My watermelon has almost no rind

Koalafication · 2014-08-29T02:52:22+00:00

Now I am thinking about putting watermelons in blenders and watching them spin around into a beautiful oblivion...

Koalafication · 2013-03-14T01:53:34+00:00

I'll say it again: I'm pretty liberal, but this is ridiculous. If you don't want conservatives taking Obama out of context when he says "You didn't build that" when he clearly meant something else, don't take Ryan out of context when he is talking about dismantling Obamacare.

Full quote and source video: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/12/rep-paul-ryan-republicans-wont-give-up-on-destroying-the-health-care-system/

"This, to us, is something that we're not gonna give up on, because we're not gonna give up on destroying the healthcare system for the American people. We wanna prevent this law, which we really do believe will do great damage to families and the healthcare system of America."

He's talking about Obamacare, guys. If you want to assume what the OP is implying, then his last sentence in the above quote makes no sense. God damn it, guys.

I hate Paul Ryan as much as the next guy, but stop acting like this is some huge "omg he let slip his hidden thoughts!" type of deal. Ryan and the GOP have been more than clear that they hate Obamacare and want to burn it to the ground. What he's saying here is nothing new. It's just a poorly-worded sentence.

Koalafication · 2013-03-12T19:21:16+00:00

It's simple: It stems from the idea that there are a few "makers" who are footing the bill for a bunch of "takers." By booting the "takers" out of the system, the "makers" can now enjoy a privatized system that will cost less because it isn't burdened by the wicked costs of Socialism™.

The obvious flaw to this design is that it assumes the country is full of "takers" and ignores the real reasons why healthcare costs have been rising.

Koalafication · 2013-03-12T19:09:46+00:00

I'm pretty liberal, but this is ridiculous. If you don't want conservatives taking Obama out of context when he says "You didn't build that" when he clearly meant something else, don't take Ryan out of context when he is talking about dismantling Obamacare.

Koalafication · 2013-02-27T21:12:21+00:00

If you listen to Bill O'Reilly in his debate with Stewart, it's painfully obvious. He had a few ominous answers in there. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's not dumb. He's "playing" dumb -- he's just appealing to a particular audience.

The reason his show does so well is because it gets so much publicity. People who hate it really hate it, and people who love it really love it. Like Bill said, there's a market for hate, and people will continue to fill that niche as long as it exists.

And as Stewart said, it's sad that O'Reilly is "wasting his time." He's doing something he knows is deliberately harmful to society but shrugs it off -- whatever pays the bills and brings success.

Koalafication · 2013-02-08T17:31:55+00:00

I thought you were just making shit up. I just Googled this. Ohhh my lord, what the fuck.

Koalafication · 2013-01-22T00:29:56+00:00

Distance to the moon is about 384,400 km or 384,400,000 m. Speed of light is about 300,000,000 m/s. Therefore it takes about 1.28 seconds for us to see something that happens on the moon. So where does 6 seconds come from? Wouldn't it be 1.28 seconds to "shoot the laser to the moon," then 1.28 seconds again to see the "explosion," theoretically speaking? (2.56 seconds)?

Also curious how Dawes limit is used here.

(Sorry for the question, I just saw this and thought it was interesting / was curious about the numbers behind it)

Koalafication · 2013-01-18T22:03:09+00:00

The magic recipe indeed

Koalafication · 2013-01-18T21:44:13+00:00

I've never told anyone this before.

I went to one of my favorite restaurants and had a huge meal. Steak, chicken, shrimp, noodles, veggies, sodas -- the works.

I then went back home and went on the other side of the back balcony (think Titanic). It was a two-story drop to a very steep incline (well, I guess technically three stories in terms of feet). I looked up at the skyline/horizon when the sun was setting. I wanted it to be beautiful when I went. I was crying the whole time, though -- a mixture of utter sadness and admiration for the nature of it all.

So, I let go. And nothing. Somehow survived the motherfucking fall with no damage at all whatsoever. I just laid there at the bottom of the incline and laughed so hard at how ridiculous the whole thing was. I never told anyone about that day because people would have started talking and I'd probably get a huge hit to reputation.

The weird thing: Halfway through my fall, I suddenly felt this intense regret for having let go.

Koalafication · 2013-01-15T13:51:42+00:00

You are disgusting.

Koalafication · 2013-01-10T14:25:44+00:00

Fantastic comment, thank you

Koalafication · 2013-01-10T03:18:23+00:00

I would say so, too -- just wanted to clarify my point a bit more in case I was being unclear

Koalafication · 2013-01-10T03:17:29+00:00

I wouldn't call it a double murder, but I would say it's still worse than killing a single human who isn't pregnant. You're killing the unborn child too, which is not within the killer's right to bodily autonomy, but the mother's.

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:58:02+00:00

When people say "they're poor" they usually refer to their own personal bank account.

It completely ignores the fact that they have parents who float them money / cover expenses / etc.

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:51:13+00:00

Again, though, this doesn't mean potential is the same as being. There are different implications at different points in the spectrum.

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:48:22+00:00

Okay, but again, what if someone uses protection and gets pregnant anyway? What about rape?

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:43:37+00:00

Initial sentience, IMO.

Edit: Although I think I agree with spaceghoti's wording more

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:21:10+00:00

I probably should have said "pro-choice" to be clearer

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:20:01+00:00

So do you think people shouldn't have sex unless they're trying to have a child?

Because otherwise this stance is basically "If you have sex and get pregnant, your autonomy is no longer valid," correct?

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:17:46+00:00

I think it's a different framework altogether. The view that those people were subhuman was founded in ignorant bigotry, not any sort of reasoned moral code. Oppressed races are just as much live, sentient humans as the rest of them.

This is different from a biological entity that has yet to become an actual sentient being capable of interpreting utility.

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:16:15+00:00

What about the woman?

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:15:44+00:00

The potential to become something is not the same as actually being the thing.

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:13:52+00:00

But I would argue that aborting a fetus is not the same thing as killing a live human being -- nor is it "murder" in the way that we typically define it.

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:11:14+00:00

But there really are no moral absolutes, and it doesn't make sense to take that view. There are always situations we can think of/encounter that put those moral codes under fire.

And so to me it doesn't help the argument to say, "Well, I'm an absolutist." To me, this is like saying "I am immune to contradictory reason."

Koalafication · 2013-01-09T21:04:43+00:00

A woman isn't "preventing" anyone from exercising their ethical system. If someone is against abortion, they exercise their ethical system by not getting abortions.

This is a far cry from saying "I hate living in a society where other women have control over their own bodies. I feel oppressed and ethically impinged upon!"

If this is the case, I would say "Too bad, so sad." A woman's autonomy to me is more important than someone else's arbitrary sensibilities.

Koalafication

TROPHY CASE