Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:48 am

Well, I tried it, and it still suffers from the basic wine issue, but not to the usual extent, so for now I'm mixing it with Fanta, but I'll try some more on the day itself, and if that doesn't work, I still have Midori, Limoncello, Malibu, Bundaberg, and that mental 140-proof Polish vodka.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:50 am

Koumei wrote:that mental 140-proof Polish vodka.

So THAT'S the origin of all those stupid "Dumb Polish" jokes.

The Poles weren't stupid, they were forever-drunk!

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:05 am

Psh. That's only 70%.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:15 am

Well, when I used it to make Cave Johnson's Combustible Lemonade that one time, the flame started off almost invisible, by the time it even went blue the glass split (an inch below the rim, almost perfectly straight around so as not to spill the drink). 70% is plenty strong enough.

Blade · Post by **Blade** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:09 am

@Maxus: In Poland you can find some 80% (or even 90%) vodka. This is meant to be diluted, so that you can get more vodka.

Tourists see this, don't know about the dilution part and think "damn, these Poles are crazy, drinking that kind of stuff!" and then they try it.

Poles see tourist do this and think "damn, these tourists are crazy, drinking that kind of stuff!"

Still, in France we don't have "Dumb Polish" jokes, but we do have the saying "drunk as a Pole" used to describe someone who's completely drunk (even though it was originally used by Napoleon for a completely different meaning).

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:15 am

You think that stuff is crazy?
Have you TRIED ukrainian original recipe 90% absinthe?
THAT is crazy!

And no, we germans don't have much jokes about poles either.
At least, i don't know any of the top of my head.

The only thing i know of is that "Just stolen, already in Polen" thing.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:21 am

I think polish jokes are primarily a creation of good old american xenophobia.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:36 am

Blade wrote:@Maxus: In Poland you can find some 80% (or even 90%) vodka. This is meant to be diluted, so that you can get more vodka.

Tourists see this, don't know about the dilution part and think "damn, these Poles are crazy, drinking that kind of stuff!" and then they try it.

Poles see tourist do this and think "damn, these tourists are crazy, drinking that kind of stuff!"

Still, in France we don't have "Dumb Polish" jokes, but we do have the saying "drunk as a Pole" used to describe someone who's completely drunk (even though it was originally used by Napoleon for a completely different meaning).

So, vodka used to just be a type of grain alcohol. Then potatoes were brought to eastern Europe. Some people had the bright idea to try making vodka out of them, and ended up publishing instructions on how to do so. However, those instructions came with the disclaimer "This is really shit, don't do it." Go figure.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:47 am

Well, vodka is basically what you get when you ferment vegetation and then distill the result. It's basically a neutral alcohol that can be made from whatever plants you have lying around.

Edit: Still working on Magic School game, not ready to necro/make a new thread. I'm trying to come up with a list of what such a game should handle, and this is the major stuff I got from the HP books-

-Research a monster/plant
--Cerberus
--Devil's Weed
--Basilisk
--Giant Spider
--Useful herb
-Solve a puzzle
-Win a Battle against
--BBEG Proxy
--A wandless opponent
--Enemy party, you have support
--Enemy army, you have an army too
-Play Magic Sport
-Ride a Broom/Fly a Car Use magitech
-Mix an advanced potion with little experience but complete instructions
-Defeat a monster
--a Cave Troll
--a Basilisk
--a horde of Wraiths
--a dragon
--a horde of fiery zombies
-Navigate a maze
-Teach other students
-Get a date
-Escape/evade enemy combatants
-Find a McGuffin with limited information
-Infiltrate a dungeon and break into a vault
-Rescue people

Am I forgetting any particularly important actions in the HP books that I should include?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:15 am

Prak wrote:I think polish jokes are primarily a creation of good old american xenophobia.

Actually I think Britain might be the pioneers of that particular thing.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:18 am

Actually, that makes sense, I think we learned our xenophobia from the brits.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:54 am

From what I've seen and heard, Polish jokes were a thing since the Middle Ages.

Also, why is it so hard to find people who try to look at political and religious debates from both sides?

Far too many times I see finger pointing and yelling instead of anyone actually trying to look for a solution to issues.

