Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[chat] Fandango

194969899100

Posts

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    95% of all network problems are caused by somebody in a suit saying

    "well, we don't need to do it {the right way}

    {this other way} that is 20% cheaper will work fine"

    the other 5% are caused by the whimsy of the gods

    Oh Feral, let me take you on a tour of some of the network closets I've seen.

    FeralDeebaser
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    Tamin wrote: »
    It is the year twenty thousand and a hundred and fourteen and Titanfall is using fucking Origin?

    We're living in the future, we're supposed to be enlightened and not do these things anymore

    20,114?

    I'm here to look good and maintain the dying art of the ponytar, you want a number person Ronya is like, right there.

    Oh brilliant
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    I find it odd how much I completely disconnect say, xbox from windows. I like windows and pcs but I don't like xbox (not that I think it's bad it's just not where my product loyalty falls)

    I like playstation but I'd take samsung over sony in any product across the board.

    makes me feel less bad about these people getting their hands in so many pots.

    I might end up getting a PS4 or a Vita one day, because of PSN+ I keep getting all these titles added along to my PS3 collection of games, and I have no way to play them. Maybe when the PS4 is $300/$200 I can pick one up and have a big collection of games ready.

    A new PS3 with a decent HDD for those PS+ games in 2014 is still $300. We won't see PS4s for $200 for years and years.

    But they'd get my money for software! So much money. Like, $30 for a discounted PSN+ subscription every November. Can they afford not to cut their hardware prices?

    I'll buy a PS4 when the PS5 is ready to launch and collect all the AAA PS4 games for $5 apiece.

  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    I find it odd how much I completely disconnect say, xbox from windows. I like windows and pcs but I don't like xbox (not that I think it's bad it's just not where my product loyalty falls)

    I like playstation but I'd take samsung over sony in any product across the board.

    makes me feel less bad about these people getting their hands in so many pots.

    I might end up getting a PS4 or a Vita one day, because of PSN+ I keep getting all these titles added along to my PS3 collection of games, and I have no way to play them. Maybe when the PS4 is $300/$200 I can pick one up and have a big collection of games ready.

    A new PS3 with a decent HDD for those PS+ games in 2014 is still $300. We won't see PS4s for $200 for years and years.

    I got a PS3 with a 250GB HD and Last of Us and Batman Origins (so one game and one frisbee) for $200 around Christmas. I imagine with some effort you could find a similar deal now.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    PantsB wrote: »
    Obamacare would be fine if not for the Medicare donut. Everything else is just a smokescreen. Its not perfect but its not substantially different than the Swiss system.

    Literally no one has a problem with our version in Massachusetts. If you're poor you get healthcare free. If you're lower middle class you get subsidized healthcare. If you have a job you get healthcare. You have to willfully choose not to have coverage in order to not have coverage.

    it sucked while on unemployment because i had made enough throughout the year to not qualify for masscare, but wasn't actually pulling in enough on unemployment to reasonably afford healthcare.

    i ended up just paying the penalty, which was a pretty shitty outcome.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Feral wrote: »
    95% of all network problems are caused by somebody in a suit saying

    "well, we don't need to do it {the right way}

    {this other way} that is 20% cheaper will work fine"

    the other 5% are caused by the whimsy of the gods

    It kills me the way that big organizations tend to cheap out on fundamental systemic investments while blowing a bunch of money on, say, catered lunches.

    e: Evidently "to chintz" is not accepted by formal dictionaries; The More You Know.

    kedinik on
    Feral
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    Wash wrote: »
    @Atomika‌ thanks for answering my question!

    No problem!

    I enjoy being helpful. Ask just about anything you like.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    I bought Gears of War 2 for $1 at gamestop yesterday. The big fat collector's edition with the metal case and artbook. For a dollar. Someone paid $80 new for it, then they got tired of it, and now it's mine for a buck.

    Dark Raven X
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    Wash wrote: »
    @Atomika‌ thanks for answering my question!

    No problem!

    I enjoy being helpful. Ask just about anything you like.

