My spider sense tells me that TriggerMeTimbers, Triggernometrics, and PatriArchieComics are the same artist.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Seems like Failbook took it down.Spike13 wrote: There is a new Facebook page "Trigger me timbers" it has send up's of triggering. Not quite up to Slymepit standards. But good non the less.
MarcusAu wrote:
I believe that Gaiman is involved in adapting it to TV - and has talked about expanding the plot, so there is much new to look forward to.
dog puke wrote:It's my birthday... send me dog food and biscuits.
That's an interesting approach to parenting.comhcinc wrote:I've told the kids I don't care if they curse as long as they do it properly, because proper english is important. I have also told them that they curse at their own peril and I won't back them up with anyone. I have gone so far to say I will deny knowing their curse and throw them under the bus if I need to.
dog puke wrote:It's my birthday... send me dog food and biscuits.
The problem isn't responsible breeders, but puppy mills, which does feed the pet shop industry. I found all mine at shelters, including my boy, a basenji - thought I'd have to pay hundreds for one - and have never had issues. My last two live around 17 years without issues until old age really set in. No real idea what the #adoptdon'tshop philosophy is, but the way I understand it you can get more animals with problems (esp genetics) from the mills, while the flip side is you can get the same with adoption. Maybe part is paying a shelter for a pet which can help save other animals, or pay a store with a profit margin and paying to support puppy (or kitty, bunny, etc) mills. Not sure how fish work, but I've never seen a fish up for adoption so I don't think it applies.HunnyBunny wrote:Are there any #AdoptDon'tShop pet adopting advocates here? I have a problem with this philosophy, but maybe I'm wrong.
To me this new movement that says pet breeding is wrong and people should never buy an animal as a pet is just a form of SJWism. It comes across as extremist and ill-informed. And sometimes plain dumb. However, I do acknowledge I am biased, having grown up with pedigree pets, and currently owning a dog of a specific breed, who we purchased from a registered breeder.
I have FFFs (Fucking Facebook Friends) who seem otherwise intelligent, but constantly post about how 'adopting' is the only ethical route to pet-owning. My objections are, in no particular order:
1. adoption (at least in France & UK) isn't free. In our part of France it costs €250, so these people are buying a pet.
2. along with the #adopt mantra, comes a plea to always neuter your pets. If all breeding should be stopped, and every pet is neutered then there will be no animals left. I can only assume that therefore these people are animal haters with the ultimate goal of removing cats and dogs from the face of the earth.
3. Many breeds have been around for hundreds, or in some case thousands, of years. No breeding would mean they all disappeared and only feral animals would be breeding, creating just one type of dog / cat / goldfish. I have found specific breeds can differ greatly from other breeds, and I wouldn't want to lose this diversity. Dogs used for jobs like care dogs, or sniffer dogs are specific breeds for a reason. Is it ok to breed those dogs still? Is it ok to breed horses - should we only adopt those as well because some people are mean to them or don't ethically breed them?
4. Animals in shelters are there because people, both breeders and owners, are stupid or mean or both. Only adopting animals won't stop people from being stupid or mean, it will just be that the nice people continue being nice, but with less opportunity to have a pet because there will be so few pets to go around. In short, it is people that are the problem, so perhaps we should do something about the people instead.
As I said, I acknowledge my love of certain breeds makes me biased. But also I hate extremists of any kind, and I am sceptical of the logic and claims made. If we didn't live in Hong Kong with the issue of no space, I probably would adopt a pet, along with the specific breed animals I like, if I found one that suited our family. I know that the recent rise in 'puppy farms' and unethical breeding for fashion traits is awful, but that comes back to people being a problem, and therefore we need to sort the people who are a problem.
So, any folk here who use the #adoptdon'tshop mantra care to put the other side?
Kirbmarc wrote:That's an interesting approach to parenting.comhcinc wrote:I've told the kids I don't care if they curse as long as they do it properly, because proper english is important. I have also told them that they curse at their own peril and I won't back them up with anyone. I have gone so far to say I will deny knowing their curse and throw them under the bus if I need to.
And your point?comhcinc wrote: You are one sick fuck.
Candles worth blowing. Thank you.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:dog puke wrote:It's my birthday... send me dog food and biscuits.
dog puke wrote:And your point?comhcinc wrote: You are one sick fuck.
