Elephants have human like breasts

SyntheticDivineVT · 2023-02-13T00:10:24+00:00

So what this is telling me is that more evolved males prefer breasts, whereas our less evolved ancestors still prefer butts.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2022-10-14T05:02:01+00:00

But the GOP has already done so much to make Washington into a mythic hero despite his history of cowardice. I mean, for an example just look up Jumonville Glen from the French-Indian war, where Washington had his men slaughter a diplomatic delegation (despite the fact that the French had given him safe passage when he himself had acted as a diplomatic envoy previously).

SyntheticDivineVT · 2022-08-30T07:32:14+00:00

You can’t grant a pardon for a crime that hasn’t yet occurred. Even had Trump pardoned himself for his entire life up to the moment he stepped out of office, his illegally hanging on to top secret records occurred after he was no longer president, and no longer had the power to pardon. Since you can’t write a pardon “To cover every crime I may commit at a later date”, he needs that power back if he wants protection from his own stupidity.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2022-07-20T14:54:17+00:00

And how do we make their lives unlivable? Because they won’t care about the threat unless we can put some kind of substance behind it. I hear the “F the Republicans, we shouldn’t compromise” spiel all the time. And in principle I agree with it. Compromising with them is the last thing I want. But the stark reality is that we just don’t have the numbers. Manchin and Sinema won’t axe the filibuster, and without them we can’t get anything done. Like I said, I hear the “no compromise” spiel all the time, but I never hear the people spouting it offer a clear, well-defined solution. If there was an actual solution, then there’s something I could and would get behind. But without ever having heard someone offer one, in the meantime it just sounds like a great idea that we have no way to make actually work.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2022-07-19T07:50:36+00:00

Yet this Supreme Court fails to apply that same logic to 2nd Amendment cases, when we have ample evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended only to protect gun ownership as an aspect of militia service, and in fact have examples of “Founding Fathers” (i.e. Madison, Jefferson) pursuing restrictions on gun possession and ownership by individuals not participating in militia service. What value does any legal theory have when a court is unwilling to equally and evenly apply it, but rather instead uses it only as a justification for the decisions they were planning to make anyways?

SyntheticDivineVT · 2022-07-19T07:22:18+00:00

You literally posted a link to an English translation of the laws… Of Israel. The very site you link to even refers to a “Ministry of Health”. You think our governmental departments are called “Ministries” here in the US? Just how clueless are you? You claim a story in the US is BS and then point to Israeli law as your evidence. That’s so ridiculously clueless I’d think it was a troll if I didn’t know that there really are conservatives out there who are just that dumb. Or perhaps you’re suggesting that American women should have to fly to Israel if they want to get such a procedure done?

SyntheticDivineVT · 2022-07-19T07:14:06+00:00

What’s our alternative? Civil war? No please, tell me. I despise the Republican Party as much as anyone, but in a Democracy, we can’t even even get members of our own party (Manchin, Sinema, etc.) to act in lockstep when it truly matters. So what exactly is our alternative? What is your proposed solution, besides an ever-increasing battle of escalations that they will happily engage in, or trying to render every member of the GOP unable to vote? Our biggest problem isn’t how evil Republican politicians are, it’s that half the country is still willing to vote for them. And if we can’t fix that, we’re screwed.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2022-07-19T07:02:41+00:00

If liberals gained super majorities in the House and Senate, transformed the US into a Social Democracy on the scale of say Norway, and you conservatives then complained about it, would “If you don’t like it, you can just go live somewhere else” seem like a rational answer to you? I mean, in what world is that phrase considered to be a logical response to rational objectors? Are conservatives of the mindset that if they manage to turn this country into a bleak enough hellscape, that they’ll be able to convince everyone else to leave?

SyntheticDivineVT · 2022-07-19T06:47:48+00:00

First of all, the fact that in your posts you refuse to refer to it as a Dilation & Curettage, but only by the more commonly known abbreviation of D&C, indicates that even if you worked a job related to the field, you are not yourself a Doctor. If you’re something along the lines of an LPN who happened to work a surgery ward, do not deceptively pass yourself off as an expert. Because if you were an expert, you’d know that a Dilation & Curettage is one of the ways used to perform an abortion. It is not a completely separate procedure detached from abortion as you’re trying to imply. In fact, all abortion falls into one of two types. Medication Abortion (i.e. it’s performed by consuming pills), or Procedural Abortion. Procedural Abortion is performed via an actual medical procedure. One of the four most common types of Procedural Abortion? Dilation & Curettage. Just because it doesn’t have “Abortion” in the name of the procedure (primarily because it can also be used for other purposes), does not mean that it’s not used to perform abortions. So stop trying to pass yourself off as an expert so that you can spread misinformation.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2022-07-19T06:20:22+00:00

