Don't insult the jews by comparing them to those gingerbread bastards.

Yeah. Nobody has any plans to put them into ovens!

...well...um, uhh...

...nevermind.

At least nobody is planning on making a museum of an extinct cookie.

Unless the house and the man were made from the same gingerbread batch ;)

Would that be siblings, or clones?

Of course gingerbread men should not be forced to live in houses made of their flesh.

If you think about it for half a moment, you will see how ridiculous the suggestion is.

Gingerbread men should live in houses made of the flesh of other gingerbread men.

Undertale,

That's kinda offensive.

1 - What you mean to say is that you FEEL offended.

No statement is ever intrinsically offensive. If that were the case EVERYONE would feel offended by such statements.

Actions and attitudes/postures can be offensive as opposed to defensive, but this is in the context of conflict where one is either attacking/advancing or defending.

The point here is perfectly illustrated in your statement, "So the name-calling died down. A few ppl still do it and I just take their arm and turn it as much as I can without breaking it."

People say things that offend you, and you respond by taking offensive action.

2 - You indicate that you are offended by the characterization of gingers as soulless" but you neither assert that you have a soul, nor that you have a clear position as to why you are offended by being called soulless.

Do you have a soul?

The appeal process is long.. Cosby won't outlive it.

Especially considering the stress he has been under, and the fact that it just skyrocketed.

The uberhumor link got me to a PAGE NOT FOUND message.

:(

I don't see anything in your posts to indicate any concern for anybody, so prove me wrong. Again, (other than taxes, if you like) how much do YOU give away. What is the percentage?

He only has so much by not giving it away.

He is already giving a ton of it away.

Remember, In the US, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all Federal income taxes.

The top 1% pay 37% of all Federal income taxes.

The bottom 40% pay no income tax, and about half of the bottom 50% receives a larger refund than they paid in. (They pay negative taxes.)

This will change some for 2018 taxes. The early estimates are that the Top 25% of earners will pay less tax in dollars, but a larger percentage of all taxes paid. We will see. (I don't trust the estimates.)

How much of what you have do you give away?

I would like to see what he has to say to his fellow inmates.

Hell, the season opener should be an apology to all the women he drugged and raped, and for that matter, an apology to his wife.

This is just another example of what a mixed bag people are.

Cosby, who turns out to be a @#%! rapist, made the world a better place for a lot of years. His comedy was brilliant, his message was positive, and he was possibly as effective in fighting racism as Dr. King was.

I grew up watching his various TV shows (including Fat Albert) and listening to his albums, and I understood that this Black guy from Philly had a childhood remarkably similar to mine, and that the basic ingredients of his life and his outlook were the same as mine. The basic text of his artistic and cultural contributions was that race is irrelevant, and we all are funny and amazing and worth knowing.

When he was hired to be on I Spy in 1965, his stipulation was that his character was to be just a guy, not a black guy. There were to be no jokes or references to race because he recognized that it is irrelevant and incidental.

There is a whole generation of us who, because of Bill Cosby grew up with the awareness (and assumption) that racism, including racial stereotypes and categorizing people by race, is stupid because we are all just people.

I support the outrage at his criminal actions, and I am disgusted by the fact that so many people allowed it to continue for so long. Absolutely prison is where he belongs.

That does not mean we should throw away the good that he did, or the positive contributions he made.

I don't know if he is a good man who did horrible and selfish things, or if he is a horrible man who gave wonderful and valuable things to the world.

I am not even sure there is a difference. As I said, people are a mixed bag.

That seems like it could be a problem.

It would only be a problem if the art is face-down.

Of Course the Etch-A-Sketch-Art museum could be in an earthquake prone area. They could put it next to the Jell-O sculpture gallery.

(He's one of the 1% ;)

How is his income connected to his concern for others?

Near as I can tell, Kanye West actually does care about black people, which is why he supports Trump.

