Hang a Uey.

I think everyone should get the same trophy regardless of where they finish in the race. In fact, I think everyone should get the same trophy regardless of whether they even show up for the race. Better yet, those who work to make themselves look great should not get a trophy at all because they're just trying to make me jealous. Screw them. Why would we they do that to me? That's mean as shit.

Think about it. If some crazy guy wants X, then I'd be a fool not to provide it, because I'd be dropping the opportunity to make money. That's why consumerism naturally and inevitably leads to leftism (transexual bathrooms, transexual surgeries, etc. etc.). — Agustino

Capitalism does lead to an increase in human rights, which is something the left does not generally want to accept. In fact, they incorrectly argue the opposite.

Your preoccupation with the gender dysphoric and to those with sexual appetites and norms varying from your own is odd and diverts otherwise meaningful conversations.

And for what it's worth, I absolutely don't see myself as a consumer. — Agustino

That you don't see yourself as a consumer doesn't mean you're not. It just means you're dysphoric.

Your attempt to assert that I am equivocal on the use of terms like "monopoly," "corporation," and so on isn't warranted because these terms can be used in a non-legal sense. — Thorongil

You are equivocal and vague in your usage of the terms, except perhaps by "corporation," you mean bogeyman.

I think the point of the article was not really to go back to the Bushmen's hunting-gathering life but how to overcome workaholism- the pervasive habit to "go to work". It is acknowledging that there are other modes of life that require less formal work and have been practiced in our early history. How do people get beyond this habitual thinking that may be simply cultural baggage rather than a rooted fact of life. — schopenhauer1

The "go to work" mentality does result in added stressors, but it also results in the very things we often take for granted, like medical care, roads, parks, and all sorts of other basic infrastructure. If we all limited our work to 15 hours a week, or even if we stopped incentivizing those folks who are incentivized by the acquisition of worldly goods, we would all have less. What we would have less of would not be limited to purely luxury items, but of many of the basic necessities and conveniences of modern life.

Like it or not, those folks out there killing themselves for riches are contributing to the public good through taxes at far greater rates than those who have taken a more relaxed approach to life. Your roads, your schools, you medical care, and much else is funded by those who lives you criticize.

And that was my point is pointing out the abject poverty that the bushmen live in, which is the result, in part, of their lack of work, and really, it's based upon a social structure that outlived its usefulness thousands of years ago.

No, actually that's not true. I despise large corporations (>$10 billion revenue) because of the unfair financial strength that they wield. The rest of us cannot compete with them, because we don't have the financial strength to bully people, the way they do. And no law can prevent brute strength, we already know that. — Agustino

As a competitor you're unhappy, but since we're a consumer driven society, we care only about cheaper products, which is exactly what we get. It's not that Wal-Mart has bullied me into buying their products. I buy them because they are cheaper.

No one likes companies that do disgraceful things, myself included. It seems you're trying to be overly technical when reading the terms I have employed in order to accuse me of being "hopelessly vague, equivocal, and ambiguous," when I think it was obvious the sense in which I used them. — Thorongil

Your objection was over the "leftist equivocation of the word," and it's clear that your use of the word includes even companies that aren't corporations and it doesn't exclude some companies that are corporations. My objection was over your equivocation, which it is. It's as I said it was: you don't like unscrupulous companies, large or small and regardless of corporate status. How is that at all an important claim? I don't like bad people either.

Which is what it is. Monopolistic corporate behemoths are antithetical to capitalism. Don't fall for the leftist equivocation on this word. — Thorongil

Your use of the word "corporate" is hopelessly vague, equivocal, and ambiguous. It's not all corporations that you don't like, just big ones, and it's not just big corporations you don't like, but just big businesses regardless of corporate status, and it's not all big business you don't like, just certain ones, namely the ones you don't like. It's also irrelevant to you whether the business is a monopoly. You don't like some even where there's competition.

That is, you doubtfully have any problem with the mom and pop restaurant down the street, despite that it's incorporated, although you might have a problem with the Dyson vacuum company and its $4.4 billion value, despite it being owned by single person, and you might dislike Wal-Mart, despite it not being a monopoly and having many competitors, and you might like your local power company, despite it being a monopoly and not having any competitors.

In short, what you don't like are those companies who do distasteful things, which has nothing to do with their corporate status and nothing to do with how many competitors it might have.

It's probably harder to be clinically depressed living in their society than for drones ensconced in cubicles in New York or Tokyo. — Thorongil

I think the concept of clinical depression is foreign to those whose focus is on survival. There are better ways to avoid first world problems than by moving to the third world where they have real problems.

Fifteen hours of work a week has its advantages, but then there's this:

"The bushmen’s diet and relaxed lifestyle have prevented most of the stress-related diseases of the western world. Bushmen health, in general, is not good though: 50% of children die before the age of 15; 20% die within their first year (mostly of gastrointestinal infections). Average life expectancy is about 45-50 years; respiratory infections and malaria are the major reasons for death in adults. Only 10% become older than 60 years."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjS4L6KpaLVAhUCPiYKHQefD3QQFggoMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kalahari-meerkats.com%2Ffileadmin%2Ffiles%2Fguides%2FBushmen_light.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGFCacDB8KshdirNU6bSduQDJ_k5Q

Monogamy, it seems, is increasingly being thought of as oppressive, destructive, irrational, and probably plenty of other adjectives I could think of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No it's not. That's post-modern nonsense that has few adherents outside the academic world.

I found her at the bottom of the cliff. I named her 69.

In the biography section, it asks you to state your "Favourite philosophers."

Can we Americanize (i.e. improve) this to read "Favorite philosophers"?