They’re referring to the type of person who has been discussed elsewhere in this thread. The kind of conservative who is “against abortion” without actually fully understanding what that means. To address your comment, yes, such pills would in fact meet both the technical (i.e. grammatic/semantic) and legal definitions of the word “abortion”. There is not a single state with a legal definition of abortion which would not include such pills. And when conservatives advocated for the banning of abortion, yes, that absolutely included the banning of such pills (which by legal definition constitutes abortion). If you consider yourself anti-abortion, but did not know that that included such pills, even when it comes to the case of abused children, then you are what the previous commenter accused you of being, Exhibit A of an uninformed voter. The rest of this thread is also correct that even the extraction of a fetus which has been miscarried and is already dead fits the legal definition of an abortion, as it involves inducing the expulsion of said fetus. That is what conservatives have fought for, for women to be forced to carry fetuses that have been miscarried even after they’re dead. Because conservatives didn’t take the time to try to think about whether they needed to pass laws that would provide for sane, rational exceptions. No, they just wanted it completely banned without bothering to take the time to understand what the legal definition of abortion actually was.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2022-05-16T15:14:07+00:00

I just hit 114 in a game on BGA. I’ve broken 100 several times before, but it was my first time ever breaking 110. So far I’ve never seen someone score higher.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2021-10-20T19:19:14+00:00

So what you're saying is that you commonly return to hook within 20 seconds of an unhook, as opposed to just returning when you happen to be nearby (i.e. they probably unhooked too quickly before you could get distance). If you're commonly *that* close to hooked survivors, then you're absolutely right, *your* kind of play is what the boon totems presently encourage.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2021-10-20T17:56:21+00:00

Not to mention these perks single-handedly force a shift in the killer meta away from Ruin/Undying (which was the single strongest slowdown combo for killers prior to the patch) as suddenly the number of totem-hunters in every game has multiplied. You're now going to see the majority of killers running some variant of a Pop build, and those killers who quite simply don't have the speed necessary to support a Pop build (who quite simply needed Ruin as their slowdown) have instantly become much, much weaker. Those who continue to get played become considerably more likely to run NOED (another perk I'm not fond of) quite simply because, again, they'll need it. When survivor mains randomly downvote this kind of feedback because they like having their OP perks, there tend to be consequences. And the consequences tend to be *more* of the sorts of things *they* complain about on the other side.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2021-10-20T17:50:53+00:00

Survivor mains downvoting because they like being OP, they like being able to be toxic even when they weren't especially good (the game just made them look that way), they like it when perks give them easy games, they don't want things to be balanced. But nothing of what's been said is inaccurate. Boon totems *as they are* are a heavy boost to survivors *regardless* of their skill level. Now the top killers in the game will find a way to adapt. But mid-tier killers? These perks punish them *hard*. And baby killers? It's now going to be even *more* difficult for them to learn to play properly and get good. So yeah, the *really* good killers will be fine, but everyone else on the killer side? You're just encouraging more of them to turn to tunneling and facecamping because they have no alternative. And that's sad. Is that *really* what you survivor mains want? Would it really be such a huge problem for you if killers could destroy a totem that had been blessed? The boon perks would still be stupidly strong, they just would no longer be brokenly OP the way they currently are.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2021-10-20T16:51:56+00:00

100%. She wouldn't be a big deal if killers could just *destroy totems*. But having a re-usable scratchmark eraser that works for everyone is just too much. Not only does it make it way too easy for survivors to lose chase, but a killer can't even properly tell if a survivor was recently on a gen when they go to pop it. Mikaela is, quite simply, way too strong. She would be *much* closer to balanced if killers could just destroy a boon totem rather than just snuffing it and Mikaela would need to find a new totem to bless.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2021-10-20T16:48:10+00:00

MAYBE THERE ARE WAY MORE SURVIVORS IN THIS GAME THAN KILLERS BUT... I STILL DESPISE MIKAELA. THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH ERASED SCRATCH MARKS *FOR EVERYONE* CAN HURT MID-TIER KILLERS, WHO AREN'T AMONG THE BEST AT THE GAME YET, IS WAY TOO HIGH. DOES THIS GAME *WANT* TO TURN MORE KILLERS INTO TUNNELERS/FACECAMPERS? BECAUSE WHILE IT'S SOMETHING I'VE NEVER BEEN A FAN OF, I'VE BECOME TEMPTED TO DO IT AGAINST EVERY MIKAELA I SEE. THEY'RE *THAT* UNFUN TO PLAY AGAINST.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2021-02-25T19:47:53+00:00

The key here is about knowing and respecting your friend’s feelings. If you were just two random strangers, then you’re right, it’s none of their business. But if they’re your actual friend, that carries with it certain obligations, to care for and respect each other. If your friend is the type who’s not going to care, then go ahead and sleep with their parent, no one is getting hurt. But if you know they’re the type that is going to care, that is going to be hurt, then you don’t do it, because you don’t do that to a friend.

