Inkbunny

For that you need C4.

(Somewhere in the world, Jaime Hynemann just perked up.)

Shuyo

12 years ago

link

Why...do you always post these when I'm too brain-dead from tiredness to respond correctly...

AlexReynard

12 years ago

link

Then wait a little while and come back! Hakuna matata.

Shuyo

12 years ago

link

Hakuna Matata? Toyota Sonata.

JunkBox

12 years ago

link

Hyundai made the Sonata. Toyota did the Corolla. Then there's the legal bit, the Honda Accord... I'll have to dispatch a Ford Ranger to enforce that one.

Drive your Karma, Curb your Dogma.

Shuyo

12 years ago

link

But my karma ran over my dogma.

AlexReynard

11 years, 12 months ago

link

Did you call a tao truck?

JunkBox

11 years, 12 months ago

link

Okay, where the hell is the "Like" button? I gotta remember this one! Hee hee hee!

AlexReynard

11 years, 12 months ago

link

<bows> There's no feeling in the world like coming up with a perfect pun totally off the top of your head. ^__^

Alfador

11 years, 12 months ago

link

Was he chasing a stigma?

yiharbin

12 years ago

link

hahaha!!!! XD
LOVE THIS

ScottySkunk

12 years ago

link

heh these are fun =3

Nethus

12 years ago

link

I'm gonna sound stupid but, what does tl;dr mean? X3

Stumpycoon

12 years ago

link

There's people who respond tl;dr meaning "too long; didn't read" and yet do so as if that's clever rather than imbecilic.

Nethus

12 years ago

link

@ Stumpycoon

Seriously? o.o *shakes head sadly*

Stumpycoon

11 years, 12 months ago

link

Sadly, yes.

AlexReynard

11 years, 12 months ago

link

Twenty lesbians; don't run.

Nethus

11 years, 12 months ago

link

*rolls over laughing*

Relee

11 years, 12 months ago

link

It usually means "Too Long; Didn't Read" Sometimes it's used as an insult or a browbeat to say 'You wrote too much and I don't have the time/inclination to read your essay'.

However on Reddit it's common for someone to end a long post with a 'tl;dr' version which is a synopsis. This lead to people who had never encountered tl;dr before thinking it meant 'The Lesson; Dear Reader' and some people thought that was so awesome they started using it to mean that.

Also sometimes people on reddit post a synopsis which is completely different from the content of the actual post, which is kind of funny.

AlexReynard

11 years, 12 months ago

link

@ Relee

Oooh, I really like the idea of giving it a non-jerkass alternate meaning!

TL;DR: Pancakes.

Stumpycoon

12 years ago

link

I find myself in high agreement with you.

AlexReynard

12 years ago

link

@ Stumpycoon

Glad ya liked it. And points for helping Nethus up there. <handshake>

PrawoJazdy

12 years ago

link

"	*In general, I'm against the government adding jailtime to behaviors which already contain their own punishment if you engage in them carelessly.

But what about behaviors that, in addition to punishing themselves, put other people at risk?

"	*If steadfast belief without need of proof is a virtue, then Holocaust deniers are virtuous.

Oho, but that doesn't count because that belief isn't in The One True God, Or Maybe That Should Be The Multiple True Gods, Because You Know, I Don't Want To Offend Anyone.

"	*To anyone who's ever replied to me with 'tl;dr': I think you're confused as to which of us it's insulting to when you brag about your impaired attention span and/or illiteracy.

Did read. Still too long, though not due to a problem with my attention span. While the editors at Merriam-Webster now say that a preposition not followed by a noun, such as the "to" after "insulting," is perfectly fine, this is a case where "to" can be cut. Then again, maybe that portion of the sentence would be better phrased "which of us it insults when you brag."

"	*Some [C]hristians seem to believe that evolution and atheism are somehow inextricably linked. I'd like to point out that this is about as stupid as believing there's an inextricable link between hot pastrami sandwiches and tigers.

Not quite. A Christian might believe in evolution if they either add the caveat "God did that too" (and call it "Intellegent Design") or allow that God sat on his hands for 4 billion years.
But an atheist would have to avoid thinking about where animals come from at all. I mean, that's sort of feasible, but could they specifically deny evolution?

Oh, and it's been about ten months since your last "Answers Your Questions." Are you planning/ready to put out an open call for new questions?

