Intro |
|
Sad things happened to this board and this community has moved to the new place. If you lost touch with us, please find us at www.sogayshidae.com. First 10 pages of the new Forum Discussions thread should fill you in with the details of this drama. This forum was restored and frozen for archive purposes. |
| Chat OT | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 30 2013, 10:20 PM (722,921 Views) | |
| Random Snippets | Jun 24 2013, 05:24 PM Post #17291 |
![]()
Aficionado of Yuri's Wiggly Eyebrows
|
Mid to late-20s goal: get a townhouse in the Carlton area and share with friends. I actually get pretty jelly of my friends who live around there. It's just so damn ig-able. Uh huh, I went there. Woah, but yeah. You did have guts going around that block. Embarrassingly, I don't think I've ever been west of Melbourne. I've heard... stories about that side of Melbourne though. :| It's on the 4th, like right at the end of the exam period. I won't even need to cram for it. -knocks on wood- |
![]() |
|
| Rexie | Jun 24 2013, 05:45 PM Post #17292 |
![]()
Your friendly neighborhood T-Rex
|
IG-able yeah nice plan, that area is so nice to live in (with lots and lots of hipsters too lol). Close to the cbd and there will always be somewhere to go/something to do there. Whereabouts do you live in melb, if i may ask?? Never been to the West?? good, there's absolutely nothing to see there and the people are just so different too just pray to soofany for your last exam, granted you'll get good grades
|
![]() |
|
| Random Snippets | Jun 24 2013, 05:52 PM Post #17293 |
![]()
Aficionado of Yuri's Wiggly Eyebrows
|
I never got the Soofany thing. Imma have to pc massively after exams. I live in ze Camberwell/Canterbury area. Hipster level is at an all time low there in comparison to your side of Melbs.
|
![]() |
|
| Artichoke | Jun 24 2013, 05:58 PM Post #17294 |
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
|
I'm surprised they didn't push wMatsui some more, I would've loved to see Rena try to swallow her resentment at Jurina being anywhere near her. That ear-kissing scene with Jurina, Rena looked like she was going to projectile vomit.
|
![]() |
|
| Rexie | Jun 24 2013, 06:03 PM Post #17295 |
![]()
Your friendly neighborhood T-Rex
|
two words, missing out!!!! let me give you a heads up and start pc from page 302, then you'll know. It's the greatest thing that happened to this forum after the schlickgate Hey I used to live in Camberwell too for 2 months, when I first got to melb. It's a nice homie area and damn S0fia!! Cheapest Italian restaurant everrrrr, and that massive portion, yummmmmm
|
![]() |
|
| Windmill | Jun 24 2013, 06:10 PM Post #17296 |
![]()
Gertrude
|
Imagine if they actually had a kissing scene, i'm sure Rena would have brushed her teeth for a good 24 hours straight.
|
![]() |
|
| Artichoke | Jun 24 2013, 06:23 PM Post #17297 |
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
|
Jurina would kiss the shit out of her in pure spite, knowing that Rena would probably try and bleach her mouth out afterwards. "I CAN NEVER BE CLEAN AGAIN!!!!!!!!" |
![]() |
|
| orangedaffodils | Jun 24 2013, 06:53 PM Post #17298 |
![]()
Let ε <0
|
It's a sad day to live in Texas right now. the House just passed a bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks and more than likely, 37 of our 42 abortion clinics are gonna close down. We now have (I think) the toughest abortion restrictions in the country.tl;dr: Texas hates women
|
![]() |
|
| Die Zicke | Jun 24 2013, 07:13 PM Post #17299 |
|
Caffeine is good for you.
