|
 2012 electoral map had the latest republican voting scheme gone through in time for it. This is a regressive argument http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
 also: 
ekuNNN fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
 Starving the hell out of the beast  Arizona is truly the worst state.Also, you guys are way too busy arguing over helmets, you're losing the main point, RIDE BICYCLES EVERY DAY 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
Bo is incredibly  although I don't know how he walks around with feet like that.   Wanna pet that dog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 00:30
|
|
Hmmmmmmm
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Bikes aren't zero emissions, they just run on biofuels. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Trillion dollar platinum car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
If both of them said Capitalism this would be a genuinely good picture. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:I sincerely hope you get a brain injury and lose the ability to type very soon so you don't put others at risk by giving out dangerously bad advice. More bikes on the road isn't going to protect your head, and all the fragile poo poo contained within, in a fall or collision. Everyone else should wear a helmet. Calm down. I think what he's getting at is this little bit of data. There is a clear connection between the number of riders on the streets and the number of fatalities. More riders means more safety. And it's also a fact that when you introduce a helmet law, fewer people will ride. Thus you end up with more dangerous conditions for those who are willing to ride with a helmet. Sure, helmets obviously help with head injuries but not getting hit by the car in the first place helps a lot more. The real goal should be to get riders to voluntarily wear helmets and forget about legislation.  ps, to the guy who said bike riding is a hobby. Move to a real city. Fender fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
As a paranoid republican I take up the position that biking is a threat to public safety and should be banned. What is Obama hiding behind his helmet?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14r54gUdTcg
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
i poo poo trains posted:This is a regressive argument One of the most  blog posts I've read in recent memory. Thanks for the nutbar link, I guess..?lolwat blog posted:So while pretending this was some kind of debate with contrasting opinions, all of them had the same opinion, which should automatically signal to you it is the wrong one. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Fender posted:Calm down. I think what he's getting at is this little bit of data. There is a clear connection between the number of riders on the streets and the number of fatalities. More riders means more safety. And it's also a fact that when you introduce a helmet law, fewer people will ride. Thus you end up with more dangerous conditions for those who are willing to ride with a helmet. 2 things. First, that regression is hilariously bad. Second, the argument you've made is that helmets = less riders and less riders = more fatalities, therefore helmets = more fatalities, which is also hilariously bad. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3nMnr8ZirI I don't wear a helmet but I also don't care if I die because Human Extinction Movement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
 Togolese troops board the presidential jet for deployment in Mali Amiss posted:One of the most quote:The fraud women now believe is that it is wrong to look good for men only, as an end in itself; the progressive delusion is that looking good for men is synonymous with submissiveness, so while you're allowed to look good to men, it should always be secondary to looking good for yourself. This is madness. You are enhancing your outward appearance, which is great, but then you pretend it's for internal reasons?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
 Tell me more about how to woman! And I won't tell you how to gun.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Iceberg-Slim posted:2 things. First, that regression is hilariously bad. Second, the argument you've made is that helmets = less riders and less riders = more fatalities, therefore helmets = more fatalities, which is also hilariously bad. You misunderstand. Less riders means that cars, the leading cause of deadly injury of bikers, are less aware of how to handle bikes. Mandatory helmet laws makes bikes seem more dangerous and cause people who don`t want to wear helmets for cosmetic reasons to avoid biking. Helmets only protect for a very small percentage of injuries. Wearing a helmet decreases injuries in this small instance. Furthermore, biking without a helmet is way less likely to kill you then an otherwise completely sedentary lifestyle. Also, a piece of safety equipment is only effective if you don`t inadvertently take increased risks due to the assumption of increased safety. Check it: http://jimdavies.blogspot.ca/2012/06/what-is-best-bike-helmet.html 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
i poo poo trains posted:Congratulations on your critical lack of reading comprehension, then? The argument is pretty simple and very plainly laid out. Maybe I have too much faith in humanity, but I can't for a second imagine anyone being dumb enough to agree with a word written on that blog. I ventured onto another article, because I hate myself, and I was greeted with quote:First, the obvious: what's wrong with hipsters on food stamps is that these are college educated people who should be able to get jobs, not live off the state. They're not black, after all. Hell, one of the two in the article is even Asian. "What, like Russian Asian?" No, like Asian Asian. "Whaaaaaaat?"  In international news, new protests on Tahrir square.  Good thing these guys are around to document it 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Trillion dollar platinum car.  *insert Deus Ex joke here*
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:
