Yep, very impressive clock-weights indeed! Plus a nice pointy glans.Easy J wrote:I've seen that GIF hundreds of times by now & only just noticed that the dinosaur has mammalian genitals. Every day is an adventure.
Glad to hear it. Been meaning to ask but I've been busy. I was defacing my Persian with a piss-poor scissor trim today & tried to imagine what his getting sick is eventually going to do to me. Didn't like that feeling & sought distraction post-haste. Here's to several more years of hairballs & clawmarks on the furniture.Lsuoma wrote:Yep, very impressive clock-weights indeed! Plus a nice pointy glans.Easy J wrote:I've seen that GIF hundreds of times by now & only just noticed that the dinosaur has mammalian genitals. Every day is an adventure.
The cat is doing fairly well, thanks. Prognosis is fair to good. Main thing is she is happy and comfortable.
:clap:Sunder wrote:Barbie has no genitals. I guess Linda Sarsour must have taken them away.Shatterface wrote: Is FGM an option?
The taboo against homosexuality has little to do with sexuality, although it does trade on the ickiness many people feel about the smell of poo and the thought of having a shit-stained todger.MarcusAu wrote:I understand that acts of homosexual sex are proscribed by christian religious beliefs.
But I'm less sure that homosexual marriage is explicitly stated as forbidden.
And if the latter causes less of the former would christians then change their mind?
...going to let you finish.Lsuoma wrote:Irma
Culture has made marriage about the seal of a loving relationship to make it more acceptable that people can rescind the contract when they no longer love each other, since being trapped in a relationship you don't want for the sake of not being socially shunned is a trait typical of pre-modern societies where social ostracism is a practically a death sentence, while societies where individual rights matter put the desire of the individuals first and social disapproval is no longer codified as a law. See also how adultery is a matter of private morality and not of public disapproval to be punished legally these days.gurugeorge wrote:
So it turns out that people do now seem to think of marriage as some kind of odd, official seal on a loving relationship, IOW the meaning of the term "marriage" has shifted - in that sense obviously there's nothing wrong with gay marriage.
But if you think of marriage as a contract (hopefully between people in a loving relationship) for the purpose of procreation, and any state involvement having to do with giving a few special privileges to men and women who decide to settle down and procreate (settling down being necessary for the child-nurturing follow-on from procreation), then gay marriage is an absolutely absurd and bizarre concept.
Then you could say that gay couples can adopt children, but that bumps up against the missing biological mother/father (i.e. the missing member of the opposite sex to the couple, the role model for that gender not being present, as it would be with a hetero couple adopting). Plus also, there does seem statistically to be a fair bit of instability and nastiness in gay relationships.
It's a vexed question, and there are different ways of looking at the costs and benefits (for example I'd much rather have widespread adoption by gay couples than widespread abortion) - but in the fashion of the day, it was railroaded through by silencing the opposition as big meanies who want to spoil everyone's fun.
I'd love to know how the "depression isn't real" morons explain the high rate of suicide among people with clinical depression. Do they think these people kill themselves for no reason?Kirbmarc wrote:A comprehensive debunking of the new myth about depression not being real, which is gaining support among alt-righters and associates (thread):
In general it seems that the main conflict between Left and Right is about the Left giving up entirely on the Liberty and Loyalty foundations of morality, while the Right is giving up on Care and Fairness. Neither position seems morally healthy.
The rejection of an either/or mentality—one in which the education system is either “for” or “against” victims of sexual violence—was striking also in DeVos’s nod to the growing phenomenon of female students who are accused of sexual misconduct on campus, underscoring that a respect for basic fairness and due process benefits both women and men. She pointed to a recent case in which the University of Southern California disbelieved a female student’s insistence that she had merely “roughhoused” with her boyfriend, and expelled him for his alleged abuse over her objection. Calling the “current reality” a “failed system” in which “everyone loses,” DeVos noted, “Survivors aren’t well-served when they are re-traumatized with appeal after appeal because the failed system failed the accused.” When schools use an unfair process to discipline students, she suggested, even guilty parties can be vindicated later in lawsuits in court. Sloppy campus processes lead to general lack of confidence in the results, and further undermine the interests of sexual-assault victims.
