Not a fan of alternet either, but why do you say this?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Printable View
Not a fan of alternet either, but why do you say this?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It's the only logical conclusion when someone tries to assert something with no real evidence that flies in the face of basic biology: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's just more of trying to push this notion that men and women are equal (ie: the same).
Damn, just missing one sentence about how "With your gifts, you could change the world."
Your momma so fat...
the only way she can lose weight is through Hawking Radiation.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...n/Bazinga2.jpg
Since this thread is dead, I'll inject some life into it with a lively discussion like I often do.
I read an argument this morning as to why men should not date girls who claim to have been raped.
The general line of thought was that the current state of society provides strong incentives to a lot of females to falsely claim to have been raped without there being any real down side, and a large portion of men refusing to date girls of this category would provide such a disincentive.
Other disincentives are possible. One would be for charges to be pressed against women who make false rape accusations regularly (unlike now when they rarely are). But that's not going to happen because of the idea that it would prevent real rape victims from coming forward, though this particular line of logic is shaky at best since it shows a lack of understanding that real rape victims would gain tremendously from this type of enforcement as well.
We could just go back to a time when evidence was required to convict people of rape.
Now you're talking silly. The onus is on the accused to prove consent now. This is not a joke. It's becoming law in the UK and the United States right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Related article: http://time.com/3222176/campus-rape-...yes-means-yes/
I want to point out that this is why the soft harem concept is out of date at this point. It exposes you to too much risk for a rape charge.
Is it wrong that I absolutely love Taylor Swift, Sara Bareilles, and Ingrid Michaelson?
Call me a 12 year old girl but that shit's my jam.
Is Taylor Swift a Misogynist?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Gay.
This thread is now about awesome videos from youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSxvDJPR47A
omg the guy who makes a scene. my new hero.
Watching white dudes with gelled hair and Aeropostale shirts have alleged rap battles makes me really uncomfortable and embarrassed for them.
Don't move to Alberta.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Which one is Alberta again? Was Rob Ford mayor of there?
I legit can't get over so much of that video- His scene being one of many. Truly this is the best time to be alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm insane when I spit game,Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapogos
Then I dump 'em and flush 'em like shit stains.
Was that Weird Al Yankovic? I think he rapped that.
Alright, I'll be a less of a dick now
http://i.imgur.com/cybIPTZ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/d4p0Orx.jpg
Let me translate into Americanese:Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Alberta (Texas of Canada, oil and shit) is a province (state) in western (left side of the map) Canada (that big country above you). Rob Ford (numb nut crackhead) was of mayor (supreme ruler of city) of Toronto (city) in eastern (right side of the map) Canada.
It is confusing that "state" meant "country" up until the US came along. In world news, I sometimes come across the word "state" and I have to remember that they mean "nation". Or whatever. From the outside, they are all the same to me: country, nation, kingdom, empire. OK, they're fairly synonymous to me. I know there are internal differences about the flow of information and control or political power.
I feel like the founding fathers were sticking it to Europe with the whole "United States" business. Like, look at all you clumsy states that war with each other and are dumb. We have all these states, but we're united. You mad, bros?
The reality is that the US states are really more like provinces, with any practical differences being mostly semantic at the user level. It's not like Missouri is acting like a nation on the world stage.
It originates from the fact that the states were originally meant to have more power than the federal government. At the time of the founding fathers, people would identify first with the state they were from and then for being from the United States as a whole. The constitution has been shot to shit though, so that's no longer the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This is also why succession is legal and why the civil war began with an illegal attack on the CSA by the USA, though it's not fashionable to say so at this point.
This is definitely the case today. The power of the states has been lowered a significant amount, and the power of the federal government has been increased an incredible amount, etc.Quote:
The reality is that the US states are really more like provinces, with any practical differences being mostly semantic at the user level. It's not like Missouri is acting like a nation on the world stage.
For the longest time, the federation wasn't exactly a state and we said "these united states" instead of "the United States".
Left-wing liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism), has gradually won the political battle in the US over the decades and centuries. The federal government has just been getting stronger and stronger. We've let the superb theory of a network of free trade and free migration states get overrun by the disastrous theory of a unitary state.
