Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

CROW, interestingly enough, having a gun in SOME ppl’s hands is something like being “possessed”….as this study offers.

“The reasons for this, the authors suggest, are manifold. “A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided.”"

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / is feminism becoming an excuse for women to be sexist

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:
Just because you can’t “see” them certainly doesn’t mean that they aren’t there.
Aren’t you being a weeeebit naïve about that?

I don’t assume that the flying spaghetti monster exists without evidence of such. If nearly every feminist I encounter on forums, on blogs, in my daily life, and on the news are arguing for “radical” feminism then why should my default assumption be that there is a much larger community of reasonable feminists?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that YOUR limited experiences should be proof of what is obviously your very “cultured” bias?

So, the real question is: why shouldn’t you at least consider that your “default assumption be that there is a much larger community of reasonable feminists”? MY experiences in this area render just that. What part of SILENT majority do you not understand?

It means that you aren’t going to “hear” from it unless you know how to “listen” for it. Being pig-headedly biased about women in general certainly isn’t a good start.

Or, is it that you want so badly to ignore the obvious: this “political change” you speak of is either extremely necessary if only a few very vocal women are demanding and getting it; OR, those few are merely the titular PAC for that groundswell support from the silent majority ground-grunts who so greatly see those political changes as necessary and overdue?

I gave you examples of the kind of political change that I am speaking of. Which parts do you see as necessary?

Yes, YOU gave “examples”.
However, those aren’t the ones I was referring to when I spoke of the more general “political changes”.
Sorry for the confusion.
I’d thought you might realize that political changes actually being made aren’t typically of the bullshit genre you mentioned.

You ask: what parts of feminism goals do I see as necessary?
" Third-wave feminism is continuing to address the financial, social and cultural inequalities and includes renewed campaigning for greater influence of women in politics and media. In reaction to political activism, feminists have also had to maintain focus on women’s reproductive rights."

If YOU didn’t have such a sad bias going, ya’d understand this.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Asset Forfeiture...Legal Overkill? - The ugly side of the police.

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

if u dont want the police to beat u n take ur property, why dont u just not do anything illegal?

Ya’re not paying attention here, CROW.
One needn’t do ANYTHING illegal.
They merely need to be unable to defend themselves from a bully of a police dept.

This is the whole connection I’m trying to make about how things like Ferguson MO can happen. Police dept.‘s aren’t all that “legit” all the time everywhere in all ways w/ every member of the force. Usually, where there is smoke; there is a fire.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

For those who don’t want to spend the 18+ minutes listening to this friend of jhco’s bloviate about all nuances of problems in America, I present a box score of the vlog:



access to things we shouldn’t have

look at this parking lot over here
I KNOW there are PROBABLY drug deals going on there
(probably some screwing, too….lol)

no one has personal responsibility
if a person kills someone
big fucking deal
they just go to jail
so what
they’re back out in 8-10 years
that’s nothing to them

a rant about how he has to be responsible and deal w/ real life problems;

then proceeds to do a high speed wheelie,
putting not only himself (a father) in danger,
but also the others on the road w/ him.

a litany of diametrically opposed American issues:
want something?
work for it, get a better job, get an education, but don’t run up a student debt

drugs are the problem/reason for crime
too easy an access to them
London is the cesspool of England;
BUT, even rural areas of the U.S. are 3-4 times worse

I was a good kid in school
we didn’t do drugs
I didn’t even know anyone who did
EXCEPT for this one kid

even today (as an adult), I can find “shady ppl”,
and within an hour, get drugs from them
I’ve never done drugs in my life (then, how would he know pot from oregano?)
the strongest drug I’ve done is Aspirin
I don’t even have prescriptions (that’s a healthy mutherfucker)

ppl don’t take personal responsibility for the misery in their lives
so, they do drugs to relieve the stress
more blah…blah

someone who breaks into my house IS on drugs….just a fact
I tell them I’ve called the police; but I don’t really call the police in advance (of shooting them?)
he obviously is on drugs because he can BREAK DOWN my door w/out feeling pain
and, he knows I’ve called the police because I told his drug-addled brain that I have
so he is now adequately informed that I intend to kill his stinking ass
should he begin to rape my wife

anyone who breaks into your house doesn’t do so just to steal shit
they are there to ALSO do bodily harm

newsflash: cops don’t teleport
it actually takes 4-5 min. for them to arrive
the bads guy can do whatever they want w/ me
(even though I have a really huge gun aimed at them)

they’re on drugs
they don’t know what good behavior is
they might slit my throat….rape my wife
(even though I have a gun w/ big fucking nasty bullets)
then steal shit and run
just because they are on drugs

a .22 cal bullet just won’t get the job done on a meth-head
you have to use a fucking nasty bullet
and hit them in the chest or the head
and cause collateral damage (lol)

if I kill an intruder who is waving a machete upon breaking into my home
I will go to jail that night
I will have to go to court
and all kinds of shit
I will be “convicted” of being a murderer
even though it was justifiable homicide

(this fucking idiot doesn’t know the difference between murder and killing)

because all of us motorcyclists know of someone who has had their bike ran over by someone
all of us also know someone who has had their house broken into
an anecdotal account of a “friend” is proof of how bad this “always” can be
(there was a time that ALL motorcyclists were bad & pulled your teeth w/ rusty pliers)

let’s now include my children suffering at the hands of the drug-deranged intruder
9 time out of 9 times, the police are worthless at prevention
they only can identify who killed you (WHAT?)