gently caress, my native N.H. got railed in 2010. Number 2, behind Air-a-fuckin'-zona? I know the legislature really went kooky when I got laid off from the community college system. I ensured compliance with federal and state law when it came to crime reporting, hazardous waste disposal and storage, and all sorts of other stuff in addition to writing and administrating safety plans, inspecting fire extinguishers, etc. One gently caress up meant a $30k fine if they messed up. You know, to stop people from buring to death or to make sure the college didn't throw away heavy metals. I popped on their website and they're a year behind on reporting, and the fine is the totality of my salary for one year. I'd drop a dime, but snitches get stitches. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
Bohemian Nights posted:Maybe I have too much faith in humanity, but I can't for a second imagine anyone being dumb enough to agree with a word written on that blog. I think it's his blog  
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
Extraordinarily Render Slavoj Zizek to Toronto to Watch Evangelion with me
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
i poo poo trains posted:Congratulations on your critical lack of reading comprehension, then? The argument is pretty simple and very plainly laid out. quote:How would you like to live in a world where men had to wear make up? "Oh, I love make up on a guy, especially eyeliner." Of course you do, you're having a stroke. Ask it this way: how would you like to be in a world where men said," oh, I feel so much better about myself when I'm wearing makeup." You'd run for the nearest totalitarian regime. It's full of completely unsubstantiated and harmful bullshit like this. It's entirely possible to want to change your outward appearance for entirely personal reasons, ask any transperson (a group the author no doubt has some colorful opinions about.) Some people don't even wear makeup to "feel better about themselves", they do so because it's a fun and entirely valid form of self-expression, the same as your taste in clothing. Vulcana, a turn-of-the-century strongwoman famous for using her strength in public acts of heroism, including lifting stuck wagons, saving children from drowning, and rescuing horses from a fire: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
 Aimee Mullins
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
Eat This Glob posted:gently caress, my native N.H. got railed in 2010. Number 2, behind Air-a-fuckin'-zona? I know the legislature really went kooky when I got laid off from the community college system. I ensured compliance with federal and state law when it came to crime reporting, hazardous waste disposal and storage, and all sorts of other stuff in addition to writing and administrating safety plans, inspecting fire extinguishers, etc. One gently caress up meant a $30k fine if they messed up. You know, to stop people from buring to death or to make sure the college didn't throw away heavy metals. I popped on their website and they're a year behind on reporting, and the fine is the totality of my salary for one year. I'd drop a dime, but snitches get stitches. The cuts NH made and funding realities are worse than that graph depicts. We cut funding to UNH by nearly 50% last year. The total amount we spend towards higher education is half that of Arizona. We cut less than they did because there wasn't much to cut in the first place, and we cut it anyway. For a state that's so dependent on an educated workforce it's insane. Nashua Telegraph article Thankfully, we didn't end up with this guy for our governor  and O'Brien isn't the speaker of the House anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
quote:“From an identity standpoint, what does it mean to have a disability? Pamela Anderson has more prosthetic in her body than I do. Nobody calls her disabled” heh 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
i poo poo trains posted:This is a regressive argument You should probably check out the Feminism & Gender Equality thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3520914. It's full of woman-types and their opinions, you'll love it! Or hate it! ... Probably hate it. At least try to check your privilege before posting there, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
There is astoundingly bad logic and some truly bizarre assumptions in this article. What if I told you that driving was just as dangerous than biking? To be consistent with the above reasoning, you’d want to wear a helmet when driving. No, to be consistent with the above reasoning, you would want to mitigate danger to your head. That's why cars have seat belts and airbags. Cycling feels more dangerous than walking and driving. Why is this? It’s because we’re not used to it I rode 2,500 miles last year and it feels more dangerous to me because I often can only ride in the street with 50 mph traffic and no bike lane. Am I weird for thinking that feels more dangerous than walking on a sidewalk? Cars have a bit of risk compensation with respect to bike helmets too. In fact, one study found that wearing a bike helmet made cars drive frighteningly closer to you. Good news: this means that the car actually saw you. In many collisions, they don't! I don't care about cars driving close to me. I care about cars not seeing me and cars actually hitting me. The effect of risk compensation on biking is increased head injuries. That’s right, as nuts as it might sound, wearing a helmet increases the chance of getting a head injury. The rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread. What are correlation and causation? Rhandhali posted:Dad is doing the right thing. rope kid fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 09:32
|
|
|
I've heard that people wearing a helmet take greater risks, thereby mitigating the safety advantage. I tried googling the source for this, but apparently it is a myth. What I did find though is a paper looking at the success of bicycling in Netherland, Denmark, and Germany. http://www.engr.scu.edu/~emaurer/bike/docs/PUCHERMakingCyclingIrresistibleJune2008.pdf quote:Conclusions: Policies to Make Cycling Irresistible  http://i.imgur.com/TV2bQxe.jpg