That is clearly indicated in his "self victimization is a disease" tweets, his support for Candace Owens and her empowerment message.

People who want better lives have to make their lives better. The poor-me, and I-am-a-victim-of... mindset is self-defeating.

Kanye and others have been pointing out that this sickness of self victimization is basic to the message the Democrat party and the left consistently tell black people they are supposed to think.

This is why Owens and Kanye decry the Democrat party and leftist academic and Hollywood thought police.

If we want people to have better lives, telling them to stop blaming, and to start working with a positive mindset is a kind thing to do. So is telling them that the Democrats don't own them, their political views, and their votes.

Math Fan,

people in my generation view 'marriage' or even 'long-term monogamous relationships' very, very differently. It is becoming thought of as a bit more formalized more extended relationship, where (more likely than not), is not going to last indefinitely. Essentially, the idea is that 'true love' is a myth--and therefore high doses of sexual promiscuity is a wiser/superior life route.

The way your generation views marriage and sex is nothing new.

At all.

That has been common since the early 1970s. The casual hookup is only a new way to say it. Lots of us planned never to get married, but that ultimately yields to unexpected pressures.

Your GenX parents are going to notice when you and somebody have become exclusive, or moved in together, or have gotten pregnant. The reaction will be oriented toward some type of stability that is at least one step past wherever you are in the relationship.

The woman (man?) you are with will likewise put pressure on you (or vice versa) to stabilize the joint venture of your lives.

The ONLY thing that is different is your generation is doing things about 5-10 years later than mine (Gen X), and we were about 5-10 years later than my folks (boomers). However, we are still all doing the same things.

Just because you guys don't finish adolescence until your late 20's does not mean you won't settle down by your late 30's to get married, buy a house, and have kids.

The pressure will be there, partly to get you to "prove you are grown-ups," or "join the adult world."

That is what they did to my generation.

That is what they did to my folks, too.

As such you will notice that my previous post is entirely concerned with the creation of a strong contract.

I agree wholeheartedly with you about the need for detailed contracts. That does not change how invasive legal marriage is.

Regardless of the fact that you did not participate, if your spouse lies on an income tax form, the IRS can put you in prison. If without your permission, your spouse runs up credit card bills buying stuff for a paramour or for your in-laws, that is your debt, too. Etc., etc., all without any explicit statement of these rules being written on the marriage license.

The contract between the couple and the state cannot be amended by the couple, and in those states with common law marriage, the state intrudes without the consent of the couple and imposes these regulations upon them.

Homosexual couples still do not have to get married, though. Then, how did it tear down this advantage, you discussed?

Apparently you have never had to deal with family and girlfriend/boyfriend pressure to get married.

Almost as soon as I hit my twenties, I came to envy homosexuals their protection from these pressures that at best are awkward, and at worst are extortive.

Are you saying gay marriage should be abolished ;)

I would say that until gay marriage was legalized, homosexuals were protected from a level of government intrusion into their personal lives that heterosexuals were not.

Legalizing gay marriage removed the greatest advantage gays had over heterosexual couples.

It would have been better to illegalize heterosexual marriage.

Antrim,

Marriage helps towards establishing a stable relationship in which to raise a family and creates a feeling of security for both parties.

I agree, but there is no reason to think this necessitates legal marriage. It is useful to distinguish between the social or religious aspects of marriage, and the legal aspects.

The legal aspects are unnecessary, and support the intrusion of government in personal relationships.

Would you ever make the government a third party to any of your platonic friendships?

I seriously doubt it.

For details, read the statements I posted on the other side (some of which are responses.)

Amarel,

At the minimum, there would need to be 2 witnesses to attest to the validity of the union and some form of arbitration to settle property matters in the event the union is disolved.

What you are describing is legal marriage.

The problem is that a marriage simultaneously is a contract between the couple (my property is your property) and between the couple and the rest of the society (I will also be responsible for his/her debts).

