|
Oh yeah. Probably. I dunno, I never talk to barn cats. You know how they are.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Exactly. Your rear end in a top hat might be cleaner and more willing to take a load, but that's still a piece of poo poo in there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
They make leashes for cats so that you can let your cat explore the outdoors without letting them kill wildlife or pick fights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
fizzymercy posted:Exactly. Your rear end in a top hat might be cleaner and more willing to take a load, but that's still a piece of poo poo in there. Dude don’t gently caress cats
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
I only said that because I presumed that someone out there had “working cats” for a reason If no then gently caress the people with “outside cats” entirely. My cats and most cats I’ve met love kibble and scratches and sleeping on top of me. They howl and flee when faced with Outside.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
I don't think you guys know what a barn cat is. Or, in fact, a barn. Or "outside" for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
A feral cat, that lives ín a "barn", or near one? The land outside the last tram track is a foreign place to me, a forest beyond the wolf border. I know farmers have barn cats. I know you really hate that. Beyond that, I do not know enough about it to participate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
You have reached my point. There is no such thing as a real "barn cat". They're strays that people put a cute name on. If you hate stray cats and what they do, you also hate the "working" cats you guys seem to think are unique. They are vermin, stop giving cats in a rural setting a new coat of paint. All barn cats are feral, and all cats kill for fun. They're the same goddamn animal. Stop making up rules. Edit: I should say feral and not stray. Where I live there are no stray cats, just one's that have 19 homes. Rural communities have no safe place for cats. Perhaps this is why I have a weird outlook. . fizzymercury has a new favorite as of 21:49 on Apr 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Cultural appropriation, at least the version you hear about online, isn't real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Imma gonna be real conflicted on this one, as I think most of this i am so offended poo poo is bullshit, but then again i am a large white man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Relax, gringo, you're ok.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
fizzymercy posted:You have reached my point. There is no such thing as a real "barn cat". They're strays that people put a cute name on. If you hate stray cats and what they do, you also hate the "working" cats you guys seem to think are unique. They are vermin, stop giving cats in a rural setting a new coat of paint. Feral cat do thing help people, good Otherwise bad Hoe caveman, grow up farm, Hoe not realize is hard concept to grasp Hoe underestimate goons
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
We spayed/neutered our barn cats so their numbers would remain stable, some of ‘em were quite tame, others were fairly feral - especially after we’d throw a blanket over ‘em and wrap ‘em up so the vet could do his thing. All of them were strays that loving assholes dumped ‘out in the country’ and they ended up at our place. I can’t quite figure out what the bitching is about, they did a good job keeping the rodent population in check and we, in turn, made sure they got proper vet care and a place to live out their lives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Dogs are superior to cats because they will love you more.
doverhog has a new favorite as of 03:48 on Apr 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
doverhog posted:If you are a republican, or support Trump, you are as bad a nazi, and should be beaten in the street. agreed
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
Thanks for quoting the post so quickly... I thought I was posting in GBS, PYF mods don't censure me for speaking the truth, again, please.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Dogs are superior to cats because they will love you more. Cats are put off by desperation and neediness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
Yeah, they are like women in that way. Also because they are pretty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
It's not my lines you're reading between. It's 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
Many truths are unpleasant, but true none the less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
The Monkees are infinitely more enjoyable to listen to than The Beatles. Sure they aren't always the most original but they never droned on with discordant self absorbed bullshit songs either. Mike Nesmith is a goddamned national treasure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
I think Transhumanism is tech utopian garbage, but not for the same reasons as many of the posters in the IOSM thread. I see it as cheating mother nature. Rather than taking the time and the maturity to wait to evolve naturally, it's strapping on a bunch of cybernetics and calling it a day. That's not evolution; it's a cheap, easy shortcut. I don't know where we got the idea that we need technology to "save" us from ourselves, but we have to be the change we want to see in the world. We shouldn't just sit around and wait for technology to magically solve our problems for us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Mother Nature isn’t real and there’s no inherent reason that we shouldn’t short-circuit nature although we really still shouldn’t because we don’t really know what we’re doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