Eh, if the parents swear, it's hypocritical to try to :twatson: restrict swearing as an adult thing. And futile, as they'll learn it soon enough anyway and just use it behind your back. It lessens the forbidden fruit aspect. My eldest daughter curses like a sailor, but my other daughter wouldn't say shit if she had a mouthful. My boys use it sparingly. I was allowed to curse growing up, and my parents had a policy against censorship. It served me well wheras my peers went overboard when they got a little freedom.Kirbmarc wrote:That's an interesting approach to parenting.comhcinc wrote:I've told the kids I don't care if they curse as long as they do it properly, because proper english is important. I have also told them that they curse at their own peril and I won't back them up with anyone. I have gone so far to say I will deny knowing their curse and throw them under the bus if I need to.
Of course. You've explained them that it's not such a big deal and haven't turned the curses into a tempting taboo. Why would they still be interested in them?comhcinc wrote:I mean I am being a little flippant here but both I and their mother constantly curse around them. I think it would be pretty disingenuous to tell them they can't say the words I used all the time. I have explained that there are times and places where that will be unacceptable, like school. If I was ever to be called in to school I think I would split it down the middle. I would agree with the school that it was the wrong place and time to curse but also I would question if it really was that big of a fucking deal?
Btw, the kids never curse. They are just not interested in it.
Missed #2 - unless you plan on breeding your pet, always spay or neuter them. In many (most?) cases it can help with behavioral issues as well as help in lifespan and general health. Not sure why, perhaps stresses on the body? No clue, really, but many dogs live longer and have less of certain issues when spayed or neutered - I forget the specifics but it varies, and I'm not sure how extensive it really is. The behavioral issues, along with the problems with pets, especially cats, going into heat, and the costs of breeding an unwanted litter because you aren't responsible (letting them run around the neighborhood, etc) can be high. That part is also part of responsible ownership. If you keep your dog in the yard, for the most part, you won't have to worry about having a litter unexpectedly (depends on the breed, I've heard of large dogs jumping over shorter fences to consummate their one-night stands.HunnyBunny wrote:Are there any #AdoptDon'tShop pet adopting advocates here? I have a problem with this philosophy, but maybe I'm wrong.
To me this new movement that says pet breeding is wrong and people should never buy an animal as a pet is just a form of SJWism. It comes across as extremist and ill-informed. And sometimes plain dumb. However, I do acknowledge I am biased, having grown up with pedigree pets, and currently owning a dog of a specific breed, who we purchased from a registered breeder.
I have FFFs (Fucking Facebook Friends) who seem otherwise intelligent, but constantly post about how 'adopting' is the only ethical route to pet-owning. My objections are, in no particular order:
1. adoption (at least in France & UK) isn't free. In our part of France it costs €250, so these people are buying a pet.
2. along with the #adopt mantra, comes a plea to always neuter your pets. If all breeding should be stopped, and every pet is neutered then there will be no animals left. I can only assume that therefore these people are animal haters with the ultimate goal of removing cats and dogs from the face of the earth.
3. Many breeds have been around for hundreds, or in some case thousands, of years. No breeding would mean they all disappeared and only feral animals would be breeding, creating just one type of dog / cat / goldfish. I have found specific breeds can differ greatly from other breeds, and I wouldn't want to lose this diversity. Dogs used for jobs like care dogs, or sniffer dogs are specific breeds for a reason. Is it ok to breed those dogs still? Is it ok to breed horses - should we only adopt those as well because some people are mean to them or don't ethically breed them?
4. Animals in shelters are there because people, both breeders and owners, are stupid or mean or both. Only adopting animals won't stop people from being stupid or mean, it will just be that the nice people continue being nice, but with less opportunity to have a pet because there will be so few pets to go around. In short, it is people that are the problem, so perhaps we should do something about the people instead.
As I said, I acknowledge my love of certain breeds makes me biased. But also I hate extremists of any kind, and I am sceptical of the logic and claims made. If we didn't live in Hong Kong with the issue of no space, I probably would adopt a pet, along with the specific breed animals I like, if I found one that suited our family. I know that the recent rise in 'puppy farms' and unethical breeding for fashion traits is awful, but that comes back to people being a problem, and therefore we need to sort the people who are a problem.
