Works now.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Broken link.InfraRedBucket wrote:Must be the Irish in him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Lynch_(Argentina)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Lynch_(Argentina)
Works now.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Broken link.InfraRedBucket wrote:Must be the Irish in him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Lynch_(Argentina)
Awesome! I like the more practical, domestic types of historical re-enactment.#32 Rat wrote:My favorite historical re-enactment.
[youtube][/youtube]
Excellent when made with apple cider & malt vinegar.
If a reasonable person would fear imminent bodily harm, they may respond with force even though the threatener has yet to employ force.John D wrote: Very good. I didn't realize there was an exception for "Them's fighten words." Language intended to provoke someone into physically attacking you is NOT protected speech. So, the Antifa guy really was breaking the law when he said he would fight the black guy (in the video from the last page). I didn't know this. I wonder if this then excuses a person who reacts to such speech in a violent way.
Phillip was an inbred Habsburg, so in actuality he'd be like 162% Austrian.
Correct from horseboy, the act of violence is not required to allow the use of force from the other person, merely the reasonable expectation that violence against you or another is imminent. Otherwise, you would have to wait until you were shot or stabbed before you could fire back.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:If a reasonable person would fear imminent bodily harm, they may respond with force even though the threatener has yet to employ force.John D wrote: Very good. I didn't realize there was an exception for "Them's fighten words." Language intended to provoke someone into physically attacking you is NOT protected speech. So, the Antifa guy really was breaking the law when he said he would fight the black guy (in the video from the last page). I didn't know this. I wonder if this then excuses a person who reacts to such speech in a violent way.
A Liverpool kiss works wonders. And it's not sexual assault.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:If a reasonable person would fear imminent bodily harm, they may respond with force even though the threatener has yet to employ force.John D wrote: Very good. I didn't realize there was an exception for "Them's fighten words." Language intended to provoke someone into physically attacking you is NOT protected speech. So, the Antifa guy really was breaking the law when he said he would fight the black guy (in the video from the last page). I didn't know this. I wonder if this then excuses a person who reacts to such speech in a violent way.
KiwiInOz wrote:A Liverpool kiss works wonders. And it's not sexual assault.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:If a reasonable person would fear imminent bodily harm, they may respond with force even though the threatener has yet to employ force.John D wrote: Very good. I didn't realize there was an exception for "Them's fighten words." Language intended to provoke someone into physically attacking you is NOT protected speech. So, the Antifa guy really was breaking the law when he said he would fight the black guy (in the video from the last page). I didn't know this. I wonder if this then excuses a person who reacts to such speech in a violent way.
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]KiwiInOz wrote:A Liverpool kiss works wonders. And it's not sexual assault.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:If a reasonable person would fear imminent bodily harm, they may respond with force even though the threatener has yet to employ force.John D wrote: Very good. I didn't realize there was an exception for "Them's fighten words." Language intended to provoke someone into physically attacking you is NOT protected speech. So, the Antifa guy really was breaking the law when he said he would fight the black guy (in the video from the last page). I didn't know this. I wonder if this then excuses a person who reacts to such speech in a violent way.
[woutube][/youtube]
Getting the privilege of explaining what a "reasonable person" is to the U.S. court system is a crap shoot though.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:If a reasonable person would fear imminent bodily harm, they may respond with force even though the threatener has yet to employ force.John D wrote: Very good. I didn't realize there was an exception for "Them's fighten words." Language intended to provoke someone into physically attacking you is NOT protected speech. So, the Antifa guy really was breaking the law when he said he would fight the black guy (in the video from the last page). I didn't know this. I wonder if this then excuses a person who reacts to such speech in a violent way.
To be serious, this would definitely be one of the times when being white would be a huge inbuilt advantage in most US courts.#32 Rat wrote:Getting the privilege of explaining what a "reasonable person" is to the U.S. court system is a crap shoot though.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:If a reasonable person would fear imminent bodily harm, they may respond with force even though the threatener has yet to employ force.John D wrote: Very good. I didn't realize there was an exception for "Them's fighten words." Language intended to provoke someone into physically attacking you is NOT protected speech. So, the Antifa guy really was breaking the law when he said he would fight the black guy (in the video from the last page). I didn't know this. I wonder if this then excuses a person who reacts to such speech in a violent way.