There is no need for this. I had a roommate in college, and we did not commingle our assets or our debts.

The expense of divorce both to the couple and to the taxpayers is the result of this assumed commingling. Were the husband/wife to enter into all contracts separately, own all property separately, etc., then we as a society would avoid this unnecessary complication. At that point, divorce court judges could hear other cases (criminal, torte, immigration, etc.)

As in any other roommate relationship, each pays whatever portion of the bills they agree upon between them, and each owns whatever percentage of the property agreed upon at purchase. For example, if each pays half the mortgage, then each owns a half share in the house, adjusted for percentage of the down payment each paid. At divorce, each recovers the same percentage of the sale price of the home that he/she paid.

Likewise at dissolution of the relationship, neither would have any claim on the other's retirement/ 401k/ pension or future earnings.

As in my roommate relationship, however household chores are allocated is a private arrangement not subject to any consideration (as it is currently in divorce proceedings).

That is how it works in any other roommate relationship. Who does what chores is nobody else's business, especially not the government's business.

Removing government from involvement in marriage would have no effect on child custody and support, which are dealt with separately, just as they are for the 26% of American kids who are already raised in single parent situations, most of which never had married parents.

There is no rational reason for people to allow the government to be a party to marriage.

The foundation for the argument for legal marriage is basically that adults need the government to be involved in our interpersonal relationships. We know this is unnecessary and invasive in marriage for the same reason that we would know it to be unnecessary and invasive if people were to suggest the same government involvement in our platonic friendships.

I think marriage should not be a legal institution, but I think it would still exist were the government/law uninvolved. In fact marriage appears to have predated law (and possibly even government) by centuries or millennia.

In general, I am against government involvement in most aspects of human life, especially our personal relationships. We do not involve government in our friendships or roommate relationships, so I see no reason to involve government in our marriages.

The fact that we have to pay the state to "validate" the relationship, and then pay the state to leave the relationship is foolish, especially because it implies that it matters that the relationship has been approved by the state.

I see nothing that justifies making the state a third party in our social relationships. If children are able to establish social relationships on their own, it makes no sense for adults to pretend we need some parental interference in our intimate relationships.

Wow. Are there no Christians capable of clearly explaining the cornerstone of Christianity? Is an agnostic required to step in to do the job?

.

Because Christians see the Crucifixion as the quintessential expression of God's love for humanity, the day commemorating this act of love is Good.

Christians believe that the crucifixion of Jesus was God sacrificing himself (simultaneously God's Son) to pay for each person's sin, making it possible for people who believe in this to be cleansed of their iniquities, saved from eternal damnation, and reconciled with God.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John3:16)

I like this as a template, largely because it is not a debate so much as it is a conversation wherein people are sharing their own views and trying to understand each other's views.

Generally, conversations have none of the competitiveness of a debate. This makes it easier and more likely for people to acknowledge things on which they agree, and the validity of ideas with which they disagree. Moreover, it it encourages charitable interpretation of each other's statements.

Hell, I hate that the US is a welfare state. It weakens both individuals and the people as a whole, and dissipates our freedom.

I definitely don't want the US ever to be socialist because I value freedom and accomplishment.

Despite leftists categorizing socialism as "liberal", it limits people's freedom by:

-- Granting the state unreasonable power

-- Confiscating money and power (and thereby freedom from individuals)

-- Discouraging accomplishment by relieving individuals of responsibility and accountability for their own needs

-- Discouraging accomplishment by taking too much of the rewards for personal success

I am a free market capitalist because:

-- It creates the most wealth.

-- It encourages the greatest (and stupidest) accomplishments.

-- It provides the most effective non-violent and non-coercive social controls.

-- It encourages the greatest personal freedom.

In a truly free market all social/economic relationships are completely voluntary, and unfortunately we are moving away from that (wedding cake requirements) and as freedom is truncated, justice is curtailed.

There is no indication that he did not know how to love.

