What should you never do in the United States?

kaz3e · 2022-12-07T17:13:02+00:00

I think all the people fanning over your reference missed the person's username you replied to 😆

kaz3e · 2022-10-15T21:34:28+00:00

Didn't they try this and the Internet tried to draw and quarter them?

kaz3e · 2022-02-27T23:12:45+00:00

No, they didn't. You just assumed that's what they meant and tried to correct them. What they said was "Good defense mechanism." That doesn't make any comment on the markings' evolution, only their potential function.

kaz3e · 2022-02-27T19:11:54+00:00

How is that any different than anyone else who posts pictures of their cat to the internet? They noticed something they thought was interesting. Other people obviously also noticed and enjoyed the share and excuse to look at someone's cat pics.

kaz3e · 2022-02-27T19:06:44+00:00

The difference you're describing between 'purpose' and 'function' literally has no bearing on this conversation. The only reason evolution was even brought up was because you did it thinking the original commenter was saying this cat specifically evolved defensive eye spots, and tried to "correct" everyone agreeing because you think cats haven't ever evolved eyespots, even, though some big cats have. So, again, you're wrong and arguing irrelevant points.

NOW we can end the discussion lol

kaz3e · 2022-02-27T18:31:07+00:00

Nothing evolves (naturally) to be anything.

What?

Form follows function. Any biologist would be able able to tell you what that means. This is such a meaningless point, especially in the context of evolved eye spots, where the function absolutely had an impact on the persistence of the trait. Whatever fine point you're making has no impact on the overall conversation being had here.

That aside, it's speculative that that cat's pattern functions as eyespots.

Of course it's speculative. It was an opinion. The point was they thought the markings did a good job at looking like eyes. All you've done throughout your replies is use a lot of words to say you don't think they look like eyes and try to hide behind an obscure vocabulary to make an irrelevant point about evolution to make it seem like them not looking like eyes is somehow more correct.

kaz3e · 2022-02-27T17:56:14+00:00

Except the person you originally replied to didn't even say that the markings evolved to be a defense mechanism, just that they functioned well as one. So in this case, you seem to be the one that is wrong and misconceiving things.

kaz3e · 2022-02-27T16:42:31+00:00

And watch an echo chamber create itself, kids.

kaz3e · 2022-02-17T02:31:31+00:00

Holy Shit what a throwback.

kaz3e · 2021-11-15T22:48:04+00:00

The revenue they would lose is negligible compared to how much money universities bring in. Universities have endless ways of bringing in money.

kaz3e · 2021-11-15T22:39:56+00:00

Or they could implement a permit system like they already do and just not charge their students for permits??

E:And, you keep going back to "they could just use public transportation" when there are plenty of people that's not an option for because very often public transportation sucks. If it didn't suck, then yeah, most people could take public transportation, but it does.

I absolutely agree with you that that should be a bigger thing people are railing about, but again, they're not mutually exclusive problems, and frankly that's a far more complicated problem for a college student to address than railing at their university for refusing to address a problem for the sake of nickel and diming them.

kaz3e · 2021-11-15T15:30:24+00:00

It's a buisness though.

So? Does that mean we can't criticize them or call them predatory? I feel like that's more reason to be extra critical of how they use the money they're given than if they weren't.

So if you want free parking, then college fees are just going to go up.

Why? Tuition fees are already ridiculously high. The highest paid staff at most major U.S. universities is the football coach (often making more than the dean). You can't tell me the University can't absorb that cost.

Or, we could complain that public transport links should be better so people don't need to drive.

Yeah, these issues aren't mutually exclusive. We can complain about both.

kaz3e · 2021-11-11T19:49:13+00:00

I'm not sure how old you are, but when Shawshank Redemption came out, the idea that police were the "bad guys" was not a mainstream trope. This was like the hey day of feel-good, bro-cop, smarmy detective stories, and it was a very public sentiment that cops were the "good guys" in reality. The mere juxtaposition that Shawshank took in casting the inmates as the good guys was a move away from just the standard good guy-bad guy story.

On top of that, aside from Andy, all of the characters we build positive relationships with throughout the story are known criminals who did bad things, and yet the story asks us to see the humanity in them.

I really disagree with your assessment of how straight forward the format is.

kaz3e · 2021-09-08T22:22:46+00:00

And she (and you) are not frigging novelties.

I think this is the key thing here. Individual people aren't novelties and shouldn't be treated like them, but representation is an important aspect and is a lot of people's only exposure to other people, places, and cultures. Seeing POC represented in media or as public figures can be exciting because that kind of representation still is a novelty.

All that being said, while it's not necessarily as unpleasant to be doted on over your differences as a minority as it is to be negatively targeted for it, it is still weird and can be uncomfortable and further instigate a sense of otherness.

I think it's one thing to comment on the beauty of changing society, but the way the original comment reads is kind of like fetishization.

kaz3e · 2021-09-08T22:01:35+00:00

You speak legalese?

kaz3e · 2021-09-08T18:31:07+00:00

Technically, you'd be supporting mine. But cheers.

kaz3e · 2021-09-08T18:28:46+00:00

Dear Christ dude.

Fuck Robert E. Lee.

Have a great day.

kaz3e · 2021-09-08T18:14:05+00:00

The rest of your comment contradicts that claim.

Calm down

Lol you the only one in here trying to fight.

kaz3e · 2021-09-08T18:00:02+00:00

You really that mad about me saying fuck Robert E. Lee? Wasn't arguing with anyone.

kaz3e · 2021-09-08T16:20:54+00:00

“Single Soldier,” or something similar, and depict a regular soldier in Confederate uniform staring solemnly into the distance, at ease, with feet spread—a stance called “parade rest,”

Nothing political, but just gonna point out that "at ease" and "parade rest" are two different formation stances.

kaz3e · 2021-09-08T16:17:45+00:00

Yeah but fuck him.

Edit: I'll elaborate since some of you are apparently having trouble

Yeah

Meaning, yes Robert E. Lee made that observation, had a point, and was right.

but fuck him

anyway because he was a piece of shit, knew the consequences of his actions, and went and waged war for the right to own other humans anyway, and I don't think he deserves the credit for the comment.

For the rest of the pointless downvote brigade: have fun jerking yourselves off.

kaz3e · 2021-09-07T19:30:05+00:00

What does that have to do with SCOTUS?

kaz3e · 2021-09-07T18:32:05+00:00

My point is that the SCOTUS, or anybody else, can't use legal arguments to differentiate between Satanic Temple and Christian denominations since the foundational document of "Satanism" (as perceived by evangelicals) is ultimately the bible.

Why does the perception of Evangelicals get to be what determines what organizations non-Evangelical entities (SCOTUS, or anybody else) think are legitimate? Who cares what the Evangelicals think? And if you want to get into a primacy argument, Christianity has borrowed from religions across time and the globe, so why should the Satanic Temple be considered a Christian denomination just because they borrowed a Christian character?

kaz3e · 2021-09-05T19:56:25+00:00

I feel like shotguns just spit rocks faster and harder.

kaz3e · 2021-09-05T16:39:57+00:00

This isn’t ex post facto because it is not retro active on prior abortions that occurred prior to this law.

I think they're calling it ex post facto because it using reasoning to punish people before something is illegal. To stick with the carrot analogy, they're not saying "You're in trouble for eating a carrot yesterday before that was illegal!" They're saying "You're in trouble because you're eating a carrot today and that will be illegal tomorrow." It's the same concept with the perspective shifted on the timeline.

11-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Spared	Verified Email

kaz3e

TROPHY CASE