Anyone have experience with Calvin Klein's clothing?
I am presently wearing 2 articles of it.
How do you like it? There's a pretty awesome deal I can get on a suit I like the look of, and they have it on my size. I'm still not ready for the new year party.
Oh, I have two calvin klein suits. They're p decent quality. Im a stocky fat dude, but they also make a slim fit for the more svelte motherfuckers out there.
If this is a more general suit inquiry, yelp some tailors. They're the ultimate arbiters of whether you will look good in it or not .
This "slim-fit" model is on sale for $200, and tailoring shouldn't add much to the cost.
treat
yo
self
0
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
Some friends doing a dirty santa gift exchange thingy next weekend.
Going over the details via group text.
Mentioned that it can be fun things like liquor and what not.
One member asks if MDMA would be ok in complete earnesty.
Hmmm.
hmmmmmmm....
hm
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Company xmas party and everyone got gloves, $50 Amazon gift cards, and $100 gift cards to a local steakhouse.
First reaction: holy shit, NewJob
Second reaction: where do people go to sell/trade gift cards nowadays?
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Okay, USB drive is showing up as a floppy because it's a dongle and they did some low level formating fuckery.
the amount of animosity and vitriol people reflexively snarl out at drunk drivers makes my eyebrows furrow
because they're like "If you drive drunk and you hit someone you're a murderer, you knew exactly what you were doing getting behind the wheel of that car and you made a choice and you're just as responsible for that person's death as someone who stabbed another human being to death!"
yet
the argument also exists that a person who is chemically inebriated (by alcohol or otherwise) isn't capable of giving their full legal consent and erego someone who takes advantage of them in that state is doing something wrong to them, because they can't make full knowing choices for themselves and are barely aware of what's going on.
now, i can hear your knee jerking. i can hear you saying "oh c'mon, Pony. There's a clear difference between a guy who is half in the bag and trying to drive and a girl who is black-out drunk at a frat party. The former is still cogent enough of himself to be held responsible and the latter isn't" but that isn't the place the law tries to make its arguments from. It makes its arguments from a place of impairment, and a person who is impaired is a person who is impaired. How impaired they are can be highly variable and can depend on a lot of things, but you'll notice DUI doesn't make a distinction between "He was too tipsy" and "Dude was fuckin' blasted" because an impaired person has impaired reason, impaired judgment, impaired faculties. That's why they're a danger on the road, that's why they can't give consent. They're not themselves, they're not their full cogent faculties. They're impaired.
so maybe
maybe
dial the rhetoric back a little
still hold people who drive drunk legally responsible for their actions of course
but
+9
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
I got into one minor accident while using my cell phone and now I always come to a complete stop to do it, I'm the dork youll see on the shoulder making a call
ironically the accident was someone else ramming into me, and I was stopped at a red light, but he was looking at his phone just as I was
except I was stopped >:C
anyway it made me realize if I was behind me I might have hit me
I ignore my phone while driving unless I have an opportunity to pull over. The playlist on it is set to all my favourite stuff, so I set it to shuffle, plug it in and leave it until I turn the car off. I love driving and I'll be goddamned if I do anything to lose my license.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Watch this because you'll see this happen very fucking rarely, in fact it's a baby jesus in the manger goddamned fucking miracle.
Well holy shit I had no idea so many of the regular commentards on cycling news are tropical disease experts in addition to their many other areas of expertise.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Cass, this may not be the most uplifting of stories, but all I have is a high school diploma. I never graduated SAIT, so, really, I may as well have never have gone (And I really wish I hadn't, I'm still trying to pay it off). Anyway, I worked some low paying jobs, but as time went on, I gradually improved with each opportunity that came up.
Right now I'm super happy where I am and I make good money, even with no post-secondary. And I'm a lazy fuck.
With a little determination, I have no doubt you and Aaron both will score awesome careers.
Cass, this may not be the most uplifting of stories, but all I have is a high school diploma. I never graduated SAIT, so, really, I may as well have never have gone (And I really wish I hadn't, I'm still trying to pay it off). Anyway, I worked some low paying jobs, but as time went on, I gradually improved with each opportunity that came up.
