I like to put sardines between my lip and gum and suck on their carcasses and spit the juice out like dipping tobacco. I keep the open tin in my shirt pocket, letting the dripping fish oils lubricate my teat as the sharp metal top pleasantly scrapes my undertit.

That's what I like to do. Dunno why.

I'd agree with all you say regarding your superiority but for your sunken beady myopic eyes, capable of seeing nothing but the twisted florescent prisms through your burnt retinas.

But for that.

Only in practice are people better at this or that than someone with a higher fluid intelligence, as they put overwhelmingly more time into it, but all things being equal, the one with the fluid intelligence is better at everything, as they would improve more quickly, learn it faster, find easier ways to do it. — Wosret

You're just saying the smarter guy is always going to prevail. Given two people, one with a highly refined skill set and the other who's just really bright and able to work on the fly and figure things out as he goes, it will be the second who is far safer from obsolescence. I'd just say that if truly "all things being equal" regarding everything, including intelligence, it will be the person who works hardest and specializes who will prevail. That is, if we both have the same fluid intelligence, I'm going to outperform you because you're lazy. But, yeah, if I'm a dumb ass who works real hard and you're a lazy wiz kid, I'll probably lose every time to you and be really pissed off at the unfairness of it all, so I'll take your lunch money and slam your head into the locker.

Take that bitch.

There is much you can do to become happy and well adjusted to the times, but adversity will hit you harder, and the more you specialize, the faster you'll become obsolete. — Wosret

The less you adapt, the faster you will become obsolete. If I specialize in finding apples and that leads to me becoming stronger, faster, meaner, and tougher, my ilk and I will outcompete and destroy all you generalists who are able to find the occasional apple, the occasional orange, and so forth. Then one day all the apples run out and those fuckers who had figured out how to also specialize in finding kiwis will begin to dominate. Their sun will rise and mine will set and the eternal cycle will continue.

It is true that occasionally a man so dominate, so complete, so able in accomplishing all tasks will come along. Such a man will see so many risings and fallings of the sun and will never so much as catch the slightest scent of defeat. Yep, I think you know who I'm talking about.

This compounded by all the evidence that whatever is real and out there is continuously changing in some manner. Thus there is never a "state" but rather a form in flux that the mind can name and compare with other minds, and in doing so can agree on a name. — Rich

If the mind could see the flux, it's doubtful it could consistently identify it, which seems necessary for survival. There is therefore not a premium placed on those intellects that can accurately observe reality in its most accurate form, but upon those intellects that can use the information they receive to increase their likelihood of survival. If I see the apple as a rigid, defined object and not as a swirling whirlwind of indistinguishable matter, I am better suited for the world. My point being: (1) I agree with you that reality as we observe it is reducible to what we can agree upon, and (2) there is no reason to believe that the data we have in our heads offers an accurate depiction of the world.

I like my coffee like I like my women.

Without a penis.

An Irishman walks out of a bar. — Michael

I got a better one:

A man walks into a bar.
His alcohol dependency is tearing his family apart.

Was murder immoral before the first murder? — Michael

8And Cain said to Abel his brother, "Let us go out to the field," and when they were in the field Cain rose against Abel his brother and killed him. 9And the Lord said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother? And he said, "I do not know: am I my brother's keeper?" 10And He said, "What have you done? Listen! your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil. 11And so, cursed shall you be by the soil that gaped with its mouth to take your brother's blood from your hand. 12If you till the soil, it will no longer give you strength. A restless wanderer shall you be on the earth." 13 And Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is too great to bear. 14Now that You have driven me this day from the soil I must hide from Your presence, I shall be a restless wanderer on the earth and whoever finds me will kill me." 15And the Lord said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain shall suffer sevenfold vengeance." And the Lord set a mark upon Cain so that whoever found him would not slay him."

I often think that I'm living in a dream, but then I wake up and realize that it was just a dream.

I just didn't know what might insult you, so I was trying to be sensitive. So often I accidently insult people, saying things that I never imagined might be offensive, only to find out later I committed some faux pas.

I'm just really trying to get better at thinking about other people's feelings.

Eat Shit,
Hanover

I was thinking of just responding to your post by saying "Eat Shit," but I thought you might not see the humor and would be insulted, when really I meant it as just an amusing and shocking assault.

Now that I've explained my joke, can I use it next time without fear of anger? Feel free to do the same to me. In fact, what I want to do is start using it as my signature sign off. Like, instead of saying "sincerely" or something like that.