In short, DeVos appears to be proceeding exactly as an agency head should: give notice, take comments, and explain why a given policy is being adopted.
The idea that an adjudicatory process should be fair to both sides is about as basic as any facet of American law can be, even when it is articulated by an individual who is noncommittal on the basic educational rights of L.G.B.T.Q. students and students with disabilities, and who believes that guns belong in schools to protect against grizzly bears.
"Manure spreader" seems like a more apt description of the Russian president for life.CommanderTuvok wrote:The accusation that Putin is a "manspreader"?
I initially thought that was a reference to the number of Putin's political rivals who end up spreading the floors of pavements and streets....
But no, it is something far more serious - Putin extending the gap between his thighs. Scandalous!
Since many of those people are all about the survival of the Strong over the Weak, they probably think that they're Weak people who don't deserve the live anyway.Suet Cardigan wrote:I'd love to know how the "depression isn't real" morons explain the high rate of suicide among people with clinical depression. Do they think these people kill themselves for no reason?
http://samvirke.dk/sites/default/files/ ... k=VgVelg7CLsuoma wrote:Irma
What's sad is that I'm becoming convinced that now a majority of the left is also acting by the creed "if conservatives like it, it must be bad".Sunder wrote:A majority of the right, not just the alt-right, has always acted by the creed that "if liberals don't like it, it must be good."
Now that's interesting, although it makes complete sense.Kirbmarc wrote:In the case of adoption rights the problem is about the rights of the children and a cost/benefit analysis of living with two parents of the same sex vs. living likely without parents but under the warden of the state (interestingly, when the question is put in these terms, support for adoption of gay couples increases, probably because some people who don't see same-sex couple adoption in positive terms see it as a lesser evil compared to being an orphan). Also it's possible, as you argue, to suggest that abortions could decrease if more couples were allowed to adopt.
Yea. That maybe wouldn't be so bad if people who made claims that were real howlers actually had to deal with the responses. Apropos of which and of your DeVos comments: https://twitter.com/SteersMann/status/9 ... 1869643776Kirbmarc wrote:What's sad is that I'm becoming convinced that now a majority of the left is also acting by the creed "if conservatives like it, it must be bad".Sunder wrote:A majority of the right, not just the alt-right, has always acted by the creed that "if liberals don't like it, it must be good."
Politics is becoming about the Blue tribe vs. the Red tribe, and nothing else matters.
MarcusAu wrote:...going to let you finish.Lsuoma wrote:Irma
I think there is a significant difference between people just feeling down & out for a little bit, and people who are so continuously and deeply depressed that they cannot function.Kirbmarc wrote:On the other hand apparently Paul Joseph Watson thinks that depression isn't a real mental illness: Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you
That's not what PJW argued, though.deLurch wrote:I think there is a significant difference between people just feeling down & out for a little bit, and people who are so continuously and deeply depressed that they cannot function.
The former probably just boils down to learning & following some basic life skills instead of popping pills, and the later requires substantive psychological help.
No, because that would require nuance.Kirbmarc wrote:That's not what PJW argued, though.deLurch wrote:I think there is a significant difference between people just feeling down & out for a little bit, and people who are so continuously and deeply depressed that they cannot function.
The former probably just boils down to learning & following some basic life skills instead of popping pills, and the later requires substantive psychological help.
He's maybe 80% right, 20% off base, I would say. Major clinical depression isn't about sadness or dissatisfaction. It's a morbid lack of affect that probably has multiple etiologies. Your dog dies; you bury it in your back yard. You feel nothing. THAT's clinical depression. Telling people like that to buck up, tut-tut, is cruel and ignorant. On The Other Hand... He's right that a lot of people who want to mood brighten with SSRI are probably just looking for a quick fix to bad life decisions: bad lifestyle, bad diet, bad associations, bad relationships, bad exercise (lack of), etc. Bad time management, self hatred, denial of true entertainment, over focus on work, and so on, and so on.Kirbmarc wrote:On the other hand apparently Paul Joseph Watson thinks that depression isn't a real mental illness:
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you
This is Indy. I got him 8 months ago when he was just a tiny furball. It was January, I had just gone through a painful breakup in which my ex stole my cats, and I was living on my own for the first time in years. Oh, and a random guy was making YouTube videos talking about murdering me. Yeah, that was a fun time.
