Ben B.'s Comments
The reason this matters is because it is a sign on the road to normality for a repressed and mistreated group. To say that it doesn't matter is simply to be blind to reality. Speaking as a straight fellow, I'm delighted to see every step that advances sexuality as distinct from unrelated issues, and puts it more and more clearly into the realm of personal choice and consensual agreement between competent people exercising free will -- where it bloody well belongs.
The society I live in (the USA) is still massively retarded about sexuality. Television shows performances depicting violence without any problem; similar performances depicting sexuality, however, are deemed too "shameful" to display. Arbitrary "lines in the sand" cripple our legal system (and our citizens) instead of tests for competence. Religion poisons the well of reason everywhere we turn, declaring "normal" to be an arbitrary set of metrics derived from mythologies.
I can only hope for us to become rational, someday. It is entirely cheering to see people do the right thing, as this situation in Iceland signals; it means the problem isn't a limitation of people, per se, but one of culture. Things can actually get better.
The society I live in (the USA) is still massively retarded about sexuality. Television shows performances depicting violence without any problem; similar performances depicting sexuality, however, are deemed too "shameful" to display. Arbitrary "lines in the sand" cripple our legal system (and our citizens) instead of tests for competence. Religion poisons the well of reason everywhere we turn, declaring "normal" to be an arbitrary set of metrics derived from mythologies.
I can only hope for us to become rational, someday. It is entirely cheering to see people do the right thing, as this situation in Iceland signals; it means the problem isn't a limitation of people, per se, but one of culture. Things can actually get better.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
> William Gibson's Neuromancer may be
> considered the first "cyberpunk" novel,
> but the fact is, it's kind of a deadly
> bore.
The author of the above drivel has found a one-sentence long method to avoid *ever* being taken seriously as an SF authority. Kudos for the straight-up mega-fail.
> considered the first "cyberpunk" novel,
> but the fact is, it's kind of a deadly
> bore.
The author of the above drivel has found a one-sentence long method to avoid *ever* being taken seriously as an SF authority. Kudos for the straight-up mega-fail.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
> What’s the difference between eating cat
> and eating veal, chicken, fish, cow, etc? Nothing.
That's exactly correct. When done by supposedly intelligent beings that have the choice, and power, to do so or not, the practice of killing other animals to eat them is technically no different regardless of the animal involved. Including the human animal.
This is one of the reasons why people who have thought the matter through choose vegetarianism.
It is the height of hypocrisy to claim the position of enlightened savior of animals you are familiar with or which satisfy your preconceptions as domestic companions, while ignoring the situations of the rest. They all have life experiences; they all feel pain; they have all the basic characteristics of a very young human child, with the single exception of the extent of their maximum future potential.
There is an ethical way out: Support in-vitro meat research, and in the interim, stop consuming products that require animal suffering. Lower demand means less slaughter and less suffering. You don't have to be a slave to a carnivorous nature that developed prior to agriculture. You can be better. Simply try. A better world can start at your doorstep. The animal kingdom needs compassionate stewards, not uber-powerful carnivores and body-parts thieves.
The mark of enlightenment is not the attainment and subsequent use of power; it is the attainment and restraint of such use. Convenience is not justification. But it is all too often the door to ethical failure, the demeaning of the very humanity that the confused like to cite as the reason they feel they are justified to prey upon other animals.
> and eating veal, chicken, fish, cow, etc? Nothing.
That's exactly correct. When done by supposedly intelligent beings that have the choice, and power, to do so or not, the practice of killing other animals to eat them is technically no different regardless of the animal involved. Including the human animal.
This is one of the reasons why people who have thought the matter through choose vegetarianism.
It is the height of hypocrisy to claim the position of enlightened savior of animals you are familiar with or which satisfy your preconceptions as domestic companions, while ignoring the situations of the rest. They all have life experiences; they all feel pain; they have all the basic characteristics of a very young human child, with the single exception of the extent of their maximum future potential.
There is an ethical way out: Support in-vitro meat research, and in the interim, stop consuming products that require animal suffering. Lower demand means less slaughter and less suffering. You don't have to be a slave to a carnivorous nature that developed prior to agriculture. You can be better. Simply try. A better world can start at your doorstep. The animal kingdom needs compassionate stewards, not uber-powerful carnivores and body-parts thieves.
