30792 pts ยท July 1, 2012
I'm a CS major that once attended the University of Texas at Austin. That is all.
It makes me more likely to buy the comic though.
Connecticut is huge apparently.
How do they get these effects?
Haha sorry.
You completely missed the green peppers in there, huh. Yeah I thought that'd happen.
You could rake in the karma with that on /r/ledootgeneration
Ha, I missed the second sharingan.
Agreed.
RIP in peace @Wonyenners
Moist bills? Is that a higher rank than Vintage?
Social Savanna is really weird though, honestly.
The point is to draw comedic value from the contrast between the two though - not to make commentary.
Thanks. I asked because I don't like when people make assertions that aren't there for people that can't defend themselves :/
As I said to Keru, that does not logically follow. At best, the argument becomes "Only women can be domestic abuse victims" via sexism.
Yeah that's pretty much it. I don't think asking someone to elaborate is worthy of -33!
You too! It was nice chatting with you!
which, again assuming "not man -> woman" essentially says "Only women can be victims of domestic abuse" (3/2)
the argument would be "Male domestic abuse victim -> not a man" which logically can translate to "A man -> not domestic abuse victim" (2/2)
That has the underlying assumption of "not man -> woman" though, and that's not necessarily true. Even if it were (1/2)
The person I replied to said "deserve" though. Either way, implications don't work that way. A -> B =/= B -> A.
"No balls" -> "Deserve to be a victim of domestic abuse" :/ (2/2)
I think that's making an assumption about that person's stance. "Male victim of domestic abuse" -> "No balls" is not the same as (1/2)
How so?
http://www.revolutionsf.com/revblogs/daikun/files/2012/11/cad-oneface.png
Lake Travis in Austin is back to 2011 water line levels.
Didn't Kinsey's surveys accidentally sample from a non-representative population?
wow
I hate to break it to you... but you might be Simon Cowell - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8el_P4yvfc
Again, do you have any form of pictorial evidence (or any evidence) of this claim?
Do you have pictures of this working? 'cause I'm 99.99% sure you can't.
It makes me more likely to buy the comic though.
Connecticut is huge apparently.
How do they get these effects?
Haha sorry.
You completely missed the green peppers in there, huh. Yeah I thought that'd happen.
You could rake in the karma with that on /r/ledootgeneration
Ha, I missed the second sharingan.
Agreed.
RIP in peace @Wonyenners
Moist bills? Is that a higher rank than Vintage?
Social Savanna is really weird though, honestly.
The point is to draw comedic value from the contrast between the two though - not to make commentary.
Thanks. I asked because I don't like when people make assertions that aren't there for people that can't defend themselves :/
As I said to Keru, that does not logically follow. At best, the argument becomes "Only women can be domestic abuse victims" via sexism.
Yeah that's pretty much it. I don't think asking someone to elaborate is worthy of -33!
You too! It was nice chatting with you!
which, again assuming "not man -> woman" essentially says "Only women can be victims of domestic abuse" (3/2)
the argument would be "Male domestic abuse victim -> not a man" which logically can translate to "A man -> not domestic abuse victim" (2/2)
That has the underlying assumption of "not man -> woman" though, and that's not necessarily true. Even if it were (1/2)
The person I replied to said "deserve" though. Either way, implications don't work that way. A -> B =/= B -> A.
"No balls" -> "Deserve to be a victim of domestic abuse" :/ (2/2)
I think that's making an assumption about that person's stance. "Male victim of domestic abuse" -> "No balls" is not the same as (1/2)
How so?
http://www.revolutionsf.com/revblogs/daikun/files/2012/11/cad-oneface.png
Lake Travis in Austin is back to 2011 water line levels.
Didn't Kinsey's surveys accidentally sample from a non-representative population?
wow
I hate to break it to you... but you might be Simon Cowell - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8el_P4yvfc
Again, do you have any form of pictorial evidence (or any evidence) of this claim?
Do you have pictures of this working? 'cause I'm 99.99% sure you can't.