AlexReynard

12 years ago

link

Edited 12 years ago by Owner

>But what about behaviors that, in addition to punishing themselves, put other people at risk?

Well those ain't cool. I'm talking about ones where the only risk is to the individual who knows the risk and does it anyway. Things like prostitution, recreational drug use, motorcycle helmet laws. Speaking of that, recently the governor of my state repealed a law banning helmetless riding. Consequently, everyone hates him for it. And interestingly, a lot of their arguments are like, "More people are gonna die! And MY HEALTH INSURANCE RATES WILL GO UP!" You can kinda tell which one they actually care more about. Even more interestingly, there may be research that says helmets statistically do dick-all to reduce motorcycle deaths in the first place, so if that's true, forcing people to wear them would be like forcing people to only smoke filtered cigarettes.

>Oho, but that doesn't count because that belief isn't in The One True God, Or Maybe That Should Be The Multiple True Gods, Because You Know, I Don't Want To Offend Anyone.

Religious people who don't want to offend someone end up offending me. Pick a fucking side, will ya? Either live by the rules of your holy book and risk pissing off your rational friends, or go atheist and risk pissing off your religious friends.

>Did read. Still too long, though not due to a problem with my attention span. While the editors at Merriam-Webster now say that a preposition not followed by a noun, such as the "to" after "insulting," is perfectly fine, this is a case where "to" can be cut. Then again, maybe that portion of the sentence would be better phrased "which of us it insults when you brag."

Ah, you're trying to get me to reply tl;dr to that! Ha! I DID read it! I just don't understand it! :D

>Not quite. A Christian might believe in evolution if they either add the caveat "God did that too" (and call it "Intellegent Design") or allow that God sat on his hands for 4 billion years. But an atheist would have to avoid thinking about where animals come from at all. I mean, that's sort of feasible, but could they specifically deny evolution?

Point. But here I'm referring to Christians who, if you bring up atheism, will start talking about evolution, as if they're the same fucking topic. Plenty of religious people believe in evolution, so it's not like it's a purely atheist belief. Also, it's implausibly unlikely, but a handful of atheists might still believe in abiogenesis. That idea where living matter comes from non-living matter. Like maggots coming from rotten meat instead of being laid there.

BTW, Steve Harvey was once interviewed for a news show where he said The Most Ignorant Thing Anyone Has Ever Said. The interviewer mentioned atheism, and his response was essentially, 'I don't mean to offend anyone, but if you don't believe in God, you're an idiot.' He used that word specifically. Then he started going on about how there must be a creator, and if humans evolved from monkeys, then "Why we still got monkeys?" The most ignorant argument against evolution, phrased in the most ignorant way possible. He deserves a medal of some kind. Preferably an asbestos one.

>Oh, and it's been about ten months since your last "Answers Your Questions." Are you planning/ready to put out an open call for new questions?

I hadn't thought about it. I suppose I could if people care enough.

Autumnringtail

12 years ago

link

My answer to Steve Harvey would be phrased in the most condensing way possible
"Because Steve, we no descend from monkey we ancestors actually apes, there be a difference"

AlexReynard

11 years, 12 months ago

link

Edited 11 years, 12 months ago by Owner

@ Autumnringtail

Mine would be: "They all hung around so they could get a look at you and laugh their fucking monkey asses off." Tee hee.

JunkBox

12 years ago

link

"	AlexReynard wrote:
	...motorcycle helmet laws. ... Even more interestingly, there may be research that says helmets statistically do dick-all to reduce motorcycle deaths in the first place...

Yeah. Common Trucker/CB slang for a motorcycle is "Donorcycle."

I saw an article back around... late-1980-something, when *seat belt* laws were being enacted more widely. The title of the article was, "How The Seat Belt Laws Save Some Lives And Doom Others." Yeah, really. What were the doomed lives the article was talking about?

People needing organ transplants. As the article explained, traffic accident victims are the healthiest dead people around. Author's words, not mine. With fewer donors to choose from, finding a blood/tissue/immunologic match is far more difficult.

(Don't mind me, I'm just going to Wiki Walk off into the midnight sun...)

AlexReynard

11 years, 12 months ago

link

>Yeah. Common Trucker/CB slang for a motorcycle is "Donorcycle."

