That must be manly-speak for "I need a hug".
I know, all the alpha-females are already taken by people who need to talk shit about homeless and Chinese people to feel better about themselves. They like their sex angry and bitter, with an aftertaste of frustration and pettyness, and I for one cannot blame them.
That is a mighty fine consolation price for being unable to think, I am impressed. Since that is what you're stuck with, you should probably make the best of it, and beat people up whenever you get the chance.
Regards from China!
How is that going to stop the various servious that upload what you record driectly off the phone?
By bricking the phone.
Funny, you sound kinda ungrateful, lazy and full of shit yourself..
You. I like you.
Who asked for sympathy? They just said they're glad these sadists are dead, and didn't even mention getting paddled themselves. So wtf to both of you.
They were culpable victims of their own stupidity, on multiple levels.
Oh, and the people getting off on beating kids are just some kind of force or nature, or what? Stockholm Syndrome much?
"We still need to find a cure for cancer."
"ORLY?! Amazing news there, buddy! Let me get right on getting pumped!"
"Oh, sarcasm! Just when I thought I knew you, you come up with something utterly new, out of nowhere. Too bad you have better things to do than curing cancer, I'm sure you would be awesome at it.
While that bit about sorting your books was a rhetorical question, trying to answer it in earnest might help you get up to speed. I'm not really concerned otherwise -- address my point once you understood it, but all this "but you haven't made a point!!1" stuff is a game you'll have to play by yourself, sorry.
It was not his choice to get stuck there, the US govt pretty much made sure. You know, even getting the Swiss to force down the plane of a president and search it, because he might be on board... really, your comment is unintentionally ironic: the invasion already happened -- that is, your external enemies ain't shit compared to the internal ones you bred yourself -- and it's YOU who is bending over and cheering.
Awww. That's a lot of posturing for not answering a very simple question.
The same could be said about any other label politicians use, and we're not really talking about (just) politicians here anyway, so that's kind of doubly moot.
Do you group your books by predominant color of the cover and texture? Or do you group them by subject matter, wether you read them already, wether you would read them again, size, that sort of stuff? The whole idea of human "races" is kind of broken.
I have books with small print that are stupid, I have books with big colorful pictures which are smart. Selecting them by superficial criteria like that, stuff like "is the page count a multiple of 11?" is just hurting yourself.
We operate by finding patterns of large data sets and then manipulating the patterns.
That is literally how our species thinks.
Yup. And our thinking gets *better* by repeating that process. Maybe even reflecting a little, trying to find patterns in the patterns we think we see. Maybe in some dark age it was really important to trust the person who looks like you more than a tree, a lion or a person who is painted in a completely different way (I dare guess that in the times that stuff evolved biologically, differences in skin tone probably played exactly no role). But things quickly got way more complex than that. Using symbols made our thinking powerful, yes, but confusing symbols with things can also become more costly than useful real quick.
With a dual-purpose typing needle it could be pretty killer though.