yeah but did you play the precious snowflake card?
Printable View
yeah but did you play the precious snowflake card?
It's a comedy show (8/10 cats) that as like a one off joke thing they did on channel 4 "comedy people do popular game shows" and it happened to be so popular that they carried on doing it.
Sean lock is fantastic but it's actually a pretty terrible game in that basically every joke they could do about the game is finished in 3 episodes and it's just people repeating them.
The sketch you're talking about isn't even someone doing an impression of an american though it's very specifically of a cowboy because he's doing it based off the different hats he wears. I'm not sure how you can miss that considering it's the whole fucking point of the joke why do you think he kept changing hats?
That being said I find it funny that there has recently been a bit of fuss about Friends not being that PC and how that's left people in an utter state of bafflement because friends nostalgia and racism have some sort of ultimate battle on the whole spectrum of a 13 year olds mind that grew up in the 2000s.
I just want to tell them all how horrible that is before suggesting their nans favourite carry on film.
Can people who have used drugs before, especially those who are of adult age and have parents that have either done drugs with them or you have convinced to do drugs with them please come onto the discord channel and speak to me please. I kind of want to try something out (results of which I would post on ftr if interesting) but I need to shoot the shit with some drug users first really. It's to do with taking drugs with my family who are fairly non-drug user in the first place, one of which is anti-drug the other not so much but implies he rarely has (which may or may not be true).
https://discord.gg/qeuRKJ
Is the copy, I may ask spoon to make a channel so it's slightly more restricted (i.e. not randoms, people i know on here I welcome) I just need to cover my back a bit).
I wasn't really paying attention / just had it on while I was doing other things, so I probably missed loads of stuff.
The general point I was making wasn't predicated solely on that sketch.
I guess the reason it's so odd to me is that Hollywood uses the same Midwest accent in almost all films and TV shows, so I'd think that the most common American accent anyone would be familiar with is the Midwest one.
There is a pro balm where Lock and John go to American and as you can susgguest hilarious encored
I've shared a spliff with my Mother, once.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/24...-cops-say.html
I am morbidly curious as to what kind of winner out there gives a v-day card to a crack whore.Quote:
Police say they placed Shannen Martin in the back of a police cruiser where they say she intentionally defecated in her pants then hid a crack pipe, 2.3 grams of crack cocaine and a Valentine's Day card in her excrement.
cmon, use your imagination. Crack whores will do anything, and I mean anything, for crack. She's gonna be an expert at licking dick, even if her face does look like it's been attacked with a cheese grater.
I should take the link before commenting. She's not that ropey for a crack whore, she's a clear 3/10. Well, until you hear about the excrement, but even then that only demotes her to a 2.
Will crack whores do anything for v-day cards? If you have crack, will her opinion of you be swayed by whether or not you give her a v-day card? If you don't have crack, will a v-day card get your dick licked?
Remove the crack addiction and add some make-up she might actually be a catch.
No but if some crack whore gave me a really good dick licking on a regular basis, I'd probably give her a v-card, maybe even some flowers, make her feel like a special crack whore.
None of the lines change length, the only changes are in which way the 'arrow' bits are pointing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B..._illusion).gif
Did poop just cite wikipedia?
cmon you lazy fuck, find something peer reviewed.
That said, if you know of a better way to prove the illusion fools your senses than by looking at it, I'd like to know what that is.
Looking at something only proves it to you. Show me a peer reviewed article that has nice graphs and stuff showing brain activity when looking at optical illusions. I want expert opinions from renowned psychologists and neurobiologists.
nah, just kidding, I got no problem with wikipedia.
Is negative change in IQ from 100 about as equally impactful at the same positive change in IQ? What I mean is somebody who has 85 IQ about as dumb as somebody with 115 IQ is smart?
Of course not, otherwise someone with a 200+ IQ is as smart as a puddle of water is stupid.
IQ measures variations between people in IQ tests, not intelligence, so yeah obviously it breaks down at the extremes. Still, a score of 85 is roughly 1 standard deviation from the mean as is 115, so in that sense they're the "same".