Lamb chops bookmarked.
Ape+lust wrote:Geesh.
http://imgur.com/Lews0SF.png
Inspiration for what, Peez? Your own leather hotpants?
He's always trying to signal solidarity, but only blares he's an out-of-it boob. Look for his tweets about Beyonce sometime.
Peez. Quit being so needy. Nobody cares if you don't squee like a fangirl.
Don't take away a producing lolcow.Ape+lust wrote: He's always trying to signal solidarity, but only blares he's an out-of-it boob. Look for his tweets about Beyonce sometime.
Peez. Quit being so needy. Nobody cares if you don't squee like a fangirl.
And being richer than the opponent.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:To be serious, this would definitely be one of the times when being white would be a huge inbuilt advantage in most US courts.#32 Rat wrote:
Getting the privilege of explaining what a "reasonable person" is to the U.S. court system is a crap shoot though.
Lamb chops bookmarked.
Ape+lust wrote:Geesh.
http://imgur.com/Lews0SF.png
Inspiration for what, Peez? Your own leather hotpants?
He's always trying to signal solidarity, but only blares he's an out-of-it boob. Look for his tweets about Beyonce sometime.
Peez. Quit being so needy. Nobody cares if you don't squee like a fangirl.
Ape+lust wrote:Geesh.
http://imgur.com/Lews0SF.png
Inspiration for what, Peez? Your own leather hotpants?
He's always trying to signal solidarity, but only blares he's an out-of-it boob. Look for his tweets about Beyonce sometime.
Peez. Quit being so needy. Nobody cares if you don't squee like a fangirl.
Skin color and money.... I may be okay. Now... off to find an Antifa to head butt.....#32 Rat wrote:And being richer than the opponent.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:To be serious, this would definitely be one of the times when being white would be a huge inbuilt advantage in most US courts.#32 Rat wrote:
Getting the privilege of explaining what a "reasonable person" is to the U.S. court system is a crap shoot though.
Lamb chops bookmarked.
Alex Jones shit to quality information is too poor for me to bother viewing him. Not to mention his voice & presentation style is annoying as all fuck.Really? wrote:I find Shermer's position ironic.
Cartamundia's excoriation of Gadot's IDF history didn't persuade him?Ape+lust wrote:Geesh.
http://imgur.com/Lews0SF.png
Inspiration for what, Peez? Your own leather hotpants?
He's always trying to signal solidarity, but only blares he's an out-of-it boob. Look for his tweets about Beyonce sometime.
Peez. Quit being so needy. Nobody cares if you don't squee like a fangirl.
Last week he was complaining her tits were too pert. He's working overtime to be the virtue signallers' Star of the Class.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Ape+lust wrote:Geesh.
http://imgur.com/Lews0SF.png
Inspiration for what, Peez? Your own leather hotpants?
He's always trying to signal solidarity, but only blares he's an out-of-it boob. Look for his tweets about Beyonce sometime.
Peez. Quit being so needy. Nobody cares if you don't squee like a fangirl.
Haha! Oh fuck, Beta male is insufficient. What is the last letter of the Greek alphabet? How do mathematicians annotate beyond that? Is it the infinity male? Truly, your Arthur Chu/Meyers shoop was well-intended, I would pay top dollar to see them fight.
I hope they give him some kind of weakness. His whole costume is Captain America's shield.KiwiInOz wrote:Iron Fist was insipid, and Luke Cage tedious. But this looks excellent.deLurch wrote:OK. This trailer looks promising.
[youtube][/youtube]
Clearly badass & politically correct don't go hand-in-hand.
Iron Fist was dull. I enjoyed Luke Cage compared to all of the other Netflix superhero shows because it had a stylized universe. The stakes were much smaller but mattered to the people involved.KiwiInOz wrote:Iron Fist was insipid, and Luke Cage tedious. But this looks excellent.deLurch wrote:OK. This trailer looks promising.
[youtube][/youtube]
Clearly badass & politically correct don't go hand-in-hand.