Right now I'm super happy where I am and I make good money, even with no post-secondary. And I'm a lazy fuck.
With a little determination, I have no doubt you and Aaron both will score awesome careers.
Oh I'm doing great I'm supporting Aaron and I no problem
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Accepting risk doesn't mitigate others' actions.
Every action we perform implicitly contains risks. Ever relationship we enter contains the risk that we will be abused, or murdered. Every street crossing contains the risk that someone won't be paying attention and will hit us. Every pill you take contains the risk that someone slipped something toxic into it.
We still hold people accountable for perpetrating those. There are arguments to be made either way, but that one is not particularly strong.
0
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
the amount of animosity and vitriol people reflexively snarl out at drunk drivers makes my eyebrows furrow
because they're like "If you drive drunk and you hit someone you're a murderer, you knew exactly what you were doing getting behind the wheel of that car and you made a choice and you're just as responsible for that person's death as someone who stabbed another human being to death!"
yet
the argument also exists that a person who is chemically inebriated (by alcohol or otherwise) isn't capable of giving their full legal consent and erego someone who takes advantage of them in that state is doing something wrong to them, because they can't make full knowing choices for themselves and are barely aware of what's going on.
now, i can hear your knee jerking. i can hear you saying "oh c'mon, Pony. There's a clear difference between a guy who is half in the bag and trying to drive and a girl who is black-out drunk at a frat party. The former is still cogent enough of himself to be held responsible and the latter isn't" but that isn't the place the law tries to make its arguments from. It makes its arguments from a place of impairment, and a person who is impaired is a person who is impaired. How impaired they are can be highly variable and can depend on a lot of things, but you'll notice DUI doesn't make a distinction between "He was too tipsy" and "Dude was fuckin' blasted" because an impaired person has impaired reason, impaired judgment, impaired faculties. That's why they're a danger on the road, that's why they can't give consent. They're not themselves, they're not their full cogent faculties. They're impaired.
so maybe
maybe
dial the rhetoric back a little
still hold people who drive drunk legally responsible for their actions of course
but
I mean I feel pity for someone who does something they regret while drunk, because I'm human and I have empathy, as long as it isn't a pattern. I lose the pity after they do it a bunch of times, of course, I can definitely feel pity for this 16 year old and what he went through
I think it does need to be underscored even as I say he deserves jail time that I pity him up to a point. His life is fucked up now. I pity everyone involved. It's certainly masked by my outrage, which is larger.
But being drunk isn't a defense, it doesn't mitigate what you did, and being rich sure as fuck doesn't and I'm appalled that defense was A. Used and B. Accepted
To follow up that point, the inconsistency in the vitriol applied to drunk driving is doubly dismaying when it is compared to other kinds of conditions while driving that impair a person's capacity to drive and are just as dangerous.
Texting while driving. Talking on a handset while driving. Reading while driving. Fatigued driving (this one is especially bad because it's arguably even more prevalent and dangerous than drunk driving)
These aren't nearly as demonized as drunk driving yet they are all undertaken by people with full faculties and capacity for reason.
Unlike a drunk driver, whose capacity for reason and good decision making is on some level chemically impaired, a person who is texting while driving knows good god damn well what they are fucking doing and does it anyway.
But that doesn't have 30 years of MADD and other cultural pressures demonizing it and making it into an act of murder, so people don't see it the same way.
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
To a certain degree. But knowing your own state of mind relative to impairment and knowing someone else's are not the same thing.
You could be too drunk to drive, so you don't, but also too drunk to realize your buddy's impaired as well, so you ride with him.
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
You're playing devil's advocate here, right? You're not actually trying to pull this argument off?
To follow up that point, the inconsistency in the vitriol applied to drunk driving is doubly dismaying when it is compared to other kinds of conditions while driving that impair a person's capacity to drive and are just as dangerous.
Texting while driving. Talking on a handset while driving. Reading while driving. Fatigued driving (this one is especially bad because it's arguably even more prevalent and dangerous than drunk driving)
These aren't nearly as demonized as drunk driving yet they are all undertaken by people with full faculties and capacity for reason.