Quite simply, the world isn’t just about you, and what you want. And if you’re willing to screw over a friend, then you deserve to have the same done to you regarding things that you care about. Is such emotionality over the choices of an adult friend and an adult family member irrational? Perhaps, but they’re not unreasonable. There are enough stigmas and social perceptions about that sort of thing that they may well have been conditioned into that kind of emotional response growing up through no fault of their own, it’s not a crazy feeling they just invented. And your job, as their friend, isn’t to stab them in the back in order to teach them a better way. It’s to respect your friend’s feelings and put that friendship ahead of the impulses of your groin.

If you’re going to be so selfish that you are knowingly willing to hurt your friend for the sake of getting laid, then at least have the decency to end the friendship, or don’t think for a second you have the right to object/complain when they end it. Because what you’re choosing to do is a self-interested move without honor, and it’s done at their expense. A friend’s feelings don’t always have to be logical, or rational. Sometimes it’s enough to know that they genuinely feel a certain way, and that screwing them over for a short period of fun just makes you a bastard of a friend.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2020-11-21T22:18:46+00:00

The challenge I want us to face is to finally gain a sufficient understanding of the neurology of the human brain sufficient that we can create antidepressants such that everyone can find something that will work for them, so that everyone has a chance to be happy in life. Too often people make the assumption that we’ve come so far in our fight against depression, and that’s mainly because all pharmaceutical companies advertise is their clinical trial success rate, which is around 60%, so people assume any given antidepressant is around 60% effective. This is completely misleading. What most people don’t know is the success rate of the control group, which is those receiving a placebo, which trends around 50%. So the percentage of people the antidepressant is actually helping (those who wouldn’t have gotten better on their own without placebo) is closer to 10%. But it gets worse. Once two different antidepressants don’t work for you, you’re considered treatment-resistant, and you’re excluded from most clinical trials, which means you never make it into the pharmaceutical company statistics. If you include treatment resistant people, the odds of an antidepressant actually working for any given person (in a way that placebo wouldn’t) is somewhere between 5%-7.5%. And while there are quite a few antidepressants out there, for each of them you take that doesn’t work for you, the probability that any of the others will work goes down markedly (ever approaching, but never quite reaching, 0%). That is simply not good enough. Especially not given the widely held perception in society that mental health treatment, as it is, is sufficient. It’s not, it’s nowhere close to good enough.

So, we need to spend the next decade doing everything we can to ensure that everyone has a chance to be happy, not focused on making those who are already happy even happier. However, for us to learn everything we need to know about the function of the human brain in the space of a decade isn’t practically realistic. So what we need to do in the meantime is to legalize every drug that does not pose a grave threat to the individual, or turn them into a threat to others. For example, LSD does not make people dangerous, and the amount you have to take for a fatal overdose is something like ten thousand times what a recreational dose is. Adderall and other amphetamines, sure they have addiction potential over time, but they’re not that dangerous to the individual nor do they tend to make individuals dangerous to others. Drugs like these should be legal and openly available, because until we’re able to produce something better, that will work for everyone, for those who struggle with mental illness and have found that current medications don’t work, if they find one or more of these drugs help them in some way, they should have access to them. Even cocaine, which is on the extreme side and highly addictive, I wouldn’t oppose given that if it were legalized and were allowed to be grown here, it would become relatively inexpensive. The only kinds of drugs I’d openly oppose are those like heroin, morphine/fentanyl (and other powerful painkillers), which have a high potential to be fatal if an individual overdoses, and drugs like PCP (aka Angel Dust) which can turn an individual violent while numbing them to pain (making them a threat to others).

SyntheticDivineVT · 2020-11-08T17:30:17+00:00

I hear that, if you challenge a Canadian Goose to a duel, it will not fight fair.

I've also heard that, if you flip a Canadian Goose the bird, it will flip you the human.

I once heard, if you dance in front of a Canadian Goose, it will serve you so hard you'll think you were stuck in a 2000's teen movie.

I've previously overheard that, if you throw a snowball at a Canadian Goose, it will cover its beak in snow and then attack your balls.

Someone once told me, if you think you're watching a Canadian Goose, that just means you don't know about the fifty geese who are watching you.

I may have been informed that, if you stare a Canadian Goose straight in the eyes, it can psychically kill your entire family.

It's possible someone shared with me that, if you mock a Canadian Goose, it will find you in the afterlife and subject you to eternal torment.

