I've always wondered what it's like to be a scubadiver and just dive straight to the bottom to find "other worlds" but I think one must be prepared to do that sort of thing. Don't know why I've always had a weird phobia against submerging myself into the bottom of the ocean. I guess the unknown freaks me the hell out. I mean "20 feet underwater"? That's pretty deep if you ask me.

I've read what was offered. Recapped it fairly, too. The question to you was if you thought there was a conflict between the ‘sacred institution’ you described and people being married. This was, however, a fallback question as you'd sidestepped every other question leading up to that point. Now this one, too. Can't nail jelly to a tree, they say.

Let's forget it. I'm more interested in how this all went wrong. The only progress we've made so far is establishing that your initial comment is some kind of perfect 4-dimensional tesseract that can't be understood in any subset of dimensions that anyone else can perceive. Nobody besides yourself, and whichever divinity speaks through you, can draw any inferences from it or reason about its implications because it's just that sanctimonious.

Okay, let's start there. Can you grapple with the ideas in your comment?

Like, is marriage a sacred institution to you? I have to ask because you put it in such a passive voice, and deny even the simplest implications of the statement, that I have to wonder if you were simply the typist for observations that came from a sunbeam out of glory and heavens above.

When you ask why gay people would adopt the practice of marriage instead of some nebulous alternative option, assuming for a moment that the question isn't more truthfully scripture for which you are merely the vessel of its delivery, are you concerned people are defiling marriage itself, or just tempting judgement by an Old Testament Jehova?

Isn't this the same information we got a week ago? That sales are down 90% from launch? Just with a more click baity title and someones pop analysis (serving no real purpose?) This is a blog spam opinion piece. And I don't even like the Apple Watch.

Yeah well, i found it on reddit. It's also linked here: http://blog.theanimalrescuesite.com/goatcelebration/3/ . Google also has some more results but i cannot link them, the urls is too long and url shortener are not allowed for some reason.

*edit: Add this: https://de.fotolia.com/id/70712527 as source.

I would, if I may, ask a question of you that I should probably research on my own, but as you have a firm understanding, and I prefer to learn from interaction, I think this is the best course.

A definition for economics that we most often use comes from Lionel Robbins--"Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses." Keeping this in mind, and that "scarce" means that what everybody wants adds up to more than there is (as Thomas Sowell put it), how does Socialism solve the problem of scarcity?

But who can I vote for to oppose the TPP, TISA, TTIP and the rest of that transnational “investor rights” alphabet soup?

Some politicians oppose it. Bernie Sanders is fiercely against the TPP. Given that this is a "free trade" vs. class inequality fight, you're likely going to find more Democrats that oppose it than Republicans.

Which one‘s going to disband the CIA?

That's ludicrous. Every country needs a spy agency.

The TSA?

Politicians gotta fly planes just like the rest of us. There are some that are fed up with it. John Mica's a strong opponent of it, as is Rand Paul. Hell, ask any politician and you'll probably get a negative response on the state of the TSA.

Which one knows that torture and extrajudicial lethal collective punishment are immoral?

That's easy: the Democrats. Neocons instituted this illegal "torture is okay" doctrine, and liberals have been staunchly opposed to it.

Man writes:

"Hey Michelle, sorry been super busy at work today hun.

Thanks for a wonderful evening last night. I really enjoyed your company and actually adore you. You’re cheeky and funny and just the sort of girl I would love to go out with if only my body and mind would let me. But I fear it won’t.

I’m not going to bulls — t you ... I f — king adore you Michelle and I think you’re the prettiest looking girl I’ve ever met. But my mind gets turned on by someone slimmer.

Shallow? It’s not meant to be. It’s the same reaction you get when you read a great author or see an amazing image, or listen to a piece of music you love, it has that instant reaction in you that makes you crave more.