To make matters worse, when he was a puppy there were times when I hated his guts. Puppies are basically adorable machines that convert kibble and water into poop and pee, which they deposit everywhere. Everywhere! At all times of the day and night! I had to take him out for walks constantly in the hopes that he’d accidentally pee out there instead of on my bed. Walking him was a horrific chore, especially because it was a soggy, cold winter.
In the evening I’d be exhausted, and all I would want to do is lounge around in my underpants getting super high and/or drunk (remember, I was depressed). But I couldn’t do those things — I had to stay dressed and sober because every two hours I’d have to take this little shit machine outside. And then he wouldn’t pee, and wait until we got inside to do that, and I’d be up all night scrubbing the floor. For awhile I wondered what the point of an emotional support dog is when he makes you more anxious and keeps you from doing the things you do to relax.
Correct. But whenever this issue comes up of depression being either too seriously, or not seriously enough, I believe the primary problem is that the word ranges from a frumpy day, to the winter blues, to near suicidal lethargy and dispare. The only way to rectify it is to identify a word or phrase that disambiguates these conditions. I am looking at a language problem.Kirbmarc wrote:That's not what PJW argued, though.deLurch wrote:I think there is a significant difference between people just feeling down & out for a little bit, and people who are so continuously and deeply depressed that they cannot function.
The former probably just boils down to learning & following some basic life skills instead of popping pills, and the later requires substantive psychological help.
Sounds like the dog did her one hell of a favor forcing her to stay semi-sober, dressed & going out to get exercise.Brive1987 wrote:Sounds like Indy still needs to watch his back. Specially now there is a new sad cuck in the house.
Looks like it's his fault he was a puppy. Selfish cunt.
To make matters worse, when he was a puppy there were times when I hated his guts. Puppies are basically adorable machines that convert kibble and water into poop and pee, which they deposit everywhere. Everywhere! At all times of the day and night! I had to take him out for walks constantly in the hopes that he’d accidentally pee out there instead of on my bed. Walking him was a horrific chore, especially because it was a soggy, cold winter.
In the evening I’d be exhausted, and all I would want to do is lounge around in my underpants getting super high and/or drunk (remember, I was depressed). But I couldn’t do those things — I had to stay dressed and sober because every two hours I’d have to take this little shit machine outside. And then he wouldn’t pee, and wait until we got inside to do that, and I’d be up all night scrubbing the floor. For awhile I wondered what the point of an emotional support dog is when he makes you more anxious and keeps you from doing the things you do to relax.
Does she not realize that alcohol is a depressant , and kinda sort makes matters worse???Brive1987 wrote:Sounds like Indy still needs to watch his back. Specially now there is a new sad cuck in the house.
Looks like it's his fault he was a puppy. Selfish cunt.
To make matters worse, when he was a puppy there were times when I hated his guts. Puppies are basically adorable machines that convert kibble and water into poop and pee, which they deposit everywhere. Everywhere! At all times of the day and night! I had to take him out for walks constantly in the hopes that he’d accidentally pee out there instead of on my bed. Walking him was a horrific chore, especially because it was a soggy, cold winter.
In the evening I’d be exhausted, and all I would want to do is lounge around in my underpants getting super high and/or drunk (remember, I was depressed). But I couldn’t do those things — I had to stay dressed and sober because every two hours I’d have to take this little shit machine outside. And then he wouldn’t pee, and wait until we got inside to do that, and I’d be up all night scrubbing the floor. For awhile I wondered what the point of an emotional support dog is when he makes you more anxious and keeps you from doing the things you do to relax.
"cue to Steersman barging in with a dictionary, five links to twitter memes, lots of geese and ganders, some sauce, and 30,000 characters"deLurch wrote:Correct. But whenever this issue comes up of depression being either too seriously, or not seriously enough, I believe the primary problem is that the word ranges from a frumpy day, to the winter blues, to near suicidal lethargy and dispare. The only way to rectify it is to identify a word or phrase that disambiguates these conditions. I am looking at a language problem.