You're definitely not wrong. I just don't trust Transhumanism as a "solution" to the problems we're facing, don't really trust Silicon Valley (especially after all the Cambridge Analytica stuff), and I don't want to become a Borg or have to compete with them for work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:You're definitely not wrong. I just don't trust Transhumanism as a "solution" to the problems we're facing, don't really trust Silicon Valley (especially after all the Cambridge Analytica stuff), and I don't want to become a Borg or have to compete with them for work. Oh yeah, I’m totally with you there. There’s a fuckton of reasons not to, I just don’t think the natural order is necessarily one of them. I mean poo poo, evolution should have been fired after that stunt it pulled with human spines imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Humanity is beyond nature. This is best exemplified by the fact that the greatest threat it presents to us is directly caused by our own actions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Pajama Sam could kick the rear end of anyone in a Sierra game
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
"Natural/artificial" is a meaningless and arbitrary distinction. The two terms can only be defined in opposition to each other not by objective standards; whatever is not natural is artificial and whatever is not artificial is natural, but no one can tell you exactly where one ends and the other begins. Or rather, lots of people can tell you but they'll all give you different answers. And there's nothing better (or worse) about things that are defined as natural, it's just a meaningless marketing term. People have this idea that "natural is good" but it isn't. There's nothing good about dying when an artificial heart could save your life. There's nothing good about dying of disease when an "artificial" vaccine could save you. There's nothing wrong with living in a house instead of a cave. F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Rather than taking the time and the maturity to wait to evolve naturally, it's strapping on a bunch of cybernetics and calling it a day. That's not evolution; it's a cheap, easy shortcut.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 09:13
|
|
|
I feel like there might be a bit of a gulf between HEY LET'S ALL DIE OF SMALLPOX and WELP GUESS WE'RE CYBERMEN NOW.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
docbeard posted:I feel like there might be a bit of a gulf between HEY LET'S ALL DIE OF SMALLPOX and WELP GUESS WE'RE CYBERMEN NOW. So where do you draw the line between acceptable scientific advancement and mad science gone wrong? What diseases is it acceptable to cure? At what point do we say "OK, this is the level; any more would be an affront to god/nature"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 10:31
|
|
|
I think the greater concern is less how we personally use technology to better our lives and more finding a balance between civilization (not just technology) and nature. Too many people seem to have the attitude of just paving the planet and turning the entire earth into big megacities. It's never wrong to cure a disease (although I think there is a line for eugenics that shouldn't be crossed of course), or prolong the lives of our citizens. It is wrong in my opinion though to let population growth continue unchecked just because we can level some more forests for apartment blocks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 10:45
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:finding a balance between civilization (not just technology) and nature. yeah I eat rear end posted:It's never wrong to cure a disease (although I think there is a line for eugenics that shouldn't be crossed of course), or prolong the lives of our citizens. It is wrong in my opinion though to let population growth continue unchecked just because we can level some more forests for apartment blocks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 11:16
|
|
|
Judas Horse posted:Pajama Sam could kick the rear end of anyone in a Sierra game This is an objective fact
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:But where does one end and the other begin? The first question is going to get a different answer no matter who you ask. There's no line based on facts that can be determined because it depends on what you mean by balance, and a lot of the variables we don't fully understand. Population increase isn't inherently bad, but surely you'd agree that overpopulation is possible and that it has negative consequences? The problem is there's not really a moral way to stop it - certainly everything country's have tried in the past were not ideal. The only way I could see it working is if people were given tax breaks for not having children or something, but this wouldn't stop a lot of people from having kids and plus that would be only one country. Any solution would have to be globally agreed upon and therefore will never happen in the current state of the world. It's just my opinion that we are quickly approaching a point where collectively we'll stop and think "poo poo, maybe we should have done something about this before" kind of like what (some) people are realizing about climate change. Basically I think we as a species are far too short-sighted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Population increase isn't inherently bad, but surely you'd agree that overpopulation is possible and that it has negative consequences? The problem is there's not really a moral way to stop it - certainly everything country's have tried in the past were not ideal. The only way I could see it working is if people were given tax breaks for not having children or something, but this wouldn't stop a lot of people from