So whilst I am hugely turned on by your mind, your face, your personality (and God ... I really, really am), I can’t say the same about your figure. So I can sit there and flirt and have the most incredibly fun evening, but I have this awful feeling that when we got undressed my body would let me down. I don’t want that to happen baby. I don’t want to be lying there next to you, and you asking me why I’m not hard.

There are certain triggers that fire my imagination into life and your wit and intelligence are the beginning of that process which would inevitably end up in the bedroom. With just one result ...

I’m so disappointed in myself Michelle because I’ve genuinely not felt this way about anyone in ages, but I’m trying to be honest with you without sounding like a total knobhead.

We could be amazing friends, we could flirt and joke and adore each other and ... f — k me ... I would marry you like a shot if you were a slip of a girl because what you have in that mind of yours is utterly unique, and I really really love it.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that I’m trying to avoid bigger pain in the future by telling you now so we don’t have to go through that embarrassment. I’m a man ... With all the red hot lusts of a man and all the failings of a man and I’m sure of my own body and its needs. Please try and forgive me. I adore you xx"

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Woman replies:

Dear Man I Met On Tinder.

“I was on another date when I received your message. He returned from the loo to find me in a flood of tears. He was lovely, but baffled, and hasn’t been in touch since, funnily enough.

You don’t have to fancy me. We all have a good friend who we look at ruefully and think “you’re lovely, but you just don’t tickle my pickle”. We wish we were attracted to them, but our bodies and our brains don’t work like that. And that’s fine. What isn’t fine is the fact that, after a few hours in my company, you took the time to write this utterly uncalled-for message. It’s nothing short of sadistic. Your tone is saccharine and condescending, but the forensic detail in which you express your disgust at my body is truly grotesque.

The only possible objective for writing it is to wound me.

And I’m ashamed to say, for a few moments, it worked. You stirred a dormant fear that every woman who was ever a teenage girl has — that it doesn’t matter how funny you are, how clever, how kind, how passionate, how loyal, how determined or adventurous or vibrant — if you’re a stone overweight, no one will ever find you desirable.

I like the...

All forms of government have failure as long as people are involved. All over the world and in all societies there has been high middle and low class. Even when the world was set up in tribes. Socialism looks great on paper but it still has people involved and very much room for corruption. Some people will work harder for less. Some people will get less. Some people will get more. Capitalism is the same in that it has people involved so there is corruption. I see capitalism edging out socialism because at least a common man can carve out an existence that he can be happy with. With socialism you're kind of stuck where you are.

Is government even necessary? Yes and no. No because people existed without formal governments. Yes because the governments are here and if you don't have one other governments will simply move in and take your stuff. Ask the American populations, North and South. So to prevent England from stopping by and claiming our lands we have to set up something. While we're at it will take this stuff over here. I recently read 1984 and I recommend anyone read it. George Orwell was a socialist. The newspeak, thoughtcrime and doublethink is just as real in every type of government as the ones he was speaking out in. Even his own. You can see it happening with the conservatives and the liberals. Fox news gets downed as biased but can you imagine if Hilarity Clinton was republican? You'd hear nothing but Benghazi until she dropped from the running.

And this is the real war being fought. Something between the liberals and conservatives the dems and repubs. Us vs them. Ever wonder why? It's a huge circle jerk to keep people who are in power in power. How do you end that? Revolution! But the revolution will just set up someone else to be in power and the actual common people will NEVER be free. Ever. How many people did Che kill to set up a dictatorship? How many people did Stalin kill? A lot of people die in these revolutions just to set someone else on the throne.

So yes, socialism can work but it depends on the leaders being honest. Good luck with that.

Are you thinking in terms of modifying an individual organism? I ask because the GMO issue concerns to modifications made to a species, breed, or strain, which can be accomplished by either selective breeding or genetic engineering. That's what hallucinogenia seems to have in mind.

It really is an excellent video for those unfamiliar with the issue.