Blade · Post by **Blade** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:36 am

icyshadowlord wrote: Also, why is it so hard to find people who try to look at political and religious debates from both sides?

Far too many times I see finger pointing and yelling instead of anyone actually trying to look for a solution to issues.

First of all, there's confirmation bias: when you see/hear something that confirms what you think to be true, you accept it without questioning. When you see/hear something that goes against what you think to be true, you question it.
This makes it hard to inform yourself about a debated topic without getting a strong opinion supporting one side or the other.

Second, there's a recent trend of "filter bubble" with the Internet and the rise of social networks. Online people tend to get caught inside their bubbles/resonance chambers. They'll interact with people who agree with them, read only articles that support their own ideas and gradually get the impression that this is the majority. Eventually, the debate won't be "A vs B" but "A+ vs A-" and to them B will be something completely ridiculous that only the most stupid people would ever support.

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:46 am

Any kitteh people here?

My cat has picked up some destructive habits in her old age (and also has problems getting "stuck" on things), and I was thinking of trying this:

http://www.softpaws.com

Seems like it might be a better option than having her feet mutilated...

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:49 am

icyshadowlord wrote:Also, why is it so hard to find people who try to look at political and religious debates from both sides?

Far too many times I see finger pointing and yelling instead of anyone actually trying to look for a solution to issues.

What could you possibly mean by "religious debates" in which "looking for a solution" is in any way a meaningful or useful exercise?

Same question applies to political debates, but less so, because at least one could imagine actual legislatures working out a compromise, but people who aren't legislatures have no meaningful political debate "solutions" that don't involve the wholesale destruction of someone else's ideology or argument.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:01 pm

Count, you should be able to just use nail clippers to trim a tiny bit off the ends of the claws, and file them down a bit. For the longest time that's what I assumed de-clawing actually was, because I didn't think people would go "I love cats, I want to get one. But I'm going to have to have its feet surgically mutilated". Anyway, most people around here just trim/file the claws with no ill effect.

The cat might not really want to sit still for that, in which case you probably won't have more luck with just putting little individual claw-covers on each one.

Blade · Post by **Blade** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:20 pm

I agree, use a nail-clipper. Be sure to cut only the white part, not the pink part.

If the cat doesn't hold still, hold her by the scruff of the neck. You might need someone else to do it (or you can use a clothespin to do it for you) since you'll probably need your two hands to trim the nails.

If the cat still doesn't hold still, you can take her to the vet to sedate her.

Also make sure that the cat has a cat tree and/or things she can scratch, with at least one vertical one.

K · Post by K » Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:11 pm

icyshadowlord wrote: Also, why is it so hard to find people who try to look at political and religious debates from both sides?

Maybe because a lot of issues don't have two valid sides?

I mean, if you honestly don't believe in climate change or vaccines or evolution, you are just wrong. There is no reasonable centrist or opposing position because there is only one rational position.

By the same token, a religious person cannot accept a deviation from doctrine because otherwise they might face the serious existential threat of realizing that they've been living by arbitrary fairy tales.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:49 pm

icyshadowlord wrote:Also, why is it so hard to find people who try to look at political and religious debates from both sides?

Because the people you're bitching about aren't as dumb as you. Or they're dumb for different reasons, I don't know.

For your reading (and viewing) pleasure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ

The positions people can hold are completely arbitrary. Anyone can believe anything at any time for any reason. If you want to believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that vaccines will give your children autism, or that a glass of bleach a day keeps the doctor away, you can do that. But guess what? The universe doesn't give a shit what you believe. There is a correct number for the age of earth. The universe will not compromise with you on what it is. It will not meet you in the middle. It will not agree to disagree. Because it doesn't give a single flying fuck about you - or anything, for that matter. It simply is what it is and you can either live in it or invent wild fantasies about it.

Similarly, there are people right now who believe that forcing women to carry their rapist's children to term is noble and good. Now, the universe doesn't give a shit at all about whether or not terrible things happen to women, because the universe is - again - not a thing capable of giving flying fucks about anything. But the insinuation that merely being able to open your mouth and voice your thoughts warrants respect and consideration is disgusting, because there are lots of people who are able to open their mouths and do so to voice disgusting beliefs, and your both sides bullshit is enabling those people to be the monstrous shitbags they are and not be shamed for it.