The view by the secluded mountain house I'm staying in right now: https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...f3&oe=55666D29
It's on land that native americans used to live on (there are petroglyphs around here that I'm dying to see next time we go hiking). So awesome to actually see firsthand the vast expanse of land and sky that native americans and european settlers experienced back then. This sort of view may not be a big deal for some of you, but for an urban dweller like myself it's dizzying and sublime. And right in my backyard. :)
(oh yeah, if anyone is a tool and/or alex grey fan, you might appreciate this)
Somewhere in the Western Hemisphere, you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
Aren't you a New York gal? Wasn't that prime Native American real estate?
Back before it was New Amsterdam... or New Orange, even?
/troll
Epic view is epic.
Is that yours? Alex Grey autograph is wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
If so, I'm jealous.
If not, cool pic. I guess.
Here's a simple test to prove that feminism is about advancing the interests of women and not about equality:
Name one thing that feminists have done to directly improve the lives of men at a cost for women.
Amen!Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Feminism is a construction of the patriarchy designed to serve the patriarchy.
Edit: I need to find something else to go on and on about. I'm getting bored with feminism. It feels like I'm picking on a defenseless child.
-.-Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
You mean it's really fun, and strangely rewarding, don't you?
https://38.media.tumblr.com/6e653f63...ziA1rjkky4.jpg
:D
I laughed out loud.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The vinyl is mine and my boyfriend's. Alex and Allyson were doing an book event here at the ranch I'm staying at (it's kind of complicated to explain and I don't feel like getting too into the details, but the very short story is this is where the Biosphere 2/Institute of Ecotechnics folks are based and there's all sorts of different projects going on here). I got to pick Alex and Allyson up from the airport and hang out with them a decent amount, so having Alex sign that beautiful vinyl was just the material icing on top of the cake.
The real delight was listening to that album on the audiophile's dream of a sound system we have set up at the house.
OK. I'm more than a bit jealous, then. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
Is he a space cadet? or is he actually a down to Earth guy?
It seems like he'd have to be a bit mental to create such amazing and powerful artwork, but what do I know?
Maynard is a vintner. Can't be much more down to Earth than that.
I got this desk for $20 on Craigslist that retails for low/mid four figures, ship it holla. I've added a couple of things to make it more usable for me, and I felt like sharing here since we used to do those big balla setup threads.
http://i.imgur.com/20KJ4SL.jpg
Okay so this is how I normally work sitting down. My laptop is up on this black thing that goes across sitting on my desk so that it's lifted a little so I can use my wireless keyboard and mouse comfortably. It also lifts the screen up to eye level so it doesn't just destroy my neck. The thing the laptop is sitting on isn't attached to the desk, but it can only slide forward because it's the exact length of the inside of the hutch.
http://i.imgur.com/b3TbthQ.jpg
I keep this little thing in storage up above in the cabinet. It's made of the same shit as the piece my laptop is sitting on in the first picture, except it's shorter and has little feet.
http://i.imgur.com/yY5ej5U.jpg
This is a better picture of the thing and the little feet. You can also see the shitty spray paint job I did on it.
http://i.imgur.com/6TxE0SD.jpg
So the little thing stands on the bigger thing, and I slide the bigger thing out towards the front of the desk a bit. It's still stuck between the sides of the hutch, so it can't slide off sideways. I use the keyboard that's actually a part of my laptop when I'm standing, and I have my mouse to the side like this.
The main take away message is to never pay for new, premium furniture.
Order it onlineQuote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
I mean I would probably buy more shit new than I do if I was ballin outta control. My couch would have been about $800-900 new, but I got it for $40 on CL because it needed a couple of internal repairs. I spent an hour on it, and now it sits as well (if not better) than it did originally.
I think looking for shit on there regularly + luck + having quick access to a truck + having the knowledge/means to do fairly simple repairs is the key to it.
Blow jobs?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
No wait, sandwiches.
They've actively decreased the frequency of both.