In fact, the indication is that he loved deeply and passionately. This would seem to be why he reacted so violently against the things and ideas he perceived as threats to those he loved, particularly his nation and the German people.

Certainly he loved beauty and art.

I might go to Vienna and try to market his paintings better. Had he been a successful artist, he might never have gone into politics.

The real question is Should people be allowed to divorce themselves?

I say no. Make them stay together and work it out.

This is oddly, and depressingly apt.

I was unemployed for three months when I was 24. I had enough savings that I could pay my bills and be comfortable for six months, but despite lack of financial stress, I was emotionally stressed out.

I realized early on that, because I lived alone, nobody would be likely to look for me or find me accidentally if something happened and I could not move or reach the telephone, etc.

Because I did not have a job, I was not expected to show up anywhere. Nobody would have missed me.

Had my friends knocked and I did not answer, they would have assumed I was out.

Had anyone called, they would have assumed I was out.

I could have been injured and incapacitated, and NOBODY would have missed me or come to check on me while I slowly died of thirst or starvation.

A hole with two holes close to each other is no longer a straw, it is a ring.

Why only 2 holes? A hole does not have thickness per se, so it is just as logical to say there is an infinite number of holes at intervals of every irrational number between each edge of the ring's thickness.

The minute we start playing with irrational numbers, and infinite numbers of abstract things (such as holes) we have left actual rationality far behind in favor of rationalization.

A ring, like a straw is defined by where it has mass, not by its negative space. A ring is a bar curved in a circle so that its ends meet, just as a straw is a rectangular sheet curved so that opposite ends meet.

No holes.

Technically that is a slit.

Do we want to discuss whether a slit is simply a hole that tapers at two ends?

However, it is interesting that you say that a straw can have a hole. Tell me then, does a wooden straw have a hole(s)? ;)

If you pierce the sheath around the cylindrical space, a straw made of anything, including straw, can have a hole. ;)

One elongated hole on the same general principle as a tunnel is a hole through a solid mass, usually rock.

The tunnel through rock is not an apt metaphor.

The rock started out as a solid mass with a volume that included the location of the (future) tunnel. The hole/tunnel was put into the rock, reducing the volume of rock.

By contrast, the straw's volume never changed. The straw was extruded around a tube-shaped space. The straw's tunnel was produced by inserting a separation between it and the surrounding space.

There is even Biblical evidence of this, so hear ye the word of the Lord.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the space, and let it divide the space from the space.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the space which were within the firmament from the space which were outside the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament straw. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Genesis 1:6-8)

Here endeth the lesson.

Thank you Jesus; thank you, Lord.

So..., the sheath is not solid ;)

The sheath is solid, but it has no hole in it. If it had a hole, you could not get enough suction to draw the liquid from the cup to your mouth.

No hole. A hole implies a solid thing has a space in it.

By contrast, a straw is a sheath around a bar of air, a vacuum, or a liquid as it is drawn through the sheath.

Excon,

In that regard, black people are WAYYY ahead..

Except for White gay men. Some of those guys raise insult delivery to an art form.

A really catty drag queen can take the delivery to a professional level, and some actually do. The waitresses (waiters?) and other performers at Lips in San Diego make their livings by singing Liza and Cher songs, and insulting the customers. They are HILARIOUS, but it is all in the delivery. To give you the idea, the Wednesday night show was called "Bitchy Bingo."

Hi Excon,

In my view, it's NOT about the NUMBER of words. It's about DELIVERY.. In that regard, black people are WAYYY ahead..

I definitely agree about delivery being of paramount importance.

You are probably right about Blacks having a cultural advantage in delivery of insults.

When I taught in the inner city, some of my Black students would play Snaps. The White, Hispanic, and Asian kids never got into it. That game is targeted training in the delivery of insults. There is a lot to be said for cultural influence in the development of insult culture.