I’m going to philosophize and say there is anger all over the world

End of motorcycle (maintenance) & Zen rant.

conclusion: riding a bike is a drug of its own
causes ppl to say a lot of dumb shit
AND, causes amnesia about how much damage is done by LEGAL alcohol and prescription drugs

I now understand that jhco is saying that this vlogger is ALSO from Kansas (as am I).
This only confirms that I live w/ some really fucking weird ppl….lol

I started this thread as a way to keep abreast of NEW events, laws, etc. regarding gun issues.
It certainly isn’t for jhco to reiterate his hackneyed views via proxy.
Two grossly misinformed ppl only shows that ignorance isn’t special.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

They ALL were about a red bike.
Maybe there will be one w/ a little red wagon;
the one he MIGHT HAVE fell off;
because of how well jhco composed his post.

I’m most happy the vlogger does “present his opinion well and agree with most of what he says”.

That would be a lot like a lot of the political speeches I’m listening to HERE IN KANSAS of late … whatever MY being from the glorious state of Kansas has to do w/ ANYTHING. lolz

I’m also guessing jhco is somehow talking about some kind of “foreigners”; a society that isn’t his own and one others should “open your eyes to a bit”.

I haven’t a clue if this “society” is geographical, ideological, racial, gun-toting, baby-killing, gender-benders, or whatever in nature. Hopefully, he will enlighten us. 0¿~

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / is feminism becoming an excuse for women to be sexist

More like a bowel movement…..IF you believe some ppl.
Personally, I think the movement is a good one; headed in the right direction, and should be propelled by everyone who had a woman for a mother.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Asset Forfeiture...Legal Overkill? - The ugly side of the police.

don, a person charged w/ a crime has a right to a lawyer appointed by the state should s/he not be able to afford one.

While having your asset “stolen” by the state should be a “crime”, you will have to hire a lawyer to get back your asset. That costs money which can likely be more than the cost of the asset—this is calculated by the police. And, the likelihood of winning is slim-to-none; a honest lawyer will tell you up front this. Basically, you are just screwed.

So screwed that even our American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) won’t take a case. It appears that all it will do is raise a stink about it.

One would think there to be a huge amount of grist for the mill since:
“Asset forfeiture practices often go hand-in-hand with racial profiling and disproportionately impact low-income African-American or Hispanic people who the police decide look suspicious and for whom the arcane process of trying to get one’s property back is an expensive challenge.”

When millions of dollars are stolen, NOT so much by the city, county, state, but by the police dept. (are any records kept?). This is typically done from ppl that aren’t even convicted of any crime, I’d like to think the ACLU would want to intervene a lot more than to: “call for reform of state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws.”

Obviously, the one case (in the link) they won wasn’t enough to send shivers down the cowardly backs of police depts. nationwide.

Those millions come from ppl usually least likely to lose it … esp if they weren’t doing anything illegal at all; only driving through the wrong jurisdiction w/ its new-found source of revenue.

It’s not like the ol’ speed traps aren’t still happening. Recently, my wife got a speeding ticket on the technicality of not having reduced speed (basically applying brakes quite hard) upon seeing a 30 MPH sign while legally driving 65. It seems that you ABSOLUTELY NEED to be going 30 by the time you pass the sign. I’m talking about this being within the (VERY SMALL) city limits; but still a quarter mile from any buildings/intersections. Basically, a speed trap. Smaller cities can place speed limits it wants on a highway running through it.

I had one happen in the hill-country of Texas. Key word there is HILL. Obviously with hills, a highway will have no passing zones. These signs are placed AT THE BEGINING of the zone; meaning that one shouldn’t begin to pass … there just won’t be enough time/distance to safely COMPLETE the pass BEFORE one enters the dangerous visual blind caused by the oncoming hill.

I was ticketed from failing to complete my pass before coming upon a sign. A sign that wasn’t even visible to me when I began my pass. Since I was out of town, I certainly wasn’t going to come back to protest the ticket.

I was lucky; today I would likely have lost a lot more than the $85. At least the money didn’t go directly into the county cop’s pocket. I had to follow him into town to the courthouse and pay there. But, that was 40 years ago and not on a super highway.