I'm not wishing for it but it would be okay if he were raped to death while in prison.Barbie's Boyfriend wrote: https://twitter.com/simrob72/status/906385835095859205
I'm not wishing for it..but I'd be ok if Rob Ranko was imprisoned for a false rape accusation
Saying that you wish for someone to raped or falsely accused, or that you're OK with it if it happened, isn't and shouldn't a crime, but is just a stupid thing to say. You should be free to say stupid shit, but your freedom doesn't make stupid shit clever.MarcusAu wrote:That's the problem - lots of people say things like that - but no one does anything about it.
The developers have talked about the realism and attention to detail in their latest COD game — down to visiting the real-world locations and consulting noted historian Marty Morgan — and while that may prove to be true of the single-player campaign, it is most assuredly not applicable to the multiplayer element.
Most notably, players can choose a male or female soldier, and some of the commanding officers giving introductory briefings are female.
From an inclusion perspective this is great, giving players the chance to customise a soldier they feel better represents them on the battlefield. From a historical perspective however, it’s problematic because it pretty much instantly takes away from the sense of realistic era recreation the designers have been trying for.
It seems she hasn't learned from her dog that the best possible way to stop worrying about yourself is to worry about others. I don't mean to sound all Sally Annie, but service to others is the best behavioural treatment for one's mental health. And that might just be approaching the true meaning of a 'service animal' - looking after a needy puppy ought to take your mind off your troubles, unless you are so narcissistic that you can't stop thinking for a moment that your issues are more important than anyone else's. If she really wants to find a long-term meal ticket via a relationship, she ought to know that selflessness is an attractive feature, whereas totally self-centred selfishness is an aposematic warning flag to be ignored only by the most reckless.Brive1987 wrote:Sounds like Indy still needs to watch his back. Specially now there is a new sad cuck in the house.
Looks like it's his fault he was a puppy. Selfish cunt.
To make matters worse, when he was a puppy there were times when I hated his guts. Puppies are basically adorable machines that convert kibble and water into poop and pee, which they deposit everywhere. Everywhere! At all times of the day and night! I had to take him out for walks constantly in the hopes that he’d accidentally pee out there instead of on my bed. Walking him was a horrific chore, especially because it was a soggy, cold winter.
In the evening I’d be exhausted, and all I would want to do is lounge around in my underpants getting super high and/or drunk (remember, I was depressed). But I couldn’t do those things — I had to stay dressed and sober because every two hours I’d have to take this little shit machine outside. And then he wouldn’t pee, and wait until we got inside to do that, and I’d be up all night scrubbing the floor. For awhile I wondered what the point of an emotional support dog is when he makes you more anxious and keeps you from doing the things you do to relax.
Sorry I forgot to put /s after my statement. I thought it was self evident I was being sarcastic. Perhaps notKirbmarc wrote:Saying that you wish for someone to raped or falsely accused, or that you're OK with it if it happened, isn't and shouldn't a crime, but is just a stupid thing to say. You should be free to say stupid shit, but your freedom doesn't make stupid shit clever.MarcusAu wrote:That's the problem - lots of people say things like that - but no one does anything about it.
I'm neither wishing for, nor being OK with anyone being either raped or falsely accused of rape or having their human rights violated. Neither should anyone else. We can never have a perfect society, or a perfect justice system, but we should at least try to both reduce the number of rapes as much as it is possible without violating human rights, reduce the number of false accusations as much as possible without violating human rights and to protect the human rights of anyone, including the right to a process before a court of law. One person raped is one too many, one person falsely accused is one too many, and one person whose rights are violated is one too many.
The sad truth is that rapists exist and will always exist, false accusations exist and will always exist, and the justice system has made, makes and will make mistakes. We can discuss reasonable reforms, reasonable campaigns, the effectiveness of different strategies, and how to reconcile protecting people from harm with protecting them from violation of their rights. We can push for accurate reporting of statistics instead of biased ones, for better journalistic ethical standards, and for a better justice system. We can also discuss the socio-cultural forces that some rapists or false accusers may use to justify themselves, and improve the dialogue about those issues.
The problem is that the matter of campus rape has become to an extent a partisan issue, and reasonable sensible ideas are dismissed by people because they come from "The Enemy", and "The Enemy" is always Evil (24/7, always eating kitties for breakfast and always kicking elderly people in the head before they go to sleep).
