Disqus - Latest Comments for here

Re: Batman V Superman Runtime Confirmed

here — Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:34:03 -0000

Some really decisive and thought-provoking analysis right here: "Basically, if Batman V Superman uses its lengthy runtime to tell a great story, then we think the movie has a chance. If it branches out into too many different directions and starts to hint at events that will take place later in Warner Bros. DC slate – the introduction of Darkseid, the Green Lantern Corps. etc. – then we might start to worry."

Re: Who will win the Democratic Presidential nomination?

here — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 05:16:11 -0000

Bernie Sanders is built for momentum. It's the way his entire career has gone, and it's the way his campaign is going. He sticks to his messages and his principles, and over the long haul, he convinces enough voters that he's the real deal to win.

Re: Who will win the Democratic Presidential nomination?

here — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 05:13:02 -0000

Winning Iowa was never the plan—not from reasonable observers, anyway. A strong showing, of course, was hoped for. There's no question the Sanders campaign blew past every expectation held 2 weeks ago, 1 month ago, 6 months ago, 1 year ago (when he was down 60 points).

Re: Clinton calls for agreement on additional N.H. debate

here — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:37:51 -0000

"Nonsense" is what you're peddling, actually. Clinton obviously doesn't come out the winner of these debates. She's lost ground with each one.

And of course, until now she's had her (illegally colluding) lackey Debbie Wasserman Schultz scheduling scant debates, and on weekends and holidays, to try and coast her way to the nomination. That was unprincipled enough.

But now that she needs something—anything—to try and pull up her downward trajectory, she's backtracking and triangulating and frankly lying her butt off to try and rewrite history. And you're playing *right* into it.

The word "pawn" comes to mind.

Re: Pet of the Week: Dottie | WTNH Connecticut News

here — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:24:33 -0000

Pit bulls get a bad rap. It's partly why the shelter has a lot of them; people have been warned against them. But I've never met a pit who wasn't affectionate and happy, when in a loving environment.

Re: Colbert Slips to 4th Place in Late-Night Race, Beaten By Seth Meyers Who Airs One-Hour Later

here — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 23:22:06 -0000

When someone commands an intelligent person to do something, the intelligent person doesn't just do it. In this case, given your specific command, that's especially true. You obviously don't know intelligence when you see it, and you're not about to start.

Re: Colbert Slips to 4th Place in Late-Night Race, Beaten By Seth Meyers Who Airs One-Hour Later

here — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 22:02:34 -0000

Ah. That explains all the stupidity in this comment section.

Re: Colbert Slips to 4th Place in Late-Night Race, Beaten By Seth Meyers Who Airs One-Hour Later

here — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 22:00:46 -0000

And yet I can see that your brain doesn't comprehend the simple notion that your juvenile homophobia doesn't work on people who don't share your juvenile homophobia.

Re: Colbert Slips to 4th Place in Late-Night Race, Beaten By Seth Meyers Who Airs One-Hour Later

here — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 19:09:15 -0000

He's a comedic genius, skilled actor, competent singer and has balls bigger than your brain.

Maybe Colbert's just over your head.

Re: FBI Seizes Files On Chicago Officials From Inspector General's Office

here — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:28:39 -0000

Lol indeed. I won't be taking reasoning advice from the moron who offers this whopper:

1. "Chicago politicians are known for their corruption."

2. "Therefore the possibility that Barack Obama is corrupt is also quite high."

Your argument, though I think that word only barely applies, is a blatant association fallacy. You're a joke. Stop polluting the internet.

Re: FBI Seizes Files On Chicago Officials From Inspector General's Office

here — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:22:06 -0000

Nope. It's a non sequitur.

And I don't have to look up the word "inference." I've already bothered to know such terminology, because, unlike you, I justify my beliefs against formal logic, available evidence and known facts.

The things I say are earned. The things you say are just spewed.

Re: FBI Seizes Files On Chicago Officials From Inspector General's Office

here — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:16:15 -0000

"Non sequitur"—look it up.

Re: Symbiosis Gathering Proved that Hippies Party Harder than Ravers or Club Kids

here — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:47:35 -0000

Again: I didn't claim to go to the event, and nothing I've said depends on my having attended the event. It isn't a counterargument you can make, because it doesn't apply. You've offered crappy unjustified critiques, and I've countered them. That's it. You really have utterly failed to grasp the dynamics of this conversation.