As for what we have been doing... We spent the last week doing a lot of optimization, we are going to be doing the server move sometime next week to more powerful machines that we ordered using the donations we received (thanks all who donated, we really appreciate the help!). These machines, when configured properly should be able to handle about 5-6 times the traffic, and with the optimizations along side we should expect good performance for the foreseeable future! We have been taking a LOT of notes from the feedback we have been getting in the /t/ideasforsnapzu tribe (again, we appreciate all of you for taking the time to give us your feedback!) We are planning a release sometime in the next 2 weeks to open up new functionality for managing all posted content ie. snaps, text posts and comments as well as a new approach to pinups which we will refer to as saves. We will post a release update in the /t/blog tribe when everything is ready, tested and live. Other than that, I am definitely looking towards a little more sleeping hours, should have that sorted out soon :)

In a world, in which one only lives So that one goes through one's day like a robot The biggest upset that there still is: The every evening TV

Everyone lives like clockwork Programmed like a computer There is no one against it Only a few youths are frustrated

When the sun sets The day begins for the pals They assemble themselves in small groups And go on the hunt together

Hey, here comes Alex! Curtain Up - for a little bit of horrorshow Hey, here comes Alex! Curtain Up - for a little bit of horrorshow

On the crusade against the order An the seemingly ideal world Celebrating the destruction Violence and Brutatlity

Only when they see the victims suffering Do they feel satisfaction There is nothing anymore that will stop them In their merciless anger

Hey, here comes Alex! Curtain Up - for a little bit of horrorshow Hey, here comes Alex! Curtain Up - for a little bit of horrorshow

Twenty against one Until the blood comes out Wether with sticks or stones Eventually every head explodes The next victim is already there When you ask dear God, "Why did you do nothing, do nothing?"

Taken from http://lyricstranslate.com/en/hier-kommt-alex-here-comes-alex.html#ixzz3faucx9Fc

Yet they aren't. That was kind of my idea while writing this up. I'm no good "blog" typed writer, but I know that when the diagnosis got in, I needed to feel like some people understood what I lived. Trying to pay it forward, of sorts!

Quitting is such a horribly difficult decision for me. I was raised in a family where quitting was absolutely never the answer, and I still try to drag things out, even when I know that I'm probably not going to be able to finish something. There's a really fine line between having tried your best and then deciding to quit, and dragging it out until you can't keep going. This blog is asking you to know that line and to always act on it, but I think the issue is that most people can't tell when they're crossing it.

This is really great! It's like a creative writing assignment gone wild: "Write a letter to a tree...what would you tell it? What would you ask it?"

That quote from Ben Wittes infuriates me... I wish the source link wasn't dead so I could see if it's missing some context.

Probably as plain as it would seem though, and was removed from his blog because of how asinine it was.

I would still like the right to be told what is in my food. That's all I want, it won't keep from eating GMO's, I just want to know exactly what is in my food, is it a regular corn or a GMO corn? Is that too much to ask for? Why do companies hate this so much they lobby to block it, it can't cost a lot of money to print a small GMO inside label on the packaging.

Why would they do this? I need my pony! Really, though, it seems odd to randomly put in a hiatus in the middle of a season. Maybe they're trying to get their season schedule back to starting in fall and ending in spring? Would have been awesome if they finished up this season in mid-September and just continued into the sixth season the next month.

I never understand kitchen nightmares. What do these narcissists think? That Ramsey's going to come along and go "Oh no this store bought food is perfect, I have no idea why you're failing". These people know that they aren't willing to change, so why do they even bother to ask? I've got to wonder how many of these kitchen nightmares, Ramsey comes and everyone is nice, and things get fixed up, but we never see that.

Edit: I don't know how much more of this I can watch, it's boiling my blood.

It actually surprised me, both in terms of how much I agreed with people who I really hate and some of the things it got right. Here's my list:

- Bernie Sanders 78% - Rand Paul 74% - Jeb Bush 64% - Marco Rubio 64% - Ted Cruz 58% - Hillary Clinton 57% - Ben Carson 57% - Scott Walker 54% - Donald Trump 54% - Carly Fiorina 46%

However, I think that if you don't fit into either of the major parties this site doesn't really ask the right questions to classify you. So many of the questions push you into R or D and so I end up deciding which answer is the least objectionable to me. Take this question:

Should a business, based on religious beliefs, be able to deny service to a customer?