Eat Shit,
Hanover

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_dog_story

There was this kid who was born, and he seemed like a normal enough kid except for the fact that he was really quiet. He was so quiet, in fact, that he never made a sound. His parents took him to the doctor, and they were assured that he was physically and mentally fine, he just wouldn't make any sound, and he wouldn't talk at all. When all the other kids cooed and made sounds, he remained silent. When the other kids started school and laughed, played, and asked all sorts of questions, he never made a peep. He was normal in every way, even seemed bright, but he just didn't talk. His parents brought him to therapists, but nothing would help. He just remained quiet.

1st grade came and went, as did all of elementary school, then came middle school, playing sports, making friends, having his first girlfriend, joining clubs, going to high school, excelling at school. He was normal in every way, just never made a sound.

One day, soon after he finished high school and was preparing to go to college, he was sitting at the table eating dinner and he leaned over to his father and said "pass the butter." Amazed, his father seeing he could speak perfectly well, asked why he had never spoken in all these years.

He said, "everything was fine until now."
----
So there was this dog and its owner thought it was really, really shaggy, so it's owner put it in the town shaggy dog contest. The dog competed against the best in the town, and it was found to be the shaggiest dog and it was given the first place medal.

The dog then entered the county shaggy dog contest, and when faced with the competition of the other town winners, it still prevailed. The judges remarked at how amazingly shaggy it was.

The dog then went to the state shaggy dog contest. Every county winner faced off against this dog, but there was no contest at all, the dog was so shaggy, it instantly took first place.

Then came the region state shaggy dog contest. Shaggy dogs from all over came to compete. One judge's jaw dropped open when he saw this dog and declared him the winner because he was so incredibly shaggy.

The national contest then arose, and the shaggiest dogs from all over the nation were brought together, but it was a simple decision. This dog was the shaggiest and it took the first place trophy.

The dogs from all over the Americas were summoned and pitted against one another in a huge showdown of shagginess. As it would have it, it was not close, this dog was again declared the shaggiest of them all.

The dog then competed against dogs from all over the world , winning every local contest that there was. It was not even close.

Finally, there was the elite cumulative international shaggy dog contest, where only the shaggiest dogs from the world over were invited to attend for the ultimate shaggy dog contest. The dogs were brought before the judges one at a time, spun around, inspected, and then judged.

The judge said, "that dog's not that shaggy."

I think the absolutely funniest jokes are those where Wosret and Michael analyze them for funniness.

Q: Why did the little girl drop her ice cream cone?
A: She got hit by a bus.

Q: What is worse than a full worm in an apple?
A: The holocaust.

Q: What is brown and sticky?
A: A brown stick.

Q: What is blue and smells like green paint?
A: Blue paint.

I'll be here all night.

From the same site: "Health insurers can no longer charge more or deny coverage to you or your child because of a pre-existing health condition like asthma, diabetes, or cancer. They cannot limit benefits for that condition either."

Your understanding of the ACA is completely wrong.

And that current law will change with the GOP plan. Now address Medicare-For-All or the discussion is pointless. — Thanatos Sand

There is no GOP plan. It died in the Senate. The conversation is pointless because you have no idea what the ACA is.

From the HHS website:

"Under current law, health insurance companies can’t refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a “pre-existing condition” — that is, a health problem you had before the date that new health coverage starts.

These rules went into effect for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014."
https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-conditions/index.html

This is the crux of the ACA.

It's absolutely not illegal to raise the rates for pre-existing conditions and not to cover those pre-existing conditions in the policy. And it certainly is not illegal to increase the deductible for that pre-existing condition to a ridiculous number, rendering health care unaffordable anyway. — Thanatos Sand

They can't exclude based on preexisting condition nor vary the rates based upon preexisting condition. The rates were to be kept under control in theory by mandating everyone buy insurance, including those with no preexisting condition. The system has failed because many refuse to purchase insurance despite the mandate and because of spiraling health care costs.

You're way off, not only can most citizens not afford health insurance for themselves and their children at their present rates or without a huge deductible, many are either denied insurance for present conditions or are given rates way out of affordability for those conditions. — Thanatos Sand

It's currently illegal to sell a policy that excludes for preexisting conditions. The fact that you admit the Affordable Care Act is unaffordable acknowledges it should be repealed.