midnightclimax fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Jan 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
Every city in Germany I rode in was a dream, with completely separated, wide, two-lane bike lanes. I rode a bike all over Ostallgäu and never had to get on a "real" (over ~25 mph) road. Yeah, I didn't wear a helmet when riding in the cycling equivalent of cotton candy land. Safety gear in pretty much any circumstance is about calculating risks and making a personal decision. I don't think we need helmet laws. I wear a helmet most of the time. I fell on my head twice last year, right on the same spot where I'd previously received a concussion. I was pretty glad I had a helmet on in both cases. I was also glad my friend was wearing her helmet when a kid knocked her down and she hit her head on the pavement. And when my co-worker was knocked off her bike in the street. I was extremely glad that my sister and nephew were wearing their motorcycle helmets when they were hit by a car (my sister's head was bounced between the road and the undercarriage of the car that was running over her pelvis). Motorcycle helmets are also mostly "just foam", but they did a pretty good job. I ride by ghost bikes on almost every long ride I make. Someone earlier in the thread diminished cycling deaths as statistically insignificant. They aren't insignificant to me. If anyone doesn't want to wear a helmet, that's your choice. I don't know every person's riding environment, habits, life experience, or attitude toward life and death. I usually wear a helmet and am often the lone rider on long stretches of three-lane 40-50mph streets with no provisions for cyclists. Many American cycling enthusiasts, recreational or commuters, are like this: riding alone when no one else does, where no one else does, often verbally -- sometimes physically -- attacked for doing so. For those of us who choose to wear helmets, please don't give us poo poo for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
What would happen if people took the "don't wear a helmet!" advice in the US.  There are a lot of reasons bikes never took off in the USA. The biggest problem is suburbia - so many people live so far from anything useful like grocery stores or their jobs for bikes to be practical. I agree in major cities it OUGHT to be all bikes all the time, but the US is a pretty poo poo place to live for a first world country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
Bohemian Nights posted:
He's wearing a helmet, doesn't he know that isn't safe? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
Rhandhali posted:Dad is doing the right thing. Generally they are a bit silly, helmets save lives. It's like wearing a seatbelt in cars.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
The "just foam" thing really irks me, because it demonstrates that there's a lack of understanding in regard to the purpose of a helmet. By wearing that piece of plastic and foam you're wearing a cushion. The foam helps to dampen an impact, as energy is not transferred as efficiently through foam. This can be the difference between a few cuts and a headache and a concussion or fractured skull. The point isn't to outright protect you from injury, it's to protect you from more serious injury. Think of it like this: the helmet is like a second skull. So while it might get cracked and damaged, it will absorb enough of the impact to prevent you from taking more damage. If you were to be wearing something other than a foam lined helmet, like say a helmet made entirely of metal or hard plastic, you'd might as well not wear a helmet at all because all the energy from an impact would be transferred right through the material and into your head. Metal and plastic transfer energy quite well, foam does not. Here's a blog post I found doing a little searching. Bell Sweep - The Anatomy Of A Crashed Bike Helmet It's a first-hand account from a bicyclist about how his helmet protected him from more serious injury. And I'm gonna say this again: I don't give a gently caress whether or not you, as an adult capable of making your own decisions, wear a helmet. I care about kids wearing helmets. Kids are not adults. They're not fully developed, they don't make rational decisions a majority of the time, they're impulsive, and they're clumsy. They need helmets. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
...
colonp fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:The "just foam" thing really irks me, because it demonstrates that there's a lack of understanding in regard to the purpose of a helmet. By wearing that piece of plastic and foam you're wearing a cushion. The foam helps to dampen an impact, as energy is not transferred as efficiently through foam. This can be the difference between a few cuts and a headache and a concussion or fractured skull. The point isn't to outright protect you from injury, it's to protect you from more serious injury. Think of it like this: the helmet is like a second skull. So while it might get cracked and damaged, it will absorb enough of the impact to prevent you from taking more damage. If you were to be wearing something other than a foam lined helmet, like say a helmet made entirely of metal or hard plastic, you'd might as well not wear a helmet at all because all the energy from an impact would be transferred right through the material and into your head. Metal and plastic transfer energy quite well, foam does not. Spot on, its pretty basic and yet so many people seem to think it does nothing. One thing to remember after an accident you should get a new helmet otherwise it doesn't work the same. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
If there was a maximum wage this man would be able to extract more profit from his corporations without having to pay big money to upper management. A conservative picture? I don't really get all the raging about executive compensation. They are often overpaid for the value they bring to the company for sure, but why not focus on the people who actually own the corporation and earn tens of millions of dollars virtually tax free for doing absolutely nothing beyond extracting profit? 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 16:59
|
|