|
I think Arkansas' 12 week ban had us beat, bb girl. And I haven't read the specifics of the bill, but if it doesn't meet the Planned Parenthood v. Casey criteria (which is the modern litmus test for abortion) then it is unconstitutional. States do that all the time though, hoping that it will somehow reach the Supreme Court to override the Roe and Casey standard. They're all doing it now, too, considering the conservative court only has a limited time left in power and it can take years for a case to filter through the various federal courts. But this state does suck, though. |
![]() |
|
| orangedaffodils | Jun 24 2013, 07:34 PM Post #17300 |
![]()
Let ε <0
|
A few of my friends are up at the capitol, which means updates have been streaming in like crazy. The main problem is their are a lot of new restrictions for the doctors performing the abortion (the bill requires abortions to be done in ambulatory surgical centers by doctors with admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic). and only 5 out of the 42 abortion clinics meet surgical-center guidelines so anyplace outside of Houston, Austin, Dallas etc will probably end up being closed b/c a) it's probably difficult for doctors in those areas to get admitting privileges and b) it takes a lot of time and money to renovate a facility to those standards. it's just a stupid bill /kicks rock ![]() Also: the Fisher case just got thrown back down lower courts for review, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of UT. There's just a lot of stuff going on right now... |
![]() |
|
| Artichoke | Jun 24 2013, 08:05 PM Post #17301 |
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
|
I offer the prediction that crime statistics will rise in Texas about 10~16 years from now, if not immediately. |
![]() |
|
| orangedaffodils | Jun 24 2013, 08:12 PM Post #17302 |
![]()
Let ε <0
|
You must've read Freakanomics |
![]() |
|
| Artichoke | Jun 24 2013, 08:14 PM Post #17303 |
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
|
Yea. I'm interested to see if the findings of that correlation will be replicated. Really, though, strict (refuse to call them conservative, they're not) abortion laws have absolutely no benefit whatsoever to anybody. Passing that decree has just given them an official recognition of their stupidity. |
![]() |
|
| orangedaffodils | Jun 24 2013, 08:23 PM Post #17304 |
![]()
Let ε <0
|
I guess you'll be able to find out in 15-20 years time ![]() In this context, stricter abortion laws are typically associated with the more conservative Republican party, so calling it a "conservative" bill, in this case, would be accurate. They've had many other times in which they've shown themselves to be pretty stupid, so this is far from an official recognition - it's more like a testament or affirmation (though they've had plenty of those, too). |
![]() |
|
| Artichoke | Jun 24 2013, 08:37 PM Post #17305 |
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
|
I'm patient. Yeah, it's a shame. I actually think that Conservatism is a sensible ideology, though I'd definitely call myself a Welfare Liberal, and yet none of the Conservative parties that I can actually think of have legitimate Conservative views. It gives the ideology a really bad name.
|
![]() |
|
| orangedaffodils | Jun 24 2013, 08:48 PM Post #17306 |
![]()
Let ε <0
|
Yeah...I don't
|
![]() |
|
| Zicke on her phone | Jun 24 2013, 09:07 PM Post #17307 |
|
Unregistered
|
The Texas legislature is a joke. The bill is unconstitutional. But this isn't the first time taxpayer dollars have been wasted on useless legislation. |
|
|
| Artichoke | Jun 24 2013, 09:17 PM Post #17308 |
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
|
Why not? In all of my political essays/exams/papers, I've concluded that, out of all of the pure ideologies, Conservatism is the most logical compromise between positive and negative liberty. Respects tradition and positive liberty enough to incorporate systems such as education and healthcare into the state, but not wholly dismissive of negative liberty and prefers to maintain a distance so as to avoid becoming a "Nanny state". It also gives way to an avenue of social progression through democracy, but not radical reformism, which I think is a very sensible idea. Edit: Obviously there are problems, but it's the best out of a bad bunch when it comes to non-hybrid ideologies. |
![]() |
|
| Ihla | Jun 24 2013, 09:25 PM Post #17309 |
![]()
I need insoles
|
Got kicked out of work again. It's just a little cough you wussies! |
![]() |
|
| Artichoke | Jun 24 2013, 09:26 PM Post #17310 |
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
|
Wear a surgical mask to work? Telecommute? |
![]() |
|
| Ihla | Jun 24 2013, 09:33 PM Post #17311 |
![]()
I need insoles
|
I do take my super sub-zero masks with me and yeah, that's the only option I have for now, took a bunch of scenes to work with, but I don't really like working from my house when it comes to animation; I don't have the director with me so even if I finish them, that means changing a bajillion things after she's done checking them which makes us lose time.