In a following post, I’ll relate something I just yesterday saw happen on our famous American show Cops.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Searching Existing Topics

LOL….shouldn’t being the operative word.
I find it also depends a lot upon who is pulling up the old thread; and who is making the “complaint”.
I’ve tried a couple of times to find an appropriate thread to add a “new” thought to.
But, I just wasn’t able to find one relevant enough.

I see this as a situation of: that was then; this is now.
Likely as not, a lot of the posters on that thread are no long around; new posters have appeared. And, esp. if the thread is a long one, I doubt the necroee will read all/most of it to see if their idea was addressed.

It would be interesting to count the numbers of threads about:

AND, the number of them locked because they were inane and not a meaningful contribution….at all. lol

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / is feminism becoming an excuse for women to be sexist

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:

I am tired of hearing that the radical ones are the minority. I’m not buying it. From what I have seen they are the overwhelming majority of the voice of modern day feminism. If they are indeed the minority, then the majority is being awfully quiet while the radical ones bring about political change.

Yup, from what you have seen is largely due to the silent majority factor.
“The silent majority is an unspecified large majority of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly.1 The term was popularized by U.S. President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969, speech in which he said, “And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support.”2 In this usage it referred to those Americans who did not join in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War at the time, who did not join in the counterculture, and who did not participate in public discourse. Nixon along with many others saw this group of Middle Americans as being overshadowed in the media by the more vocal minority."

Just because you can’t “see” them certainly doesn’t mean that they aren’t there.
Aren’t you being a weeeebit naïve about that?

Or, is it that you want so badly to ignore the obvious: this “political change” you speak of is either extremely necessary if only a few very vocal women are demanding and getting it; OR, those few are merely the titular PAC for that groundswell support from the silent majority ground-grunts who so greatly see those political changes as necessary and overdue?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Searching Existing Topics

Originally posted by SD_Destroyer:

To be honest, who cares? Most people won’t anyways and if you do you’ll get bitched out for necro’ing one.

The source notwithstanding, there is a lot of truth there.
I’d think a better search method would be to simply look over the more recent threads (2-4 pg.s back) and check the date.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

Originally posted by teh_hobo:

I’m just saying some of the people scared shitless of ebola are the same ones refusing to get flu shots.

Ignorance tends to observe few boundaries.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Political Correctness as a Barrier to Communication

OP, you appear to be confused about a few things.
You were representing the university as an orientation leader.
THEY had the right to dictate the manner in which you engaged the newbies.
They are fully aware of how innocent “microaggression” can be;
yet can have serious impacts.

I doubt the university made any micro’s against you for being “born into white skin”.
I imagine they either did or should have touched on issues regarding born into “comfortable wealth”. A lot of ppl don’t have the same economic means as some. Ergo, a little sensitivity (PC?) can go a long way to keep one from looking/sounding like a complete asshole.

Your making very superficial/formal interaction the same as being in a much more informal/social setting—in regard to using various “clues” as springboards for inquiry about culture interests—is something you should see as being hugely flawed.

You might want to consider this dichotomy when being in the workplace; as opposed to having a few drinks w/ coworkers AFTER work. The one is of a voluntary attendance nature where a person can leave at any time; the work place isn’t. I suggest ya do some research on what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace.

I suggest you do it w/ the thought in mind that ya just might have a touch of entitlement/privilege working for you (regardless of your gender/race). The very fact that you feel that you have a “right” to ask anyone anything could be a hint. If you truly want to make good inroads to others for communication, you will best be served by developing a workable “insight filter” that does a good job of previewing the things you are asking.

Lack of intent to be an asshole doesn’t at all mean that ya can’t be astoundingly good at it.

I see this word – microagression" as not accurately describing the issue. I think it should be: microassumption of personal data ….. sometimes coupled w/ micropresumption or microassertive that one has the right to ask.

Here is something that stanwise is talking about: “Assuming that he must be from a difficult culture because of his skin color is already something you’ve done that’s racist, and you haven’t even opened your mouth yet.”

Yes…yes, it IS difficult to not jump to biased conclusions when it comes to ppl who “appear different”. But, there is an old adage that well fits this: It is far better to keep thoughts to self and have others wonder if you are “lacking” than it is to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Tell me, is your “people radar” truly all that accurate? Do you not wade in hip-deep often to find out that the river is teeming w/ piranha?

PC, for all of its failings—most of them merely perceived because of the scathing backlash from the assholes it so greatly impugned (everyone loves a hater)—is the attempt for our society to finally pull its head outta our asses and actually live up to what we tout ourselves as being when it comes to justice, rights, and liberty FOR ALL.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / is feminism becoming an excuse for women to be sexist

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:

I no longer call myself a feminist because I disagree with modern feminists on nearly all of their modern day “issues”. When asked for my position, I usually just say I’m for “equal rights” between men and women.

