Comment Re:Who's Afraid of Android Fragmentation? (Score 3, Insightful) 136
No, I meant I blame him that I'm going to spend the evening watching a movie with Steve Guttenberg in it.
No, I meant I blame him that I'm going to spend the evening watching a movie with Steve Guttenberg in it.
He might have had a male mentality, but he wasn't humanoid. He was basically a tall WALL-E. "Closer than R2D2" still leaves a lot of ground to cover.
Johnny 5 was a sentient robot, not an android (not human-shaped).
Dammit, now I have to find the HDD with that movie on it. I blame you.
Citation needed... Oh that right, you can't, because we don't even know the rules they voted on!
They voted whether to classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. And they eschewed some of the restrictions, like TFA said, so if you want to know then GOOGLE THE FUCKING LAW. The new restrictions are a subset of that.
Christ, people just spew shit out and don't even bother TRYING to inform themselves.
I'm glad to see at least one other person on a supposedly "technical" website has the first fucking clue what Title II is.
Your hatred of Comcast and fear of what it might do has lead to the biggest restrictions on freedom since the Patriot Act
Your sense of reality needs to be rebooted. "Might do?" They've been doing it openly, for a couple of years now, you twit. You're the one pissing your panties over imaginary "might do" and using bullshit conspiracy theorist "reasoning". Look up how much censorship power Title II gave over landlines, for starters.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ. You need your dosage upped.
I wouldn't call it a "mass exodus." The most popular subverse is "News" with just over 3k subscribers, and there's obviously going to be people on both.
Which isn't to say that I hope it (or another site) doesn't succeed. This picture thing, in spite of all the headlines it's getting, is really a nothing in the ocean of dumbfuckery that's been going on at reddit for the past couple of years (The latest apparently being "gold-only" subreddits).
Someone already has (before this started). Can't remember the domain, though. Started with a V. If I come across it I'll post back.
I just hope they keep the code in place so RES can work.
reddits policy change is moral in that it is an attempt to return property to its rightful owner?
The owner of an image and the subject in the image are not necessarily the same person. This has nothing to do with "rightful owners."
Mice are all fuckers.
The whole point of slapping - or other low-intensity violence - is to show the victim's very body is perpetrator's possession, to do with as they please. Please explain how describing this as ownership is hyperbolical?
You actually need to show that "the whole point of [low-intensity violence] is to show the victim's body is the perpetrator's possession" first. Once you manage to establish that as something other than bullshit, then I'll take the onus from there. Good luck.
It's not a fight between equals, it's some douchebag asserting their power - their ownership - over someone else.
Other than the "ownership" hyperbole, you're right, regardless of the posterior plumbing of the douchebag.
Because you don't slap someone who might punch back, precisely because it does nothing but anger the target, but only someone who you think is incapable of fighting back either physically or even legally
Except the numbers show that, obviously, people do just that. And when a stronger target DOES hit back, the attacker takes more hurt than gives.
People engaging in such bullying absolutely should be made examples of, and deserve no one's sympathy when they are. Goddamn overgrown schoolyard bullies.
I used to agree with this just as vehemently as you seem to. When the bullies started coming up without a Y-chromosome, though, I'm sexist enough to content myself with discrediting them.
If the Men's Rights people really want to help deal with issues like this one they need to do what feminists did and start a dialogue that isn't dominated by such extreme rhetoric and reactionary outbursts.
I disagree. It *is* an example of women wanting special treatment, and it is them getting it. Feminism (as opposed to feminists, who can't seem to agree on a damn thing) doesn't want to solve this issue, and MRAs certainly aren't interested in being told condescendingly to "sit down, shut up, and do what feminism tells you," as you're doing. Whatever the solution to the incongruity may be, I have a hard time believing feminism has anything to contribute to it, since its own flawed premises created the problem in the first place.
I'm not even an MRA, just a guy who feels about "bullshit" the way you say feminists feel about "sexism."
You're probably right. I'm just disappointed that I gave him/her too much credit.
However, domestic violence is not random violence, victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly female. The sexes are NOT equal in physical strength, the average male has 1.5X the upper body strength of a similar sized female and twice the strength of grip in their hands, it's almost always the unarmed female who ends up in hospital when push turns to shove.
That's using a very carefully crafted definition of "victim," and even if it wasn't, you're still wrong. Even removing cases of bi-directional violence, female instigators are at near-parity to male.
IN MY OPINION anyone interested in improving himself should not rule out becoming pure energy. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.