    How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?

    kedinik
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I think a society with many polygamous marriages can be surprisingly non-dysfunctional in each of those families

    I just don't think that liberalism has any good idea on what to do with the excess heterosexual males

    Polyamory is not necessary polygamy, and marriage need not entail exclusivity for the male or female members. Ergo, the only excess males are those in the friendzone.

    I don't think that's sustainable either! I think norms will merely shift in an illiberal direction until the marriage market equilibrium - or, if you prefer, the amorous relationship equilibrium - is achieved again

    What are you saying? Your original post seemed to describe that as marriages occupied available women at a faster rate than men, there would be a surplus of available men. My response is that a married woman can still bang other dudes even if the only marriages were one-man-many-women instead of mixed or opposite ratios.

    well, as you yourself pointed out, polyamory is not the same as polygamy. Fine. one-man-many-women relationships would still be problematic to balance.

    I myself have advocated the idea that STD epidemiology data do not suggest that the conventional :biotruths: idea that aggressive young men cultivate a harem of women at their most fertile and only surrender them to "betas" once they're old and less desirable, but then there are still strong social pressures against maintaining multiple concurrent sexual partners.

    You're assuming a need to balance where none exists, and the social pressures have little to do with the workability of such relationships among individuals who don't ascribe to them.

    Imagine I am in a relationship with Jane, Cindy, and Sara. You're assuming that somewhere, there are two dudes who have to be single because I am one man 'taking up' three women. But there is nothing stopping any of these women necessarily from being with either of those dudes in addition to the relationship that they are already in with me.

    Unless you're talking about tax benefits for actual, legal marriage or something?

    then that's not a society with predominant polygyny, since you have now added two polyandrous relationships

    I don't know why you keep assuming the default polyamorous society would be polygynous

    Like, no one has made that claim

    Sure, it has some historical basis, but there are also historical examples of polyandrous societies

    and for :biotruths" polyandry is really common in nature, and even among other primates

    I think if you took sexual institutions and culture as they exist today, or are likely to exist for in the near future

    and made formal polygamy possible by legal fiat

    it would be overwhelmingly polygynous marriages

    I kind of disagree, at least in the West. I'd predict a rather even split, unless we include people who are polyamorous through coercive means (i.e. religious/cult problems)

    From my admittedly limited experience interacting with the western community it tends to skew either pretty evenly OR along homosexual polyamourous relationships, which kind of break down the whole "polyandrous/polygynous" split as classically defined

    we are talking about "the real world, only polygamy is legal" as opposed to "the real world, only polygamy is legal and also everyone's brains have been rewritten wrt concepts of gender and sexuality" right?

    because i think your conjecture refers to the second thing.

    Wqdwp8l.png
    spool32
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    kedinik wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    95% of all network problems are caused by somebody in a suit saying

    "well, we don't need to do it {the right way}

    {this other way} that is 20% cheaper will work fine"

    the other 5% are caused by the whimsy of the gods

    It kills me the way that big organizations tend to cheap out on fundamental systemic investments while blowing a bunch of money on, say, catered lunches.

    e: Evidently "to chintz" is not accepted by formal dictionaries; The More You Know.

    I currently work for one of the top-rated private hospital organizations in the state. We have a big party every month with food and pastries to celebrate our "employees of the month."

    My work laptop is a 8-year old Dell that barely has the power to run the operating system.

    kedinikFerala5ehren
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited March 2014
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    I find it odd how much I completely disconnect say, xbox from windows. I like windows and pcs but I don't like xbox (not that I think it's bad it's just not where my product loyalty falls)

    I like playstation but I'd take samsung over sony in any product across the board.

    makes me feel less bad about these people getting their hands in so many pots.

    I might end up getting a PS4 or a Vita one day, because of PSN+ I keep getting all these titles added along to my PS3 collection of games, and I have no way to play them. Maybe when the PS4 is $300/$200 I can pick one up and have a big collection of games ready.

    A new PS3 with a decent HDD for those PS+ games in 2014 is still $300. We won't see PS4s for $200 for years and years.

    Don't count on that. A huge part of the PS3's continued high price is in the very non-standard parts that still don't have the best yields. Most of AMD's fab is crazy inexpensive and fairly high yield.