I agree with Red Letter Media's Mike Stoklasa who said: "Unless you're a seven year-old girl, Wonder Woman should not be your role model."ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Ape+lust wrote:Geesh.
http://imgur.com/Lews0SF.png
Inspiration for what, Peez? Your own leather hotpants?
He's always trying to signal solidarity, but only blares he's an out-of-it boob. Look for his tweets about Beyonce sometime.
Peez. Quit being so needy. Nobody cares if you don't squee like a fangirl.
And I "wonder" :D if this is because he got some kickback for his ludicrous (truly, ridiculous) webcast statement which you transcribed earlier, where he said that it's tough shit there aren't enough women in University teaching because they aren't as good as men, but the only way to fix it is to spend millions more on funding just so that Universities can hire more teaching staff and thus more women (despite this not being a way to alter the M/F ratio, as pointed out by another poster).
Total tool.
First season of Daredevil was quite good. As was the first half of the second season, and I really enjoyed Jessica Jones, which had the best Marvel villain to date, played by David Tennant.deLurch wrote:Iron Fist was dull. I enjoyed Luke Cage compared to all of the other Netflix superhero shows because it had a stylized universe. The stakes were much smaller but mattered to the people involved.KiwiInOz wrote:Iron Fist was insipid, and Luke Cage tedious. But this looks excellent.deLurch wrote:OK. This trailer looks promising.
[youtube][/youtube]
Clearly badass & politically correct don't go hand-in-hand.
:lol:#32 Rat wrote:Don't take away a producing lolcow.Ape+lust wrote: He's always trying to signal solidarity, but only blares he's an out-of-it boob. Look for his tweets about Beyonce sometime.
Peez. Quit being so needy. Nobody cares if you don't squee like a fangirl.
Everyone cares PZ. Everyone. Especially the feminists they care the most.
I don't know the relevant case law(s), but I have always thought that assault should include the use of loud sounds. For example, these SJW cunts that shout through a loudspeaker into people's ear orifices, and cunty little Shia Labeuf (sp) shouting his cult's motto right into a guy's soundhole. That would be excruciating for me, and lead to long-term damage with much larger effects than a black eye, so I feel it should be assault.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Correct from horseboy, the act of violence is not required to allow the use of force from the other person, merely the reasonable expectation that violence against you or another is imminent. Otherwise, you would have to wait until you were shot or stabbed before you could fire back.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:If a reasonable person would fear imminent bodily harm, they may respond with force even though the threatener has yet to employ force.John D wrote: Very good. I didn't realize there was an exception for "Them's fighten words." Language intended to provoke someone into physically attacking you is NOT protected speech. So, the Antifa guy really was breaking the law when he said he would fight the black guy (in the video from the last page). I didn't know this. I wonder if this then excuses a person who reacts to such speech in a violent way.
Also: robbery is theft with violence or the threat of violence. Otherwise, armed robbery of a bank would merely be shoplifting.
Cringe alert.Ape+lust wrote:Geesh.
http://imgur.com/Lews0SF.png
Inspiration for what, Peez? Your own leather hotpants?
He's always trying to signal solidarity, but only blares he's an out-of-it boob. Look for his tweets about Beyonce sometime.
Peez. Quit being so needy. Nobody cares if you don't squee like a fangirl.
Oh, shit. I'd forgotten about that. Apparently, Peez did too. This could get funny real fast when a Setar-type tells him he murdered Rachel Corrie.Sunder wrote:Cartamundia's excoriation of Gadot's IDF history didn't persuade him?Ape+lust wrote:Geesh.
http://imgur.com/Lews0SF.png
Inspiration for what, Peez? Your own leather hotpants?
He's always trying to signal solidarity, but only blares he's an out-of-it boob. Look for his tweets about Beyonce sometime.
Peez. Quit being so needy. Nobody cares if you don't squee like a fangirl.
I enjoyed Jessica Jones as well, and liked Luke Cage in that series (which set me up).katamari Damassi wrote:First season of Daredevil was quite good. As was the first half of the second season, and I really enjoyed Jessica Jones, which had the best Marvel villain to date, played by David Tennant.deLurch wrote:Iron Fist was dull. I enjoyed Luke Cage compared to all of the other Netflix superhero shows because it had a stylized universe. The stakes were much smaller but mattered to the people involved.KiwiInOz wrote:
quote="deLurch"]OK. This trailer looks promising.
