Lurker > _AdjI_

I'm feeling disappointment right now that you aren't delivering on that textbook. While I appreciate that you're giving me an opportunity to rehearse these emotions, I must say that this is an unpleasant sensation and I would prefer for you to be more successful.

If you know of a textbook that would contain the sort of information used to type up that post, please let me know, because that could be an entertaining read.

Other people made the same joke in the other topic, but put more effort into it. This is just weak.

"Will I regret doing this job if I take it?"

$5 million payout is still pretty nice, and that will tell me whether it'll be something I want to do or not. Sure, it relies on the employer in question having omniscient knowledge of my personal values and morals, but if the scenario defines that the person must answer my question honestly, that's conveniently included in the scenario.

Golden Road posted...

realistically, a cow suffers a lot more than a head of lettuce,

I've never really accepted that logic. Plants have chemical responses to being damaged, which is all that "feeling pain" really is, so acting like the vertebrate model for pain is the only valid one doesn't make much sense to me. Raising a cow, however, does involve feeding them a whole bunch of plants, so it's not like killing a cow means you get to not kill plants, and meat does involve more total suffering. I'm just not going to say that one form of that suffering means more than the other.

The rationale is that sexually active gay men are, statistically, a higher-risk group for HIV. They test all of the blood anyway (at least, they do here in Canada), but tests aren't perfect, so they have the pre-screening criteria as well to add an extra layer of defense. The lifetime ban thing is a relic of the tainted blood scandal of the 80's, since everybody's terrified of going through anything resembling that again.

In truth, the lifetime ban isn't remotely necessary, which is why they've eased off on it in many countries (it's a year here). There could also stand to be more nuance in the ban, since painting all gay men with the same statistical brush is really too broad and rules out many perfectly safe donors (who, being men, can donate more frequently) while failing to capture other high-risk groups (e.g. promiscuous women who like anal). The screening (again, in Canada) used to include "In the last *I forget what time frame* have you had sex with somebody whose sexual history you did not know?", but that's been removed in the past few years, presumably because people these days tend to have longer sexual histories and therefore not necessarily share all of the details with their partners (not out of malice, just because most people don't care for the complete details). I think something along those lines is warranted, as a means of screening for more promiscuous behaviours. Asking about anal is probably also reasonable, since that way you capture straight men and women who are at risk instead of just focusing on gay people, but some sort of provision to screen for promiscuity (and by extension, let through those who aren't promiscuous, even if they're gay) is the most salient point.

Veedrock- posted...

You're advocating "equality" above health which is fucking wrong.

I don't know about you, but if I'm presented with a choice between bleeding to death and getting HIV from a blood transfusion, I'm going with the latter. Especially where HIV is quite manageable these days if you get it in the developed world. Screening's good, because HIV still sucks, but being so paranoid about is as to defend blanket bans like this ignores the fact that bleeding to death sucks more. One must also question whether these guidelines are actually based on health or just on 80's-era paranoia and homophobia, and there's plenty of evidence that the latter's playing a big role. In that case, the guidelines should be changed, because advocating homophobia above health (bleeding to death is rather unhealthy, after all) is also wrong.

Remember that there's a blood shortage. Much more so in Canada than the states, since Canadians have to donate their blood instead of being able to sell it, but the fact of the matter is that more blood is a good thing. To that end, any policy which results in turning away a donor that isn't actually risky needs to be reviewed. This isn't about equality, despite the fact that the unequal treatment of a minority is central to the issue. It's about fixing a flawed system that isn't doing what it's supposed to.

Alternatively, if you want this issue to go away, do your part to make sure there's such a surplus of blood that they can be choosier about their donors. Get out there every 8 weeks. Bring some friends. Have them bring friends. That'll make a much bigger difference than complaining about PC culture on the Internet ever could, and you'll even save a few lives on the way.

What about the Macarena?

Can I dance outside of my car to the Village People instead?

CacciatoPart3 posted...

The most concerning part of this topic is that you called it her spongey place.

He's done that before, and it never gets any less disturbing.

green dragon posted...

Full Throttle posted...

"We've had too many people coming in that we don't know. My daughter was in our driveway riding her bike, and a car pulled in and almost hit her. We had 3 semis, a dump truck, 4 cars parked along the road.

TBH, the neighbors do have a point if this is all true

Though really, that sounds like an opportunity for a partnership with the police. She keeps selling cookies, and a couple of cops stake out the immediate area and hand out tickets to anyone driving dangerously. Everyone makes money and the driving gets safer.