Let me tell you something about how productive arguments go. Party A asserts thoughtful argument Xi. Party B evaluates argument Xi against standards of logic and evidence, and, if there's a disagreement based on that reasoned, fact-based assessment, Party B responds accordingly to Party A by offering thoughtful counterargument Yi. Party A then evaluates Yi according to standards of logic and evidence, and, if warranted, offers thoughftul Xii. And so forth. In this conversation, both parties have the mental equipment and commitment to truth necessary to progress past bad arguments.

Here's how a discussion with you goes. You assert transparently weak argument Xi. Party B evaluates and responds according to logic and evidence with transparently strong counterargument Yi. You utterly fail to grasp Yi and, in your mystified and thus even more defensive mental state, reassert Xi, even though it's already been justifiably dismissed by B, adding in a little bit more bullshit each time for good measure.

Let's talk again when you've figured this whole critical-thinking, commitment-to-truth thing out. Until then—years, I'm thinking, so for all intents and purposes never—shoo fly.

Re: Symbiosis Gathering Proved that Hippies Party Harder than Ravers or Club Kids

here — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:12:28 -0000

• I didn't claim to go to the event, and nothing I've said depends on my having attended the event.

• You can keep lying and claiming that his mere mention of boobs amounts to objectification. You can also keep lying and claiming that he "focused" or "made it about" the boobs. But again, those are lies, claimed by a liar.

• Before, it was this one guy's "public urination" that bothered you; now you're holding this guy responsible for all the people who peed in the lake. You're flailing even more desperately than you were before to try to salvage your stupid claims.

• "You make gross generalizations about hippies thinking 'just pee man'." If it had been a "gross generalization about hippies," it would have been just one. Singular. Not plural. Even a pathological rationalizer and liar such as yourself should be able to see that. But the fact is, I didn't make a gross overgeneralization. I noted what "seemed" to be true based on my experiences of self-identifying "hippies." My statement intended to challenge *your* gross overgeneralization about what it means to be a hippie. See, you have all kinds of hardened ideas about what it means to be a hippie, not that you have even an ounce of the self-awareness necessary to notice it on your own.

• "Again, fuck you and stick to being an internet idiot and away from conscious culture gatherings. I will happily continue to yell at people I see taking pisses (and shits) on the ground at festivals." 'Fuck you,' says the conscious culture maven! Haha. And now "shits" are involved, too! Because goodness knows you can't simply defend the ill-formed accusations you've already lobbed. Instead you just keep throwing more out there, desperately hoping something'll salvage your pathetic contributions to this comment section.

Re: Symbiosis Gathering Proved that Hippies Party Harder than Ravers or Club Kids

here — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:14:08 -0000

He didn't "make it about boob to dick ratios." As a sum-up of his story that is woefully inadequate. The writer spent one out of many paragraphs on the topic, a paragraph which also included: "The Symbiosis community's perspective on sexuality is miles ahead of the rest of American society. People are free to be themselves without fear of being ogled or objectified and we're afforded the serendipitous circumstance of deconstructing America's puritanical fear of genitals while surrounded by beautiful, naked people." Oh, and you *still* haven't made a single argument as to why noticing the presence of exposed breasts is misogynistic.

You say, "Am I misreading your statement or are you legitimately trying to justify people peeing on the ground/preserve based upon the amount of nudity?" You're misreading a shit-ton, obviously. My point is that you're trying to gain leverage off the idea of "public urination," which in a normalized context isn't just about the urination; it's also carries the implications of "indecent exposure." Obviously not a concern at Symbiosis.

And as for the other part of it—the peeing near other people—do you rail against all the people who pee in the ocean near other swimmers? Do you go around railing against people who pee around popular hiking trails through the woods? They're both instances of "public urination," after all. (Those are rhetorical questions by the way; I know you don't give a shit about these things except when you've got an axe to grind against a guy who sounds a little too bro-y for your taste.) What are the rules, by the way, governing when it's the "hippie" thing to do to pee in public spaces, and when it isn't? Hippies have always seemed like the "Just pee, man!" types to me.