Usually, I just say I’m for hamburgers.
This doesn’t mean that I think all burger joints are going to give equal effort & taste & price in their burgers.

A weebit of better application of understanding of the methods those burgers are presented/manifested just might be a good idea.

AND, just who are these “modern feminists” that you so disagree with?
Why do you think they are so much in charge of what feminism is?
Could you be listening to the wrong sources?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:

There are millions of poor people who gather in large, dense population clusters along the Ganges river. They bathe, brush their teeth, and drink from the river.

And, they have been doing this for years & years. If this is so deadly….well, they would ALL be dead.

Ebola does not need to travel through water to infect large populations in that setting. Ebola would spread like a wildfire in any setting where large numbers of people gather together.
Says who?
Ebola is not hard to transmit.
It can spread through short distances in the air when somebody sneezes, through mucus droplets. It can survive on surfaces for days in cold climates, in the absence of direct sunlight.

Um, not according to the many sources I scoured over and the medicos I’ve talked to.

So, where do YOU get your data?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / is feminism becoming an excuse for women to be sexist

Originally posted by Aleazor:

Is it a valid excuse, or used as an excuse? These are too separate questions.

I think I agree with you.
I see valid excuse as an explanation that tries/hopes to mitigate a particular “negative” opinion.
verb: attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.
noun: a reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense.

That other kind of excuse is more often this

I approach the concept of excuses something like this
For me, I can offer only reasons for my position on an issue.
It is up to others to offer a valid excuse for it….or not.
I might respect either position of theirs….or, I might not.
I have my reasons and those are why I invest my time & energy;
and, I make no excuses.
I will explain my reasons….if I feel there to be some merit in so investing my time and energy.
Far too often special treatment and reverse discrimination become misappropriations of the term EQUALITY.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is my being a white, cisgender, heterosexual male a bad thing?

Originally posted by DoomlordKravoka:

No, if you can be hated for being a person who was descended from some people who happened to lord their power during a period of time,

Perhaps ya’re overthinking this part – extending to heritage rather than the more simple being white in a society that is/has very recently experienced of some rather unsociable things because of some Whites.
… being part of a certain half of the populationSo, tell me why your opinion of being male and the OP are connected and what might made White males “hated”.

…and (There is no way to put this out without offending someone) being sexual in a way that enures the survival of humanity,
Isn’t that the same way as saying being a male HETERO-sexual?
From what I can tell, cisgender and being heterosexual are pretty much the same.
But, have ya ever heard of selling sperm?
I doubt there is any real concern that humans will survive.
However, I’m really worried about humanity being with us; at least in a form which one typically might view it: compassion, brotherly love, fraternity, fellow feeling, philanthropy, humaneness, kindness, consideration, understanding, sympathy, tolerance; leniency, mercy, mercifulness, clemency, pity, tenderness; benevolence, charity, goodness, magnanimity, generosity.
…then it is just as okay to hate someone for being a black lesbian.

What are Black lesbians doing that is supposed to coincide w/ the behavior of White, heterosexual males?
I’m not seeing a connection.
Well, other than someone wanting to simply be completely hateful.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Asset Forfeiture...Legal Overkill? - The ugly side of the police.

Arrest guns — not people.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

While not an infectious “disease” in&of itself, the lack of and pathetically poor health care for the “lesser” ppl in the U.S. kills & greatly disables & reduces the life-value of a huge number of ppl.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Asset Forfeiture...Legal Overkill? - The ugly side of the police.

I was recently “enlightened” on just how bad this dirty little secret is by an episode of John Oliver

I well knew of the legality of it. Here in Wichita, our local police obtained a Corvette this way. A former city manager lost his personal vehicle merely because he was caught buying some personal-use pot while sitting in it.

But, the piece Oliver presents is eye-opening. If one isn’t able to understand how a police force can abuse this law, go to the middle of the video and see how the police chief “explains” to the city counsel where/how he uses the money from asset forfeiture.

I am talking about: " Civil and administrative asset forfeiture, or forfeiture without a conviction and sometimes in the absence of evidence."

This new police thuggery makes the ol’ speed trap of yore look like Barney Fife and the one bullet that Sheriff Andy would let him carry w/ his gun.

Often, the assets from such seizures doesn’t even make it to the level of scrutiny by AUTHORITIES above the police force.

Isn’t America aware of how abuse of, NAY…the very existence of, asset forfeiture looks to other countries; especially when we tout ourselves as a bastion of justice? Do anyother first-world countries do anything this vile?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

BigUgly, as previously stated, I’ve lost interest in actualizing in looooong discussions.
However, I want to give more insight why I’ve taken that position.
I all ready stated: merry-go-round.
This is because that while I might find to be some sense in the reasoning above (as you infer), we’ve been over&over&over it too many times…hence: stalemate.