A business is comprised of people, and people have freedom of association. They can choose not to associate with people if they choose to, and if someone they have chosen not to associate comes onto their property they have the right to peacefully remove that person (so long as that person themselves remains peaceful.) Religion doesn't enter into it at all.

So do I answer yes or no? If I say yes I'm siding with republicans who want to discriminate against gay people, and I find that morally reprehensible. If I say no I'm siding with democrats who want to use lethal government force to compel people to associate with people they don't wish to be associated with, and I find that morally reprehensible.

Yeah, you're probably right. Mobile devices in their current form would never replace a PC/laptop for me, although they certainly have their uses. I'm curious to see how mobile technology continues to evolve and develop. Maybe small devices that unfold into larger screens, laser keyboards, or maybe just this; http://blog.laptopmag.com/wpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/futurama_eyePhone.jpg

Well this is what you get when you ask for a police state.

It's really great to organise things with people that you're not exactly close to. For example, our year at uni has a facebook group and people ask questions, put solutions to old exams on there or organise events. I dont have most of these even as friends on facebook and yet I can reach pretty much everybody out of my year nearly instantly. I dont really check my newsfeed much though.

Glad to have this!

Do you prefer twitch or YouTube to handle your streams?

Joining the tribe now.

If you wind up needing help, there's /t/chiefs. It's a tribe for chiefs and moderators to ask for help, and give help.

I'm an open-minded Christian, and not ashamed of it. I won't pose those questions, because they aren't the best.

Let's keep it simple, and I won't bash your views, but may comment on them, as long as you do the same for me.

The reasons I believe are varied and many, but the top ones:

1: Faith that our lives aren't pointless. If there's nothing after death, then we are little more than bipedal invasive creatures that destroy everything we touch.

2: Moral compass. If there's no point to life other than random spontaneous creation of life due to hydrocarbon stacking in an unique fashion, followed by eons of evolution, than why punish murders/rapists/thieves? They are following their genetic predisposition, after all, and in the end (the "big picture"), there's no repercussions if we live only to cease living.

3: Enlightenment. I know. many people feel that this is counter-intuitive, but look at it from my point of view. As a believer in one true God, the only way I can really expect to fully understand Him more is to explore what I believe He has created.

I don't have questions for you. I just have questions that I ask myself:

1: What was before the beginning of the universe? If there was something, how did it begin? If there was nothing, where did everything come from?

2: I believe in evolution. Evolution set in motion (and most likely guided) by God. There's nothing regarding evolution that disproves God's existence. On the contrary, I can't see how life would randomly begin without something interceding. My question is this: why is it assumed that Christians only believe in pure creationism? There's zero cause for this, yet the myth persists.

3: The bible states that to God created the earth in 6 days, but if you take a more accurate translation, it would be more accurate to state "dawning of an age" in place of "day". This means that there were 5 ages before man according to the Hebrew translation of Genesis. As the ages aren't a precise measurement of time, why does everybody assume that we think the world is only ~6000 years old? Furthermore, how does the more accurate interpretation of the age of the earth clash with what science estimates?

Thanks for your time.

Nowhere did I say that I believe in God. In fact, the definition of agnosticism is that you are not certain about the existence of god, and I identify as a neutral agnostic, not leaning one way or the other. And while we can scientifically disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns, scientifically disproving the possibility of the existence of a god is much harder, which is why there is so much discussion about it vs whether or not unicorns are real.

All I'm saying is trying to keep an open mind on this stuff can be helpful. I thought the post to some extent belittled people who do believe or at least people who ask questions about possibly whether or not a god exists. It is much more productive to have rational conversations about this stuff rather than simply insulting the intelligence of the other side in my opinion.