having kids and plus that would be only one country. Any solution would have to be globally agreed upon and therefore will never happen in the current state of the world. It's just my opinion that we are quickly approaching a point where collectively we'll stop and think "poo poo, maybe we should have done something about this before" kind of like what (some) people are realizing about climate change. There is a strong correlation between GDP per capita and low fertility rates. Lots of developed countries have fertility rates below replacement levels, including America, France. Russia, Japan, the UK, and Germany. The world as a whole will have sub-replacement birthrates by mid-century, and it's possible that global population will peak within the lifetime of people posting on this forum. If you want to stop overpopulation, make poor people richer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Population increase isn't inherently bad, but surely you'd agree that overpopulation is possible and that it has negative consequences? It's not about population though, it's about resources. You could say that the Earth's current population is too high because there are people living without access to enough food. But you could also say that food distribution is just inefficient and inequitable, that the reason for starvation and poverty isn't overpopulation, it's capitalism or greed or the lack of an appropriate framework for managing that population. You can look at the problem and say "too many people" in which case the solution is to get rid of some people, which has some pretty unpleasant implications. Or you can look at the problem and say "not enough resources" or "resources not allocated correctly" in which case the solution is to produce more resources or find a way to redistribute the ones you have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:What does this even mean? Technology is us actively doing something to save ourselves, not just sitting around and waiting. Waiting for evolution to somehow solve our problems would be sitting around doing nothing. Developing cybernetics isn't cheap or easy, and it's not a shortcut. It's choosing a whole different destination and deciding how to get there. I mean that Silicon Valley seems to think that there isn't a single problem in the world that can't be solved with an algorithm. They also seem to advocate the view that once we have [insertTechnology], society will be perfect and wonderful and we won't ever have to work or struggle again. I think that's extremely naive, because we could get self-driving cars, VR, AR, cybernetics, etc tomorrow and we'd still have poverty. We'd still have political unrest. We'd still have the Milo Yiannopoulous and Richard Spencers of the world. My point in saying this is that technology isn't our savior. It's not the deus ex machina that's going to magically save the day. If we want things like poverty, lack of access to health care, etc to change, we have to do that for ourselves. Technology can aid in that struggle, but we have to be the change we want to see in the world - not quick and easy solutions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
I personally can't wait for when silicon valley and the whole "startup" industry crashes and burns when we remember that businesses are supposed to make a profit. Startup people look at you like you're nuts when you ask them when they'll start making a profit (or even asking them what their product actually is and when it will be made) and seem to exist only to siphon money out of the pockets of venture capitalists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
I'm not exactly sure if this is a popular or unpopular opinion, but I feel that the "Politically Correct" culture has been inflating to the point where it's become obnoxious enough, and now everyone's fed up with it interfering with how they want to live their lives. I think that'd explain people going against the grain in recent years, doing stuff they know isn't the best option, but doing it just to try and give a takedown towards the PC crowds, see Brexit and the American 2016 election results. They know the storm that will result from those options, but to them they would prefer to wade through that storm rather than standing by and letting the "everything is political and if you do not have the popular political opinion" mindset take over their identities. Every time a brexit or a trump happens, all we hear from the opposition is "How did this happen", like they honestly don't see that there is an opposing side that's fed up with their politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
spit on my clit posted:I'm not exactly sure if this is a popular or unpopular opinion, but I feel that the "Politically Correct" culture has been inflating to the point where it's become obnoxious enough, and now everyone's fed up with it interfering with how they want to live their lives. I think that'd explain people going against the grain in recent years, doing stuff they know isn't the best option, but doing it just to try and give a takedown towards the PC crowds, see Brexit and the American 2016 election results. They know the storm that will result from those options, but to them they would prefer to wade through that storm rather than standing by and letting the "everything is political and if you do not have the popular political opinion" mindset take over their identities. Every time a brexit or a trump happens, all we hear from the opposition is "How did this happen", like they honestly don't see that there is an opposing side that's fed up with their politics. I've said it before, but I try really hard to not be racist and sexist, but you'll all take my classism and ableism from my cold, dead hands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 20:22
|
|