Even this thread is making it hard to come back to FTR for regular visits. Where is the Random. Lukie would be sad
Unchecked feminism has led to over 1,400 summons in New York for men sitting down "incorrectly"
http://rt.com/usa/263473-nyc-subway-...ading-arrests/
To be perfectly fair, casual sex. Although we can also attribute that to medicine, ie birth control, feminism has fought very hard to allow women to slut it up. This benefits men because they can fuck around all their life while it hurts women because they hit a wall when they turn 30 and then and then a hardcore wall at 40. Men in comparison peak in their 30s and don't hit their first wall until somewhere in their 40s. So men wouldn't have been able to fuck the large amount of women they can now without feminism, but that's a personal thing, for society as a whole it's not that great as reproduction plummets.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It also means modern women don't make good wives anymore. For comparison, I just got me a filipina gf less than two weeks ago. Last weekend she stayed over and the next day, first we went shopping, $800 of stuff for my appartment. Afterwards, while I spent many hours playing the new ps4 games I had bought, she spent them in the kitchen, cooking, cleaning, washing, doing laundry and (re)organizing everything. I didn't ask for this, she just does it. Then we fucked, we took a bath (she gave me a sponge bath), followed by a nice massage with the massage oil we just bought and a bj to top it off. Then she went home as she had to work early the next morning. You just can't find a european woman who'd do all that.
100% truth in this post. The bold is the crux of the matter for a lot of reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvance
I need to move to the Philippines.
How in the fuck is occupying two seats of a tube train a criminal offence?
Jesus you people need a revolution like I need a woman.
Nah, its bs. It seems like this entire story stems from the PROP report, but the quoted passage doesnt actually exist within that report. Add to it that the article only comes from non-credible sources, and its likely not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
There was a different case in the report where a man was arrested for occupying two seats, but this wasnt a case of 'manspreading', rather he was sleeping on the train. Those kind of things are often criminalized as cities attempt to combat homelessness.
I'm gonna like having a lawyer on the force.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Do any of you guys actually think it's acceptable for a person to be criminalised for falling asleep on a train?
I mean fucking hell this is oppressive shit.
You can't take up two seats. You can't sleep. Can you look around or is that going to intimidate someone to the point of it being criminal too?
I think anti-homlessness laws are completely absurd, and a pull away from what it means to be a human. Its also disgusting from a legal perspective, since many of these laws criminalize good deeds. For example, Florida had a law (still has?) that resulted in the arrest of a priest for feeding the homeless. Crimes should be those actions that disgust society, that are so reprehensible that their performance justifies a loss of liberty. But feeding the homeless? Loitering in a park after hours? Sleeping on trains? I get that homelessness is a problem, but criminalizing it only creates a permanent homelessness cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Become homeless --> get arrested for being homeless --> get a criminal record --> never get a job again --> perpetually stay homeless
--------------
On an unrelated note, I just got a SmartTV. I had a strong view that all these "apps" and shit were a complete waste of space, and just a reason for tv people to jack up prices. But...I actually like them now. It takes me only 3 seconds to get to netflix now, whereas it took me about 20 seconds before. The apps themselves run faster through the tv version than from my consouls, and avoid all that "find the app" nonsense I had to do before. I like it.
Yeah this is exactly what I was building up to. It's not a solution, it just makes the problem worse.Quote:
Become homeless --> get arrested for being homeless --> get a criminal record --> never get a job again --> perpetually stay homeless
Not likely true eh http://nypost.com/2015/01/14/subway-...me-bro-riders/Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Agree with all the homeless stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
As for smart TV's, yeah they rock-- but if you are in the market again in the near future (not sure how things will change beyond that) definitely look into getting a dumb TV and buying a roku3. The apps tend to be better because it's more universal. It's kind of like how apps come out for iPhones before android. Also, check out Plex Media Server if it's available for your smart TV. So much better than loading stuff on USB drives or whatever other nonsense.
Im not speaking about the MTA's policy against manspreading; that part is credible. Its the summons, arrests, and other criminal aspects of it that is incredibly dubious.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Book 'em, JKids.