|
![]() |
|
| Artichoke | Jun 24 2013, 09:35 PM Post #17312 |
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
|
That sucks. :c Hope you fully recover soon.
|
![]() |
|
| Rexie | Jun 24 2013, 09:50 PM Post #17313 |
![]()
Your friendly neighborhood T-Rex
|
That little girl in Jessica's picture sorta reminded me of @RS, idk why haha |
![]() |
|
| orangedaffodils | Jun 24 2013, 10:00 PM Post #17314 |
![]()
Let ε <0
|
Being a science-type of person, I find Conservatism to be fundamentally opposed to science; it's a constantly changing field that requires you to adapt quickly, and sometimes those adaptions are required for society as a whole to do. I also think that, as far as social issues go, Conservatism is opposed to the advancement for true equality and freedom for oppressed peoples. Which is why I think that ideology is a load of bs both metaphysically and as applied. |
![]() |
|
| Artichoke | Jun 24 2013, 10:14 PM Post #17315 |
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
|
I don't think that this is true. Conservatism might not be perhaps as radical as Liberalism, which might limit how quickly social change can be implemented, but to say that it opposes social progression is, I feel, a complete lie. If anything, Conservatism espouses the adaptation of the state alongside scientific/social discovery. A requisite of Conservatism is that the state evolves organically with people's changing views, which would be perfectly in line with scientific principles, as when the views of society change, so too will the state grow and adapt with that. What Conservatism means when it rejects quick social change is that it rejects revolution like that of the French or Russian one, because it claims that revolution doesn't pay due heed to what the past did right, and instead chooses complete upheaval in emotional response over a rational consideration as to what to implement based on the consensus of society and what's been working so far. I think that this is more than logical, and rather than acting as a barrier to appropriate development, it acts as a safety net against people like Hitler who seek to use the instability inherent in other pure ideologies to perform acts that liberal governments would pave the way to, which is incredibly useful when there are somewhat tumultuous circumstances like there was in the 1920s~1930s. Yea. Conservatism is cool. Its fundamental principle is that society should function as a cohesive whole, rather than a name for individual people who just happen to be in close quarters with other equally individual people, separate from each other. I think this is an important quality. All of this is assuming that the state in question isn't a failed state, like Libya or Egypt or Syria, that is. Failed states don't count as states and a revolution there would be more the creation of a functioning state than an actual revolution.
|
![]() |
|
| Frost | Jun 24 2013, 10:29 PM Post #17316 |
![]()
Stand by Mode.
|
I agree. |
![]() |
|
| orangedaffodils | Jun 24 2013, 10:33 PM Post #17317 |
![]()
Let ε <0
|
The problem is that Conservatism, as an ideology, is that it's apologetic towards systematic types of oppression, such as racism, classism, etc - which are things that should be eliminated as quickly as possible, not when people benefitting from the status quo (ie; mainly proponents of Conservatism) feel like they should do away with those antiquated ideas; traditionalist values are not going to adhere to societal change in regards to equality and any "organic" evolving of people's changing views are not helpful to people suffering right now, under this system. As far as science is concerned, if you've seen the US federal budget for NASA, you'll see that even with more discovery and advances in technology, the state is allocating less and less (actually, it tends to fluctuate depending on presidency, but for the general trend, it decreases every term); science is a field of change - Conservatism is an ideology that is opposed to change. There's a fundamental disconnect that is hardly reconcilable and will never be in line with one another. I understand what you're saying, and yeah, I can see why some people think it's a good philosophy, but I am not going to support an ideology that results in problematic values and intolerance for certain groups of people (like us, for example) and i'm certainly not going to suggest that it's a ~cool~ idea because that idea results in real and harmful consequences; it's the kind of thing that gets legislature passed that hinders the progression of women's health. It's the kind of thing that, for centuries, resulted in black people getting lynched; Conservatism is rooted in bigotry and intolerance, no matter which way you try to word it. |