You say, "I'm not bothered in the least about getting into a shouting match online with a twat like you or the author if it means the actual good vibes and times to be had at quality festivals like Symbiosis, the Burn and others are put first." L. O. L. It doesn't mean that. You're not defending anything in the real world here. You're not producing anything here. You are making a stink from behind *your* keyboard, and provoking in even mildly intelligent people a response of pity mixed with disgust. Your points are reactive and poorly thought out, often entirely insubstantial. You seem to have a very hard time self-critiquing or understanding others' substantive points, even when they're laid out before you in perfectly clear terms.

Re: Symbiosis Gathering Proved that Hippies Party Harder than Ravers or Club Kids

here — Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:07:38 -0000

I didn't challenge you to write your own report. I accepted your offer to write your own report, which it's clear now was pure bullshit, spewed from someone who clearly has limited taste or ability when it comes to writing.

Your opinion on what qualifies as douchey is hardly authoritative, either, seeing as you are in fact a major douche—a blowhard who just wants to "vent online about some inconsiderate bullshit," yet feels himself above having to explain how this writer's fleeting mention of all the boobs he saw was *actually* misogynistic, or how peeing in a lake in the context of omnipresent nudity amounts to unacceptable "public urination," or why you're so defensive about Symbiosis being compared to Spring Break or Burning Man. Who the fuck cares? A reactive moron cares. I suppose one could call such a person a "douche."

You write, "It's the editor of a relatively large online music publication, not fucking erowid and/or a semi-private group text among USC students." What in the world could make you believe that this article is written at the level of an undergraduate text thread? Again you make a fool of yourself.

Are you expecting the rest of us to thank you for your senseless venting, by the way? Goodness knows the internet doesn't have enough of that already.

Re: Symbiosis Gathering Proved that Hippies Party Harder than Ravers or Club Kids

here — Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:18:58 -0000

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the obligations of the writer.

The author isn't obligated to write about the festival from your perspective. He wrote about it from his—as he should in a firsthand experiential piece like this.

You say: "I'd happily write about the actual music, the diversity of music options, the sound ordinance problems (which this guy won't touch because he is in the business of fluffing parties, not reporting), dust, and things that give people a realistic recap and help them become better informed on what awesome people, parties, social trends etc... are out there."

Oh good. Let's see it. Go ahead and give us your ideal report.

Unless, of course, you're just blowing smoke.

Re: http://here.am/post/979483313

here — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:49:46 -0000

I thought it was a given!

Re: http://vegansaurus.com/post/1121574899

here — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:22:17 -0000

Text-only communication is notorious for misunderstandings in tone. My b.

Re: http://vegansaurus.com/post/1121574899

here — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:21:16 -0000

Where do I get my protein? I eat women, of course, because, as you know, I hate them. I hate them so much that I bother to be respectful during conversations, even when they're complete asses ;-)

(That was me calling you and your cohorts a name, FYI.)

Re: http://vegansaurus.com/post/1121574899

here — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:18:17 -0000

Way to take Laura's offensive act and claim that I'm the one who's out of line. Sorry, that's not the way it works.

Re: http://vegansaurus.com/post/1121574899

here — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:15:50 -0000

Wow. Once again pigeon-holed and condescendingly dismissed, with substantive statements ignored.

Do you hate men or something?

Re: http://vegansaurus.com/post/1121574899

here — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:49:02 -0000

"i wonder if you would call us petulant if we were men? just a thought. also, it's totally hilarious and amazing when you call us names. major lolz over here!" First, "petulant' isn't a name. Second, you do not get to accuse me of misogyny when I haven't said anything at all about sex or gender. Third, I'm all for believing in corporate conspiracies. But I challenge you to find a single doctor who wouldn't say that "obesity" -- OBESITY -- is not a health risk.

Anyway, is this how you usually defend your point of view? By repeatedly insulting and ignoring a good-faith opponent? Then, after you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to do me the basic courtesy of responding to what I've actually said, you extend an invitation to email you?

Fine, but (a) I'll perhaps naively hope for slightly better treatment, and (b) you get to email me: daniel [dot] mims [at] gmail [dot] com. Until then --

Re: http://vegansaurus.com/post/1121574899

here — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:58:57 -0000

Laura, you and Meave are doing a bang-up job of being petulant and rotely defensive. I'll respond in the hope that you'll actually read what I have to say, without immediately giving in to a self-preservational psychological mode in which you interpret everything I say in the most loaded, self-serving way possible.