This took way too long......
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....fL._SY355_.jpg
Does anyone know where my copy of A Brief History of Time is?
That went over your head then I guess.
Stephen Hawking finally died, and I have a copy of his book somewhere, at least I think I do. If it's first edition (not sure), it's selling for up to $1k.
I can't find it.
Seahorses and twelve oranges.
Holy shit! I looked up "cromulent" just for fun. Turns out people actually use it like it's a real word!!
https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...cromulent-mean
StunningQuote:
cromulent showed up in campus op-eds ("The words were struck down as 'too hard,' although both are perfectly cromulent." Patrick Friel, University Wire, 10 Feb. 1999), reviews of movies ("This film enraged sci-fi geeks because it has almost nothing to do with the Asimov book it stole its title from. But this I, Robot is a perfectly cromulent bastardization..." John Scalzi, PlayStation Magazine, 1 Jan. 2005), and even in the name of a theater company. Cromulent has crept so deep into the language that it has even shows up as a hypothetical example in a Supreme Court amicus brief.
An entire nation of people think "winningest" is a word.
That's stunning.
That one is actually in the dictionary. Though there was a little tag next to it that says "north america", so maybe you don't use it in pansy-ball country.
But at least in that case you can see how it was a word that was needed, has a practical function, and its root is a word that already exists.
Without that word you'd have to say "Don Shula has accrued the most wins as a coach in NFL History." There is utility in being able to shorten that to "Don is the winningest coach in NFL History".
That's all fine. "winningest" came about organically the same way all words enter into our language. It played by the rules.
Cromulent, however, is another story completely.
Don is the best coach in NFL history.
If you want to be formal about it, well we'd say "most successful", but "best" is just fine, and certainly preferable to "winningest". It's a silly word.
Yeah but as soon as you say that, you get accused of talking out your arse because Don is the most successful, so he's the best. If you disagree with that, you're just giving me your opinion, which is not supported by the facts.
Who's the most winningest manager?
Dave, who has won two European Champions League titles, four national league championships, four national cups, and a World Cup runners up,
or Steve, who manages the Dog and Duck, the only team in the pub league who pull in triple figure crowds, who have won the title every year for ten years, and won nine shitty cups along the way?
Steve has won more, he's the winningest, right? He's has won more things.
So... Stephen Hawking... am I the only one who feels a sense of achievement having outlived the guy? I thought he was gonna troop on forever.
This is hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1lougu_nis
Speaking of coercing/indoctrination of students:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxMbfvkkkkc
I read an article just the other day arguing that neocons (of which Fox has/had a great deal of) have caused some real problems with North Korea. I don't know enough to know what I agree with, but it is the case that neocons think that when Democrats negotiate they screw up yet IF Republicans negotiate then they'll do so well. Of course, the "IF" should be noted since neocons' default is not negotiate themselves either.
They might be right. I don't know.
It was one thing when NK was just a rogue regime acting like ass holes.
Now, ten years later they've gotten to the point where they are either going to be a nuclear power, or they aren't. Obama, and his SoS Clinton, had a policy of 'strategic patience' that kicked the can down the road to this point.
Negotiating when NK was over a decade away from nukes, while declaring a strategy of "strategic patience", while NK was acting like such ass holes, without preconditions to stop acting like ass holes, at least a little bit....seems like bad diplomacy.
Negotiating with NK when they are on the cusp of being a terrible superpower and the can can't be kicked down the road anymore is.....well at best it's courageous, at worst it's 'what has to be done'.
Obama had better options. We didn't have to get to this point.
cant believe the 2nd randomness thread has lasted 10 years
lukie where u at
The diversity within groups is greater than the diversity between groups.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/22...st-argues.html
If you don't eat hamburgers, you're misogynist.
And probably racist too.
Overheard in Tesco...
"Daddy, why is my sister called Teresa?"
"Because your Mommy loves Easter, and it's an anagram."
"Ah, I see, thanks Dad."
"No problem Alan."
The story of Easter...
