the recipe here, or will there be a separate thread?
There will be a lot of inseparable threads. That's what spaghetti is.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Christ, anyone can do Spaghetti Carbonara. Do I post the recipe here, or will there be a separate thread?
How to recognize the Sherman....Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Remember, the answer to the WWII question is: "The Sherman."Brive1987 wrote:Military history. I did Hons in history, I'm going back to my roots. :dance:
I'll also share my recipe for pissiladiere, then.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh yes, by all means, DO post your Carbonara recipe here. Let's see if I'll get to point and laugh or just nod approvingly.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Christ, anyone can do Spaghetti Carbonara. Do I post the recipe here, or will there be a separate thread?
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/wp-con ... 40x460.jpgJohn D wrote:How to recognize the Sherman....Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Remember, the answer to the WWII question is: "The Sherman."Brive1987 wrote:Military history. I did Hons in history, I'm going back to my roots. :dance:
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/milita ... cebook.com
How To Recognize The Sherman:John D wrote: How to recognize the Sherman....
Yeah, this is really the kind of crux of it. It's not that greater good questions aren't relevant, it's that individuals and their rights are logically more fundamental, and greater good questions have to be worked on in a way that's conditioned by the logical priority of basic individual rights, and the principle of equal treatment by any treating agent or agency.Kirbmarc wrote:I agree with you. It's more of a matter of respecting each other's individual rights than of acting towards an abstract "greater good".
I once tried to argue this position with a woman with purple hair and flat-lens glasses with thick rims. I even gave the name of a philosopher that she might want to read. But, instead, she stomped off, thinking that I'd just said "hey, girl."gurugeorge wrote:This is the logical seed of all the basic "negative" human rights: life, free speech, property, assembly, etc. They all follow quite clearly and logically from that ground rule of let people do what they want until they're demonstrably harmful.
Eh, what?gurugeorge wrote:Yeah, this is really the kind of crux of it. It's not that greater good questions aren't relevant, it's that individuals and their rights are logically more fundamental, and greater good questions have to be worked on in a way that's conditioned by the logical priority of basic individual rights, and the principle of equal treatment by any treating agent or agency.Kirbmarc wrote:I agree with you. It's more of a matter of respecting each other's individual rights than of acting towards an abstract "greater good".
This is because liberalism isn't fundamentally the imposition of a desired "good" structure on society, but rather an experiment to see if the "good" can't be discovered by society.
For the social discovery process to work, individuals have to be free to try things out, severally and in concert, and to succeed and fail. This has become obvious with the scientific discovery process and with markets, but it's also true of the social discovery process of other kinds of goods generally, including social and moral goods.
This results in a simple rule: let people do their thing until and unless they can be falsifiably demonstrated to be doing harm, have done harm, or be highly likely to do harm. It's sort of the analogue, in the social sphere, of epistemological falsificationism: it's easier to miss the target than to hit it. Effectively the liberal way is to have an over-arching tacit social contract that we all have a DUTY to refrain from interfering with others, and that we can RELEASE OURSELVES FROM THAT DUTY in the case of any individual or group only if we can demonstrate the harm condition.
The burden of justification is on the one who would abrogate, in some particular proposed instance, the common duty to refrain from interfering.
This is the logical seed of all the basic "negative" human rights: life, free speech, property, assembly, etc. They all follow quite clearly and logically from that ground rule of let people do what they want until they're demonstrably harmful.
That simple rule (so simple that even the stupidest in society can understand it), which is reflected in the legal field as "innocent until proven guilty" sets the basic condition for the social discovery process of the "good", which we may say is some basket of closely-related social rulesets out there in possibility space, that's conducive to the basket of closely-related goals of human flourishing, happiness, well-being, etc. And over the millennia and centuries, there's been a tolerable convergence on the "good". Still lots of argument about corners, grey areas,slippery slopes and all the rest of it, but by now most people recognize both the liberal ground rules, and can generally see how the logic of those ground rules plays out in any given dispute or problem.
An ideology that starts with a pre-defined, abstract concept of the good, on the other hand, short-circuits this discovery process. Particularly if it's a reification of that consensus-up-till-now that I mentioned in the last paragraph. It's not that you can't do that, and it's not that doing that may not be all kinds of interesting to think about, it's that any justification you have for legal action must necessarily be on flimsier grounds than demonstrable harm.