The mark of enlightenment is not the attainment and subsequent use of power; it is the attainment and restraint of such use. Convenience is not justification. But it is all too often the door to ethical failure, the demeaning of the very humanity that the confused like to cite as the reason they feel they are justified to prey upon other animals.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Unfortunately, there are three clips in there, two of which are repeated over and over. They're plenty cute, all right, but there is only about fifteen actual seconds of video. Cats: megacute. Clipmaker: Lame.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
We spent 700 billion on a symptom; in no way did we act to ameliorate the actual problem, which is a monetary system with no basis upon concrete value. In addition, we blew 150 billion on pork.
In the meantime, our liberties continue to erode, the constitution becomes less and less relevant to the form of government we are ruled by, and we continue to make very expensive and futile war.
In other words, no, nothing has changed. And nothing is going to. Our citizens are too poorly educated to understand what is wrong.
In the meantime, our liberties continue to erode, the constitution becomes less and less relevant to the form of government we are ruled by, and we continue to make very expensive and futile war.
In other words, no, nothing has changed. And nothing is going to. Our citizens are too poorly educated to understand what is wrong.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Always two, there are.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
> Can you name another group of people upon
> whom it would be acceptable for you to apply
> your anti-procreation message?
Sure. A bunch of people who believed an all-powerful unicorn lived in the sky, created the entire universe, and would help them out if they pray to the Holy Horn and surrendered their inner feelings to said beastie, plus, they'd get to go to the great Corral in the sky, whereas everyone else would suffer under unicorn poop for all eternity. Because someone, or several someones, wrote a book that said so. Such beliefs would be quite stupid and the people who held them very gullible, yes?
We don't need more of such folks. We don't even need *any* of them.
Now replace the unicorn with the Christian or Muslim or Hindu gods. Or a teapot. Doesn't seem any less stupid to me no matter how you set it up -- religion is too small an idea to account for much of anything.
More examples? Sure. A couple of Down's syndrome folk; breeding is, as they say, contra-indicated.
The bottom line is that genetic errors *do* punish the children for the defects of the parents; it has nothing to do with fairness.
There are lots of examples. The idea that everyone should breed is actually not a very bright idea in and of itself.
> whom it would be acceptable for you to apply
> your anti-procreation message?
Sure. A bunch of people who believed an all-powerful unicorn lived in the sky, created the entire universe, and would help them out if they pray to the Holy Horn and surrendered their inner feelings to said beastie, plus, they'd get to go to the great Corral in the sky, whereas everyone else would suffer under unicorn poop for all eternity. Because someone, or several someones, wrote a book that said so. Such beliefs would be quite stupid and the people who held them very gullible, yes?
We don't need more of such folks. We don't even need *any* of them.
Now replace the unicorn with the Christian or Muslim or Hindu gods. Or a teapot. Doesn't seem any less stupid to me no matter how you set it up -- religion is too small an idea to account for much of anything.
More examples? Sure. A couple of Down's syndrome folk; breeding is, as they say, contra-indicated.
The bottom line is that genetic errors *do* punish the children for the defects of the parents; it has nothing to do with fairness.
There are lots of examples. The idea that everyone should breed is actually not a very bright idea in and of itself.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
It's vandalism. The ad company paid for that space; the little "you don't need it" sticker is a parasite, using the moneys paid by the ad company to give you a message they've not paid for.
Regardless of the truth (or relevance) of the parasitic message, the basic issue here is property rights, not what the ad says. You want to tell people they don't need stuff? Fine. Buy an ad.
Regardless of the truth (or relevance) of the parasitic message, the basic issue here is property rights, not what the ad says. You want to tell people they don't need stuff? Fine. Buy an ad.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Ok.
I have a question.
How -- exactly -- is this... "neat" ???
This is neat-o-rama, right? The blog of neat things?
It sure seems to be devolving.
I have a question.
How -- exactly -- is this... "neat" ???
This is neat-o-rama, right? The blog of neat things?
It sure seems to be devolving.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Fine. Now ask Anwan how many of those bullet holes came from licensed, trained gun owners.
I'll wager he answers "none." The odds, and history, favor the idea that they are most likely either the work of criminals or of the police (and the latter, if so, raises the question of what Anwan himself was doing when he was shot.)