So, any folk here who use the #adoptdon'tshop mantra care to put the other side?
It's probably a good time to ask some friends over, and see if they can't help get your head unstuck from the toilet.dog puke wrote:It's my birthday... send me dog food and biscuits.
It looks really good. Same group did Coraline (keeping the Gaiman train going) and my whole family likes that.Sunder wrote:Just saw Kubo and the Two Strings. It's pretty fucking great.
The only negative review I came across before seeing it was some Guardian tit bitching that it "indoctrinated" Shinto, which I wasn't aware was a thing that anyone anywhere was or could be legitimately concerned over. It's a fucking fairytale, and a gorgeous one. Also pretty sure it traumatized a few children in attendance which is always a plus. Kids need to watch more films that will give them nightmares.
It's definitely got that Princess Bride quality that marks it out for cultdom.comhcinc wrote:As an aside Stardust is my ex's favorite movie. I think that movie is underrated and will become a cult hit over the next 20 years.
Apparently you haven't seen Zootopia. Stardust was a little cutesy for my taste, but the wife loves it.rayshul wrote:Stardust is one of the worst pieces of shit I've ever seen.
When I grew up it was just a "known thing" that how you spoke among yourselves (liberal use of fuck and cunt etc,) was just not done at school or at home as there would be consequences. Sticking to this meant there were never any issues.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Eh, if the parents swear, it's hypocritical to try to :twatson: restrict swearing as an adult thing. And futile, as they'll learn it soon enough anyway and just use it behind your back. It lessens the forbidden fruit aspect. My eldest daughter curses like a sailor, but my other daughter wouldn't say shit if she had a mouthful. My boys use it sparingly. I was allowed to curse growing up, and my parents had a policy against censorship. It served me well wheras my peers went overboard when they got a little freedom.Kirbmarc wrote:That's an interesting approach to parenting.comhcinc wrote:I've told the kids I don't care if they curse as long as they do it properly, because proper english is important. I have also told them that they curse at their own peril and I won't back them up with anyone. I have gone so far to say I will deny knowing their curse and throw them under the bus if I need to.
I do back up my kid's speech, tho there's only been one incident, and that with the MIL.
You might have the perfect vag but I don't think I can't trust your taste in movies.rayshul wrote:Stardust is one of the worst pieces of shit I've ever seen.
Then it sounds like you really haven't seen that many movies:rayshul wrote:Stardust is one of the worst pieces of shit I've ever seen.
True.JackSkeptic wrote:The reason is simple and does not need doping to explain it. The Lottery cash was allocated on merit and focused only on those athletes who could show they had a chance of success. In some ways it is a brutal system but highly effective and highly motivating. So the cash allocation was focused and not spread thinly. The UK has far less actual entries than China across fewer sports. There was also a lot spent on ground roots facilities which bred new generations of athletes.Tigzy wrote:Got even more golds than China at present, which I have to admit seems a bit too good to be true. Yep, I know the UK's reaping the rewards of a long term lottery cash investment, but even so. I hope to fuck there's no doping involved.CommanderTuvok wrote:BTW, Great Britain just clocked up gold medal number 25, with a couple more probably to come.
Australia, meanwhile, are still stuck on EIGHT!
Pity there is not a decent picture of a kangaroo crying.
The whole approach is the total opposite of how an SJW would do it and I suspect the way many other countries do it too. They hate meritocracy and this 'medals for all' mentality is killing a lot of competitors chances through lack of funding.
I thought she was 7/9DrokkIt wrote: Also Jeri Ryan is 10/10 objective beauty standards.
People have already pointed this out, but the number of individuals who find fame, but are then caught out by social media activity they types out years before, usually as a teenager, will only increase.Tigzy wrote:In other news, Burnley striker Andre Gray, who today found his moment of glory in being instrumental in defeating Liverpool 2-0, has had some old tweets unearthed. Social media furore has ensued owing to their paucity of political correctness:
I've noticed, and I am not surprised. There was always some distance between Corbyn and Khan. I imagine some Corbynistas are already labelling Khan "Tory scum" or "blue Labour".Tigzy wrote:BTW Tuvok - some good popcorn fare is brewing up in UK politics: Labour's pet muslim Mayor of London has come out against Corbyn: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sadiq-khan
Are the Corbynistas willing to risk being labelled Islamophobes in order to go to war against Khan? Here's hoping! :popcorn:
He's a giant, he looks like a whole other type of human beside the other competitors. When I've seen his events I'm totally not surprised he's killing it.Oglebart wrote:So does anyone believe that Usain Bolt is on the level? Is there a chance of a Lance Armstrong type expose in a few years time. I think the cult of personality around him is so large now that Athletics as a sport would take such a massive blow that it won't be allowed to happen. Maybe he is just super talented? Of the ten men that have run under 9.79 for the 100 metres, Bolt is the only one to never have been caught doping, coincidence?