Heard that before. The picture I'm getting is that riding a motorcycle is so damn dangerous just by itself that the helmet laws don't have nearly the impact people assume they will. If you care enough to want helmets mandated, you should just lobby for outlawing motorcycles.

>As the article explained, traffic accident victims are the healthiest dead people around. Author's words, not mine. With fewer donors to choose from, finding a blood/tissue/immunologic match is far more difficult.

0.0 Wowsers... I never thought of that. Though it makes sense. I can now add this to the pile of 'completely unforseen consequences resulting from seemingly good ideas.' Though from what I've gathered (and I may be wrong), seatbelts do save enough lives that at least the law makes sense. My hard-on for individual freedom prevents me from being entirely comfortable with them being mandatory. Largely because you just KNOW bored or racist cops troll around looking for seatbeltless minorities or teenagers to fuck with.

>(Don't mind me, I'm just going to Wiki Walk off into the midnight sun...)

Spent the entire night doing just that. I'm still gleefully stunned that my Bartleby Tales has a trope page. :3

PrawoJazdy

12 years ago

link

Didn't catch this at first.

"	Things like prostitution, recreational drug use, motorcycle helmet laws.

Is PCP recreational?
And how do you feel about just assigning penalty points for things like driving without a seat belt, to encourage good behaviors?

"	Religious people who don't want to offend someone end up offending me. Pick a fucking side, will ya?

Um, I can't tell if you're offended at me, but all my capital letters were supposed to signal deliberate irony on my part. Of course advocating both sides will offend people on both sides; for one thing, someone who does that is on both other sides.
And I'm not religious, nor even "but I'm spiritual." I'm mostly atheist with some room for agnosticism; it's completely possible for an all-powerful deity to do absolutely nothing, but that means we can't gain anything by trying to give it attention.

"	"Why we still got monkeys?"

Heh heh heh. Didn't catch the grammar there until I red justacritic's reply. But to seriously answer the question:
Evolution doesn't say that a species will turn into something very different, just that it can. We still have monkeys and apes because not all segments of the primate population got the same evolutionary pressures.
But I'm sure you knew that.

AlexReynard

11 years, 12 months ago

link

@ PrawoJazdy

>Is PCP recreational?

I don't know much about it specifically, but if some dudes want to take a bunch of it and whirl around their livingroom for a few hours, that's fine with me. My feelings are that all drugs should be legal, up to the point where you're being a dick to other people while on them.

>And how do you feel about just assigning penalty points for things like driving without a seat belt, to encourage good behaviors?

We tend to look at just about any problem and our first soulution is, 'punish it until it goes away'. I think i've seen enough proof by now that that idea rarely works. Positive reinforcement seems to work a lot better. Make people want to choose the smart idea. If someone wants to drive with their seatbelt off, let 'em. But give belted drivers auto insurance discounts, or something. (On the other hand, I do think that parents should have to wear a belt if they're driving with their kids. I support people being able to endanger themselves and thus learn from the mistakes they make. I don't support risking someone who has no choice but to go along with you.)

>Um, I can't tell if you're offended at me,

Nah, I just went off on a bit of a rant. I totally agree with you. <hug>

>And I'm not religious, nor even "but I'm spiritual." I'm mostly atheist with some room for agnosticism; it's completely possible for an all-powerful deity to do absolutely nothing, but that means we can't gain anything by trying to give it attention.

Very well said!

I always wonder why we assume a God though, instead of, like, an afterlife staffed by lots and lots of people (of some sort). I guess it's simpler to assume a single entity.

>Evolution doesn't say that a species will turn into something very different, just that it can. We still have monkeys and apes because not all segments of the primate population got the same evolutionary pressures.

Bingo. I sometimes feel like I'm one of the few people who actually understand how evolution works. It's all about environment. When a species moves to a new environment, it's pretty much like pouring a liquid into a container: the liquid will assume the shape of the container. You could even pour liquid from one pitcher into two differently-shaped glasses, and get two differently shaped liquids. It has nothing to do with 'best' or 'worst' or 'good' or 'bad'; it's all about a population adapting to fit their surroundings.

FoxxieKun

11 years, 12 months ago

link

Actually, in many situations having a hardened piece of material covering your head/face means that there's much more chance of at least not being killed instantly. My late uncle actually survived quite a few potentially deadly tumbles off his bike with a wrecked helmet and some road rash. Without the helmet his skull would have looked less like a skull and more like a mess of fragments caved into a bowl.

