Ouch. That's awful.
I'd wait until the dog is already old and suffering, and should be euthanized anyway, and only then would I execute the will. Presumably, no part of the will indicated a timeframe, so it would be like a loophole to make the best of a bad situation. Like a reverse monkey paw kind of thing.
Still, what an inconsiderate owner. To put it lightly.
I strongly doubt it will attract the elite. The elite have no need of dating sites. They're conventionally attractive, and if they aren't, then they become conventionally attractive by twisting public opinion, so all they have to do to land a date is go outside. I think this dating site is most likely to attract people like myself, who consider ourselves highly educated intellectuals, but come from the middle or lower classes, and aren't actually as intelligent as we like to imagine ourselves. I won't be going there, though, because I realize this about myself and don't especially find it among my palatable qualities.
That all mostly makes sense to me and I agree.
But, "robotic partisan haters" -- what are these? Do you mean people who hate robotic partisans? Or robotic people who hate partisans? Or robotic partisans who are haters?
Also, if the last, how can a robotic partisan be a hater? Aren't they a partisan?
Also, do they really give the same replies to every poll no matter what topic? How is that possible? I'd think the replies available would depend on the topic, wouldn't they? Do they just always pick "other" and then reply in a comment and go off on some tangent about their irrelevant idiosyncratic system of ethics, like they could see a poll on whether dogs or cats are better and then click "other" and comment on the poll saying "do unto others" or something? 'Cause I've seen people like that. People like that kind of make me chuckle sometimes.
Also, I agree that other polls like this are creative writing, and are typically pretty amusing, too. I also agree that "giving preemptive 'choices' helps them to just click on their anticipated answer and saves wear and tear on their keyboards." But... I can't really agree with both at the same time. After all, if the poll is indeed a creative writing piece illustrating a sarcastic point, then how can any of the preemptive choices given turn out to be the answer the reader wants to give? Particularly if the poll's reader is indeed unable to recognize the sarcasm.
In summary, I think what you said sounds quite reasonable, but also it confuses me.
I do. That's clever. Lucky for me I don't have any friends or I might very well have turned out just the same.
Yup. In this sense, I suppose the public interest really is fractured. Not fractured between any distinct partitions, not in reality, but rather, fractured between people as a whole community and people as the selfish creatures we inherently are. Not a battle between good people and evil people, but a battle between the good in people and the evil in people, inside every individual person, and between people who win or lose that inner battle.
Yeah, you're right, I know it's a choice. It just doesn't feel like one. I know the reality is that I'm doing this to myself, but it feels as if this is just the way it is and there's no escape from it. The illusion that I have no control is powerful.
I'm already choosing to change. At this rate, there's no question I'll achieve the age-appropriate independence I seek. But it's taking so, so long. It was coming along smoothly and swiftly until she died -- the only reason I made it to age 24 without achieving that independence was because I tried to go to college out of state when I wasn't ready and pretty much threw away two years by not being able to function in a different state, and I was pretty much a few months away from graduating when she died -- and now I'm still fixing shit, but it's slowed down to a crawl. I don't feel I have the physical or mental energy to make it go any faster, and it's frustrating, because with each passing moment that I'm not finished improving my life, I can't throw off the false illusion that I haven't made any progress at all, and if I could just permanently stop thinking things like that, that would probably be enough to speed things up a little.
some funny ones i've picked up doing computer stuff
GIMP - GNU Image Manipulation Program
FAT - File Allocation Table
GAS - GNU Assembler
EIEIO - Enforce In-order Execution of I/O
TOILET - The Other Implementation's Letters
not really in the same vein but PEBKAC - Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair
I can think of an innocent explanation. I don't want to defend the media, because frankly, I'm very inclined to strongly agree with the clear bias implicit in this poll. But I kind of have to defend them, because I've thought of this explanation and I must express my thoughts. Mind you, I really don't think this is the real reason. I think it's what you seem to think it is: I think it's that they just want everyone to agree with them and play into their agenda. But I do think the following is a possible reason, perhaps in some alternate universe where things aren't so messed up.
So, with that out of the way, and without further ado, consider: What if they just treat "divisiveness" like a dirty word because if there's more than one viewpoint on an issue then there's guaranteed to be some degree of contention and contention is inherently viscerally unpleasant for viewers to hear about?
Again, I'm pretty sure that's not the issue. But what if we lived in an alternate world where it were?
Yeah, you're right, it's very unfair toward men.
It's a byproduct of patriarchal gender stereotypes. Men are """"""""supposed"""""""" to be the party who is dominant, caring, protective, more mature. Women are """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""supposed""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" to be expressive, pure, childlike, and, as you put it, "girly." It wouldn't be very pure, innocent, or childlike for a woman to have to understand a man. But for a man to have to understand a woman, on the other hand, reinforces the man's active, authoritative, and especially protective / provider role in the relationship.
A common misconception among those who present contentions toward feminism is that the idea of patriarchy is a way of "blaming the man." In fact, though patriarchy is characterized as a masculine construct, no reasonable person who blames it still "blames the man" in this day and age. We blame the construct itself, and recognize that it hurts men and women alike. The issue you bring up is just one of many ways it hurts men, which were unrecognized in the inception of feminism due to its initial preoccupation with women's rights.
That's my perspective on the matter at least.
Need something to laugh about, do you?
Hey, did you know that when GNU Hurd encounters an irrecoverable error, it reports an error with the message "computer bought the farm" and the error code "EIEIO"?
... did it work
Yes, I suppose if someone is being racist, it does tend to be pretty obvious. Hardly any reason to bother pointing it out if you don't have anything more substantial to say about it.
Personally I get around that by making a point to have something more substantial to say about it in the first place. Namely, a problem-of-induction argument. Without conceding that the statistics presented by my opposition are true, I take the stance that even if we assume they're true, we can't jump to any conclusion about whatever portion of the sample population did not turn out to possess the traits tested for -- nor is it fair to assume, given any arbitrary member of that sample population, they do indeed happen to exhibit the traits, regardless of whatever the likelihood may be.
But that's just when someone seems to be making unkind assumptions about a demographic in the first place. Which I've certainly never seen you do. While I may not align with you politically, you seem level headed.
I don't doubt it. You seem like someone who stands for what you believe is justice. That's more than can be said for many people -- ironically, especially the people with the most control over public opinion. Agreement on the principle that justice is good, is far more crucial than agreement on what exactly justice is, and yet it's far too often taken for granted. As long as we agree that the needs and dignity of people at large are important, I believe any contentions between us, on the matter of the means to protect those needs and dignity, can work themselves out over time and polite discourse.
I think that's fair. In certain instances, particularly whenever the system won't defend victims, crime can only be fought with crime.
The introspective power of the brain is surprising. There are a lot of things about human beings that you can intuit with shocking accuracy if you just close your eyes and think for a very long time. I suspect such studies as biology are mainly necessary A) to cement such inferences as fact, phrased in more certain, absolute, and technically useful terms than our instincts can provide, and B) because society is a busy place, and people don't often take the time to just listen to the bio-noise of their own brain anymore.
Are you sure? We only remember a minority of our dreams, you know. Maybe you just aren't remembering any at all.