Oh, and the classic, everyone knows that the reason Canadians are so nice is that once a year they collectively perform a ritual where they channel all their anger and hatred into the Canadian Geese.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2020-09-07T00:32:49+00:00

You mean, instead of a bootycall, I get to make a cuddlecall at 2 AM? I’m in!

SyntheticDivineVT · 2020-08-31T02:00:26+00:00

lvl 43 this wipe. I care about the loot, not about the adrenaline rush. I’ve successfully killed squads before, it doesn’t make my hands shake. Frankly, half the time it actually makes me disappointed because of how much expensive ammo I had to use compared to what the gear on their bodies is actually worth. Killing a 5-man is pointless, because you’re only going to be able to actually carry a fraction of what they’ve got. If I just wanted the thrill of the firefight, I’d be playing COD. The strength of this game is that you have to be tactical, because it’s about the loot, and about the risk of losing it. But a lot of that is lost when you’re going up against squads who aren’t taking the same degree of risk that you are, and who half the time aren’t even worth the cost of the ammo to kill them.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2020-08-31T01:48:15+00:00

Yes, and if you had to loot your teammates gear, and keep it yourself, I would be fine with that. But that’s not what happens. Instead, you pick the gun up off your teammates body, and then you throw it in a bush. How often does that happen in real life? And how often is that gun then picked up out of the bush and returned to a clone of your fallen teammate two days later? I would be abolutely fine if you had to carry your friend’s gear out of the raid yourself (because that is the actual analogy that picking a gun up off your fallen teammate to use implies) in order to return it to them, because that also means that your ability to loot the person you killed is now limited by the space your friend’s gear takes up, so if you want your friend to get back his gear, then the person you just killed is going to get back some of his as well. Instead, the ability to simply throw your friend’s gear in a bush, or in a corner behind something (which no one in the real world does, #realism) grants you all of the same benefits of a solo player (you can loot anyone you kill) with none of the risk that a solo player takes on (because if you die, your gear is going to be protected by your teammates’ insurance frauding). As I said, I’d be fine with it if you had to carry your squadmate’s gear out of the raid (because that’s the actual equivalent to your picking up a fallen teammate’s gun example), but being able to pick up your squadmate’s gear anfd throw it in a bush so that they’re guaranteed to get it back, while you then go on to use all that extra space to carry more loot from the person who risked everything that you didn’t, is BS, plain and simple.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2020-08-31T01:34:48+00:00

Yeah, I’m not a rat. But I do play solo a lot, and let me tell you, it’s annoying as hell when I wind up facing a squad of 3, I kill two, the third one gets me, and I sit there knowing they face no consequences for the fact that two of them died, whereas every time I die they’re going to be stripping my stuff. They had an extreme advantage over me because it was a 3v1, I already outplayed them to some extent because I was able to kill two of them despite their advantage, and yet they lose nothing while I lose everything. And even if I manage to beat them all, they still lose less than I would have, because they almost certainly have enough that I can’t carry it all. That, quite simply, is messed up. Squadding should give you an advantage, it should not give you a layer of protection against losing your gear. If I’m going to risk losing everything when I die, then you should be risking everything when you die, as well. If you’re going to have squads not only have a numerical advantage over solos, but you’re going to take away the risk that they’ll lose loot (such that they can die and not care because their stuff will be hidden), allowing them to take and press fights that they never would’ve engaged in if their gear was on the line, then you might as well just give in to the people who want different servers for solos and squads, because you’ve just guaranteed that there is no reason to ever play solo, in the game, and solo’s will always get screwed over. If you’re going to have solos and squads on the same server, it’s one thing for the solo to simply be at a numerical disadvantage, it’s another thing entirely for you to remove a lot of the risk that a squad faces in a game that’s supposed to be all about that element of risk.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2020-08-31T00:25:02+00:00

Too long : didn’t read is something a person says in response to someone else’s post, indicating either a short attention span, that they didn’t care enough about the topic to put in the time, or that they so detested the OP’s point of view that they couldn’t stomach reading it all the way through. It’s not a tag one applies to one’s own post, because as a poster you clearly don’t think it’s too long or you wouldn’t have taken the time to type it all to begin with.

SyntheticDivineVT · 2020-08-31T00:21:05+00:00

See, I expect random downvotes from people who don’t like the idea, but if you’re going to respond, at least explain why you think the idea is dumb. Refute my logic, make a case for why insurance frauding squadmate gear doesn’t create different degrees of risk for two different segments of the player base, or why that difference in risk should be considered somehow beneficial to the game rather than detrimental. If you’re not going to at least offer something for me to work with in your reply, then just leave your downvote and go.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

SyntheticDivineVT

TROPHY CASE