Those must be some pretty awesome cookies if she's drawing that kind of traffic to a roadside stand, though.

NightMareBunny posted...

first response is blocked.....yeah not really a good sign

That doesn't mean much of anything beyond the fact that you decided to put that person on your ignore list. That's nothing inherent to the site.

Depends what the actual comparison is. Penises look better on cute girls than on guys? Sure, since generally I'd rather look at a girl than a guy. Penises look better than vaginas on cute girls? Not so much.

It's not at all hard to break a condom during vaginal sex, especially if it's a particularly long session.

eli_loves_ddr posted...

You know what's infinitely safer than vaginal sex? Celibacy. So if you're so afraid of getting diseases, don't have sex.

That should be easy enough for this guy.

Pro-choice, but I don't like abortions. I recognize that they're sometimes necessary, and women shouldn't be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, but killing humans should be avoided whenever possible. To that end, I'm also pro-subsidized birth control programs, pro-comprehensive sex ed, pro-accessible prenatal care, and pro-anything else that reduces unwanted pregnancy rates in the first place so there don't need to be so many abortions. They should be a last resort.

ninja_lootz posted...

adjl posted...

Citing that statistic for the purpose of criticizing gay men is indeed homophobic.

Why exactly?

Because it ignores that it's not unique to gay men, as well as implying that gay men are somehow less capable of practicing safe sex (namely not having unprotected sex with somebody who might be positive for any STI).

Romn91 posted...

Yeah but its less riskier to have vaginal sex than anal sex.

You shouldn't be having unprotected sex with an HIV-positive person regardless of which hole you're going for. Yes, anal is riskier than vaginal, but the risk is high enough in both cases that you should be using protection if you haven't ruled out the possibility that your partner might be infected.

Romn91 posted...

I mean its not like you are gonna contract anything from strapon, ergo lesbians are the safest,

Oral sex can transmit a number of other STI's. Not HIV, generally, but it's still far from being perfectly safe.

DPsx7 posted...

I wouldn't call it boasting. The topic ended up near the top and I wrote something. Big deal.

You made a deliberate effort to enter the topic and tell everyone that you don't pay enough attention to pop culture to know what the topic title was talking about. I'd call that boasting. If you don't care about it, just don't care about it. Going out of your way to tell everyone that you don't care just makes you look ridiculous.

I've never understood why people seem to be so bad at apathy.

Mike Xtreme posted...

New update. The game now is pretty close to what they promised at release

Pretty much. It was a massive flop on release because there wasn't much to it, but they've since added some major content updates that bring it more in line with what people were hoping to get from it at launch. I'm tempted to grab it myself, once a sale hits, but I've got enough other things on the go that I'm in no rush now.

Better idea: Legalize all the drugs and distribute them in controlled environments where OD'ing will be virtually impossible and addictions can be well-managed. So long as the prices are reasonable, there won't be much of a black market left to worry about because the costs of smuggling it in will outweigh the potential profit to be made. Bonus points because this will go a long way toward defunding drug cartels and other forms of organized crime.

Unbridled9 posted...

Zeus posted...

Given that he wants more than just a cameo, I guess it makes sense?

idk, Mara was definitely one of my huge wants from the sequel trilogy which, so far, has been perhaps more disappointing than the prequel trilogy (although I enjoyed the parts of TLJ *not* featuring Finn & Rose, whose pointless, nonsensical sidequest made TPM's pod race look good)

Least the pod race was constant action. Pointless, sure. Boring? Not really.

There's an argument to be made that it was the best part of Episode 1, pointless though it was. It spawned a great spinoff game, too.

This is Yoshi's B

*Shrug* Just felt like doing it this way.

Teeth posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

If I can't afford food, I don't need food? Take that, thermodynamics!

why is the l in your name an i

Because when I made an alt with an L while I was warned, it got immediately read-only'd. After the warning passed, I made this one and started using it on my laptop to get enough karma to be unrestricted. The L one has since come out of read-only, but by that point this one had already amassed enough karma for me not to care, so I kept it going.

DPsx7 posted...

the controls are crap,

If the controls for your PC suck, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Occasionally. Mostly simpler stuff like Mario Kart. We played through Snipperclips together, which was fun.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Blaqthourne posted...

^ I wasn't aware that the only way to listen to video game music is while playing the game.

It's the only sane way to do it.

Not really. There's plenty of game music out there that's well worth a listen on its own, and plenty of opportunities to encounter new stuff outside of games (see: any number of VG music topics on this board alone).

If I can't afford food, I don't need food? Take that, thermodynamics!