Or, looking at it from a position of it not being a concise win/lose issue, any continued going back & forth on that road doesn’t really get us anywhere even though one could call us well-traveled.

It is points like that black/white and win/lose that you want to keep bringing up, even though I have several times agreed is the case, which brings me no longer wanting to participate. Your repetition of intellectually eloquent arguments that pull in wildly-wide and largely obtuse supporting points (Newspeak) merely causes an information highway to be even crazier if all the travel on it is merely too & fro for short distances.

To confirm my position that I was actually “finished” w/ our discussion, I went back and reread some of those points of yours. I found some interesting ones that I might have overlooked before.

“The way I see it, changing the grammar of a language just so that a minority would feel better falls under this bit I’m quoting. In 1984, much like in any modern totalitarian country, it’s a small group of people benefiting from such changes: they reformat people so that they would express themselves in a way that suits those responsible for said alterations.”

That was in reference to your Newspeak argument. The point you are failing to present is that this minority are the ppl in charge of that society. Their reaped benefits are far, FAR greater than those of the more popularly-held concept of a minority — such as transgenders. In fact, those huge benefits are typically AT THE EXPENSE OF the minor groups. I call that the “bully-effect”.

“By extension, I should be now legally forced to address this woman as “mare”, just because she wishes to be treated like a horse. Well, too bad. If refusing to give a cube of salt to an adult woman is what it takes to get me locked up, so be it.”

Agrumentum ad absurdum really isn’t that effective when we are talking about a few minor additions to a language — additions that will be noticed/used by an extremely small percentage of society.

Either you just like to debate; and this transgender-pronoun thing is the latest you see as being a good point to ride. OR, as has been pointed out several times and rebutted by you via overkill, all of this extensive & huge effort by you just might belie a lot more bias against “trans” than your “middle-of-the-road” neutral position might truly be?

Here is another example of why I think you doth protest too much:

“Tolerance, sure. Acceptance, sure. But some consider it bad manners when someone “new” to a society demands special, beneficial, treatment just for being new (transsexuals, in this context, are relatively “new”, both factually and as legal subjects).
I’m phrasing it very awkwardly, I realise that, but to give you a hint as to what I mean, please check this link. In a politically correct world, local (in the case of the linked article: continental) tradition always loses to the feelings of “outsiders”.”

“I think that transsexuals, and also most other minorities, should be given more “slack”, that they deserve tolerance, but I hate this demanding attitude (speaking of e.g. those willing to implement said alterations in the language). Tolerance should be “given”, not “demanded”, although some dialogue is required. Dialogue, not shouting, and screaming and monologues or endless manifestos on either of the sides.”

Really now?
Aren’t we swatting flies with 20 pound sledge hammers here?
Aren’t you don’t a bit of “off-handed demanding” yourself?
Saying you are neutral, but carrying around a bullhorn spouting a lot of far-flung, weak “logic”, doesn’t exactly Teflon your hands from getting a little blood on them.

It is my respect for your intellect and the way you brought it to bear in discussing feminism that generated an interest in discussing your take on the “pronoun thing”. However, as the discussion degenerated into something essentially described (strongly worded/frustration-vented?) by BSG above, I find that I agree w/ him, to varying levels, on all his points.

Especially: “….but you actually think that you’re fighting the very thing you’re doing to others with your logic.”

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

Originally posted by donseptico:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the infection gets into humans through close contact with the blood, secretions, organs and other bodily fluids from a number of species including chimpanzees, gorillas and forest antelope.

The fruit bat has long been considered the natural reservoir of the infection. But a growing body of experimental evidence suggests that pigs, both wild and domestic, could be a hidden source of Ebola Zaire – the most deadly form of the virus.

Researchers from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the country’s Public Health Agency have shown that pigs infected with this form of Ebola can pass the disease on to macaques without any direct contact between the species. In their experiments, the pigs carrying the virus were housed in pens with the monkeys in close proximity but separated by a wire barrier. After eight days, some of the macaques were showing clinical signs typical of ebola and were euthanised.

One possibility is that the monkeys became infected by inhaling large aerosol droplets produced from the respiratory tracts of the pigs. So, it would seem that airborne transmission, in one form or another, is already possible (in extremely limited circumstances – if it were easier / more normal, ebola would be far more widespread than it already is).

don, something that gives the data you present quite a different picture.

1) That particular study was in 2012.

2) There was possibly a chance that the airborne spread was due to the water droplets from the cleaning of the pig pen making it to the monkeys.

3) Even if pigs can transmit the virus by air, they may be unique in the ability.

4) A new study, published July 25 in Scientific Reports by Kobinger and a different group of collaborators, found no evidence that sick macaques could give the virus to healthy monkeys through airborne particles.

