• Improbable Joe posted a new activity comment 5 years, 5 months ago

    What’s especially weird is people who have advanced degrees being entirely dismissive of other fields of intellectual endeavor. It is as though they believe that their knowledge and expertise is directly tied to their innate goodness and smartness and personality, rather than years of studying the hard work of people who came before them. Because…[Read more]

  • Improbable Joe posted a new activity comment 5 years, 5 months ago

    I’m sort of OK with doxxing people who use say “people who simply disagree with you” to dishonestly dismiss the abuse and bigotry of others. 🙂

  • Improbable Joe posted a new activity comment 5 years, 6 months ago

    Yeah.

    It is OK to not like someone, or not be interested in what someone is doing. Of course the next logical, rational, and most importantly ADULT thing to do is to avoid and ignore them. I don’t have any interest in the celebrities listed here, so I don’t consume whatever products it is that they’re selling. To my knowledge, none of them…[Read more]

  • Improbable Joe posted a new activity comment 5 years, 7 months ago

    I think you should be banned from everything forever because you said a mean thing about the brand of pet food that I feed my cats. WELLNESS FOREVER!!

  • Improbable Joe posted a new activity comment 5 years, 8 months ago

    It is the one-two punch of anti-immigrant racism: crap on them in every way you possibly can so that they turn to each other for the only decent treatment and support they’re going to get, and then blame them for not assimilating into the culture that you’ve gone out of your way to exclude them from. Nice work asshole atheists.

  • Improbable Joe posted a new activity comment 5 years, 8 months ago

    Way better… I know what I’m doing here. The spider thing is a buddy-cop movie between WW and the mutant spider. The other is a real-deal action flick where WW is responsible for letting mythological beasts onto the world, and leads a team of warriors to shut them down.

  • Improbable Joe posted a new activity comment 5 years, 8 months ago

    I wish I was an actual writer, because I have a bunch of (what I think are) great ideas for a Wonder Woman movie. One includes a giant mechanical spider driven by a man-shaped robot that’s in turn driven by a sentient 6-inch mutant spider. Another is a hybrid of Indiana Jones and Saving Private Ryan, with WW being a badass sergeant leading a team…[Read more]

  • Improbable Joe posted a new activity comment 5 years, 8 months ago

    Well at least in mine I’ve got the criminal and the victim on different sides. Dawkins seems to think that rape happens without a rapist and is something that the victim does to themselves.

    • I think there is a blurry line where “too drunk to consent to sex” occurs. I think this is where much of the misrepresentation and misunderstanding of remarks made by others occurs on this topic.

      • How is it blurry? “Hey, do you wanna have sex?” If they can’t answer or seem unwilling and aren’t *************enthusiastically consenting**************, don’t have sex (or rape) them. Easy-peasy.

      • “How is it blurry? “Hey, do you wanna have sex?” If they can’t answer or seem unwilling and aren’t *************enthusiastically consenting**************, don’t have sex (or rape) them. Easy-peasy.”

        I agree with you on where the line is drawn for the record. Do you think everyone is drawing it in the same place?

      • Why does that matter? Communicating to your partner is NOT HARD. If they can’t say yes, then you don’t have sex (rape) them. Period. It’s not that fucking hard. The fact that you think it is is really, really concerning.

      • “If they can’t say yes, then you don’t have sex (rape) them. Period. It’s not that fucking hard. The fact that you think it is is really, really concerning.”

        You are arguing with a shadow. We agree. Truly.

        I have heard the claim that “if someone says “yes” and indicates “yes” but their judgement is impaired by alcohol, then the “yes” doesn…[Read more]

  • Improbable Joe posted a new activity comment 5 years, 8 months ago

    I guess the closest drunk and driving comparison would be if someone gets you drunk, takes your car keys, and then intentionally runs you over when you start walking home? And then Dawkins blames you for not being sober enough to dodge the car properly?

    • Trying to decide which analogy is more of a stretch….

      • Well at least in mine I’ve got the criminal and the victim on different sides. Dawkins seems to think that rape happens without a rapist and is something that the victim does to themselves.

        • I think there is a blurry line where “too drunk to consent to sex” occurs. I think this is where much of the misrepresentation and misunderstanding of remarks made by others occurs on this topic.

          • How is it blurry? “Hey, do you wanna have sex?” If they can’t answer or seem unwilling and aren’t *************enthusiastically consenting**************, don’t have sex (or rape) them. Easy-peasy.

          • “How is it blurry? “Hey, do you wanna have sex?” If they can’t answer or seem unwilling and aren’t *************enthusiastically consenting**************, don’t have sex (or rape) them. Easy-peasy.”

            I agree with you on where the line is drawn for the record. Do you think everyone is drawing it in the same place?

          • Why does that matter? Communicating to your partner is NOT HARD. If they can’t say yes, then you don’t have sex (rape) them. Period. It’s not that fucking hard. The fact that you think it is is really, really concerning.

          • “If they can’t say yes, then you don’t have sex (rape) them. Period. It’s not that fucking hard. The fact that you think it is is really, really concerning.”

            You are arguing with a shadow. We agree. Truly.

            I have heard the claim that “if someone says “yes” and indicates “yes” but their judgement is impaired by alcohol, then the “yes” doesn…[Read more]

  • Improbable Joe posted a new activity comment 5 years, 9 months ago

    Yeah, I was gonna say… I’ve had enough lungfuls of the stuff to know that it isn’t smoke. It is the stuff they gassed us with for “training” in the Marines. Sometimes grenades, but I seem to remember them also heating up a disc of the stuff one time in a “gas chamber” tent maybe at Ft. Bragg.

    • Definitely not smoke as most people know it! As Fergus Mason says above, “smoke” refers to delivery method. ‘CS smoke’ is sometimes labeled ‘CS gas’.

    • I gassed hundreds of British soldiers with it. We had grenades, portfire flares and spray cans, but for the testing chamber we lit small pellets. One pellet for other ranks, five for officers 🙂