    The only thing I see keeping the PS4 super high in cost will be their choice to use GDDR5 as their primary RAM - that shit is crazy expensive for a marginal performance bump.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    a5ehren
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Origin isn't that bad

    It's just not as good as steam (and the one platform per publisher idea is stupid stupid stupid)

    spool32a5ehren
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    trying to lose weight for my wedding

    ate a sweet potato for lunch

    also a shitload of coffee

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    things i would like are

    hyperbolic time chamber

    ability to transform into godzilla

    50 billion dollars

    gimme those things

    poo
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I think a society with many polygamous marriages can be surprisingly non-dysfunctional in each of those families

    I just don't think that liberalism has any good idea on what to do with the excess heterosexual males

    Polyamory is not necessary polygamy, and marriage need not entail exclusivity for the male or female members. Ergo, the only excess males are those in the friendzone.

    I don't think that's sustainable either! I think norms will merely shift in an illiberal direction until the marriage market equilibrium - or, if you prefer, the amorous relationship equilibrium - is achieved again

    What are you saying? Your original post seemed to describe that as marriages occupied available women at a faster rate than men, there would be a surplus of available men. My response is that a married woman can still bang other dudes even if the only marriages were one-man-many-women instead of mixed or opposite ratios.

    well, as you yourself pointed out, polyamory is not the same as polygamy. Fine. one-man-many-women relationships would still be problematic to balance.

    I myself have advocated the idea that STD epidemiology data do not suggest that the conventional :biotruths: idea that aggressive young men cultivate a harem of women at their most fertile and only surrender them to "betas" once they're old and less desirable, but then there are still strong social pressures against maintaining multiple concurrent sexual partners.

    You're assuming a need to balance where none exists, and the social pressures have little to do with the workability of such relationships among individuals who don't ascribe to them.

    Imagine I am in a relationship with Jane, Cindy, and Sara. You're assuming that somewhere, there are two dudes who have to be single because I am one man 'taking up' three women. But there is nothing stopping any of these women necessarily from being with either of those dudes in addition to the relationship that they are already in with me.

    Unless you're talking about tax benefits for actual, legal marriage or something?

    then that's not a society with predominant polygyny, since you have now added two polyandrous relationships

    I don't know why you keep assuming the default polyamorous society would be polygynous

    Like, no one has made that claim

    Sure, it has some historical basis, but there are also historical examples of polyandrous societies

    and for :biotruths" polyandry is really common in nature, and even among other primates

    I think if you took sexual institutions and culture as they exist today, or are likely to exist for in the near future

    and made formal polygamy possible by legal fiat

    it would be overwhelmingly polygynous marriages

    I kind of disagree, at least in the West. I'd predict a rather even split, unless we include people who are polyamorous through coercive means (i.e. religious/cult problems)

    From my admittedly limited experience interacting with the western community it tends to skew either pretty evenly OR along homosexual polyamourous relationships, which kind of break down the whole "polyandrous/polygynous" split as classically defined

    we are talking about "the real world, only polygamy is legal" as opposed to "the real world, only polygamy is legal and also everyone's brains have been rewritten wrt concepts of gender and sexuality" right?

    because i think your conjecture refers to the second thing.

    Wait, where is polyamory illegal?

    How would you even enforce that?

  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    trying to lose weight for my wedding

    ate a sweet potato for lunch

    also a shitload of coffee

    a literal shitload.

    spool32override367
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I bought Gears of War 2 for $1 at gamestop yesterday. The big fat collector's edition with the metal case and artbook. For a dollar. Someone paid $80 new for it, then they got tired of it, and now it's mine for a buck.

    The Gears 3 Collector's Edition is p.swag, just a big heavy metal cog in a display case. It's the one vidya collectible tchotchke I have on a bookcase (practically on display!) because it looks cool even without the Gears fandom context.

    The downside, as with oh so many of these things, is that it came with a dumb game case, made up to look like an ingame data disk, rather than. Y'know. A game box. I hate that, cause then I can't put Gears 3 next to Gears 1 and 2 on the shelf.

    Same with Last of Us, got the Ellie Edition as a birthday present, which yay, awesome fancy edition! But then the game came in a little cardboard dealie. No The Last Of Us in my stack of PS3 games cause it's gotta be special.

