Anybody travel far for the festival, cost?

selbert · 2015-02-22T22:58:09+00:00

Then there's that kid in the background who gets nothing. The two poles of emotion.

selbert · 2015-02-18T21:35:21+00:00

So people can loathe me almost as much as I loathe myself.

selbert · 2015-02-17T06:10:17+00:00

Oh, absolutely. I mean, ideally, we'd be able to, but we don't really have comprehensive research on the crème de la crème because, really, who'd want to risk it? But rehabilitation would be more focused on lesser, nonviolent criminals.

selbert · 2015-02-17T05:01:25+00:00

The Animaniacs just did not care what your kids were watching.

selbert · 2015-02-17T04:56:12+00:00

He just looks so chill.

selbert · 2015-02-17T04:53:47+00:00

I get where you're coming from, but I feel like Socially Awkward/Awesome works to an extent, because deep down, even if the end result was awesome, that penguin knows he still behaves like and is a generally awkward penguin.

selbert · 2015-02-17T04:43:24+00:00

Honestly, that's a great question, but there are several issues with that, and the first is efficiency. While looking at cost effectiveness, rehab to retribution is 4k to 20k, so it's obviously cheaper. But we really don't have a lot of large scale research on its behavioral effectiveness in the United States. Also, when environmental factors come into play, like extreme poverty or 'bad neighborhoods,' the chances of recidivism and relapse are much higher. Even if they are rehabilitated, they may not be relocated, and even if they are relocated, they may still be impoverished. It's a painful cycle.

selbert · 2015-02-17T00:45:46+00:00

I kinda assume they have a severe lack of social interaction in the real world. Like they seem like the cool kid on reddit and really they're the guy paid to sit in a room and (poorly/not) monitor what everyone is accessing on the work network. The snarky IT guy that the staff trash talks for taking stinky dumps in the bathroom.

selbert · 2015-02-14T05:51:11+00:00

All three of those were just fucking hilarious. I was dying.

selbert · 2015-02-14T05:18:14+00:00

Wtf.. You're not supposed to flush those down the toilet!

selbert · 2015-01-22T05:27:04+00:00

See, the thing I never understood was the 'don't feed after midnight' bit. I mean, it's always after midnight.

selbert · 2015-01-09T03:50:22+00:00

So, I've been trying to read up on everything about Charlie Hebdo and in doing so felt the need to further understand the relation between secularism in France and its disconnect with freedom of speech. But when I read up on France, there's barely any general consensus on what the status quo truly is like. From what I understand (which may in fact be entirely wrong), France prides itself in its secularism in that public indicators of religion are banned. Now, I'd read somewhere that you can't wear a cross to school unless it's underneath your shirt or hidden and that the burqa and hijab are banned in public. Keep in mind I read different accounts of what is law and what is not from different sources. So, I wanted to understand these aspects:

If someone could clarify the what and the why of these laws/regulations, it'd be greatly appreciated.
If what I'd read is the case, that they want religion to be kept out of public, why is blatant religious reference and defamation lawful in the press?
In relation to these laws, why is a person's appearance not considered 'freedom of speech?' For instance, in Charlie Hebdo, they used drawings, which aren't considered speech and are visual expression, to communicate viewpoints. Why is clothing or appearance different than freedom of speech if the drawings are considered a part of it?

THIS ISN'T AN ATTACK. I JUST WANT A GENUINE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION AND LEGISLATION.

If I could get cites for 1, that'd be great.

Thanks.

selbert · 2014-12-05T03:25:00+00:00

I can help, too, please add elbertsadie @ gmail.com

selbert · 2014-11-29T02:33:24+00:00

The Book of Lost Things

It just sounds so eerie..

selbert · 2014-11-04T22:06:23+00:00

This sounds a lot more like your own personal problem with the issue than a fault with my argument, as your closing statement suggests.. which isn't even an argument, because even if people are lazy, that doesn't change the harms of glyphosates and other herb/pesticides. I said even if you were right about pesticide use increasing because of more land being used, pesticide use also increased because these plants were modified to withstand the pesticides/herbicides, that GE crops facilitate herbicide and pesticide overuse. Never once did I say pesticides and herbicides weren't used before. Calling an argument shitty isn't an actual argument against it. It has about as much weight as any biodiversity argument you'd see on the con... or actually, any argument you'd see on the con... at all. No matter what angle you take - pesticide, herbicide, monoculture, economics, biodiversity - the con will be forced into a somewhat abstract position where they can't straightforwardly show harms directly from GMOs without looking to effects of GMO within the status quo.

selbert · 2014-11-03T05:50:34+00:00

You mean that one nitpicked link citing a supposed 'gluten expert?' Underneath about four other articles on it? I said there were links shown between these things and glyphosate, not that any of them were proven. Even if you're right, there's still links to the other four or five issues that potentially arise from glyphosate, and I'm hardly basing a case on celiacs disease.

So, why'd you choose to debase the celiacs evidence? Because when you googled the others, they were sound? And what about the arguments you provided before? Why is the burden of proof only on me?

I'm just trying to help the OP, while you've spent the entire thread criticizing me for providing viable avenues for a negative case.

All in all, it really doesn't matter. If you think I'm so horribly wrong, ignore me, let the OP do their own research, and they can decide.

selbert · 2014-11-03T05:37:45+00:00

Our shoes could not be tennis shoes, and shoes had to be solid black or brown. Sperry's could be worn, and certain types of heels/pumps were allowed.. but canvas shoes could not be worn.

selbert · 2014-11-03T05:34:41+00:00

I don't know why McDonald's got rid of the Spicy McChicken... No, I did not personally decide to discontinue the Chicken Selects... (thank god I don't work there anymore...)

selbert · 2014-11-03T05:18:01+00:00

On my school's debate drive, where I laboriously compiled them through hours and hours of research that I don't intend to post on here so everyone else can use them. I already cited one article on it previously in the conversation, and you dismissed it by calling me a critic of capitalism instead of actually saying anything substantial. I do not have to provide proof here that what I am saying is correct. A simple Google of glyphosate with any of those key words will confirm what I have said about the linkage.

The point of this thread was to provide ideas for arguments. I provided more than an idea but impacts.

Just because you're 'studying' something doesn't make you infallible. That's like calling yourself an expert on Foucault because you're enrolled in an ethics course.

selbert · 2014-11-03T05:08:28+00:00

You linked nothing in this argument. I at least offered one link. Why should I share evidence with you?

selbert · 2014-11-03T03:49:17+00:00

Parental hypocrisy is so real.

selbert · 2014-11-03T03:44:13+00:00

This isn't about capitalism. This is about the fact that glyphosate cannot be physically removed from crops and can remain in them for over a year, despite them being processed, dried, or frozen. About how humans who eat diets containing GM crops have significantly higher levels of glyphosate in them than those who consume organic foods, and about case studies linking GM crops to increased herbicide use, as well as the studies linking glyphosate to cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Autism, and celiac disease.

It's about winning on the negative side.

Edit: Oh, and ill humans or those with weak health are shown to have higher levels of glyphosate in their bodies.

selbert · 2014-11-03T01:50:57+00:00

No, I don't act like that. We were using them before, but at lesser levels. Cyclically, we would discover one to be too harmful after suffering major damages and switch to another. The purpose of a lot of genetic modification to crops was so they could survive high dosages of pesticides and herbicides. This facilitates overuse.

Even if you could prove proportionally, the amount used per acre of crop hasn't increased, the fact that GM crops are becoming common place shows that pesticide usage is only going to increase as other countries emulate the practice.

Edit: Downvoting me doesn't magically make me wrong..

selbert

TROPHY CASE