I think the ideal insult has a punch line that catches the target (or audience) by surprise. The first part of the insult should be innocuous, or better yet, should look like it might be complimentary, and then the last line needs to twist it into insult.

There is also the variation that uses double entendre, so the meaning of the statement sits and stews for a second before hitting the insulting punch.

There is a story that when Joan Crawford died, a reporter called Bette Davis up for a comment on it. Davis said, "My mother taught me not to speak ill of the dead, but to say only good. So, my comment is, 'Joan Crawford is dead. Good.'"

Dermot,

one never saw a black man or women in Ireland unless it was a tourist ; Dubliners used to joke about the late Phil Lynott of Thin Lizzy fame being the only black man in Ireland

Ahh! "Black Irish." :)

Dermot,

I do not see anything intrinsically insulting in many of these. Most of the items on your list are primarily insulting by fiat.

This brings up an interesting social reality. Offense in not given, but rather is taken.

Whether a person feels insulted has little to do with what is intended by the speaker, than with whether the recipient with that person has been conditioned (culturally or personally) to feel insulted by the particular slur. A scene in Clerks II illustrates this humorously. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qc0akWRBQk )

In order for a racial slur to be insulting, there needs to be something culturally distasteful in the referent of the metaphor.

Ape, Jim Fish, and porch monkey are distinct from others by virtue of the animal referents, indicating being less than human, without being associated with animals commonly admired.(Black Panther was not considered insulting because large cats are cool.)

Often a term is "insulting" for no other reason than referring in an off-hand way to physical characteristics that are distinct from Whites. (e.g., bluegum, burrhead, fuzzies, powder burn, thicklips). It is worth noting that Black culture has taken references to their physical characteristics to be insulting. This indicates a self-esteem issue within the culture.

By the way, it is anomalous that Sambo is considered an insult by anyone of African descent because it is from a humorous story called "Little Black Sambo" about a rich Indian (from India) boy being tricked by a tiger.

It is a testament to how culturally impoverished racists were in the US in the late 1800s that they conflated Africa with India.

When I was a child in the 60's and 70s, there was a chain of diners in the US called Sambo's. The walls were decorated with images from the story. The pancakes came with Tiger Butter which was butter whipped with maple syrup. The chain went out of business in the early 1980s because of lawsuits by even more people who did not understand the difference between Africa and India.

DD,

Despite the fact that its imagery is visually stunning, there are some problems with your insult feast:

1 - It lacks a focus or clear target. I cannot tell if you are insulting a man or a woman, which affects whether some passages are actually insulting.

2 - You mixed in some undeniably good things. You did not include any indications of venereal disease, so "drizzling puddle of pussy drool" fails to be insulting because it is so enticing.

3 - It is franticly phrased. I get the feeling that the insulter becomes increasingly redfaced and out of breath as the insult progresses. This frantic phrasing and jumping from one unrelated image to another makes it difficult to rest on any one insult long enough to feel insulted, or even grossed out.

For example, there is undeniable power in "infectious hemroid pus" but it is lost in the chaos between "oven of faggotry" and "gay ostrich"

4 - It is unwaveringly biological, and never addresses character flaws. The recipient is never dealt any psychological blow to make him or her doubt being worthy ever to be valued, admired, or loved.

The most effective way to insult a person is to utter in public a shameful truth about the person's character, to shine light upon a hidden flaw that underlies the person's secret insecurities, yet you failed even to attempt this.

I give your insult an A for effort, a B for originality, but only a D for effectiveness.

Come on, try again.

Conclusive proof that Conservatives really will claim that white is black.

hahaha.

I put quotation marks around the word Black, and I wrote that my skin was "darker brown" indicating that all the people I was talking about are BROWN.

Only a blind person would think that White person is literally white, or a Black person is literally black. We are all actually different shades of brown, a result of having common ancestors.