Plex heh? Any delays or anything? I got a google chrome cast thingy a year and a half ago, and watching anything through that felt like I was back in the day of dial-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I've had the loading bar pop up a few times during an episode once. Hasn't happened since, so I haven't thought to try and troubleshoot. Could be that my anti-virus started to scan, or who knows what. But generally I've had no issue streaming 720p (what HBO broadcasts in) avi's.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Me too until I started using plex. Videostream app works well too from laptop to chromecast. And so does the chromecast app on androidQuote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Homelessness is a major problem because shit is set up so that people who don't want to work get a disproportionate amount of help while those who can't work don't get enough and those who do want to work get the least.
Was watching a youtube talk about how law and order could exist in stateless societies. Basically there wouldn't be prisons per se, but a lack of public property. Basically violent criminals would be pariahs who aren't allowed on anyone's property and have basically nowhere to go, so private 'prison' zones would emerge to allow them on their premises providing they follow a set of rules, work for them, etc. I would imagine something similar would exist for the homeless (lighter security obv).
Criminals don't listen to laws, so why would they listen to private property owners?Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Because there would be security firms (i.e. the police) that would continually be arresting criminals and maintaining and enforcing the blacklists for their property owner clients.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
If all the property is privately owned, and nobody is willing to let a given criminal on their property, what happens?
He would have to choose between living in constant violation of the law or turning himself in. He would eventually end up in prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
How do people know if someone is a criminal? Shall we tattoo it on their forehead?
Also, trespass in not a criminal offence. If you're on private property and not causing a breach of the peace, then there's nothing the police can do.
Well, that's the case here in the UK, anyway. I dunno about a nation where sitting on two seats of a tube can get you arrested.
I don't want to pollute the random thread too much with this stuff. I just wanted to point out how a stateless society would likely do a better job with homeless people.
I'd imagine in post-information age world that tech would step up in this area. Non-invasive ID scanning technology would be cheap and ubiquitous and employed by property owners and security agents.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Basically what it comes down to is that property owners should have the right to selectively deny access to their property for any reason they want, since it is their property. This goes for home owners as well as business owners. In practice, everyone might have differently strict or relaxed standards for who they allow on their premises. In particular, commercial properties need to weigh the need for a safe premises that is free of criminals with the need for new customers. They would likely allow a certain amount of bad reputation through their doors in accordance with the risk/reward thereof.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If anyone wants to talk about this in depth, I recommend bumping the Market v. Government thread.
Well yeah I have every right to deny you access to my property. But you have the right to ignore me, and I do not have the right to physically remove you, and neither do the police, assuming you are not breaking the law.Quote:
Basically what it comes down to is that property owners should have the right to selectively deny access to their property for any reason they want, since it is their property.
I advocate anarchy, anyway. You can trespass if you want, there's nothing stopping you. Except my dogs and my gun.
What? How is remaining in someone's private property against their will not in breach of the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Anyway your anarchy picture is basically what I described, only with more sophisticated implements than dogs/gun.
Because it's trespass, which isn't illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
You have a crazy socialist country over there huh?
To clarify, if I were to climb through an open window, into someone's house, and passively sit on the floor refusing to move, I have not broken the law. The police may argue that I am causing a breach of the peace, arrest me, remove me from the property, and then release me, but that is the extent of police powers regarding trespass.
I wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
You have to see how arbitrary your interpretation of property rights is, right? I mean what is the point of a property owner denying access if the denial can't be backed by force? How is someone sitting on the floor in your darkened apartment in opposition to your will not a breach of peace? Why have property at all?
idk, I'm just telling you how the law works here. It might be stupid, but then again a law that says it's illegal for someone to stand still in a carpark against the will of the owner is also stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Breach of the peace isn't even a criminal offence, however police are allowed to arrest people if they feel it's the only option to avoid a breach of the peace happening. So if I climb into an open window, the police will probably consider that as liable to cause a breach of the peace and act. That's someone's house though. When it comes to the local supermarket's carpark, well it's different. How can standing still in a carpark be likely to cause a breach of the peace? It becomes a lot more difficult for the police to deal with then, and for the most part, they won't bother, because it's a waste of their time.
