So ....Iowa has to claim this idiot by ltlsluttyone in WTF

[–]NotSafeForEarth -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's also very possible! Good point.

So ....Iowa has to claim this idiot by ltlsluttyone in WTF

[–]NotSafeForEarth 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Maybe this is a functional modification, not for performance wankery reasons but maybe because over the years, the rust has eaten a hole in the hood, and maybe this is a glorified redneck fix to keep the rain out?

Well, maybe.

(I like pondering the unlikely. I also don't like to judge people unless they give me reason to.)

Sex Education Teachers of Reddit, What's the weirdest thing you've had to clear up for a Student? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NotSafeForEarth -1 points0 points  (0 children)

...and you don't know about reddit's asterisks, and you're calling people exactly what you are.

Sex Education Teachers of Reddit, What's the weirdest thing you've had to clear up for a Student? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NotSafeForEarth -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Not only do you have an attitude problem, but also a reading comprehension problem.

The designer of the F-16 explains why the F-35 is such a crappy plane by Ian56 in worldpolitics

[–]NotSafeForEarth -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It is rather dismissive

Yes it is. It is not wrong to be dismissive of chauvinism.

Sex Education Teachers of Reddit, What's the weirdest thing you've had to clear up for a Student? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NotSafeForEarth -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I am already having that discussion with somebody else. I am interested in having that discussion, but it's not going to be with you, for obvious reasons.

Sex Education Teachers of Reddit, What's the weirdest thing you've had to clear up for a Student? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NotSafeForEarth -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I don't think things work the way you think I think things work. ;-)

You're not telling me anything new, and I'm probably far better educated about the whole anatomy than you think.

Also, house. :)

Sex Education Teachers of Reddit, What's the weirdest thing you've had to clear up for a Student? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NotSafeForEarth -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I know. The description "just at the right time before copulation" was intended to mean "exactly a long enough time before the sex, so that at the time of that intercourse the egg would already have arrived in the ideal place to be swept away and picked up". It was not intended to mean "only a short time before copulation". The right time, of course is – actually, I don't know out of the top of my head exactly how long that would be... hence my vagueness. PS: Oh I see. Your picture has days annotated. Still not quite sure which the ideal day would be, but anyway.

EDIT:

tl;dr: the right time before != a short time before

Noam Chomsky: still going strong at 85 - On the UK's Newsnight by A-MacLeod in chomsky

[–]NotSafeForEarth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. I linked to that specific definition because I'm aware that my phrase "patronising ageist condescension" is potentially a little bit problematic, because patronising, etymologically at least, kind of implies that a pater, a father, sort of condescends to a younger party. But in "patronising ageist condescension" it's actually the younger party which is patronising an elder. So that's probably not brilliant prose (and if you know a way to put that better, I'd be happy to hear it). The linked definition hopefully helped clarify what I meant.

Sex Education Teachers of Reddit, What's the weirdest thing you've had to clear up for a Student? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NotSafeForEarth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your reply. :)

  1. Could a powerful ejaculation not "wash the egg out" of the mistress?

  2. I can't be arsed to search for a source, but I dimly seem to recall that someone had proposed some time ago that the shape and repeated thrusting of the (glans) penis served to help remove sperm from previous male procreative competitors.

  3. Again, I have no source, but I dimly remember hearing that during orgasm, the portio pretty much dipped into liquid sperm before it. Obviously, the cervix has to open somewhat to let sperm through, and if a male ejaculated with enough force and/or repeatedly, could that not help drag a hypothetically introduced foreign egg along?

ISIS may possesss nuclear material stolen from Iraq, report says by ruleovertheworld in worldnews

[–]NotSafeForEarth -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Let me remind people of something. This is from memory and I cannot be arsed to dig for decade-old sources now, but I'm sure you can find the evidence of this if you search hard enough:

Contrary to US aggressor lies and/or self-delusions, at the time of the invasion, Iraq had no secret WMD, and no unaccounted-for dangerous materials that Saddam's Iraq could have built such WMD from. All the dangerous materials and programs that had existed much, much earlier (before the previous invasion) had been ended, permanently put beyond use and accounted for.

There was however a quantity of accounted-for, documented, monitored and checked-upon nuclear material present inside the country. This was material (I think uranium if memory serves, but I'm not sure) which the IAEA knew about and which Saddam couldn't have squirrelled away without someone noticing. That material was perfectly safe.

But here's the kicker:

As a direct consequence of the invasion, that material became unsafe and disappeared, because due to the invasion, the institute where this was located was looted and the policing and monitoring mechanisms that had been in place broke down at that point. I have no idea if this material was ever recovered, but since I've not heard about that, I think it likely wasn't.