Beautiful friend, the end, of our elaborate plans, the end, no safety no surprise, the end.

This could be heaven or this could be hell.

I take comfort in knowing there will always be more to be said even when there is nothing really being said.

The alternative played out at the old PF, where we had a similar thread where nothing was being said all the way to the moment when literally nothing was said anymore.

I expect the prigs of TPF to tell the rest of us how contemptible they find such indulgence, and how pathetic it is to need drink to achieve that feeling of at-home-ness, and so on. That's okay, but I'd like to see some nice sober discussion here more than trolling. — jamalrob

Not my thoughts at all. It's not contemptible that drinking puts you in such a state, but enlightening. I always wondered what the allure to drinking really was. I didn't fully appreciate it's effect on other people. I mostly just get tired, and if diligent enough, nauseous. I always felt my limited response was a strength, but, with what you say, I'm not entirely sure. I am sure that my condition is safer than yours.

We have to vote on the rule as to whether voting on the rules changes the rules. As there is an inherent bar to ex post facto rules however, if we are to vote that voting is the way to create rules, that can only apply prospectively, meaning that the vote held to determine that voting is a valid method of rule change is necessarily invalid because the voting method only becomes valid after it is voted on.

I would propose we vote to overturn the ex post facto rule, but that would leave us first having to vote whether we could vote and that would violate the ex post facto rule prior to it being overturned, if that's what we were planning to do.

Carry on.

No way! Forty-three was what I named my first child, right before I threw it off a cliff. — Sapientia

I only find it troubling that you refer to your murdered child as an it.

Karma can make sense without reincarnation to the extent one believes they will reap what they sow within this life. That is, I should expect the pain I exact on the world to be returned to me before I die.

I'd also point out that you are on to something in your evaluation of reincarnation. If it is the case that reincarnation does not exist (as I contend it does not ), then any religion that justifies poor treatment of certain peoples (as the Hindu do in their caste system) on the basis that those peoples are being punished for the sins of past lives, then that religion is horribly unjust and oppressive. It seems such a religion is being used for controlling the masses and protecting the ruling class (which I contend it is).

My assumption is that if a small child is familiar with the past events of another life, the child learned that information in the traditional way of being told as opposed to the information streaming in a paranormal way. It's a fairly safe assumption really.

It's like if a person describes the precise way a victim were killed and locates the body without having apparent access to that information, I'd not call that person a psychic, but instead a suspect.

This Buddha talk avoids the question of the possibility of reincarnation but instead just speaks to the idiosyncrasies of Buddhism.

I don't not not disagree with you, but to me, silence can be considered a meaningful response, meaning that all who don't speak have posted by implication.

No, I mean ferocious season salt for all your seasoning needs.

Hanover's Baked Chicken
1 chicken cut up
Season salt (the red kind)
Salt
Pepper

Put the chicken in a roasting pan and sprinkle the other stuff on it. Cook at 425 F for about an hour.

Now I've been published.

It's cheque. And those peas in your awkward dinners you post for everyone to see are not considered a vegetable. — TimeLine

You don't know American, so stop trying to act like some sort of spelling bee queen. I'll have you know that I raised two kids off those mixed pea dinner treats, both of them performing well above the educational standards that have riddled the deep south since cession.

Send me a pic of your food and see how it feels when I ridicule you. When the shoe's on the other foot, you won't be laughing so hard then.

A lobotomized monkey could follow those instructions without visual aids. In other words, yes, Hanover probably does need more help. — Baden

How do you know what a lobotomized monkey would do? My guess is that you're just guessing and you want everyone here to think you have the balls to actually lobotomize a monkey, but I know you'd probably start feeling queasy like a little baby when you started jamming the steel bar up the monkey's nose into his brain.

a pet cat — Sapientia

Your cat is stupid though.

For real, if you give me an address, I'll send a check. I don't know another way.

In one word, what is the one value that holds the most power in your life? — Advocate

Value

Either that or a God damn P.O. box so that I can send the money the way it has been sent for 5000 years. You guys a bunch of whippersnappers is what you are.

I like that poem. It reminds me of the time I was pleasuring Sapienta's mother while Wosret pleasured Baden who was being pleasured by Michael's aunt Mildred. Oh, those were good times. We were all young and free and our herpes was in remission. Had it not been for The Feud that tore us all apart. I hate even to speak its name.

You need a PayPal account. There's an option in there to send money to another PayPal account identifiable by the email address. Cheers (Y) — Baden

I have a PayPal account, but when I click on the link, I just go to my email. All it does is frustrate me and make me think about inappropriate things.

How do you make a Paypal payment directly to an email address?

Is there a preference as to what is posted here? Are certain types of posts discouraged? Should posts in this thread be humorous and/or thought-provoking? I need to know the rules before I post something here... — CasKev

Any post posted must be the last post posted, meaning every post posted qualifies until the next post posted disqualifies it.

If you are familiar with the soccer 2 yellow card equals 1 red card system, this is nothing like that.

I think many overpay for choreographed boring wedding photos and are delighted with the end product. Why would I care?

Terrorism is a tactic.

That is how I would define it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

So if I have a tactic I use in chess, you'd say that was terrorism?

Your obligation was only to tell the truth, which you did. Whether your history disqualified you as a juror was decided by the judge, not you.

is loosing sight of the forest for the trees — Reformed Nihilist

Losing, not loosing.

Too easy.

https://youtu.be/u_CINAyjIr0

Great tune.

First thing I remember was asking papa, why,
For there were many things I didn't know.
And daddy always smiled and took me by the hand,
Saying, someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now, each and every mother's son,
That you better learn it fast, you better learn it young,
'Cause someday never comes.