You said: "i am learning so much from you! for example, "people are judged by their appearance" and so we need to conform? the only time I've ever been even close to skinny was when I had an eating disorder that landed me in the hospital. I'll get back on that train so I don't embarrass the vegan cause."

As a fellow vegan who has likely had to dispel straw man arguments, you should know better than to commit the same offense. I didn't say you should have an eating disorder. I didn't say you should "conform," unless you think being healthier is "conforming." I didn't even suggest a belief any universal standard of ideal weight. I also didn't say you should strive to be extremely skinny or adhere to ridiculous standards of beauty or self-worth. Yet you have accused me of (or perhaps just insinuated, on #3) asserting all four. Will you apologize? After all, I have been careful to talk only about the excessive levels of weight that put undeniably unhealthy strains on your body. "Obesity" is defined as a level of excessive weight that causes adverse health conditions. I've limited my discussion to that, so you can save all your righteous indignation for someone who deserves it.

Obese people have higher rates of heart disease. Of cancer. Of diabetes. Of arthritis (due to severe strain on load-bearing joints). Of sleep apnea and other sleep disorders (due to compressed nasal passages). It really isn't rocket science why, but I'll happily give you the sorts of links you demand:

"Average life expectancy is already diminished; the main adverse consequences are cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and several cancers."

http://www.thelancet.com/jo...

"Obesity is one of the leading causes of preventable death."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley....

"Obesity can be called an underlying risk factor for cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (2). It is called this because it raises the risk for ASCVD through other risk factors. The latter include the major risk factors (hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, hyperglycemia) and emerging risk factors (atherogenic dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, proinflammatory state, prothrombotic state)."

http://jcem.endojournals.or...

"Obesity is an epidemic disease that threatens to inundate health care resources by increasing the incidence of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and cancer. These effects of obesity result from two factors: the increased mass of adipose tissue and the increased secretion of pathogenetic products from enlarged fat cells. This concept of the pathogenesis of obesity as a disease allows an easy division of disadvantages of obesity into those produced by the mass of fat and those produced by the metabolic effects of fat cells. In the former category are the social disabilities resulting from the stigma associated with obesity, sleep apnea that results in part from increased parapharyngeal fat deposits, and osteoarthritis resulting from the wear and tear on joints from carrying an increased mass of fat."

http://jcem.endojournals.or...

Re: http://vegansaurus.com/post/1121574899

here — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:19:28 -0000

Meave, your response is tonally out of order, and the fact that you're reacting emotionally is probably the reason why you seem to have misunderstood my original points. If you want to have a constructive conversation, great. If not, this will probably be my last substantive response here.

(1) You are incorrect about the nature of insurance. Whether or not it is for-profit or non-profit, its functional basis is the same: *shared* risk. Riskier members of the shared pool are a greater burden on the less risky members than vice versa. Hence it is not a "personal" choice to be very fat. Btw, these facts have nothing to do with a critique of the privatization of essential services like healthcare and health insurance, about which, by the way, we no doubt agree.

(2) Most non-vegans believe it is unhealthy to be vegan. The supposed "unhealthiness" of veganism is one of the most common excuses I hear for why people don't go vegan. No doubt you do as well. Yet you think being an unhealthily overweight vegan is PR-neutral for the vegan movement? Obviously not. And whether or not you accept the responsibility of being a vegan example to those who know nothing about it, you are one. We all are in virtue of the fact that others judge us by our presentation, and this is not changing any time soon. Once above a certain threshold, weight is a pretty reliable indicator of health. If you wish to deny that, you've really entered la-la land. It's one thing to wish that the reality of this would be something else; it's another thing entirely to deny the reality.

(3) I would've thought this would be self-evident. Being unhealthy, especially being obese, increases your risk of premature major illness, incapacitation, and/or death. Those who love and/or depend upon you have an obvious interest in your health (or lack thereof). Being obese or significantly "overweight" is unhealthier than the alternative. That isn't to say there aren't some "big fat" (your words) people who have lived long lives. And of course, some trim people get sick and die early. But the fact of the matter is that the odds of premature major illness, incapacitation, and/or death are far higher for obese people. Again, you can wish it weren't so. But it is.

As for your comment about the "obesity epidemic," it doesn't apply to anything said so far. I don't know why you brought it up.