Around 2000 years ago, Jesus got nailed to a cross. We call this Good Friday. He got put into a cave with a big stone put in front of it, too big a stone for anyone to move (even though someone must have put it there), and a few days later they had a look in there, and he was gone. Naturally, the most likely explanation is that he came back to life and did some magic to get out, and so we celebrate this wonderful event by getting someone to dress up as a bunny and hide some chocolate eggs for kids to go looking for. Because rabbits, eggs and Jesus are a natural combination.
What a wonderful time of the year. Happy Easter everyone.
You forgot to mention how white he was, and that he now lives at the North Pole.
I want someone to explain to me how Christianity, in its entirety, is not a sin.
Moses said "Rule number one...no other gods!!!"
Then like 3000 years later someone said "well....cmon...just one more??"
And somehow that was ok.
Yeah no other gods.
But we'll sneak in some pagan fertility celebrations and pretend it's Christian.
Can't remember which thread we were talking about media bias in, but check out the BBC right now.
Porton Down (UK chemical lab) have said they are unable to confirm the nerve agent is Russian.
You have to search for the article on the BBC website, it's not on their front page.
It's called the Holy Trinity. It's really just one god. There, that solves it, right? Oh, and the Virgin Mary isn't a god, and you absolutely should not worship her as one... unless you're Latino, then have at it, but if anyone asks, say she's not a god.
If you've still got questions, ask wuf, he's fond of Christianity and he's really good at hand waving.
And she's definitely a virgin. Do not ask Catholics if they can be sure she wasn't just telling Joseph a pack of lies, it offends them for some reason.
Wrestlemania weekend!!!!!
NXT takeover looks like it should be a great show, on now.
I've missed you savy, it's made my day to see you calling me a liar for a poor seasonal joke over a week ago.
Hi, Savy.
How was your WWE weekend?
NXT was brilliant, wrestlemania was overall a good watch but pretty poor nearer the end.
I can't see myself posting very much anymore I'm not interested in the vast majority of what gets spoken about on here and it's fairly dead anyway.
So a dude comes to your house, takes your cell phone, and tries to abscond with your property.
You use your gun to protect your stuff, and somehow YOU are the criminal??
WTF America???
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/10...ans-ar-15.html
Even if cell phone theft was punishable by death, you'd still have to give the man due process before injecting him over some chinese electronics. Doesn't sound like it was on his property either... and he knew the guy.
If that looks like a lawful killing to you, how do you feel about a pupil who steals a teachers cellphone? Should the teacher be allowed to kill the student? And if not, how is this different?
No, that's not how self-defense works. It doesn't matter if it's trivial "chinese electronics" or your life savings. It doesn't matter if it's your car, or a box of CocoPuffs. If someone is stealing your shit, you blast 'em.
So? Imagine you're armed. You're walking down the street and someone tries to take your wallet? Do you just hand it over and say "Well, I would shoot you, but we're not on my property, so here's my money"Quote:
Doesn't sound like it was on his property either...
Again, imagine you're armed. You come home to find your wife getting raped by your neighbor, and he refuses to stop. Are you gonna shoot the guy? Or are you gonna say "Well, I would shoot you, but since I know you I'll just describe you to the police later. Hurry up and finish"Quote:
and he knew the guy
I'm not seeing why the distinction of teacher & student is relevant. The only question here is should a property owner be allowed to defend his property from a thief using deadly force. I'm sure the nuances vary from state to state, but overall I would say "yes definitely".Quote:
If that looks like a lawful killing to you, how do you feel about a pupil who steals a teachers cellphone? Should the teacher be allowed to kill the student? And if not, how is this different?
Well at least you're consistent.
Quote:
Smith had become angry after demanding Lavon return his cellphone and shot at him with a Glock semiautomatic pistol, the complaint said.
It's not clear if Lavon stole the phone or possessed it with Smith's consent and failed to return it in what Smith felt was a timely manner upon request. This distinction does matter. Further, Smith did not open fire while trying to resist being relieved of his property, he shot at Lavon as he fled. Again, this distinction matters, legally and morally.