That the government can now force citizens to purchase services from private industry brings us one step closer to government totally ruling our lives. — Rich

There's no difference between the government taxing us to pay private companies to insure for health care and it taxing us to to pay private companies to build roads. The argument that Obamacare is an ineffective and destructive government expansion into private enterprise is consistent with conservative thought, but the validity of that argument is ultimately empirical, as opposed to your purely ideological statement. That is, to simply decry Obamacare as an unprecedented step down the slippery slope toward unamerican socialism without offering an empirical basis for its rejection, sounds like an empty rightist rant.

The fact that The Affordable Care Act isn't affordable and doesn't address spiraling health care costs is the reason to reject it. That one side will allow the law to exist as is for the purposes of protecting it and the other will allow it to exist because it can't agree to the best way to detonate it points out that neither side really cares what the law does as much as what it represents.

"What’s the difference between nonprofit and for-profit hospitals?

Hospital officials say there are only two major differences. For-profit hospitals pay property and income taxes while nonprofit hospitals don’t. And for-profit hospitals have avenues for raising capital that nonprofits don’t have. (The ability to access capital is important for hospitals looking to upgrade facilities or buy costly medical equipment or information technology systems.)

But critics of for-profit hospitals — including labor unions, consumer groups and some legislators — say there are other differences, too. They note that unlike nonprofit hospitals, for-profit hospitals have to answer to shareholders, who may not have the same interests as the local communities. Critics also warn that for-profit hospitals are more likely to stop offering money-losing services."

The full article: https://ctmirror.org/2014/04/25/how-different-are-for-profit-and-nonprofit-hospitals/

2. In 1980 there were still many non-profit hospitals and clinics, many operated by religious organizations (like Sisters of St. Joseph Carondolet or large denominations like the Methodists, Lutherans, or baptists). Most of these non-profits either closed or were sold to for-profit companies. What effect on cost might the departure of non-profits from health care had? — Bitter Crank

And now for some fact checking:

In 2003, 62% were non-profit, 20% for profit, and 18% government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital

In 2010, 58% were non-profit, 21% government, and 20% for profit. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0ahUKEwi8_YvRlrvVAhXM1CYKHYwWACUQFghdMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonprofithealthcare.org%2Fresources%2FBasicFacts-NonprofitHospitals.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEK6qKqi-gwE0__bMHEPL3aJqnYTQ

In 2017, 51% were non-profit, 19% for profit, and 30% government. http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml

The 2017 percentages I had to compute because it only gave raw numbers. Assuming it valid, the trend is not toward making nonprofits into profits, but into making profits into government run.

CBT will help with the conscious part of your problem - — CasKev

Perhaps, but the negative effects of cock and ball torture often outweigh the positives, so do be careful.

They make a special hammer for permanently deleting files.

I know what the FAT is. If you delete a file, you delete only the first letter of the name in the FAT, and the file you thought was deleted wasn't.

So the question becomes
Where the hell did you find that many Legos? — Sir2u

You can hide the FAT, but there's always some clever bastard who will find it and everything else you meant to discard.

Sneezism is the religious doctrine that holds that it was a sneeze that set off the stagnant dust form into a whirlwind that eventually evolved into ducks and cows, the two most primitive forms.

It is statistically almost impossible that a random group of matter happens to have zero net rotational inertial. — noAxioms

True, but in an infinite amount of time, it occurs an infinite number of times, and that's nothing to sneeze at, cloud or no cloud.

The difference is that the Earth was never inviolable. — Michael Ossipoff

The sun was never inviolable either. That's just your baseless assertion. I could just as baselessly declare the earth, mars, oxygen, my cat, or whatever inviolable. Your basis for not probing the sun is not based upon any scientific concern that we'll lose the sun, but it's based on some primitive sun worship theology that you can't understand why no one else will adopt.

The OP can be summarized as: I worship the sun, do you? Those who agree with you might then agree with you that there should be no sun probe. Of course, their might be some sun worshipers (I'll call them Appolloians) who think the sun can successfully take on all comers and they welcome the beat down the sun will dole out to challengers. That's my view by the way, but I'm part of the Neo-orthodox wing, 1962 reformation sect Appolloian, so I'm a bit different than commoner Appolloians.

I built the ladder out of Legos. So many Legos. So so many.

Is it really a cliff if it isn't high? — CasKev

Even if a cliff is high by definition, he didn't say he threw him off the highest part of the cliff. Like once I fell off a 1000 foot ladder, but thankfully I was on the first rung.

Except I didn't bring a gallery, so it's doubtful I'll ever find her lapel.

What did you say your address was again?