5) But Ebola is not nearly as easily transmitted as many people assume, he says. Even if an infected person were to hop on a plane and fly to the United States, Europe, or elsewhere, Leendertz says, tight health care measures would ensure that Ebola “will never get far.”

My long years tend to cause me to filter any information that comes from news media—whose more recent goal is to sell rather than truthfully inform—because of a BAM-SPIN factor. The information might be based on the truth; but likely the WHOLE truth is woefully lacking. And, the tone in which it is delivered can be hugely amped up.

Think Fox News.
And, that Aids also came out of Africa a few years back and that was supposed to be the end of America. I’m betting that Ebola will be faaaar less serious than Aids.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

At least be a whooole lot more PRO-active in how we behave/operate in the various concentric rings surrounding a confirmed case (or even moderately/highly suspected one) of Ebola.

I completely agree CROW, there should be an appropriate level(s) of quarantining for those who, IN ANY WAY, come into direct and indirect contact w/ the virus.

On the surface, one could see Obama as either the dumbest person on the planet, or is the bravest.

However, upon reading further, one sees that: “Ebola patient Amber Vinson is currently being treated at Atlanta’s Emory University Hospital, where Obama kissed the nurses. But Obama kissed the nurses weeks ago and had no chance of contracting the disease at that time.

The thing that makes me sick AND shows just how sick/depraved particular commentators are is that they won’t give out the TRUTH. No, they want to “lie-by-omission”. I find there to be much more to be concerned about w/ THAT kind of infestation and spread of “illness” than w/ one like the Ebola.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Granted we need to take discussions seriously here......

SD_Destroyer’s account has been perma-banned.
I hope this thread will be locked – per my request.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
I’m disgusted by the way ya twist things to support your position. The bold above puts a whole “shades-of-gray” qualifier on your only black/white “with-or-against”.

So why aren’t you letting me stay in the gray area? I want to be neither black, nor white.

Okay, fair enough.
I won’t stand on the point that I think ya’re supporting a particular position – one that is seen by me (and others?), but don’t really have (although I’ll reserve the right to have strong suspicions to the contrary) because of a failure, due to various factors, for there to be a much better understanding of what your actual position actually is.

Or, perhaps less confusing: I’m entirely comfortable w/ you having this position about a very minor aspect of how transsexualism should be addressed AS LONG AS you are promoting such for ONLY YOU to exercise.

My thought, throughout this discussion, is that you were thinking all of society should be (forced?) to share it.

As an example, and the one that sparked discussion of a very, VERY minor aspect, I’ll use this “pronoun” thing. I took it that you meant some effort given, for & by the few ppl that would be most directly effected by the use of a more TRANS-gender term to refer to this very small segment of society, would also affect the whole of society to some DEGREE of “forcing” it to adapt its lexicon to include that “pronoun” or something similar that would/will address the uniqueness-of-gender for these ppl.

That this effort and any results of it, would in varying degrees negatively affect the larger part of society is the position I thought you were maintaining.

I was failing to understand that it is mostly just YOU that wants to be in this gray area of most-central neutrality. Absolutely, I haven’t a problem w/ your desire to hold that opinion. I support it and am NOT endeavoring to keep you from holding that position. I’m also okay w/ you believing that society as a whole wants to have a similar neutrality; or, even that some parts of it would actually have varying degrees of negative response to this POSSIBLELY great erosion of its core/root lexicon.

I’ll even go so far as to agree that there would likely be this negative reaction. But, this doesn’t mean that I think that reaction is reasonable and just. Nor should you so automatically assume this support-in-numbers for your position that this negative reaction somehow establishes a validity for your it beyond that group. Maybe this group is a very small percentage of society; making your concerns for society as a whole somewhat moot?

As I’ve pointed out, I just don’t believe that many ppl will be negatively impacted by any small “changes” wrought by those wanting a more definitive addressing of a very small area of society. There is NO huge domino-effect here that will lead to any serious, let alone lasting, degree of negative impact.

Short version: I fully support your right to hold those opinions. I don’t agree w/ your efforts to think society should agree w/ you – regardless of how passionate you believe them and are able to eloquently defend them.

And, pray tell me O hyperboliser, how often are you going to run into “some bearded guy wearing a dress and has painted his nails and went out shopping on his day off”? How often is ANYONE going to experience this?

Why does it matter? It’s about frequency now?

Absolutely it is about frequency – along w/ the degrees of it. Only those “purists” for the sanctity of our lexicon should have any interest in any additions (likely NOT “changes”) to any parts of our informal terminology.

BigO, I’m simply not able to understand your “neutral” angst over this.

Well fuck, if necessary, just talk to them like they are a typical person….until they give cause to indicate otherwise.
To me, mental issues are such indicator.
THAT is a “neutral” position?