Well I'm not really interested in how the U.K. law deals with it, I'm interested in your opinion.
As an aside I'm really not sure what the difference is between a commercial private property and a residence, wrt enforcing the owner's will. This is something I have never understood and I accept that I'm definitely in the minority view on this. I see no breach of the law when a racist restaurant owner doesn't allow people to eat there for whatever racist reason he wants. I just see a racist fuckwad who is probably not going to get very much business with that tactic in the long run. I hate this idea that commercial property is "public space" and has to adhere to somehow different rules.
I'm actually torn on the matter, if I'm honest. I'm all for protecting the individual rights of homeowners, but I'm not interested in protecting the corporate interests of business.Quote:
Well I'm not really interested in how the U.K. law deals with it, I'm interested in your opinion.
I guess the difference is the business is interested in profit, nothing else. They don't want people hanging around on their car parks because they perceive it as bad for business. It has nothing to do with them feeling threatened, as would be the case of a homeowner who is greeted with a stubborn twat who climbed in the window.
A business is not a person. It's like saying a table has rights.
I do agree with you about racism, though. I mean there has been a case here recently where a Christian couple who run a hotel were found guilty of discrimination for refusing to allow gay men into their hotel, on the grounds of their religious beliefs. I don't see how discrimination should be a criminal offence, esepcially given that it happens all the time in pretty much every aspect of daily life.
If someone breaks into my house where I live, I can shoot them in the head legally. Just a thought.
Also, a business does not have rights, but the person who owns the business does.
Edit: On the topic of the law where I live:
Quote:
Under the latest version of the Castle Doctrine, the lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle or workplace is not required to retreat prior to using deadly force. The law presumes a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter one of these locations intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
@ong: isn't there a special criminal trespass over there tho? I think we have that (trespass is boring, so I'm not sure) and we basically stole all our broad general laws from you guys.
At minimum, there's things like burglary, B&E, disturbing the peace, etc.
The scary part is when an american's home gets adversely possessed tho. Then a trespasser gets rights to the property and shit gets real weird and messed up
I understand that it's nice to be with someone who goes out of their way to do stuff like that for each other, but is that really the universal standard for a "good wife"? I'm a little messier than my boyfriend and I am definitely improving on that to make life more harmonious for us both, but that sort of thing is nowhere near as important or integral as the emotional and intellectual bond we share that we don't have with anyone else. He makes fun for me for microwaving tea for him the first time he stayed over, but that was in no way going to disrupt the incredible bond we were beginning to forge. Isn't what ultimately makes a wife or husband "good" for each other dependent on their individual dynamic, how they fulfill each other emotionally, intellectually, and how they support each other?Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvance
Either way sounds like an awesome weekend for you:) And I'm in no way judging her for cleaning your stuff while you play games for hours -- that's incredibly sweet and thoughtful of her. So I hope this doesn't come off that way! I do think that if a woman goes out of her way to not do things for her man out of some feminist notion that she shouldn't, that's messed up. We should all be focused on being the best we can be as individuals for ourselves and our partners.
Regarding the NY subway manspread thing -- I have seen both men and women be insanely rude with the way they take up seat space on the subway. The "spreading" thing is more of a man thing though, I guess because sitting that way tends to be more masculine. Women tend to just plop their shit next to them and not give a shit if someone is standing around looking for a seat -- it's beyond obnoxious. But they do normally fit themselves more compactly on the seat.
Interestingly enough, my dad somewhat recently told me that he thinks men are more of the jerks with the way they sit on subways and he liked that there was some vocal action against that. He has no conception of what modern day feminism is like or any of that shit. He's just a middle-aged dude who's worked in the city all his life. So I thought it was interesting that he somewhat agreed with that, because it didn't come from the ideological perspective that we're used to hearing it from. It's refreshing to hear opinions from people who are not caught in the thick of the ideological divide.
Either way, arresting men for that is obviously stupid, no need to really comment much more on it. I also really disliked the manspread tumblr because I think it's unacceptable to post shaming pictures of people online like that, and I thought a good deal of the men posted on there weren't even really doing anything wrong.