Unlike a drunk driver, whose capacity for reason and good decision making is on some level chemically impaired, a person who is texting while driving knows good god damn well what they are fucking doing and does it anyway.
But that doesn't have 30 years of MADD and other cultural pressures demonizing it and making it into an act of murder, so people don't see it the same way.
This really isn't a defense of drunk driving, just that there isn't enough vitriol for those other things
In the case of tired driving you can blame America's stupid fucking work ethic.
I'd argue drunk driving is perhaps worse precisely because everyone's educated about how bad it was though. As you say society has done a pretty thorough job of demonizing it, for good reasons.
With regards to the "Affluenza" kid, that's a whole other kettle of fish because now you're getting into the issues of restorative vs. retributive justice systems and shit
I'm more just talking people's outrage levels at the deed, not the defense.
+1
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
more, because you're stupid if you get in the car with a drunk driver. You're also stupid if you drive drunk. You're also stupid if you're drunk and you get in the car with a drunk driver, but not as stupid because you were drunk and didn't think things through.
But neither is the drunk driver an EVIL MURDERER.
They are someone who lacked the cognitive agency to fully explore the consequences of their actions.
I am not saying driving drunk is okay anymore than Pony is. I'm saying I reject that they are horrible evil murderers.
Posts
yeah that was
that was rough
i should jog more
I mean
you got winded going to the ring
you were smoking on the way to the ring
well i have to look cool and impress the kids
treat
yo
self
Going over the details via group text.
Mentioned that it can be fun things like liquor and what not.
One member asks if MDMA would be ok in complete earnesty.
Hmmm.
hmmmmmmm....
hm
First reaction: holy shit, NewJob
Second reaction: where do people go to sell/trade gift cards nowadays?
It's still a decision to go to that place.
Generally no one who gets black out drunk makes good decisions when they go to that place. And yet. . .
no ... yes
how could you do that to me?
it was very easy ... she was a whore
i love you sunny
because they're like "If you drive drunk and you hit someone you're a murderer, you knew exactly what you were doing getting behind the wheel of that car and you made a choice and you're just as responsible for that person's death as someone who stabbed another human being to death!"
yet
the argument also exists that a person who is chemically inebriated (by alcohol or otherwise) isn't capable of giving their full legal consent and erego someone who takes advantage of them in that state is doing something wrong to them, because they can't make full knowing choices for themselves and are barely aware of what's going on.
now, i can hear your knee jerking. i can hear you saying "oh c'mon, Pony. There's a clear difference between a guy who is half in the bag and trying to drive and a girl who is black-out drunk at a frat party. The former is still cogent enough of himself to be held responsible and the latter isn't" but that isn't the place the law tries to make its arguments from. It makes its arguments from a place of impairment, and a person who is impaired is a person who is impaired. How impaired they are can be highly variable and can depend on a lot of things, but you'll notice DUI doesn't make a distinction between "He was too tipsy" and "Dude was fuckin' blasted" because an impaired person has impaired reason, impaired judgment, impaired faculties. That's why they're a danger on the road, that's why they can't give consent. They're not themselves, they're not their full cogent faculties. They're impaired.
so maybe
maybe
dial the rhetoric back a little
still hold people who drive drunk legally responsible for their actions of course
but
Hmmm, now I'm thinking I should be going to the company xmas party tonight.
I can't imagine there'd be any gifts though.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
sounds kind of FAT
I've used plastic jungle to great success.
I ignore my phone while driving unless I have an opportunity to pull over. The playlist on it is set to all my favourite stuff, so I set it to shuffle, plug it in and leave it until I turn the car off. I love driving and I'll be goddamned if I do anything to lose my license.
I agree with Pony 100%
Ryan Dunn is a murderer because he killed his friend in the car with him.
"But his friend was drunk too...."
Well yes but he was impaired he didn't realize what he was doing...
Like Ryan Dunn?
Stop victim Blaming, Ludious.
@Dread Pirate Arbuthnot
Cass, this may not be the most uplifting of stories, but all I have is a high school diploma. I never graduated SAIT, so, really, I may as well have never have gone (And I really wish I hadn't, I'm still trying to pay it off). Anyway, I worked some low paying jobs, but as time went on, I gradually improved with each opportunity that came up.