[youtube][/youtube]
Clearly badass & politically correct don't go hand-in-hand./quote]
Iron Fist was insipid, and Luke Cage tedious. But this looks excellent.
Reminds me of the Bush Doctrine. Except for the "reasonable" part.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:If a reasonable person would fear imminent bodily harm, they may respond with force even though the threatener has yet to employ force.
Link for the lazy.Guest_440911e7 wrote:youtube com/watch?v=Mc5zyX_oENA
Bret Weinstein appears again on Tucker Carlson.
Meanwhile, PZ Myers has not discussed Evergreen or Bret Weinstein at his blog, and has danced around the issue in a couple of tweets.
Link for the lazy.Guest_440911e7 wrote:youtube com/watch?v=Mc5zyX_oENA
Bret Weinstein appears again on Tucker Carlson.
Meanwhile, PZ Myers has not discussed Evergreen or Bret Weinstein at his blog, and has danced around the issue in a couple of tweets.
I'm like a child in the woods... I have no frame of reference. I will take both possibilities at 100 though.piginthecity wrote:The problem with this 'Diversity Recognition' is that it recognises too many ethnicities and too many percentages.
in fact, there are only two possibilities:
"Ancestors lived in caves"
"Ancestors built these cities"
... and the only allowable percentages are 0 and 100.
There is a third possibility....piginthecity wrote:The problem with this 'Diversity Recognition' is that it recognises too many ethnicities and too many percentages.
in fact, there are only two possibilities:
"Ancestors lived in caves"
"Ancestors built these cities"
... and the only allowable percentages are 0 and 100.
I've been following the witch hunt and attempt to get his publishers to drop the game. Just mildly criticising the worst of identity politics is enough to get him labelled a hatemonger and bigot of course.#32 Rat wrote:Ya'll probably need context for my above post. Lazy fuckers can't just memorize entire internet every morning like the rest of us.
Polygon article detailing the effort to get rid of developer for statements made in 2014. https://archive.is/aPq2i
Bonus Kek Ben Kuchera getting Rekt
Notch vs. Zoe
Kairos disagrees. Those who built these cities were only 82% white and 18% Hispanicpiginthecity wrote:The problem with this 'Diversity Recognition' is that it recognises too many ethnicities and too many percentages.
in fact, there are only two possibilities:
"Ancestors lived in caves"
"Ancestors built these cities"
... and the only allowable percentages are 0 and 100.
I think it did persuade him. "Women in uniform". :dance:Sunder wrote:Cartamundia's excoriation of Gadot's IDF history didn't persuade him?Ape+lust wrote:Geesh.
http://imgur.com/Lews0SF.png
Inspiration for what, Peez? Your own leather hotpants?
He's always trying to signal solidarity, but only blares he's an out-of-it boob. Look for his tweets about Beyonce sometime.
Peez. Quit being so needy. Nobody cares if you don't squee like a fangirl.
Haha. I've dated only white people with one brief asian exception in high school. I did the diversity app thing and apparently I just read as "mainly hispanic" to that thing with varying amounts of white and black. I'm 99% sure no one in my family has ever fucked a Hispanic person. In real life I genuinely read as just about any fucking race. People have mistaken me for Filipino, Australian Aboriginal, Indian, Pacific Islander, Arab. But I suppose most of you have seen me on chat.MarcusAu wrote:I guess Rayshul will chime in a some point - though I'm not sure if it's appropriate as she has confessed to being 80% white.
Which if correct means that skin makes up the remaining 20%.
In my case I'm white unless the Irish are still counted as the blacks of Europe.
Whoever created that should do some time. Seriously.#32 Rat wrote:This product made me think of Danielle Muscato for some reason.
https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content ... grande.jpg
Only model so far.
https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/file ... imsuit.jpg
Get the Muscato look for only $45. Comes in Tan too.