That is one of many reasons racism is so stupid. There are no clear dividing lines between gene pools because genetic drift happens as a continuum of difference to varying degrees across multiple genotypes. Melanin production is one such trait that varies widely in all gene pools.

DD,

Are you being ironic or are you really this racist and ignorant.

On the off chance that you were serious when you said:White people are unbelievably weak and cowardly, they can't even go in the sun without the melanoma formation.

When I am out in the sun for as little as 4 hours/day, my skin makes enough melanin that I am darker brown than most of the "Black" people I know.

By the same token, I can live in cloudy places like western Washington without needing to eat fortified foods to keep from getting rickets. (If it were not for the food additives required by law in milk, bread, and cereal, people with dark skin could not live in the northern third of the US without developing health problems like rickets.)

It is just the result of natural selection in Eurasia during the ice ages.

Why I'm against: Because it's a half ass way of helping the homeless.

The homeless are the last of the truly poor in our society, and you are right that half-assed help won't help. The unlucky poor planners who become homeless are usually only on the streets for a limited period of time, and they are the ones most likely to benefit from the smallest investment in any sort of program. Addicts and nutjobs need very extensive and expensive help.

I actually saw examples, as well as being an example myself, of people who went from being homeless to having an address, and being employed and independent. Things that I know helped me and the folks I knew:

They have cold showers at the beach in San Diego, and that enabled a lot of the guys to avoid that "deep homelessness" that characterizes street people. They were not dirty, smelly or unkempt, so they were not marginalized to the same degree. This enabled us to get work, which helped in reintegrating into "normal society" and pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps.

This was before cell phones. Now there is the ability to distribute cheap ($10) flip-phones with no data-just telephone-so homeless folks can actually get calls from employers/potential employers.

I figure that a program can be very successful in helping the unlucky, poor-planner homeless IF AND ONLY IF it includes:

-- Open air cold showers

-- Public restrooms disbursed around town (that are designed to be impossible to sleep in)

-- Cheap cell phones provided to them and charging stations

-- Viable public transit

-- Dispersed public employment stations for job searches and resume printing

The beauty in some of this is that it does not require an all encompassing government program just for the homeless. Obviously the transit, showers, and restrooms would be public works, but they would benefit more people than just the homeless. All cities should have these things as foundational infrastructure.

Other aspects of the program are within the bailiwick of private organizations, which can provide some cell phones to some folks, to the extent of their budgets. A church for example could have a bottom end group cell phone plan that they just keep adding people to as they need and can afford.

Ya'll know that a couple of people will get the idea to collect all these fruit and sell them for profit right?

I am right there with you, but that is the least of the problems with the idea.

Public fruit trees in parks is not a bad supplement to a help-the-homeless program, but it does have some serious pitfalls.

I was homeless for a short time in San Francisco, and I hung out with homeless guys in the beach area in San Diego.

Homeless folks are generally in one of the following groups-

-- Untreated mentally ill

-- Addicts

-- Poor planners who hit a bit of bad luck

Addicts and the mentally ill constitute at least 75% of homeless people, and have problems that are VERY expensive to fix, and that are almost impossible to do successfully.

These are the folks who would pick almost all the fruit before it is ripe & edible, or would create liability issues when climbing higher in the trees than is safe, etc... There would be falls, injuries, fights, stashes of fruit rotting somewhere, etc.

In order to make it work, there would have to be tons of fruit trees EVERYWHERE in the city (parks, parkway medians, public building landscaping, etc.) in order to decentralize the homeless folks using them. Cleaning up windfalls of ripe fruit would require an army of city personnel, otherwise the fruit would constantly ferment and rot on the ground, and make the entire city smell like vinegar.

Great minds think alike ;)

Sometimes.

Dirty minds think alike always.:)

Oops! Double submission. Apparently my mind thinks like my mind...

Does that count for great minds thinking alike, or for dirty minds thinking alike.

Great minds think alike ;)

Sometimes.

Dirty minds think alike always.:)