    You'd think there'd be some easy way to acquire 'regular edition' cases for nerds like me who fall for the dumb special editions, so they can stick the games in regular cases for consistency's sake.

    Oh brilliant
    emnmnmespool32
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    I need more coffee but the office doesn't provide coffee

    and my asshole roomate woke me up early and I'm spose to get to sleep in on Tuesdays fuuuuuuuuuuuu

    override367 on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    gonna buy a bunch of voodoo plant extract pills and take them every morning, like a ritual. raspberry flavinoids and green coffee bean extract and carb blockers.

    they will do nothing except make me feel like i'm taking all of this very seriously. hopefully i won't end up with liver damage

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • jeffinvajeffinva Koogler coming this summerRegistered User regular
    STEAM_0:1:18117820, Twitch: puulse, PSN: Jeff_en-la-boca, Nintendo: jeffinva
    spool32
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    things i would like are

    hyperbolic time chamber

    ability to transform into godzilla

    50 billion dollars

    gimme those things

    have you checked amazon? amazon sells everything.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    ShivahnArchWashkedinikAtomika
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited March 2014
    japan wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I think a society with many polygamous marriages can be surprisingly non-dysfunctional in each of those families

    I just don't think that liberalism has any good idea on what to do with the excess heterosexual males

    Polyamory is not necessary polygamy, and marriage need not entail exclusivity for the male or female members. Ergo, the only excess males are those in the friendzone.

    I don't think that's sustainable either! I think norms will merely shift in an illiberal direction until the marriage market equilibrium - or, if you prefer, the amorous relationship equilibrium - is achieved again

    What are you saying? Your original post seemed to describe that as marriages occupied available women at a faster rate than men, there would be a surplus of available men. My response is that a married woman can still bang other dudes even if the only marriages were one-man-many-women instead of mixed or opposite ratios.

    well, as you yourself pointed out, polyamory is not the same as polygamy. Fine. one-man-many-women relationships would still be problematic to balance.

    I myself have advocated the idea that STD epidemiology data do not suggest that the conventional :biotruths: idea that aggressive young men cultivate a harem of women at their most fertile and only surrender them to "betas" once they're old and less desirable, but then there are still strong social pressures against maintaining multiple concurrent sexual partners.

    You're assuming a need to balance where none exists, and the social pressures have little to do with the workability of such relationships among individuals who don't ascribe to them.

    Imagine I am in a relationship with Jane, Cindy, and Sara. You're assuming that somewhere, there are two dudes who have to be single because I am one man 'taking up' three women. But there is nothing stopping any of these women necessarily from being with either of those dudes in addition to the relationship that they are already in with me.

    Unless you're talking about tax benefits for actual, legal marriage or something?

    then that's not a society with predominant polygyny, since you have now added two polyandrous relationships

    I don't know why you keep assuming the default polyamorous society would be polygynous

    Like, no one has made that claim

    Sure, it has some historical basis, but there are also historical examples of polyandrous societies

    and for :biotruths" polyandry is really common in nature, and even among other primates

    I think if you took sexual institutions and culture as they exist today, or are likely to exist for in the near future

    and made formal polygamy possible by legal fiat

    it would be overwhelmingly polygynous marriages

    I kind of disagree, at least in the West. I'd predict a rather even split, unless we include people who are polyamorous through coercive means (i.e. religious/cult problems)

    From my admittedly limited experience interacting with the western community it tends to skew either pretty evenly OR along homosexual polyamourous relationships, which kind of break down the whole "polyandrous/polygynous" split as classically defined

    we are talking about "the real world, only polygamy is legal" as opposed to "the real world, only polygamy is legal and also everyone's brains have been rewritten wrt concepts of gender and sexuality" right?

    because i think your conjecture refers to the second thing.

    Wait, where is polyamory illegal?

    How would you even enforce that?

    polygamy i guess then?

    there are apparently four or five variations on the word each with their own distinctions and i probably got it wrong there.

    edit: no wait i said polygamy in the first place. i think that's the one we're talking about

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I think a society with many polygamous marriages can be surprisingly non-dysfunctional in each of those families

    I just don't think that liberalism has any good idea on what to do with the excess heterosexual males

    Polyamory is not necessary polygamy, and marriage need not entail exclusivity for the male or female members. Ergo, the only excess males are those in the friendzone.