The messed up the lower anatomy.Hunt wrote:Whoever created that should do some time. Seriously.
Fixed.Hunt wrote:Whoever created that should#32 Rat wrote:This product made me think of Danielle Muscato for some reason.
https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content ... grande.jpgdospend some time in it. Seriously.
Ah ha! You've found it out - it must be sponsored by the Nation of Islam.rayshul wrote:I put in a monkey into the Kairos thing. 76% white.
I'm no scholar, I just post quotes from the Qu'ran, the sunnah and some ahadith, along with what's the most likely explanation by taking them literally. It's not my fault if they're bloody awful and require creative interpretation in order to be read in less awful ways. Complain with Mo. :lol:KiwiInOz wrote:Kirbmarc, as a scholar of some repute, what is your view of this interpretation of Islam and domestic violence?
This is a bad way to start. Of course domestic violence isn't specific to a particular group, religious or otherwise. This is a red herring: the real matter is whether the Qu'ran sanctions it, and it DOES.Domestic violence is not specific to a particular religious group; Australian statistics indicate that one in six women experience physical or sexual violence from a current or former partner in their lifetime.
Despite this, several recent media reports have sensationalised domestic violence within the Muslim community, and often falsely linked it to Verse 4:34 in the Qur’an.
BULLSHITThe contention about Verse 4:34 is particular to its English translation. There are no accurate translations of this verse, which compounds the issue for English-speakers. There are three particular words – qawwamuna, nushuzahunna, and wadribuhunna – that appear in this verse and are often mistranslated, mainly due to a lack of equivalent words in English.
Particularly problematic is how the word wadribuhunna is translated into English. A clear disagreement exists among English-language Qur’an commentators on how best to translate this word. All translations give an explicit negative connotation, and – when read out of context – further exacerbates any misunderstanding.
The verb used for "strike them" is wa-iḍ'ribūhunna. The verbal root "ḍād rā bā" (to strike, to present or to travel) is found many times in the Qu'ran. It has two possible meaning: the hit/strike/beat or to present, to show, or to travel, to go from point A to point B.Qu'ran, Sura 4: Verse 34 wrote:Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
The word used here is "faḍarba", which has the same root as "wa-iḍ'ribūhunna". Classic Arabic uses prefixes (morphemes, i.e. part of the word which go before the root), suffixes (after the root) and even infixes (in between the letters of the root).Qu'ran, Sura 47, verse 4 wrote:So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle],strike[their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.
The word used here is "afanaḍribu", with the interrogative prefix "alif" (reduced to "af") and the supplemental particle "ana", with an object at the accusative (the case, or form of a noun, of objects) which is separated from the verb. Importantly enough the object is "l-dhik'ra" (the message, the Remainder") which is an indefinite noun in its accusative form, NOT a pronoun.Qu'ran, Sura 43, Verse 5 wrote:Then should We turn away the message, disregarding you, because you are a transgressing people?
The word used here is "iḍ'ribūhu", which has the suffix "-hu" which is a 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun. Confront with "wa-iḍ'ribūhunna" and you see that in BOTH cases the object personal pronoun is attacked to the verb, as it is typical of transitive verbs with a personal pronoun in object form. The construction is the same, which, along with the context, shows us that the meaning is very likely the same, to strike, to beat, not "to banish, to turn away".Qu'ran, Sura 2, Verse 72 wrote:So, We said, "Strike the slain man with part of it." Thus does Allah bring the dead to life, and He shows you His signs that you might reason.
The word used here is "ḍarabūhu", with the now familiar suffix "-hu", the 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun. There's a second object later, the word "jadalan", which is the accusative (object) form of the indefinite noun "argument". Furthermore there's a term of reference, "laka", which means "to you".Qu'ran, Sura 43, Verse 58 wrote:And they said, "Are your gods better, or is he?" They did not present the comparison except for [mere] argument. But, [in fact], they are a people prone to dispute.
The word used here is "yaḍribu", a pure verb, which means "presents", and there's both a term of reference "lilnnāsi" (to the people) and an object "amthālahum" (their comparisons).Qu'ran, Sura 47, Verse 3 wrote:That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus does Allah present to the people their comparisons.