It's hard to know what is really going on in top level sport now. Huge amounts of money dictate events now I feel.
Someone's already labelled Khan - of all people - a Zionist as a result. :lol:CommanderTuvok wrote: I've noticed, and I am not surprised. There was always some distance between Corbyn and Khan. I imagine some Corbynistas are already labelling Khan "Tory scum" or "blue Labour".
Well it sounds like wank, but... it's Michael Gondry & has Omar Sy. I will watch the cunt out of it.free thoughtpolice wrote:Worst movie ever? I haven't seen this but have seen the trailers and read the synopsis; surreal bittersweet tragic romance where woman falls ill with rare, fatal disease that has a flower growing in her lungs, the only treatment is her beau constantly surrounding her with flowers. Sickly sweet, stupid, corny and depressing all at once.
Yep. I'm seeing them just fine (Firefox, Win 10 + plus shitty latest update). I think I might add some text quoting the content of the tweets in the forseeable future though. That last one was:Oglebart wrote:Tuvok and Tigzy, are you embedding tweets in your last few posts? Cause they aren't showing up if so. Maybe similar to the recent YouTube embed issue??
Moe
@moethemyth
Sadiq Khan - nothing but a closet Tory Zionist. Its the truth....
Hmmm, ok thanks for that. I'll investigate things at my end, odd.Tigzy wrote:Yep. I'm seeing them just fine (Firefox, Win 10 + plus shitty latest update). I think I might add some text quoting the content of the tweets in the forseeable future though. That last one was:Oglebart wrote:Tuvok and Tigzy, are you embedding tweets in your last few posts? Cause they aren't showing up if so. Maybe similar to the recent YouTube embed issue??
Moe
@moethemyth
Sadiq Khan - nothing but a closet Tory Zionist. Its the truth....
rayshul wrote:He's a giant, he looks like a whole other type of human beside the other competitors. When I've seen his events I'm totally not surprised he's killing it.Oglebart wrote:So does anyone believe that Usain Bolt is on the level? Is there a chance of a Lance Armstrong type expose in a few years time. I think the cult of personality around him is so large now that Athletics as a sport would take such a massive blow that it won't be allowed to happen. Maybe he is just super talented? Of the ten men that have run under 9.79 for the 100 metres, Bolt is the only one to never have been caught doping, coincidence?
It's hard to know what is really going on in top level sport now. Huge amounts of money dictate events now I feel.
Works for me. Using latest chrome build on Mint.Oglebart wrote:Hmmm, ok thanks for that. I'll investigate things at my end, odd.Tigzy wrote:Yep. I'm seeing them just fine (Firefox, Win 10 + plus shitty latest update). I think I might add some text quoting the content of the tweets in the forseeable future though. That last one was:Oglebart wrote:Tuvok and Tigzy, are you embedding tweets in your last few posts? Cause they aren't showing up if so. Maybe similar to the recent YouTube embed issue??
Moe
@moethemyth
Sadiq Khan - nothing but a closet Tory Zionist. Its the truth....
Gotta love those nutters. Khan has sucked up to Islamists in the past:Tigzy wrote:...and sure enough, not a moment after my last post: Lefty muslim Sadiq is, in fact, a closet tory Zionist:
That's about the quality of your support, Jezza. Are you not happy?
And his support for the idiotic radfem campaign of censoring "fat-shaming" ads reeks of backdoor Islamism (you can make conservative Muslims happy by censoring nudity if you support the radfem nutters who are triggered by beautiful women in ads).It is only after knowing how Khan shored up his 2010 power base in Tooting, in part by demonizing his rival as being “not Muslim enough,” that the scandal that hit Khan on the last day of his campaign begins to makes sense.