![]() |
|
| Artichoke | Jun 24 2013, 10:45 PM Post #17318 |
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
|
Oh, yea, a big problem with Conservatism is that it might not be able to implement some drastic changes that are perhaps needed in officialdom, but the role of a Conservative state wouldn't extend far enough to actually implement those discriminations. It isn't supposed to control or influence social views by perpetuating them, it's supposed to serve them by only changing when there's need to and would never involve itself into the private sphere based on fickle period hatreds that it's meant to protect against. idt I'm explaining this very well, but I think you're mixing up Conservatism with political parties who call themselves Conservative; the latter very rarely follow the former, unfortunately. Conservative parties enjoy fiddling with our positive rights by restricting what we can or can't do, when a real Conservative government wouldn't concern itself with those things because it's not its place to do so. That would cross into "Nanny state" territory. Like I said, it all gives Conservatism a bad name. In regards to your odd quoting of "organic", though, the whole point of Conservatism is that it views the state as a "natural, organic entity" that grows from societies views. As in, that's a fundamental principle upon which the entire ideology is based. There are certain constants, such as "don't harm others unduly", but the state isn't a vehicle for oppression, because oppression requires a level of involvement on the part of the government that Conservatism is intrinsically opposed to. |
![]() |
|
| Jeccica | Jun 24 2013, 11:06 PM Post #17319 |
![]()
|
The stuff I ordered from Korea came in the mail today! ![]() I'm a happy girl now. |
![]() |
|
| orangedaffodils | Jun 24 2013, 11:06 PM Post #17320 |
![]()
Let ε <0
|
Ah ok. I'm not, Conservatism is the foundation for conservative political parties (the implementation is different, but the core reactionary views stem from that philosophy). Like I said, i'm not going to support an ideology that results in oppression sooo... I quoted organic because you used it in a context that was a fancy way of implying a slow pace which I felt was an unnecessary masking of what it actually is. We must have differing ideas on what Conservatism as an ideology really is. I feel like it's a reactionary idea that stems from wanting to return to a more traditional time period, which typically is a time period with very negative views on different, oppressed groups of people. Also, you don't have to be actively involved with systematically oppressing people to be doing so, which would still allow oppression to flourish in a system that already has it in place. I imagine you're going to respond with more explanations about the abstract of Conservatism, which is fine I guess, but i'm not going to change my opinion of it; regardless of whether or not political parties adhere to their fundamental ideological tenants or not, that ideology results in a lot pure hatred and irrational intolerance that I can't support. ![]() @Jeccica: you lucky bish, i'm still waiting for my freakin handbag
|
![]() |
|
| Rexie | Jun 24 2013, 11:07 PM Post #17321 |
![]()
Your friendly neighborhood T-Rex
|
this breed is apparently called Selk!rk REX *seriously, check it out * . First time seeing it, so gorgeous
|
![]() |
|
| Die Zicke | Jun 24 2013, 11:23 PM Post #17322 |
|
Caffeine is good for you.
|
I just got my book list... gross. Don't these people know it's still summer?! |
![]() |
|
| Yuwree | Jun 24 2013, 11:24 PM Post #17323 |
|
Official Pine Tree
|
I really don't want to go to work today... or tomorrow...... or the day after... Uni Hurry up and start
|
![]() |
|
| orangedaffodils | Jun 24 2013, 11:28 PM Post #17324 |
![]()
Let ε <0
|
omg we share this lab with another research group and they're loud as fuck and really homophobic just ew stap pls like water u even doing @Die Zicke: What kind of books? is it that bad? lol |
![]() |
|
| Die Zicke | Jun 24 2013, 11:30 PM Post #17325 |
|
Caffeine is good for you.
|
I start law school in the fall and they've already sent me my book list. I'm kind of grossed out about it. Plus, that reminds me that I'm gonna have to move soon and leave this beautifully fucked up place behind.... no me gusta. On the other hand, I'm excited to start law school. Just not excited enough to start thinking about it during June lol. @ Orange - Are they bros? Seems like this place has been overrun with bros lately. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |















* . First time seeing it, so gorgeous

9:08 PM Jul 11