Campus justice and its kangoroo courts simply don't work, since they violated the civil rights of the accused. In a less polarized political climate the vast majority of people would agree that a serious crime should be handled by the justice system, not by universities, and that people accused of crimes deserve to have their civil rights respected according to the law and through a trial in the justice system.
But today we live in a world where everything must either belong to Tribe Left or Tribe Right, and for each tribe the other tribe is Just Pure Evil. Ideas that belonged to the fringes of screaming fanatics have become mainstream. Internet echo-chambers spread memes, zingers, moral outrages, outright falsehoods and insults at The Enemy. And we all lose.
Jesus wept.Really? wrote:In her new book, Hillary really lets loose on Vladimir Putin. Not only did he steal the election from her, but...and get this...he is a manspreader.
President Obama once compared Vladimir Putin to a ‘bored kid at the back of the classroom.' ‘He's got that kind of slouch,' Obama said. When I sat with Putin in meetings, he looked more like one of those guys on the subway who imperiously spreads their legs wide, encroaching on everyone else's space, as if to say ‘I take what I want' and ‘I have so little respect for you that I'm going to act as if I'm at home lounging in my bathrobe.' They call it ‘manspreading.' That was Putin.Our relationship has been sour for a long time," she wrote. "Putin doesn't respect women and despises anyone who stands up to him, so I'm a double problem. After I criticized one of his policies, he told the press ‘It's better not to argue with women,' but went on to call me weak. ‘Maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman,' he joked. Hilarious.
Me: FL folks! Common up to ATL! Well party!Lsuoma wrote:Irma
I've noticed that too.screwtape wrote:... service to others is the best behavioural treatment for one's mental health.
I have trouble following you sometimes, but this makes good sense to me, and I like it.Kirbmarc wrote:The sad truth is that rapists exist and will always exist, false accusations exist and will always exist, and the justice system has made, makes and will make mistakes. We can discuss reasonable reforms, reasonable campaigns, the effectiveness of different strategies, and how to reconcile protecting people from harm with protecting them from violation of their rights. We can push for accurate reporting of statistics instead of biased ones, for better journalistic ethical standards, and for a better justice system. We can also discuss the socio-cultural forces that some rapists or false accusers may use to justify themselves, and improve the dialogue about those issues.
When the gay marriage debate was first gathering steam, I thought the solution was obvious. Make the civil/legal aspects of marriage the sole concern of government and make it available to any pair of adults,under a name other than marriage. The term 'marriage' would be completely privatized. This seemed to solve all the problems. Gay couples would not only get the full panoply of rights traditional to married couples, there would be complete marriage equality as well, which was my main interest.Kirbmarc wrote:
Of these three points one is relatively trivial (if two contracts give you the same kinds of rights, does it really matter how you call them?), but a change in name, from "marriage" to "civil unions/partnerships" shows that many don't see it as such. The matter here is social, though, not legal.
Don't forget that the stupid cunt lives in a flat, which would have made the housetraining process much more difficult. As if anyone would believe that she HAD to stay sober, what a load of shite.deLurch wrote:Sounds like the dog did her one hell of a favor forcing her to stay semi-sober, dressed & going out to get exercise.Brive1987 wrote:Sounds like Indy still needs to watch his back. Specially now there is a new sad cuck in the house.
Looks like it's his fault he was a puppy. Selfish cunt.
To make matters worse, when he was a puppy there were times when I hated his guts. Puppies are basically adorable machines that convert kibble and water into poop and pee, which they deposit everywhere. Everywhere! At all times of the day and night! I had to take him out for walks constantly in the hopes that he’d accidentally pee out there instead of on my bed. Walking him was a horrific chore, especially because it was a soggy, cold winter.
In the evening I’d be exhausted, and all I would want to do is lounge around in my underpants getting super high and/or drunk (remember, I was depressed). But I couldn’t do those things — I had to stay dressed and sober because every two hours I’d have to take this little shit machine outside. And then he wouldn’t pee, and wait until we got inside to do that, and I’d be up all night scrubbing the floor. For awhile I wondered what the point of an emotional support dog is when he makes you more anxious and keeps you from doing the things you do to relax.