Kill a man over 5c. Fucking perfect
This is the argument that conveys the stereotype that with the gun you feel like a man and without it you feel like a boy
... and you shoot your wife in the process too, Keyser Sôze style. And, like Keyser Sôze, the kids while you are at it. Even the dog. Shoot everything that moves, burn down the house, then go out for the families of the guilty, even people who happen to just know them
Ok, judge, jury and executioner all in one. Anti gun people prefer to outsource those tasks to professionals
Something to entertain Ong when he has lots of spliffs.
https://imgur.com/gallery/1uA6031
Epilepsy warning please
Apparent motion doesn't induce seizures, flashing lights do.
Have another spliff and try it again.
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/nation...208437499.html
At least someone's agreeing with you.
How is it flip flopping?
The first story was about an actual thief. The second story was about a perceived thief. The law doesn't make a distinction, so neither shooting should be a crime. In the first story, an actual thief was punished. That's justice (the "fairness" of which is debatable, sure). In the second story, someone was killed for being mistakenly perceived as a thief. That's clearly NOT justice. That's a tragedy.
If the father had a right to shoot, then the son was rightfully shot.
He wasn't mistaken for a thief. He stole his brothers truck. He may have planned on returning it, but the intention of returning something doesn't change the fact that he stole it.
This is not in dispute.
Then why was he shot?Quote:
He wasn't mistaken for a thief.
That's a dubious assertion. He didn't leave the family property. If I came into your office and picked up a pen, signed something, then put the pen back...am I thief?Quote:
He stole his brothers truck
Disagree, but really it doesn't matter. It's a distinction without a difference. The kid did something that carried the risk of being perceived as a thief, and that risk was realized. Word it however you like. It doesn't change the justifiable-ness of the shooting.Quote:
He may have planned on returning it, but the intention of returning something doesn't change the fact that he stole it.
Read the whole thing, then respond after you have collected your thoughts. Sometimes the second part of a sentence contains clues that clarify the first part.
You were the one who is defending the idea that you should be allowed to kill people based on dubious assertions. The shooting is only justifiable if you presume that you are allowed to execute an unidentified person who you perceive to have stolen something that is your, or a blood relatives property, and as such should carry no repercussions.
I don't want to be Mr. Obvious over here, but isn't this a ridiculously easy get out of jail free card? Slip someone your phone, shoot them in the back as they walk away. "Your honor, he had my phone!"
- "DISMISSED!"
If you feel I've misunderstood you somehow, just say so, and explain what you think I've misunderstood. Being a dick-hole isn't really helping this discussion.
Incorrect. You can kill people based on reasonable and justifiable assertions that your life or property are being threatened.Quote:
You were the one who is defending the idea that you should be allowed to kill people based on dubious assertions.
I didn't say "no repercussions". In the cell phone story, the shooter may be subject to ethical judgement from his peers. If this guy applied for a job from me and I googled his name, I wouldn't hire him. It's also possible that the victim's family could seek remedies in civil court. Being an asshole carries repercussions. Just not the same repercussions as being a criminal.Quote:
The shooting is only justifiable if you presume that you are allowed to execute an unidentified person who you perceive to have stolen something that is your, or a blood relatives property, and as such should carry no repercussions.
Yes you doQuote:
I don't want to be Mr. Obvious over here,
No. Applying the law isn't that objective and simple. If it were, lawyers wouldn't exist, juries wouldn't be needed, and judges would make $25K a year.Quote:
but isn't this a ridiculously easy get out of jail free card?
They have a phrase for situations like this: don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
Has anyone else noticed that YouTube suggestions have gone all unhelpful lately?
Like, I click one random link, but don't watch the full video, and I'm seeing suggestions in my feed for dozens of videos related to the one which I obviously didn't even enjoy enough to finish the video.
Anyone else notice this?
You can select "not interested" from the pulldown menu, but it seems to take a lot of voting until they no longer suggest a channel.
I think it's all about clickthrough rate and watch time.
But how would YOU go about determining it if you were the investigator, judge or possibly a jury.
You don't need a criminal law degree for that, you need a precog. A law degree doesn't give you magic powers.
I stand by my answer