I like that this turns into a sort of ragtimey thing with a cat dying in the middle of it when placed in midi form.
These damn new Canadians, coming over here and taking our jobs!
I bet that guy can't even speak English!
I bet that guy can't even speak English!
It's totally a coincidence that these folks look more and more like the actual 1945 german nazis every year.
Pros: Doesn't talk
Doesn't eat much
Doesn't get fat
Never has a headache
Cons: Is an unholy abomination of silicone rubber and synthetic bones and hair that will clearly send your immortal soul into the deepest hell imaginable forever
hmmm.... I mean, those are some pretty bad cons, but look at those pros!
Doesn't eat much
Doesn't get fat
Never has a headache
Cons: Is an unholy abomination of silicone rubber and synthetic bones and hair that will clearly send your immortal soul into the deepest hell imaginable forever
hmmm.... I mean, those are some pretty bad cons, but look at those pros!
I still use youtube, but if there isn't a better example of why governments should be using FOSS I can't think of it.
I like the idea that someone defines climate change as anthropomorphic.
Because then climate change will get rule 34'd.
It's not like I like you or anything, ice caps!
Because then climate change will get rule 34'd.
It's not like I like you or anything, ice caps!
need food advertisements with hot girls in them.
I suddenly want cup noodle. don't know why.
I suddenly want cup noodle. don't know why.
There was a Ross's Game Dungeon about some of the games made in this.
They didn't review very well...
(Funny thing that it had non-orthogonal walls but the map design was decidedly orthogonal!)
They didn't review very well...
(Funny thing that it had non-orthogonal walls but the map design was decidedly orthogonal!)
I ended up getting myself two things at the same time. An Oculus rift, and a 3D printer.
Three guesses as to which one is sitting in a box in my basement, and which one I use on a regular basis.
Three guesses as to which one is sitting in a box in my basement, and which one I use on a regular basis.
That could be it. These are really weird.
These things are oily and they're mushy and they're mostly tasteless. It tastes like something that you might have as like, filler in a turkey stuffing or something. Like an overcooked parsnip.
These things are oily and they're mushy and they're mostly tasteless. It tastes like something that you might have as like, filler in a turkey stuffing or something. Like an overcooked parsnip.
Obviously I don't have any data on it, but there could be a particularly usage pattern that's more popular than the US than other places? For example, you could smoke a cigarette a day and be considered a smoker, but let's say that you smoke a pack a day or two packs a day or three packs a day, those two people are both counted as smokers but one of them is probably going to be okay and the other one is probably going to die of cancer...
It all makes sense if they're just fascists with a rebrand, which has been my going hypothesis forever.
I just had a couple of chestnuts. I've never had chestnuts before in my life.
I can see why. They're edible, but they're not very good.
I can see why. They're edible, but they're not very good.
More like boot the arrogant attitude from the perspective.
I can see a case for something called humanism. We have the set of morals we do because we are human. It's built right into the structure of any morality created. We're going to have morals determined by the fact that we eat food that's either plant based or animal based, that we reproduce sexually, that we are social, intelligent, and rather weak on our own.
If we were a species that fed ourselves with photosynthesis, reproduced asexually, were anti-social, unintelligent, and overwhelmingly strong on our own we'd be a completely different thing and a human set of morals would be completely incomprehensible to them, just as the set of morals for such a hypothetical creature would be completely incomprehensible to us.
The issue is that there isn't a straight line from our current morality to our humanity. It's a winding path that involved may different humanistic ideas that were decided in one way or another over millennia. It's equally human to say "slavery is wrong because those are humans too and we're social animals" as it is to say "Slavery is ok because humans are tribal creatures and those humans are not part of our tribe", or to say "Slavery is ok because we decided the people who are slaves did something to deserve slavery", such as the slavery that was outlawed in Ghana in 1998 (and whose justification looks chillingly like woke ideology).
So why would we choose one direction over the other? The answer lies in our culture, and it's inarguable that in the west, Christianity dominated our culture for over 1000 years.
If we ditch our culture, and ditch the driving force our that culture, then we will inevitably have to come up with answers from scratch, and as we're seeing now those answers might not be so nice. They might be reprehensible.
So for that reason, humanism is fine as a concept, but too arrogant as a fully baked ideology.
I can see a case for something called humanism. We have the set of morals we do because we are human. It's built right into the structure of any morality created. We're going to have morals determined by the fact that we eat food that's either plant based or animal based, that we reproduce sexually, that we are social, intelligent, and rather weak on our own.
If we were a species that fed ourselves with photosynthesis, reproduced asexually, were anti-social, unintelligent, and overwhelmingly strong on our own we'd be a completely different thing and a human set of morals would be completely incomprehensible to them, just as the set of morals for such a hypothetical creature would be completely incomprehensible to us.
The issue is that there isn't a straight line from our current morality to our humanity. It's a winding path that involved may different humanistic ideas that were decided in one way or another over millennia. It's equally human to say "slavery is wrong because those are humans too and we're social animals" as it is to say "Slavery is ok because humans are tribal creatures and those humans are not part of our tribe", or to say "Slavery is ok because we decided the people who are slaves did something to deserve slavery", such as the slavery that was outlawed in Ghana in 1998 (and whose justification looks chillingly like woke ideology).
So why would we choose one direction over the other? The answer lies in our culture, and it's inarguable that in the west, Christianity dominated our culture for over 1000 years.
If we ditch our culture, and ditch the driving force our that culture, then we will inevitably have to come up with answers from scratch, and as we're seeing now those answers might not be so nice. They might be reprehensible.
So for that reason, humanism is fine as a concept, but too arrogant as a fully baked ideology.