If I don’t know them, I call them by what is predominately presented.


UNLESS it is the result of a “mental disorder”…right?.
Hell, that are some (too many) that think homosexuality, of any nature, is a mental disorder.
But, upon a very casual knowledge of anyone, I’m certainly not going to assume any seriousness of a psychological assessment that would render me any at all concern about how to address anyone that is somewhat ambiguous in what the gender is that they’re projecting.

I’ll just try to not use any terms that offend him/er to the point s/he kills me….lol.

However, the way I’m seeing your position is that your solution to the pronoun thing is that there are only two…he & she. You are being a stickler about not “allowing” for the “special case” of the whole “blur-gender” issue.
Yes, I am. You can’t have a gray area here, you can’t coin half a pronoun. You can either allow it or not. I don’t want to allow it. I wouldn’t necessarily call it “forbidding”, either, but that’s beyond the case.
I’m sorry that you are yet to grasp a concept that I’ve made abundantly clear. I’m NOT wanting to “coin half a pronoun”. Show me where I’ve promoted that. It is your near-constant obfuscations of this issue that allows you to see this.

AGAIN, I’ve merely promoted that a small group can do whatever they want, for their own use/needs, in the way they want to determine how to address transgenders, and any other areas that aren’t mainstream enough to have generated a widely held nomenclature.

If Newspeak is such a bad thing, why use it? BSG didn’t bring it up. Why contemptuously reply to BSG’s post when you have previously chastised Sharangir for doing likewise? Is this not hypocrisy?
I don’t think you understood me there. And if anyone was contemptuous, it was BSG, whether you like it or not.
For me, the issue isn’t about whether or not BSG was being contemptible (one can easily see it that way…should they desire) or whether I like it. It is about the way you choose to rebut a serious, involved point he made. Sharangir only tossed a terse negative rejoinder; and you responded w/ a more lengthy, eloquent chastisement.

But, such evaluations are highly subjective. Ergo, I’ve lost interest in/am also tired of playing this game.

I’m getting a bit tired of having to explain my views.

Interestingly enough, YOU DON’T HAVE TO.
And, any such refusal should be seen (by us?) as you having lost the argument and/or that we have “won” it.

I don’t mind questions or constructive critique (I actually enjoy that), but the last several posts are neither, so if you guys want to keep it on such track, I’d rather we all returned to the topic of Newspeak (if you feel it needs that) or whatever was being discussed before screening me.

Yes, I imagine you would like to talk about Newspeak.
However, I don’t think such applies here.
Likely, from what I can see, neither does anyone else.

And, that you see the more recent posts by them (me included?) as being less than you desire just might be that the tone of them is a reflection of the frustration these posters have – which has been generated BECAUSE OF how you are conducting yourself in the discussion. I don’t know about them, but as I stated just above, that is why I’ve grown tired of this discussion.

You claim any new nomenclature coined by a small group for use by them will have a huge negative effect on society at large.
I contend that it won’t and ask you for support of your position.
You respond w/ Newspeak and talk of professional philologists being of great importance in this issue.
I disagree about the issue being all that great.
You say it is.

I’m certainly not trying to change your mind. I’m merely responding to your positions on how you want to view the issue. I’m also adamantly challenging your positions that there are any real, large, or damaging effects from the efforts to address a minor part of society.

That you feel you HAVE TO EXPLAIN your views is utterly odd to me.
You think we should accept your views as being valid without you telling us/EXPLAINING why they are?

You think “screening” is a bad thing?
Screening: to select, reject, consider, or group (people, objects, ideas, etc.) by examining systematically.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by biguglyorc:
This is the first known female penis. It doesn’t belong to a human.

For a guy that is such a stickler about word usage, ya certainly like to cherry-pick the ones ya wanna use and those ya wanna ignore. That link is a SCIENTIFIC one. vika & I are talking about a COINED term a particular group of ppl are using to describe a situation they AND society are grappling with. I’ve brought this distinction up several times, yet, as vika points out, you’re very adept at side-stepping/ignoring that which presents a solid challenge to your position.

KKK: To some degree or another, you are either a part of the problem or you are a part of the solution.
You then replied with:
Yeah, I called that “you’re either with us or you’re against that”. I still don’t want to be either.
I’m disgusted by the way ya twist things to support your position. The bold above puts a whole “shades-of-gray” qualifier on your only black/white “with-or-against”.

And, btw…I’m talking about a bell-curve here. Hence the point I made about how the top of that bell-curve was so broad, like a very widely-rounded knoll, that the true apex would be very difficult to ascertain. And, that the ppl in that gray area would likely know so very little of the issue (if know about it at all) that they wouldn’t be able to tell what “side” of it they were on…were a flag be there to indicate the actual dividing point, the grays of either side of the flag being so extreeeeeely similar.