And it is sad to hear unexperienced dog owners not getting their training they need. #1 rule with puppies is that they physically cannot control their pee/poop triggers, so keep them on the linoleum. Most places will at least have a kitchen floor that would be acceptable for these purposes.
I agree with that, one of the reasons I decided to get my dog was to try to benefit my mental health, and the responsibility that comes with it has been very good for me. I don't have kids though, so don't have that frame of reference, I'm sure that's a whole new level (for most people of course). I don't call him an "emotional support animal" however. He's just my dog, how old-fashioned eh?screwtape wrote:Brive1987 wrote:Sounds like Indy still needs to watch his back. Specially now there is a new sad cuck in the house.
Looks like it's his fault he was a puppy. Selfish cunt.
To make matters worse, when he was a puppy there were times when I hated his guts. Puppies are basically adorable machines that convert kibble and water into poop and pee, which they deposit everywhere. Everywhere! At all times of the day and night! I had to take him out for walks constantly in the hopes that he’d accidentally pee out there instead of on my bed. Walking him was a horrific chore, especially because it was a soggy, cold winter.
In the evening I’d be exhausted, and all I would want to do is lounge around in my underpants getting super high and/or drunk (remember, I was depressed). But I couldn’t do those things — I had to stay dressed and sober because every two hours I’d have to take this little shit machine outside. And then he wouldn’t pee, and wait until we got inside to do that, and I’d be up all night scrubbing the floor. For awhile I wondered what the point of an emotional support dog is when he makes you more anxious and keeps you from doing the things you do to relax.
It seems she hasn't learned from her dog that the best possible way to stop worrying about yourself is to worry about others. I don't mean to sound all Sally Annie, but service to others is the best behavioural treatment for one's mental health. And that might just be approaching the true meaning of a 'service animal' - looking after a needy puppy ought to take your mind off your troubles, unless you are so narcissistic that you can't stop thinking for a moment that your issues are more important than anyone else's. If she really wants to find a long-term meal ticket via a relationship, she ought to know that selflessness is an attractive feature, whereas totally self-centred selfishness is an aposematic warning flag to be ignored only by the most reckless.
That many 'accidents' is a sign of a nervous, stressed out animal.Brive1987 wrote:Sounds like Indy still needs to watch his back. Specially now there is a new sad cuck in the house.
Looks like it's his fault he was a puppy. Selfish cunt.
To make matters worse, when he was a puppy there were times when I hated his guts. Puppies are basically adorable machines that convert kibble and water into poop and pee, which they deposit everywhere. Everywhere! At all times of the day and night! I had to take him out for walks constantly in the hopes that he’d accidentally pee out there instead of on my bed. Walking him was a horrific chore, especially because it was a soggy, cold winter.
In the evening I’d be exhausted, and all I would want to do is lounge around in my underpants getting super high and/or drunk (remember, I was depressed). But I couldn’t do those things — I had to stay dressed and sober because every two hours I’d have to take this little shit machine outside. And then he wouldn’t pee, and wait until we got inside to do that, and I’d be up all night scrubbing the floor. For awhile I wondered what the point of an emotional support dog is when he makes you more anxious and keeps you from doing the things you do to relax.
I'm sorry you had your eyes opened to human nature so roughly. But if your suggestion would have been accepted, what word would you have chosen for the pair-bonding that was not sanctioned as 'marriage' by a church" I'm anxious to avoid confusion with other usages, so 'coupling', 'pairing', 'partnering', 'unionizing' have to go by the wayside. 'Living in non-sin' or perhaps 'Living in sinlessness' make perfect sense, but are a bit clumsy. Might I make a suggestion that 'shacking up'* become the accepted legal term for such unions?jugheadnaut wrote: When the gay marriage debate was first gathering steam, I thought the solution was obvious. Make the civil/legal aspects of marriage the sole concern of government and make it available to any pair of adults,under a name other than marriage. The term 'marriage' would be completely privatized. This seemed to solve all the problems. Gay couples would not only get the full panoply of rights traditional to married couples, there would be complete marriage equality as well, which was my main interest.
To my surprise at the time, most gay marriage activists were adamantly opposed to this. They wanted exactly the same marriage heterosexual couples had. It became clear their fundamental goal wasn't to solve issues gay couples had, it was to make the normalization of gay relationships formal legal doctrine....