Better to chance it on being more safe rather than end up faceplanting on a curb with nothing but your teeth between your jaw and the concrete, in my opinion.

And honestly, Religions advocate for the institutions of slavery, rape, sexism, racism, incest, and general asshattery.

Seriously, people of faith tend to prefer to cherry-pick what verses they take to heart and look like hypocrites, rather than stick with the values from the Old/New testament in entirety...

Those who wish to quote Leviticus should be tried for working a Sunday job, marrying while not a virgin if a woman, having babies out of wedlock if a woman, and any other old testament exclusive "Punishable by stoning to death" "crimes". And of course, we know EVERY single person in the world has in their adult life worked a sunday job at some point in their life, so we'd have free reign to execute them on their inability to abide their own god's law.

I detest many theists, especially "Pay-2-Pray" political theists who abuse people's faiths to get votes and/or money and/or influence/power, and doubly so for theist political lobbying companies. Theist lobbyists have done major damage to the long-term health and wellness not only of sexual minorities in our society, but also heterosexual teens and young adults who aren't being taught how to get access to or properly use birth control and condoms.

Whether they're trying to enforce "Hetero Only" and "Queers Only" establishments of unions, or denying our youth the knowledge to stay safe in the bedroom, they've done no good and much evil for our society...

AlexReynard

11 years, 12 months ago

link

>Actually, in many situations having a hardened piece of material covering your head/face means that there's much more chance of at least not being killed instantly.

Oh, I'm sure of that. What I meant was, the overall picture I'm getting is that, statistically, helmets don't make as big a difference as people assume they do. A helmet's not going to do shit to protect your ribcage, for instance. Or your legs, arms, ass or neck, for that matter. Motorcycle riding is inherently risky. People who get all heated up about helmet laws seem to be arguing over reducing a relatively small amount of that total risk.

But none of this is surprising, because the average person sucks at comprehending probability, and the news always loves reporting on danger while never clarifying how likely or unlikely that danger actually is. :/

>Without the helmet his skull would have looked less like a skull and more like a mess of fragments caved into a bowl.

Salsa and chips!

Okay, I apologize for that joke. <goes to sit in the corner all day>

>Better to chance it on being more safe rather than end up faceplanting on a curb with nothing but your teeth between your jaw and the concrete, in my opinion.

Oh, certainly. Helmets are obviously the smarter choice. I'm just not comfortable with the idea that the police should be enforcing that choice. I don't have much faith in cops.

>Those who wish to quote Leviticus should be tried for working a Sunday job, marrying while not a virgin if a woman, having babies out of wedlock if a woman, and any other old testament exclusive "Punishable by stoning to death" "crimes". And of course, we know EVERY single person in the world has in their adult life worked a sunday job at some point in their life, so we'd have free reign to execute them on their inability to abide their own god's law.

Yep. Someone even pointed out to the Phelps clan that they were sinners themselves because they'd bred out of wedlock. If I remember correctly, their response was basically, 'I guess we'll go to Hell too'. Which is at least consistent.

>Whether they're trying to enforce "Hetero Only" and "Queers Only" establishments of unions, or denying our youth the knowledge to stay safe in the bedroom, they've done no good and much evil for our society...

YES. FUCK THESE PEOPLE WITH RAKES. I can have a tiny bit of respect for a true believer. But people who use religion, knowing it's a scam, deserve to be herded into the ocean en masse.

FoxxieKun

11 years, 12 months ago

link

Also, we didn't directly descend from monkeys, as I'm sure you know. The common link branched off between what eventually became modern Homo Sapiens, and the various Lesser and Greater Apes. Just because there's a common link doesn't mean that certain forms of environment didn't allow for the apes and etc. to survive as well as the Neanderthal or other very early generations of what inevitably adapted into Homo Sapiens. The strongest survive to pass on their genes, while those who cannot adapt will die.

That's why Africans have very dark skin. Hot and humid environment with little cloud cover and only spotty areas of canopy meant sunburns were a common and very fatal malady for those whose skin didn't adapt to be darker.

Similarly, many areas of Europe are more moderate, with much cooler winters, more rain and cloud cover, meaning clothing of hides was more beneficial, meaning less need for dark skin.