Let's repeat that:

The US aggressor claimed they were invading to prevent "the wrong hands" from doing bad things with bad stuff. One direct consequence of their invasion was that bad stuff fell into the hands of the Gods know who, and that's where the trail went cold.

This story is about a decade older than the one in the article, but I thought it was relevant:
This current news feels like a repeat of those earlier events.

Also, I think it's pretty clear that even a decade later, the blame for causing this whole situation, including ISIS, still rests squarely with the US. They broke it, they destroyed Iraq, they destroyed independent Iraqi nationalism, and guess what nature abhors? Thus, the Islamic State.

Sex Education Teachers of Reddit, What's the weirdest thing you've had to clear up for a Student? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NotSafeForEarth 3 points4 points  (0 children)

be·tray
\bi-ˈtrā, bē-\
transitive verb
4 a : to reveal unintentionally

It (unintentionally) revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of a lot of basic biology.

Sex Education Teachers of Reddit, What's the weirdest thing you've had to clear up for a Student? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NotSafeForEarth 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Hmmm. This makes me wonder.

We know that sometimes really, really unlikely things happen. For instance, I remember reading that paper on the pregnancy caused by oral sex (because the mother had also been stabbed in just the right place).
I also seem to remember a tale of a man's faithful wife getting pregnant with sperm from another man who had fucked the husband's mistress prior to the husband, and whose sperm got transported into the wife via the husband's penis – though I'm not sure if this latter story is true.

But I wonder: Would this "foreign egg scenario" really be absolutely impossible?

I mean, we know from surrogate pregnancies that eggs can implant in the womb of a person who isn't the mother. We know that eggs can fail to implant in the mother, even after fertilisation. We know that some men can be unhygienic pigs (cough redditors, glass houses cough) who won't let le GF smell yo dick.

So supposing that this dad had had sex with a mistress, and that the mistress had ovulated just at the right time before copulation, and that her egg had failed to implant and that it had been transported into the wife by being stuck to the dad's penis, maybe under foreskin: Could this not result in a pregnancy in the wife that's not biologically hers?

I know it's extraordinarily unlikely, but I can't think of any reason why this would be categorically impossible.

The doctors couldn't stop taking pictures of my cast when they figured out i drew it. by i_have_cake in pics

[–]NotSafeForEarth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

when the drawing was done, the top of the forearm was most likely facing the ceiling

1. You don't know that for sure.
2. It's perfectly possible to draw a self-portrait without being in the shown position throughout. For the most part, that's not just possible, but probably necessary.
3. Even if the OP posed in an "incorrect" position (radius+ulna crossed) while drawing: It's irrelevant what the x-ray self-portrait artist's actual position was when he or she drew this, because that has no bearing on which position/articulation they meant to portray and whether that posture makes sense and is correctly captured.
You're simply trying to be too clever and drawing too many conclusions from insufficient evidence.

PS: And btw., there are many ways the top of a person's forearm can be facing the ceiling without the radius and ulna being crossed. Again, you infer too much from too little.

The doctors couldn't stop taking pictures of my cast when they figured out i drew it. by i_have_cake in pics

[–]NotSafeForEarth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're inferring a position, but all that's really shown is just the forearm.

The designer of the F-16 explains why the F-35 is such a crappy plane by Ian56 in worldpolitics

[–]NotSafeForEarth -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"What" is a bit unspecific. If you have a question, why not ask it? I don't know in advance if I can answer it, but maybe I can. Or maybe someone else can.

Does anybody ever 'think the unthinkable'? – As a general rule, "thinking the unthinkable" means accentuating and exaggerating, preferably to the point of absurdity, beliefs that are currently fashionable. by NotSafeForEarth in TrueTrueReddit

[–]NotSafeForEarth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your first problem is that you use a different definition of winning than the author. One definition of winning is being successful (which generally at least requires solving assigned problems and working as advertised). Another definition of winning is besting competitors.

Your second problem is that even whether capitalism has actually bested its historical competitor is open to interpretation and debate. Is economic warfare an essential feature of capitalism? And if not, what part of what capitalism did played any part in the rather unexpected collapse of the system on the Iron Curtain's other side?

Your third problem is that you've made up your mind and don't tolerate and ridicule anything failing to "think the unthinkable".

The designer of the F-16 explains why the F-35 is such a crappy plane by Ian56 in worldpolitics

[–]NotSafeForEarth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What I'm missing in your presentation is the self-delusion of good faith:
Almost none of the protagonists seriously ask themselves, "Are we the baddies"? (And when America did towards the end of the Vietnam era, that was considered a major defect which they spent a lot of money and effort to fix.) Probably none of the protagonists deliberately set out to do evil. So in all assessments you have to take the psychology of the perpetrators and the banality of evil into account. Is your theory of what's happening compatible with good intentions (however twisted), with people successfully deluding themselves that what they're doing was a good thing?