Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]
TaoPhoenix:
Epic line from a Spam that just appeared here (which will be gone soon but the line deserves to be laughed at!)
(Solemn visage and voice, like a C rate wise man.)
"After washing that person precisely before you go to sleep, night products should be applied just."
:tellme: ;D
IainB:
Epic line from a Spam that just appeared here (which will be gone soon but the line deserves to be laughed at!)
(Solemn visage and voice, like a C rate wise man.)
"After washing that person precisely before you go to sleep, night products should be applied just."
:tellme: ;D
_________________________
-TaoPhoenix (May 06, 2015, 02:09 AM)
--- End quote ---
That is a pretty good example of Engrish as she is spoke.
However, the subject of that particular spam post rather shook me to my foundations:
"cause despair or can induce a headache"
_________________________
--- End quote ---
I kid you not: that line is absolutely straight out of my Eng.Lit. master's report on me after a particularly gruelling semester at high school.
It was a turning point for me, because it was an improvement on the previous semester's report which had been pretty bad, I can tell you.
Renegade:
I don't know where to post this, and when you read it, you'll know why... The stupid in this will smack you in the back of the head and then punch you in the face.
WARNING: This is so stupid, that it could very well cause physical reactions in you.
And now... to elevate stupidity to new and terrifying heights...!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417997/professor-if-you-read-your-kids-youre-unfairly-disadvantaging-others-katherine-timpf
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others
Check your privilege, ladies.
May 6, 2015 3:24 PM
Bedtime-story privilege?
According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.
In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:
“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.
But Swift also added that some other things parents do to give their kids the best education possible — like sending them to “an elite private school” — “cannot be justified” in this way.
“Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,” he said.
”It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realize these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school,” he continued, adding that “we could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to elite family relationships.”
At one point, Swift even flirted with the idea of “simply abolishing the family” as a way of “solving the social justice problem” because “there would be a more level playing field” if we did, but ultimately concluded that “it is in the child’s interest to be parented” and that “parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and well-being of adults.”
In general, I tend to believe that focusing on improving things for the less fortunate is a better way to advance our society than purposely making things worse for those who have more, but what do I know? After all, it’s not like I’m a philosopher or anything.
— Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review Online.
--- End quote ---
Link from article: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/new-family-values/6437058
Just. Wow. The SJWs are generally completely batshit crazy, but this... just wow... Swift sure ain't too swift. :P
IainB:
@Renegade: Well, some people (not me, you understand) might say that this is simply batsh#t crazy, but I couldn't possibly comment.
My mother always reckoned that people who were slightly mad or ill-suited to, and unable to function happily and properly in open society, but who were nevertheless well-intentioned and posed no real threat to society, were generally best kept in safe places where they could live without harm from the rest of society and maybe fulfil some useful purpose. She said that in the old days, it was unfortunately the lunatic asylum and the poor-houses where they tended to end up, but society had adapted and made the most of these peoples' limited abilities to cope with and/or contribute to society - examples being nuns in convents, monks in monasteries, and academics in ivory towers, most of whom perform often valuable services to their community/society.
In New Zealand, they have broken from a somewhat disgraceful historical tendency to throw anybody "different" into a lunatic asylum, where the inhabitants were then variously abused, tortured and experimented upon, and who then became thoroughly institutionalised and completely unable to cope in the outside world. The break came when the IHC organisation (which grew from the Society for Intellectually Handicapped Children), hit on the idea of putting these intellectually handicapped/retarded or just slightly mad people out to live in houses scattered throughout towns, which the IHC had bought for that purpose. There was an uproar and formalised protest aplenty from people who would fearfully exclaim, "I don't want no crazy people living next door to me and my family!", but it quietened down when nothing bad seemed to come of it.
My house happened to be next door to one of the first IHC houses to be used in this grand experiment. I used to chat to the inhabitants over the garden fence, and I recall one in particular - a woman who was stuck at the mental age of 11 or so. She would stick her head out of her upstairs bedroom window, which overlooked our garden, wanting to chat to anyone in our family who went out into the garden. Apart from being a bit of a persistent nuisance, she was no problem at all - just a child. She died from a broken neck in a fall downstairs - pushed accidentally, I think, whilst playing with some of the inmates of the house. We all rather missed her.
Arizona Hot:
silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]
109 Spoiler Alert - explain xkcd
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version