Well Wosret, I'll offer you some free therapy, because, you know, why not? People like to talk about themselves and they like to hear about themselves even more. You've shared a lot here, so, based upon that information, I'm going to offer you an evaluation and advice.

You describe your father as passive, dependent, irresponsible, but very kind. You describe your mother as manipulative, domineering, and unkind. In short, your father is non-paternal and your mother non-maternal. All of this explains your own gender confusion. I'm sure there's more to it, but I'm not a real psychologist, so I could be wrong, although I never am.

You, despite your self-loathing, are a shining star operating within the underclass. You are very smart, very perceptive, very conscientious, and very moral. You work hard and your main focus is others. Your conscientiousness and hard work have created stability for others, although few (if any) of these others share in your conscientiousness or have your work ethic. As the result of their lack of shared values, they cling to you and take advantage of the resources you provide them without them offering anything in return other than their presence. You treasure their presence, even though you realize that they heavily burden you. The reason you treasure their presence is because you gain comfort from giving to others and you equate loneliness to meaninglessness. You need people you love around you, even if those others do nothing to show you that they love you back, and even if they only burden you in all sorts of ways.

The rung of society where you have found yourself is harsh and unkind. Most in the trailer park where you live do not share in your values or have your intellect, nor do most of the people you work with roofing houses. I'm not being judgmental here, and there are plenty of good folks (like yourself) who have found themselves struggling, but many are there due to inability to go anywhere else. You've convinced yourself that you're one of them. You're not.

There are two possible solutions here: (1) come to terms with your oppressive environment and those you interact with through counseling and self-exploration, or (2) get the hell out of there. #1 isn't going to happen. #2, as I noted in a prior post, is achieved through going to college, getting a better job, and moving up the socioeconomic ladder. #2 is hard. #1 impossible.

That is to say, the problem is not with the person sitting in the chair. The problem is with the chair you're sitting in. You are uncomfortable not because your body and mind are weak. You are uncomfortable because you're sitting in a broken chair. Get a new chair. You'll be amazed how much better you'll feel once you do that.

I mean trunk, not boot. Also, it's hood, not bonnet if that ever comes up.

Hello? We didn't build and send those things.

Our role needn't extend to intrusively experiments on the Earth's energy source. — Michael Ossipoff

This feels trollish.

Hanover's definition of "stupid":

"Not in agreement with Hanover.' — Michael Ossipoff

Not really. My comment was insulting, sure, and I should have picked another word, but, really, you're arguing that we shouldn't send a probe to the sun because the sun is super special and should be spared earthly particles that are sent up to look at it? How is that a defensible position? It's not like we're spitting on God or something.

I get that what we say here is irrelevant in that no one would actually listen to us when deciding what to do, but I can think of few worse reasons to call off the sun probe than because it's a cosmic insult. Let's suppose Trump declared tomorrow there was not to be a sun probe because sun area is inviolable by man. That'd go down as a really stupid decision, right?

This discussion has devolved to repetition, and nothing other than repetition.

I suggest that we've all had our say.

Hasn't this discussion run its course and reached its conclusion? — Michael Ossipoff

You think you can just tell people you've heard enough and they'll be quiet for you? I think the conversation will organically end, like when people are tired of talking about it, not when someone else decides it's quiet time.

Alright, so follow me here because this is like really important. It's about emojis just so you know up front.

There are some cars that have a rounded truck. I'll show you:



Now, you might say "why come it's round like dat," assuming you talk like a hip 5 year old.

The answer is cuz in days of yore, all the old cars had tires attached to the back like so:



Now you see it sometimes on SUVs and Jeeps, but on normal cars, they just mimic what used to be there, sort of to remind you how things once were. There might be a day when people make new cars with round trucks and no one will know why. It will be lost to time.

Alright, so what does this have to do with emojis you ask? Well, I daresay that one day, likely soon, people will no longer talk to each other and make actual expressions, but everyone will just have blank faces. We'll send emojis back and forth to each other and we won't know why anymore.

I predict this will happen by Wednesday, maybe Thursday morning.

Thank you for following me on this . It was important.

Is there anything that's inviolable? — Michael Ossipoff

The basis of your objection to the probe is that the sun is sacred? You don't see this objection as stupid?

I'm not suggesting that there couldn't be an argument made against the probe, like it's an unnecessary expenditure of public funds when there are people in great need, but objecting on the basis of disrespect for a giant ball of energy isn't very persuasive. I'm sure the sun encounters far greater threats from random debris on a day to day basis (Icarus, for instance) without us having to worry about a tiny chunk of steel getting too close to it.