Take down the flag, blindfold a person, walk them this way and that, take the blind fold off and tell them to stand on their original position.

Yes, I can call that “grassy knoll” something very akin to YOUR “neutrality” on an issue. However, when you go to the lengths (and use the methods you do) to promote a lot of bluster over a simple expansion of some dialogue for a very small area of society’s evolvement, I’m gonna say that ya’re making a significant trek towards that area that is known as bias-heading-to-the-more-repugnant-bigotry.
Speaking of bigotry:A bigoted person will never see they’re bigoted. I can call you bigoted, and you won’t be able to argue against it, either.

Karma, really. If you want to call me a bigot, I can deal with it. We’re both grown ups. If you don’t see me as a bigot, don’t compare me to bigots like that. I can’t be a bigot just partly.
A bigoted person may never see that they’re bigoted; BUT, they certainly can know that they are deemed a bigot by other ppl. As far as a bigot “arguing” against being called one; THAT is so patently absurd as to not be worthy of addressing. Every bigot I know does a damn fine job of arguing to support their major bias.

I’m not comparing YOU to “bigots like that”; I’m comparing your ideological position as having a taint or being akin to theirs….OR: degrees & shades-of-gray. Can you not see how you cherry-pick a persons post to discredit it to better support your position?

And, YES….one can not only be a bigot “partly” (having prejudice/bias in only one/few areas), they can be “partly” because of degrees (not full-blown bigot).

KKK: But, they [a list of none-hot-button words] are no longer “needed”, no longer of value.
Walk up to a ghetto kid and ask him what the value of “nigger” is.
Words come and go, but they don’t just disappear leaving no residue.
Hyperbolising won’t cut it as a rebuttal to my point. And, there are many, many shades-of-gray for “residue” of words; some of them so gray that they will essentially just disappear into the blackness of forgotten history.
KKK: What constitutes a “game” they are playing?
Why not play their game?
There are transvestites who don’t want to be their opposite sex 24/7. I don’t want to address some bearded guy as “lady” just because he put on a dress, painted his nails and went out shopping on his day off. But not, as vika insists on believing, just because he has a penis.
So what if a trans doesn’t want to static their chosen/preferred gender? Do ya not know of having a job where such activity might be cause for some serious repercussions? Do you not change into more “comfortable” clothes upon getting home from the job? Do you not wear the appropriate attire for whichever area you will be in the public?

And, pray tell me O hyperboliser, how often are you going to run into “some bearded guy wearing a dress and has painted his nails and went out shopping on his day off”? How often is ANYONE going to experience this?

BUT, more importantly…..SO FUCKING WHAT if it happens? Very likely one isn’t even going to have to address him using any pronoun. I’m assuming we are still “working on” that initial premise? Hence, my “tempest-in-a-teapot” assessment of your angst-objections here that have this TAINT of a similarity of ppl who harbor an even stronger “concern” about such individuals existing to a degree that they might encounter them and not know what to say to them.

Well fuck, if necessary, just talk to them like they are a typical person….until they give cause to indicate otherwise. If you can’t say anything nice; don’t say anything at all.

I gave you a somewhat “black/white” method for handling this whole pronoun thing. If I know them, I call them what they want to be called….she, he, name,whatever. If I don’t know them, I call them by what is predominately presented. OR, in talking to someone else about them, I said I will use a PROPER noun….even if it weren’t correct (leaving it open to be corrected later).

There are ppl out there that are fully heterosexual. HOWEVER, they are so androgynous (NOT having a beard….lol) that using a pronoun for them is going to have the same issues.

Ask your questions, if you have any – I hope you know I’ll answer them best I can, and I appreciate your effort in taking various approaches – but, to be honest, the line between you just investigating my views and you confronting them with yours has become blurry to me. This isn’t one of those topics that have one and only solution.
I totally agree with: This isn’t one of those topics that have one and only solution.

However, the way I’m seeing your position is that your solution to the pronoun thing is that there are only two…he & she. You are being a stickler about not “allowing” for the “special case” of the whole “blur-gender” issue.

The reason it has become so blurry, beyond the obviousness that the issue is diverse & complicated, is that it is YOU who is doing the blurring.

I bellyfeel your assessment. If we had doubleplus more people who could crimestop like you, we’d rid the world of oldthinkers in no time.
Ya really luv Newspeak as being some “proof” re think much more simple issue of a new pronoun.. If Newspeak is such a bad thing, why use it? BSG didn’t bring it up. Why contemptuously reply to BSG’s post when you have previously chastised Sharangir for doing likewise? Is this not hypocrisy?

Other than later quoting a couple of relevant posts (BSG’s & ImplosionOfDoom’s), I think I’ve ridden this merry-go-round long enough to see that I’ll NEVER even touch the brass ring, let alone snatch it….lol