Jump to content

Samson's Wig

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2001
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Samson's Wig

  1. Haven't we already collectively decided that blue tooth headsets are the ultimate expression of douchbaggery and anyone utilizing one in public should be shunned from normal society?  What is the fucking difference with these things?  Apple marketing?  It's the same shit.  Walk around talking/listening in public with these things in your earholes if you want, but go fuck yourself if you think anyone else should accept it as the acceptable behavior of a functioning adult. 

    And I thought the article nailed it on the head when the writer mentioned that if you absolutely must degrade yourself by ordering coffee while refusing to step outside of your technology bubble, go to Starbucks or some other soulless shitstain of corporate tastelessness where your kind are not only welcome but purposefully marketed to.  Leave humanity to those who aren't afraid of being human.

    • Like 5
  2. On 1/23/2020 at 4:24 PM, Chooky said:

     Cunts are everywhere. Huge, gaping cunts. 

    Completely agree.  The part I can't wrap my head around is how some of you think this is going to magically change somehow when the olds are gone.   There will just be new huge gaping cunts wrapped up in their own self righteous cunt flags pissing off the new group of young woke kids.  So it has always been, and so it shall always be.  Ain't nothing special about these times.

    • Like 1
  3. 22 hours ago, UTPhil2006 said:

    Lubbock definitely stinks

    The feedlots moved north a long time ago (area upon which the article is focused - essentially around Amarillo) for the most part.  Lubbock still gets plenty of dust when the wind blows in the spring, but a lot less "shust" than it used to.  Way less disgusting and problematic than the pollen and other air contaminates we deal with in Austin for six months every winter and spring.  

    Of course, you may have meant this in the nonliteral sense in which case . . . yeah.

  4. 2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    While that may be true with regard to Northern Africa, the Africans in question here are mostly sub-Saharan western Africans that have no tradition of Christianity other than what missions have brought them in the last couple of centuries.

    Everything I know on this topic I learned watching the History Channel.  So, basically, I'm the leading expert around here.

  5. 1 minute ago, hornian said:

    Yep. We are using the bottom floor for my law firm and still renting out the 2nd floor as executive suites. 

    Congrats.   I looked at that place years ago for renting a single office.  I didn't end up moving in (previous owners/management didn't seem to understand how internet service works and that it is kind of important for practicing law in the modern age), but you could tell something interesting might be hiding underneath the outdated top layer.

  6. 49 minutes ago, hornian said:

    I just bought an office building </humblebrag> that was originally built in 1907, and it was moved form Taylor, Texas to Jollyville Road in Austin back in 1986. I’ve been trying to find info about the move, one of the long time tenants says it was in the newspaper. No luck so far. 
     

    We have been renovating and had some good  and bad surprises. One of the good surprises was that the 100+ year old hardwood floors that were covered up by plywood and carpet by the previous owners were in good condition and we were able the refinish them. That also allowed us to see exactly where they had but the building in half to move it. 

    Did it rent single office setups before?  I think I might know which building you mean.

  7. 2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    SMU doesn’t play baseball.  They have a men’s soccer team instead.

    And in thirty years or so, they may be laughing all the way to the bank while the other Texas schools are just getting programs started in what will then be the most popular college sport.  I mean, maybe?

  8. 23 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

    He was 19. Is that too old? Is 20? 25? 30? How young is too young? 

    You’ve conceded that there’s a discussion worth having on age of consent. Now we’re just haggling over price. 

    Again, sex amongst similarly aged youngsters shouldn't be a problem for anybody, and while it's where this discussion has gone it's not where it started, which was an argument that a fully developed adult having sex with a young teen is perfectly normal.  As for where to draw the line, maybe ask yourself this:  How young would professor boy have to be to come over and stick his dick in your fourteen year old kid without you beating the shit out of him?

    If science means much of anything the age of consent should be raised, not lowered.

  9. 10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    The age difference implies, but does not prove, coercion by the older person.

    You make a broad assumption that all or most relationships involving a younger partner are coercive.  I have no doubt that some are, but I'm not good with the generalization.

    We have all internalized 18 (or 17) as some magic number, but it doesn't in any meaningful way safeguard the 18 or 17 or 16 year old from predatory or coercive relationships

    The notion that we have a "societal structure in place to protect innocents" is self-congratulatory bullshit of the purest ray serene.  Straight from the school of facile thinking that brought us "who will think of the children" and "tough on crime."

    All that said, bright line rules like age of consent are useful for these sorts of things, but they are highly unsatisfactory in terms of addressing even the general case.

    I agree with your bolded statement above.  Poorly worded on my part.  But even just acknowledging that the way kids, and women, were treated as no more than commodities, and attempting to take action to prevent it is a large step in the right direction from where we were even one hundred years ago, pablum or not.  Workplace regulations, rape related batter laws, and age of consent laws have all been attempts to draw a line in the sand, and have no doubt improved conditions from what they were.  But if we're going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we may as well just throw up our hands and tell predators to have at the kids without concern for consequences.

    • Like 3
  10. 52 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

    Exactly. And, to your point, my great-grandmother was married at 14 and gave birth to my granddad at 16.

    Was your great-grandfather a much older man?  If not, I don't see how that has anything to do with professor numnuts' argument.

    Brisket went to the well trodden discussion about 19 year olds having sex with minors only a couple of years younger than them.  Most states have romeo/juliet exceptions to consent laws for just such situations.   This professor is advocating that old dudes should get to bang young teens.  This has nothing to do with teenagers/young folks having sex or your grandmother having kids young.  Teenagers still have babies young, it's not like that only happened in the old days.  But we've largely moved past old leches getting to have their way with young boys and girls.  I don't think that has anything to do with being prude, or Victorian values ruining everyone's good time.  We just didn't have the same societal structure in place to protect innocents until relatively recently.

    This academic twat should absolutely be able to prattle on about whatever the fuck he wants to, and he should be free to do so with out government interference.  And of course what the age of consent should be is a discussion worth having.  However, freedom of speech doesn't me you're free from all consequences for your opinions.  And his opinions absolutely merit the action by the students, and now that they're becoming better known will likely result in some more dire consequences for him at some point.  No way that guy hasn't trolled for young boys somewhere.  Guys like that, at least those that haven't hid out in the Catholic or Southern Baptist church, tend to run into an angry father or two eventually.

    • Like 2
  11. 3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    If you stop and think about it for just a minute or two, you realize what a bad idea this would be.  Unless your real motive is simply to tax churches out of existence.

    Churches are handling that on their own without any interference on the tax front, so he'll get his wish soon enough anyway.  

    What Osteen, et al, do for a living is disgusting and unethical, but if he were dodging taxes he would have been busted I would think.  Guys like that must have huge targets on their back.  

    As the nation becomes less and less religious with the passing of time, the only churches left might be these mega churches which exist to feed the back pocket of guys like Osteen.  If we want it to stop we would need to find a way to criminalize the behavior, but the tax code isn't the place to do it (although I'm all for forcing them to report earnings/revenue/donations/etc.)

×
×
  • Create New...