Why is this so? Because it isn't legal gun owners that are a threat. It never has been. It is criminals -- and the key thing to wrap your head around is that they will own and use guns regardless of the laws. They're... CRIMINALS!
So in fact, gun laws only disenfranchise law-abiding citizens, preventing them from defending themselves from home-invaders and worse.
They represent false hope for no shootings in a form that destroys liberty and does NOTHING to stop criminals from having guns. Supporting anti-gun legislation makes no sense.
...and one more thing: Gun laws are uniformly unconstitutional, impositions on rights that the government was never given any authority to impose. Now, if you want to change that, the constitution allows for amendment. Failing amendment, guns laws are the act of an out of control dictatorial government. Period. And before any of the usual morons pipe up, go look up what "milita" meant when the 2nd amendment of the constitution was written; then pay attention to the fact that regardless of the explicatory phrase, the operative phrase doesn't change its meaning one whit.
I'll wager he answers "none." The odds, and history, favor the idea that they are most likely either the work of criminals or of the police (and the latter, if so, raises the question of what Anwan himself was doing when he was shot.)
Why is this so? Because it isn't legal gun owners that are a threat. It never has been. It is criminals -- and the key thing to wrap your head around is that they will own and use guns regardless of the laws. They're... CRIMINALS!
So in fact, gun laws only disenfranchise law-abiding citizens, preventing them from defending themselves from home-invaders and worse.
They represent false hope for no shootings in a form that destroys liberty and does NOTHING to stop criminals from having guns. Supporting anti-gun legislation makes no sense.
...and one more thing: Gun laws are uniformly unconstitutional, impositions on rights that the government was never given any authority to impose. Now, if you want to change that, the constitution allows for amendment. Failing amendment, guns laws are the act of an out of control dictatorial government. Period. And before any of the usual morons pipe up, go look up what "milita" meant when the 2nd amendment of the constitution was written; then pay attention to the fact that regardless of the explicatory phrase, the operative phrase doesn't change its meaning one whit.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Speaking for the family, my father would no doubt have been smiling merrily if he could have seen this. Also, personally, I was tickled beyond words when I first saw that entry. Nice to see such things, even nicer to be surprised by them in a favorite place like neatoramaa.
Ben Blish
Ben Blish
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
First horse; my load is lightening, and so am I as I expend energy. This is true for a short trip.
Second horse; my load is lightening, but my energy stores are being replenished. This is true for the longer trip.
Never the third horse. He gets to eat, but his load never lightens.
Second horse; my load is lightening, but my energy stores are being replenished. This is true for the longer trip.
Never the third horse. He gets to eat, but his load never lightens.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
There should be two 'o's in "too" of "too close"
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
News bulletin:
Women are objects. Men are objects. Sculptures are objects. Puppies are objects. There are times when it's simply pleasant to run your hands over an object, or just look at it, or... etc. It's fun to be an object sometimes. Trust me on this.
A little self-confidence and you, too, can enjoy the many roles we naturally play in day to day life, relationships, flirting, working, etc.
Or, you can indulge in political correctness, the endemic disease of the lame. Consequently, life will suck for you just that little bit more, and the rest of us will have to listen to you whine about it. sigh.
Women are objects. Men are objects. Sculptures are objects. Puppies are objects. There are times when it's simply pleasant to run your hands over an object, or just look at it, or... etc. It's fun to be an object sometimes. Trust me on this.
A little self-confidence and you, too, can enjoy the many roles we naturally play in day to day life, relationships, flirting, working, etc.
Or, you can indulge in political correctness, the endemic disease of the lame. Consequently, life will suck for you just that little bit more, and the rest of us will have to listen to you whine about it. sigh.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/sets/72157600422927302/
...it was essentially an empty cube on two city lots when we bought it, now it has a pair of lofts (master bedroom and music studio), kitchen, dining area, bathroom, spa, library, and a 204" home theater upstairs, while in the basement we put in a wood shop, an electronics shop, a stained glass shop, a dollhouse shop, a weight room, a photo studio, a cattery, and a laundry. There were already two bathrooms downstairs, plus various closets and hallways.
We've been at it for two and a half years; I think it'll take about another two to finish.