Similarly, Native Americans and Southern Americans typically have darker skin due to any combination of factors from high heat and humidity, little overhead cover, or other factors.

Historically speaking, all variations of human skin pigment and bone structure can be traced to certain environmental needs of their continent or region of origin. Many areas in Asia, for example, feature heavy brush and such, generally meaning smaller frames tended to lend themselves better to hunting and mobility than larger, bulkier bodies.

I don't know for certain, but these are some inferences I can deduce from the practicality of certain body types and skin tones in these regions.

AlexReynard

11 years, 12 months ago

link

>Also, we didn't directly descend from monkeys, as I'm sure you know.

Right. We descended from Xenu.

<trollface>

>Just because there's a common link doesn't mean that certain forms of environment didn't allow for the apes and etc. to survive as well as the Neanderthal or other very early generations of what inevitably adapted into Homo Sapiens.

Naturally. In one environment, it was best for one group of primates to keep living in trees, and in another it was better for them to start getting intelligent.

Ever heard of the aquatic ape theory? Look it up sometime. It's roundly condemned now, but it sounds plausible as heck to me, and it seems like it could very likely end up in textbooks in forty years or so.

>I don't know for certain, but these are some inferences I can deduce from the practicality of certain body types and skin tones in these regions.

Absolutely. I do this too; look at a person, or an animal, and try to guess from how they look what in their environment might've shaped them that way.

Sometimes it's random though; genes for one desirable trait will be in the same area as genes for something else which has no bearing on survival at all, so you'll get the occasional odd characterists which only exists because nothing's making it go away. I heard about this from a story about how scientists had been trying to breed pet foxes for a long time, but whenever they got them tame enough, they didn't look like foxes anymore. Eventually they realized that the docility gene was on the same path as fur color. So they kept getting white, spotty foxes.

FoxxieKun

11 years, 12 months ago

link

Exactly, and no matter HOW intelligent someone is, there's nothing I can see as to why Platypus work how they do. Duck bill, beaver tail, furred body, lays eggs, and males have (Allegedly) poisonous spikes jutting out of their hind legs. How that combo helped it survive so well, I don't know, and why that combo could arise in the first place eludes me...

At the very least, people choosing not to wear helmets who get their skull splattered tend to be the kind of arrogant "I'm invincible so fuck you" jackasses who hurt more than just themselves in a wreck, while people who choose to wear helmets tend to be proactive and much more careful drivers in the first place. Not universal, but one can infer from the impulsive nature generally held by anti-helmet-ers, and the level of concern for their own well-being held by helmet wearers, that it may be accurate.

I prefer to believe that any "Creator" figure would prefer we live lives of generally upright morality devoid of piety, rather than a life of great piety with a skewed sense of morality.

AlexReynard

11 years, 12 months ago

link

>How that combo helped it survive so well, I don't know, and why that combo could arise in the first place eludes me...

And yet, if you could see the progression of the species, see what its environment is like and what predators attack them, everything'd probably make a hell of a lot of sense. Evolution's usually easy as hell to understand if you have context. And it's also good to keep in mind that it all starts with random mutations. Like I said, if some weird-ass change happens to a species, and it doesn't get them killed off any easier, chances are it'll stick around.

>Not universal, but one can infer from the impulsive nature generally held by anti-helmet-ers, and the level of concern for their own well-being held by helmet wearers, that it may be accurate.

I dunno myself, since I don't know any motorcyclists. I'm just in favor of letting natural selection do its job without cops interfering. Someone who rides helmetless and is a careful driver to compensate, that's fine. Someone who rides without a helmet or common sense; we should just stand back and let them smear themselves across the pavement.

>I prefer to believe that any "Creator" figure would prefer we live lives of generally upright morality devoid of piety, rather than a life of great piety with a skewed sense of morality.

There seem to be Bible verses that both agree with and contradict that, bizarrely.

Rakaziel

11 years, 11 months ago

link

Another example would be the native South Americans that live high in the Andes. Their noses are specifically evolved to better warm and humidify the air they breathe in.

AlexReynard

11 years, 11 months ago

link

@ Rakaziel

I didn't know that! Also, black people have brown skin because they evolved to hide from predators in chocolate factories.

Rakaziel

11 years, 11 months ago

link