Right now I'm super happy where I am and I make good money, even with no post-secondary. And I'm a lazy fuck.
With a little determination, I have no doubt you and Aaron both will score awesome careers.
Oh I'm doing great I'm supporting Aaron and I no problem
He's just kind of in a weird rut right now
Thanks for the kind words though
Driving a 1 ton death machine is a dangerous activity.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
So you can be sober enough to be a full blown murderer for driving drunk, but not sober enough to consent to accepting the risk of riding with a drunk driver...
I don't know what the friend being drunk has to do with anything?
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Umm... Have you looked at the statistics on living? The injury and death rates are astronomical.
I mean, I know it's anecdotal, but I can't think of a single death I've heard about where the person wasn't living when it happened.
--LeVar Burton
--LeVar Burton
I posit that if the driver has enough agency to be held accountable for the actions of drunk driving, then the passenger who agreed to get in the car with him is not a victim but a willing participant.
Not to be that guy, but to totally be that guy,
it happens a lot.
People are declared legally dead years after they ceased to respire all the time.
Every action we perform implicitly contains risks. Ever relationship we enter contains the risk that we will be abused, or murdered. Every street crossing contains the risk that someone won't be paying attention and will hit us. Every pill you take contains the risk that someone slipped something toxic into it.
We still hold people accountable for perpetrating those. There are arguments to be made either way, but that one is not particularly strong.
So if the passenger in the car was sober would he be more or less responsible for dying in a car crash?
twitch.tv/tehsloth
I mean I feel pity for someone who does something they regret while drunk, because I'm human and I have empathy, as long as it isn't a pattern. I lose the pity after they do it a bunch of times, of course, I can definitely feel pity for this 16 year old and what he went through
I think it does need to be underscored even as I say he deserves jail time that I pity him up to a point. His life is fucked up now. I pity everyone involved. It's certainly masked by my outrage, which is larger.
But being drunk isn't a defense, it doesn't mitigate what you did, and being rich sure as fuck doesn't and I'm appalled that defense was A. Used and B. Accepted
Texting while driving. Talking on a handset while driving. Reading while driving. Fatigued driving (this one is especially bad because it's arguably even more prevalent and dangerous than drunk driving)
These aren't nearly as demonized as drunk driving yet they are all undertaken by people with full faculties and capacity for reason.
Unlike a drunk driver, whose capacity for reason and good decision making is on some level chemically impaired, a person who is texting while driving knows good god damn well what they are fucking doing and does it anyway.
But that doesn't have 30 years of MADD and other cultural pressures demonizing it and making it into an act of murder, so people don't see it the same way.
To a certain degree. But knowing your own state of mind relative to impairment and knowing someone else's are not the same thing.
You could be too drunk to drive, so you don't, but also too drunk to realize your buddy's impaired as well, so you ride with him.
--LeVar Burton
"Play podcast"
"Sorry, couldn't find pulled cost"
"Play podcast"
"Sorry, couldn't find pulled cost"
"Play podcast"
"Sorry, couldn't find pulled cost"
"Play podcast"
"Sorry, couldn't find pulled cost"
"Pl-ay pod" *snip*
*"play hold"* *plays Gold by GZA"*
"Play podcast"
"Sorry, couldn't find pulled cost"
This really isn't a defense of drunk driving, just that there isn't enough vitriol for those other things
In the case of tired driving you can blame America's stupid fucking work ethic.
I'd argue drunk driving is perhaps worse precisely because everyone's educated about how bad it was though. As you say society has done a pretty thorough job of demonizing it, for good reasons.
I'm more just talking people's outrage levels at the deed, not the defense.
more, because you're stupid if you get in the car with a drunk driver. You're also stupid if you drive drunk. You're also stupid if you're drunk and you get in the car with a drunk driver, but not as stupid because you were drunk and didn't think things through.
But neither is the drunk driver an EVIL MURDERER.
They are someone who lacked the cognitive agency to fully explore the consequences of their actions.
I am not saying driving drunk is okay anymore than Pony is. I'm saying I reject that they are horrible evil murderers.