It was discovered that in 2009 Khan used the racially divisive and derogatory term “Uncle Tom”—on Iranian State TV no less—to describe reforming liberal Muslims, who counter extremism. The question Khan answered here came in specific reference to my own organization, Quilliam.
It's amusing to see the Corbynistas tweeting that if it wasn't for Jezza, Khan would never have been elected Mayor of London. Somehow I suspect certain other demographic groups - and one in particular - might have had more to do with that.Kirbmarc wrote: The UK Labour Party has become so messed up that vacuous wastes of space like Oliver Smith can suggest ideas like recognizing the Islamic State as a legitimate entity which should have access to the peace talks in Syria. Hopefully the Labour will implode sooner rather than later.
The question is if the populace will eventually desensitize to it?CommanderTuvok wrote:People have already pointed this out, but the number of individuals who find fame, but are then caught out by social media activity they types out years before, usually as a teenager, will only increase.Tigzy wrote:In other news, Burnley striker Andre Gray, who today found his moment of glory in being instrumental in defeating Liverpool 2-0, has had some old tweets unearthed. Social media furore has ensued owing to their paucity of political correctness:
Good job John Terry and Robbie Fowler weren't on Twitter in the 1990s!
The general populace? Yes. I believe that many are already desensitized and plainly don't care one way or the other. A football player has said some stupid shit: the horror, the horror.deLurch wrote:The question is if the populace will eventually desensitize to it?CommanderTuvok wrote:People have already pointed this out, but the number of individuals who find fame, but are then caught out by social media activity they types out years before, usually as a teenager, will only increase.Tigzy wrote:In other news, Burnley striker Andre Gray, who today found his moment of glory in being instrumental in defeating Liverpool 2-0, has had some old tweets unearthed. Social media furore has ensued owing to their paucity of political correctness:
Good job John Terry and Robbie Fowler weren't on Twitter in the 1990s!
*Sigh* - Everyone is a Zionist. Everyone is in on the Jewish conspiracy. One step further and they are talking about lizard people.Tigzy wrote:Someone's already labelled Khan - of all people - a Zionist as a result. :lol:CommanderTuvok wrote: I've noticed, and I am not surprised. There was always some distance between Corbyn and Khan. I imagine some Corbynistas are already labelling Khan "Tory scum" or "blue Labour".
(Prolly not a parody account, either - has far too much of a pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist monomania thing going on there.)
bovarchist wrote:Someone just challenged me to find a single feminist who wants Salman Rushdie dead.
I can't help but think that there must be at least one...
Just dredging this up from last Tuesday to say I'm three episodes in and enjoying it. It's not perfect but it's a fair stab at questioning and to some extent debunking sociologists' theories; theories which have had a massive influence on public policy when often not backed by any real science.VickyCaramel wrote:This iswell worthessential watching:-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask
This documentary challenges Norwegian government polices which have been influenced by sociology. He interviews various sociologists and ministers about gender, sexuality, education, etc.. Then he asks real scientists what the science shows. Mainly he is asking, nature or nurture.
I found some of the science surprising (and something of a relief), but what is really entertaining is the reactions of the sociologists when confronted with the evidence. One woman in the third episode seems to go through the first four stages of grief then sits there with a quivering bottom lip.
Enjoy.
Heaps!bovarchist wrote:Someone just challenged me to find a single feminist who wants Salman Rushdie dead.
I can't help but think that there must be at least one...
Leftists parties everywhere in Europe are losing their appeal with the working class. They've become elitist parties which are more popular with academics and students, civil servants, state employees and identity groups than with people who work in factories or shops. To say nothing of shop owners and people who run family businesses, who are almost overwhelmingly right wing.Tigzy wrote:That said, blaming Corbyn over Labour's failure to convince their supporters on the merits or Remaining in the EU is nothing more than scapegoating on Khan's part. Like most Labour folks, he's either forgetting or ignoring (I suspect the latter) the fact that significant Labour losses to UKIP were occurring in the traditional Labour heartlands (the very ones which swung it for Brexit) long before Corbyn was leader. True, Corbyn didn't help matters much - but he certainly wasn't the cause. As far as I can see, it doesn't really matter who leads Labour - they're still fucked unless they're willing to confront those issues which UKIP are all to happy to talk about. And Labour are far too chickenshit for that at the moment.