    I don't think that's sustainable either! I think norms will merely shift in an illiberal direction until the marriage market equilibrium - or, if you prefer, the amorous relationship equilibrium - is achieved again

    What are you saying? Your original post seemed to describe that as marriages occupied available women at a faster rate than men, there would be a surplus of available men. My response is that a married woman can still bang other dudes even if the only marriages were one-man-many-women instead of mixed or opposite ratios.

    well, as you yourself pointed out, polyamory is not the same as polygamy. Fine. one-man-many-women relationships would still be problematic to balance.

    I myself have advocated the idea that STD epidemiology data do not suggest that the conventional :biotruths: idea that aggressive young men cultivate a harem of women at their most fertile and only surrender them to "betas" once they're old and less desirable, but then there are still strong social pressures against maintaining multiple concurrent sexual partners.

    You're assuming a need to balance where none exists, and the social pressures have little to do with the workability of such relationships among individuals who don't ascribe to them.

    Imagine I am in a relationship with Jane, Cindy, and Sara. You're assuming that somewhere, there are two dudes who have to be single because I am one man 'taking up' three women. But there is nothing stopping any of these women necessarily from being with either of those dudes in addition to the relationship that they are already in with me.

    Unless you're talking about tax benefits for actual, legal marriage or something?

    then that's not a society with predominant polygyny, since you have now added two polyandrous relationships

    I don't know why you keep assuming the default polyamorous society would be polygynous

    Like, no one has made that claim

    Sure, it has some historical basis, but there are also historical examples of polyandrous societies

    and for :biotruths" polyandry is really common in nature, and even among other primates

    I think if you took sexual institutions and culture as they exist today, or are likely to exist for in the near future

    and made formal polygamy possible by legal fiat

    it would be overwhelmingly polygynous marriages

    I kind of disagree, at least in the West. I'd predict a rather even split, unless we include people who are polyamorous through coercive means (i.e. religious/cult problems)

    From my admittedly limited experience interacting with the western community it tends to skew either pretty evenly OR along homosexual polyamourous relationships, which kind of break down the whole "polyandrous/polygynous" split as classically defined

    we are talking about "the real world, only polygamy is legal" as opposed to "the real world, only polygamy is legal and also everyone's brains have been rewritten wrt concepts of gender and sexuality" right?

    because i think your conjecture refers to the second thing.

    No, not at all

    See PantsB's post on the bottom of last page. I don't 100% agree with it, but I agree with most of it. I think the prevalence of female harems was more of a function of older power architecture than anything else, and I don't think a modern society has dealt with polyamory healthily until now. And the best current model we have is from the gay/lesbian community, which kind of throws a lot of wrenches into what we typically think of.

    I would definitely think it would be more likely that there would be more bi-sexual (?) women being a centerpoint of some kind of relationship than there would be one dude with multiple wives, outside of places with an existing power structure for that

  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    poo
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Wash wrote: »
    @Atomika‌ thanks for answering my question!

    No problem!

    I enjoy being helpful. Ask just about anything you like.

    How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?

    I've never been patient enough to find out.

    Arch
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I bought Gears of War 2 for $1 at gamestop yesterday. The big fat collector's edition with the metal case and artbook. For a dollar. Someone paid $80 new for it, then they got tired of it, and now it's mine for a buck.

    Hmm, flipping through the artbook, I noticed Epic Games is a tad lacking in diversity.
    EpicGames_zps6fbb0e33.png

  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    oops fkn forums hotkeys made me post that before i typed my post

    poo
  • WashWash Sweet Christmas Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    trying to lose weight for my wedding

    ate a sweet potato for lunch

    also a shitload of coffee

    Congratulations!