He's sort of both. He's definitely down to Earth and awesome to talk to, and he sort of has a weird adolescent boyish sense of humor. But he also has a Terence McKenna vibe to him, especially how he talks.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Omg so the other day I hiked up to the top of a super high mountain and it was fucking. Awesome. There was an incredible tree perfect for meditation up there, and there was a little St. Frances statue. It's a spot where monks used to go meditate. There were also native american petroglyphs up there. It was so incredible. I feel like it's dorky to post vacation pics of yourself but fuck it, here is picture of me and the view. And the tree. That shit makes me just want to spend my life hiking the highest mountains possible. Someone give me recommendations of mountains to climb!
*deleted shitpost*
^Thats what I think it is. But everyone likes being taken care of, and I think modern feminism pushes away from that. If being nice by making a sandwich or cleaning the house is suddenly "oppression, down with the patriarchy", then people arent going to be as nice to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
All I'm gonna say, is that if I have a job and my spouse doesnt, I should come home to a clean house and food on the table. And that should be gender neutral.
The more "masculine" thing is just tumblr propaganda. Regardless of what their fake science says, it is uncomfortable for men to sit with their legs side by side. Junk, tent pitching, and obesity are the reasons why.Quote:
Regarding the NY subway manspread thing -- I have seen both men and women be insanely rude with the way they take up seat space on the subway. The "spreading" thing is more of a man thing though, I guess because sitting that way tends to be more masculine.
If anything, its a feminine thing to do the opposite. Women have been taught for generations to sit with one leg crossed over the other and what not, and they simply cannot spread their legs on a train when they're wearing a skirt. So they tend not to. But this isnt men pushing down our privilege on unsuspecting females, you girls could do it to if you wore the right clothing for it.
Anyway, you're right that the whole thing is just about how nobody likes to sit next to a stranger...and if you've ever ridden on public transit, you wouldnt either.
Yeah I mean it becomes criminal where forced entry is made, or theft, or threats of violence, or maybe even implied threats of violence. I hope I'm not fooling anyone into thinking I'm an expert on this matter (I'm laughing too). When I speak of trespass, I mean with no criminal intent whatsoever, ie entirely peaceful and passive. And yes there's exceptions, one I'm aware of is trespass on a licensed premises. But as far as I'm aware only allows forceful ejection, it's not like you can be hauled up before a court if that's the only offence you've committed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
spoon...
I haven't got a problem with this, in principle. But then I also haven't got a problem, in principle, with the burglar's brother coming and shooting you in the head in revenge. Anarchy, bro. Keep that gun loaded.Quote:
If someone breaks into my house where I live, I can shoot them in the head legally. Just a thought.
I'm sure trespass on a military site is a criminal offence. It shouldn't be, they should make sure people can't get on there, and if they can, that's the military's fault. But whatever, I have no intetion of putting that to the test.
The fact that it's uncomfortable for men to sit with their legs side by side is precisely why I said it's more masculine. Perhaps that wasn't the best way to put it, since masculine doesn't necessarily mean penis-bearing. I know people think that's bullshit but I never believed it -- it makes all the sense in the world to me that it would be uncomfortable for them to squeeze their balls together.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I agree that women have been taught for generations to sit with their legs closer together. That's why they tend to fit themselves more compactly on the subway seat. .
view? tree?Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
It's a fucking great view that is.
Me enjoying a cuppa...
http://s6.postimg.org/8nl9ystip/twat.jpg
aubreymcfate's a girl???
ong is a twat?
Every time I buy a can of wasabi peanuts I'm telling myself: this will be the time I remember not to fondle my crotch after eating them. It never is.
Fuck that manspreading shit. What about womanbagging? Take your fucking bag off the chair. No, just because you have a stroller doesn't mean you can take up all three seats. You should've thought about all that shit when you chose to have that useless child.
Additionally, there is a computer science class here at Queens College that DOES NOT ALLOW MALE STUDENTS TO REGISTER. There is a cap on the number of male students allowed to register for the class. Disgusting.
That's a cock-eyed view if I ever saw one.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga