Disqus - Latest Comments for ReallySadButTrue

Re: A Whole New World: Buying Legal Weed in Ontario

SadButTrue — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 15:09:35 -0000

LOL, civil servant is right. The dispensary photo provided looks for all the world like a Service Canada office where you'd go to get your EI or pension sorted out. Designed to harsh any buzz you might have.

Re: Indoor vs. Greenhouse vs. Outdoor Cannabis: Which Should You Buy?

SadButTrue — Sat, 26 Jan 2019 20:18:20 -0000

Wouldn't growing outdoors make it infinitely harder to keep your females from becoming pollinated? Even if you've destroyed all your males, you might have a neighbour who isn't, or who is just growing hemp. With it now legal to grow up to 4 plants for personal use in Canada, you're going to see a lot of people doing just that in their back yards. And face it, many of them won't even be aware that cannabis has genders. There will be rogue "Tomcat" males putting pollen in the wind all over.

Re: Kellyanne Conway says Trump's threats against libel laws are justified because people are"trying to nullify his election"

SadButTrue — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:15:33 -0000

But, but, ..but don't crocodiles LIKE being thrown in the water?

Just who in this metaphor are the crocodiles supposed to represent? Trump? His White House staff?

Here's my metaphor: Kellyanne Conway is just tossing vegetables and a sharp knife into the air, and hoping that some word salad will magically fall into her bowl.
That makes at least as much sense as what she said.

Re: Is Marvel’s ‘Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’ Really Any Good?

SadButTrue — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 12:32:02 -0000

It's VERY good, in fact my favourite TV show from the first episode. That said, it doesn't live up to the expectations of people who look at it through a juvenile lens that expects either 1) production values (read: Expensive Special Effects Shots) equal to movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make, or 2) crossovers every week or two with other franchises. Also expensive, by the way.

Instead, it is what it is. Established in the first minute of the first episode is a critical fact: it's a show about how extraordinary people who are nonetheless devoid of any super powers can contribute in a universe that contains super-villains and cosmic threats. I was probably the only S.H.I.E.L.D. fan who was disappointed when Skye became an inhuman, because it took away that element. While it may be heroic for Superman to stand up to Lex Luthor, or Iron Man to Obadiah Stone, how much more so for someone who is vulnerable and prone to dying from the next blow? (one of the things that lends appeal to heroes like Batman or The Daredevil, by the way) AoS is good due to excellent writing, acting, and character development. Things that seem foreign to some of its more popular competition.

If you want flashy crap, where the 'story' such as it is is just a thin thread tying one special effect to the next, watch "The Flash." Bad writing, terrible acting, but SUPER POWERS from the git-go, and a terrible romantic subplot between Barry and Iris. Whatever. I stopped watching after the first season, and frankly am sorry that I gave it that much of a chance. A total waste of time.

ABOUT ME: I just turned 65, and was a comic books fan in the '60s and early '70s - about up to the time when I had my first serious girlfriend and started spending money that had been allocated to comics on dating and condoms. My opinions are not likely to coincide with people who are still virgins, living with their mothers, and buying acne medications in bulk.

Re: The dangerous delusions of Richard Dawkins

SadButTrue — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 17:18:32 -0000

" Atheism is too vague to be called anything unless it is specified what concept of god is being denied."

g0d, that is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Let's put the answer in Dawkins' terms: (I think he may have been quoting Hitchens or maybe Harris here) YOU, E.S.A., are most likely an atheist with respect to all g0ds but one. Atheism is simply going that one g0d further in unbelief. So if you want to be specific, an atheist rejects all g0d concepts equally.

Also, I recognize that having no argument, you're just trying to distract from the issue at hand. Sad! Do it again, and I'll simply call you out on it again. Remember, I can't make you look stupid. Only you can make you look stupid. But I can point it out, so that you can't get away with it.

Re: Reflections on the 'Dangerous Delusions of Richard Dawkins'

SadButTrue — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:07:14 -0000

" But there is a simple explanation. Morality comes from human agreement."

Nice. Game, set and match as far as the argument that morality comes from g0d is concerned.

Re: Reflections on the 'Dangerous Delusions of Richard Dawkins'

SadButTrue — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:54:15 -0000

Just because YOU ignore evidence, doesn't mean that it ceases to exist. The rest of us can still see it. You can't hide it behind your invisible sky fairy friend.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
~ Philip K. Dick

Re: The dangerous delusions of Richard Dawkins

SadButTrue — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:55:19 -0000

He sounds like a postmodernist to me. He thinks that objective facts have no meaning outside of the 'cultural context' by which they are interpreted. It's fucking nonsense, and liable to bring academia to its knees if continued. You can't take undisputable data and claim that it means something different in say a Christian culture than it does in a Muslim culture. That's so idiotic! 2+2=4, and it always will, regardless of cultural context.

Re: The dangerous delusions of Richard Dawkins

SadButTrue — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:52:12 -0000

I just love this new word 'scientism' that religious morons have taken to using, to try to imply that rationality or atheism are religions. Atheism is a religion in the exact same way that OFF is a TV station, or not collecting stamps is a hobby. You sound moronic every time you try to make this claim. Go ahead, list all the attributes of religion (doctrine, church attendance, liturgy, ritual, hierarchy, etc., etc..) and another list of the attributes of atheism (there's only one: lack of belief in supernatural beings) and draw a Venn diagram of where they intersect. They have less in common than do chocolate pudding and runny diarrhea (which are at least both brown semi-solid liquids.)

“Atheism has no doctrines. It does not demand that a person do anything, or refrain from doing anything, on the basis of his unbelief. Consequently, to know that someone is an atheist is to know almost nothing about him—apart from the fact that he does not accept the unwarranted claims of any religion.”
~ Sam Harris

“And here is the point about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake...”
~ Christopher Hitchens

Re: The dangerous delusions of Richard Dawkins

SadButTrue — Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:03:58 -0000

Up until today, I've regarded AlterNet and The Raw Story
as reliable sources of information. With this, both have utterly
squandered their credibility with me. Christ, the world of reliable
left-leaning information sources is shrinking like a dick in a cold
shower.

Re: Here's Why Libertarians Are Mostly Men

SadButTrue — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:04:33 -0000

..and the products from those 1,000 farms are poisoning millions? Oh, wait. I just described Monsanto's business model.

Re: Russians Boast of Having Trump in Their Pocket: Report

SadButTrue — Tue, 30 May 2017 21:18:07 -0000

ALERT: Here's something we should all be on the lookout for as the tRump saga continues to unfold. It's right there in the White House's response to the release of this story.

"There appears to be no limit to which the President's political
opponents will go to perpetuate this false narrative, including
illegally leaking classified material."

I could point out that it can't be both leaked material and a false narrative. If it was a false narrative, there would be nothing to leak. But I'm sure that contradiction has been noted by many others before me.

What I am askance about is the claim that Donald Trump's financial details *before he was even a candidate for the presidency* ARE CLASSIFIED MATERIAL!! How could that be?!? Have his past business dealings become a matter of National Security?

That has to be bullshit, and the thinly veiled threat, designed to stifle the truthful reporting on his shady past, is nothing but a canard.

Re: Fox News Dishonest Tweets Bring Major Sh*tstorm

SadButTrue — Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:41:14 -0000

"They know their audience is woefully ignorant and stupid."

But not all of them are stupid, exactly. I'm sure some have normal to above average IQs. They're just so filled with previously absorbed bullshit, and they rely on confirmation bias to make judgments on new information they encounter. And to be fair, we all do that to one degree or another.

“It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.”
~ Will Rogers

Many have become aggressively ignorant, and almost deliberately stupid. But FOX has deliberately inoculated them against the truth, making them distrustful of science and the so-called liberal media.

Re: Arizona Becomes Ground Zero in Fight Over Secret Political Spending

SadButTrue — Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:17:02 -0000

People
like to say that the two parties are alike, but one BIG difference is
the energy the Republicans put into creating a political playing field
that encourages and rewards corruption. You kind of have to infer from
that that they do it because 1) they are corrupt and 2) they know damned
well just how corrupt they are.

Re: Obama Appointee Ruled Gitmo Prisoners Had No Rights

SadButTrue — Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:43:37 -0000

Let's look at this in the context of American history.

The Declaration of Independence, which is in some ways a far more progressive document than the constitution turned out to be, found certain things to be self-evident. The first enumerated of these was that PEOPLE had rights endowed unto them by their creator.

At the time the Declaration was penned there was no United States of America, therefore there could have been no distinction between rights of citizens and those of non-citizens. To argue otherwise isn't just illogical, it's patently, flagrantly ridiculous. The only way that it could possibly stand up would be to claim that people within a particular geographical area were created by some other entity or process than were people from outside that region.

That anybody would make such an argument, even implicitly, demonstrates
a lack of rational judgment that should automatically disqualify that person from even the lowest judicial position, let alone a seat on the High Court. And yet it is something that a substantial majority of Americans seem to believe. The
imperialist idea of American Exceptionalism is one of the most
un-American doctrines anyone could ever subscribe to; completely
antithetical to the principles upon which the nation was founded.

Re: Democrats and Republicans Are Quietly Planning a Corporate Giveaway — to the Tune of $400 Billion

SadButTrue — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 01:21:47 -0000

I thought the same thing, exactly. This is extortion, and that's a crime. If corporations can really be shown to be doing this, revoke their charters, seize their assets, and lock up their executives.

Re: Democrats and Republicans Are Quietly Planning a Corporate Giveaway — to the Tune of $400 Billion

SadButTrue — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 01:16:20 -0000

In legal circles, behaviour like this has a name: extortion.

The crime is defined (loosely) as, "you give me X, or I will do Y (something harmful) to you." Capital strikes and threats against the economy should NOT be exempt. Charge the bastards, freeze the assets of the corporations, lock up their chief executive officers and revoke their corporate charters.

Oh, wait, it's the federal government that they are extorting. That makes it an act of war. You could charge them with treason. Instead of locking the bastard CEOs up, you could take a few out and shoot them. As Napoleon would have said, "pour encourager les autres." Les autres would soon fall in line, I'm sure.

Yeah, it's tough -- but eminently fair. In fact, it's the law.

Re: Descendents Of Confederacy Haven’t Finished Telling Us Just How Much Their Flag Is Not Racist

SadButTrue — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:54:37 -0000

It would have been far more effective if they'd just confiscated the plantations and parceled them out to the freed slaves. There are people serving in the Senate today who inherited family fortunes based on those plantations. They shouldn't have been allowed to retain that property or the influence that went with it.

Re: Screenshot Of The Night: Fox News Right For Once

SadButTrue — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 07:49:20 -0000

In other headlines: Broken Clock Still Right Twice a Day.

And on page two: Blind Squirrel Manages to Find a Nut Anyway.

Re: Open Thread - That's What He Said....

SadButTrue — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:22:20 -0000

LOL! You damned shirker.

Re: Watch Live As A Platinum Asteroid Worth Trillions Of Dollars Flies Past Earth

SadButTrue — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:56:15 -0000

This is B.S.
Any intelligent person would ask how they managed to assay this asteroid to determine the platinum content. Is it supposed to be a pure lump of platinum, and they measured its albedo? Did they send up a spacecraft with a spectroscope on board?

This story doesn't pass the sniff test.

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance: The Glaring Intellectual Laziness of Bill Maher & Richard Dawkins

SadButTrue — Wed, 13 May 2015 13:01:19 -0000

I agree. Nothing justifies a pugilistic response more than getting punched in the nose. Illing would like to ignore the fact that Christian Dominionists are not just rhetorically strident, but do real harm in the real world with their anti-intellectual, anti-education meddling. Just Say NO to "Intelligent Design." It's worse than crack cocaine.

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance: The Glaring Intellectual Laziness of Bill Maher & Richard Dawkins

SadButTrue — Wed, 13 May 2015 12:57:13 -0000

“One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it.”
~ Bertrand Russell

I love Bertrand Russell. Always succinct, and always to the point. Moreover, his practice of philosophy wasn't limited to abstractions as many philosophers are, but was purposeful and humane.

“Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.”
~ Bertrand Russell

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance: The Glaring Intellectual Laziness of Bill Maher & Richard Dawkins

SadButTrue — Wed, 13 May 2015 12:51:11 -0000

The core of Illing's argument is in this statement: “They talk incessantly about the untruth of religion because they assume
truth is what matters most to religious people. And perhaps it does for
many, but certainly not all – at least not in the conventional sense of
that term.” He returns to this theme several times in the essay, talking about atheists' obsession with epistemology and so forth.

But the consequences to that kind of thinking can't be so easily dismissed. You simply CAN'T have a rational conversation with someone who doesn't just disagree with you about what the truth is, but doesn't even care if something is true or not. It's a position that is utterly deserving of any amount of ridicule that the New Atheists heap on it, because it's beyond incoherent. It doesn't even admit to the existence of a coherent thought.

Confronted with this convoluted BS, Sam Harris has responded brilliantly on more than one occasion.
“The core of science is not controlled experiment or mathematical modelling; it is intellectual honesty. It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one isn't. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.”
~Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
“Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What do we do if someone doubts the truth of this proposition? What if someone comes forward and says, 'I'm sorry, but that's not how I choose to think about water?'

All we can do is appeal to scientific values. If a person doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. We must appeal to the value of understanding the world, the value of evidence, the value of logical consistency.

If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”
~ Sam Harris

But it would be (and IS) false to say that this argument is something that just sprang into being with the rise of the "New" atheists. It's been around for quite some time.

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

Re: On the D/L – Agents of SHIELD

SadButTrue — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:53:11 -0000

Nice that they leave for later the reveal that Gordon was mentored by Skye's mother just as he's now mentoring her. When she finds that out, it's going to make a big change in her view of the eyeless man.

The best of the comics-based series on TV for me. It's more adult, and willing to be subtle, taking the slow indirect path to things rather than hitting you over the head. This is especially true regarding character development and 'the feelz.'