    I wasn't around for the announcement.

    gi5h0gjqwti1.jpg
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    what i meant to say will is

    i am disgusted with my body but apparently my self loathing is not sufficient motivation right now

    it used to be but that was when i was exercising regularly and tracking my diet and it fueled the fire

    now it makes things worse

    the sword

    hath 2 edges

    poo
    Wash
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    ShivahnAtomika
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    all amory is dumb btw everyone should die alone

    ugh i am meeting some girl today but i am far too fucking busy and stressed but i also flaked on her once cuz of work

    i'm just gonna meet her for coffee and go back to work

    poo
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Gonmun wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    i could totally see myself feeling very strongly for multiple people. i don't know if i'd expect any sort of dilution, or anything- i could see that being appealing, to have multiple people in your life.

    it's the opposite that makes me nope the fuck out. there's no way i could go on a weekend retreat with someone and put a necklace on them i got them for christmas and shop together for furniture knowing she's getting railed by another dude.

    it feels strange to me to try and pursue the first if the sort of corollary is so appalling to me.

    I had a friend who wanted a poly relationship where it would be her, a girlfriend and a boyfriend and all of them living in the same house together. Interesting concept but not sure if it would have worked for me. Still, if all parties involved felt comfortable with it all the power to them.
    Something like this appeals to me.

  • EddyEddy Gengar the Bittersweet Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    @desc
    For he only ever mentions two pleasures and he does not call them pleasures. There is no wine in Mimnermos' verse, no warm bath, no running animal, no cherries or silk or pale blue bones, no dice, no slapstick nights of song ... It is haunted from two directions at once, which we call pleasures to justify our hedonist calculus. Sex and light. Let us consider how they move him.
    He lets this brilliant shape move through time like a needle stitching together the two moments that compose nostalgia. Then and now. The fact that we are no longer in the light (by the time we look for it) is his subject.
    When Mimnermos sees the light, he sees it gone - like Jason in [fragment 7] gone down his adversary road to the place where the sun god, Helios, and all the lights of the world lie stored in counterfactuality against us. "Nor would have . . ." this fragment begins. Nor would the mechanical death of moments come roaring down on us as darkness, had we not stopped to look round for the light.
    Of course the fragment may be incomplete. But then so is Tithonos.
    Mimnermos is a poet intrigued by beginnings and endings, but not in the usual way - who reveres noon as a study in true black: "socketed." There is no afternoon in Mimnermos. Consider as sound play the difference between youth and age in his typical diction: repeatedly applied to descriptions of old age is the adjective argaleon, which means "hard" and sounds like a fall of rocks down a dry ravine. Contrasted with it ... is the adjective harpaleon, which means "gentle" and sounds like a secret trout on the slip down the fathoms. It would be heartless to point out that, save for one consonant and the initial aspirate, these are the same word. When the soft p of harpaleon becomes the hard g of argaleon, all motions of day rigidify into the solid soul damage of nature's presupposition. Hedonism lies not beyond but prior to this - already forfeit.
    Shadows settle on the place, that you left
    Our minds are troubled by the emptiness
    Destroy the middle, it's a waste of time
    From the perfect start to the finish line

    Eddy on
    “Even as a gengar she was lovely.” ― Ovid, Metamorphoses
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I bought Gears of War 2 for $1 at gamestop yesterday. The big fat collector's edition with the metal case and artbook. For a dollar. Someone paid $80 new for it, then they got tired of it, and now it's mine for a buck.

    gears of war 2 has a surprisingly touching and soul-crushing moment in it for a bro-ey roided-up chainsawgun shooter

    i dont think i played gow3

    919UOwT.png
    Dark Raven X
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Only took me an hour to post!

    ArchGonmun
  • VanguardVanguard Je suis le savant au fauteuil sombre. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    jump-to-conclusions-mat.jpg

    Feral
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    I generally try not to shit on polyamory but the idea of a group marriage doing to court on grounds of infidelity just seems like it would be kind of amusing to watch from the outside.

    FeralWash
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like how a statement about polyamory somehow turned into legalization of polygamous fidelity

    there are a lot of conclusions to jump there

    plus the even farther implication that this would inevitably lead to an increase in polygynous relationships, to the detriment of the available mate pool for men

    Which is the exact opposite of trends actually observed in the real world when we're talking about first-world non-religious polyamory.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    Arch
This discussion has been closed.