Decent people respect things that are worthy of respect, and scorn things that are worthy of scorn. They do not agree that black people are three-fifths of a person because "I can kind of see where the racists are coming from." And to be frank, you already know this, because no one who isn't an asshole ever thinks, "hey, I know they're the KKK, but let's at least hear them out, right?" No one who picks up the "both sides" mantra ever really believes in it, because it is impossible to believe in. It's too fucking stupid to actually adhere to in your own life. No, people only ever bring up "both sides" when they want to wear it like magical armor that protects them from having other people judge them for the shit they say. Fuck that. If you speak, I will judge. That's how it works. That's how it has to work. It cannot and should not be any other way.

Blade · Post by **Blade** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:35 pm

I think this is quite relevant:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt ... cal_ground

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:50 pm

Blade wrote:I think this is quite relevant:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt ... cal_ground

It is hilariously relevant, but I can't tell if it's relevant for the reason you think it's relevant. That is a perfect example of "both sides" bullshit written by a conservative douchenozzle in the name of "reasonable centrism" that isn't and never will be (reasonable or centrist).

There is no entitlement crisis. There is no medicare crisis. Medicare is the most efficient form of healthcare in the United States, and transitioning to anything else (that isn't an even bigger entitlement program) will increase costs, increase medical bankruptcies, and fucking kill people. It's a cost measured in debt and lives - except it will be consumer debt instead of government debt. Guess how much economic damage consumer debt overhang has caused this past decade? Guess how much economic damage government debt overhang has caused this past decade? Hint: the great recession begins with a bunch of private sector debt turning toxic, and it has hurt the countries who cut entitlements in the name of reducing government debt the worst.

The entitlement crisis narrative is not based in evidence. It's fucking propaganda, and its entire purpose is to justify savage entitlement cuts paired with generous tax breaks for the wealthy. Remember: when Greece bent over for the IMF and sent them their terms of surrender, the IMF looked at it and said "raise the taxes on medicine; lower the taxes on businesses. We'd really like you to shift the tax base downward onto the public, especially the sick. Fuck those guys." Note that under the IMF's guidance Greece's debt - and unemployment - has done nothing but skyrocket. It's a non-crisis to which conservatives have a non-solution - the real goal is simply to redistribute wealth upwards, always and forever, and everything else is just bullshit meant to sell that to the public as a "necessary sacrifice."

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:05 pm

Blade wrote:I think this is quite relevant:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt ... cal_ground

Radical Right: We should just let the poor, the old and and the sick die.

Left: Holy shit, you're monsters! No to that!

Moderate Right: Alright then, lets compromise. We just turn them into [debt] slaves instead.

Left: ...No.

Moderate Right: Why are you so inflexible?!

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:00 pm

Stupid Cracked article talked about a guy who was acquitted of murdering his wife, then had some kind of concrete evidence surface that he did, in fact, murder her, and escaped prosecution because "double jeopardy."

So, the annoying question sort of has several parts here, I guess. First, is this an accurate summary of the case of Mel Ignatow?

If so, why does Double Jeopardy not allow a retrial in the event of new compelling evidence? Or does it allow it, and the prosecution just didn't feel like taking it to court?

If the former, is this considered an optimal thing? Why?

I mean, it seems like, if we tried a guy and he got off, then found photos or video or other persuasive evidence that he'd actually done the thing he was acquitted of, that we would want to be able to haul him back into court. So, my not-educated-in-law mind is just not comprehending why things work this way.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:45 pm

Prak wrote:Stupid Cracked article talked about a guy who was acquitted of murdering his wife, then had some kind of concrete evidence surface that he did, in fact, murder her, and escaped prosecution because "double jeopardy."

So, the annoying question sort of has several parts here, I guess. First, is this an accurate summary of the case of Mel Ignatow?

If so, why does Double Jeopardy not allow a retrial in the event of new compelling evidence? Or does it allow it, and the prosecution just didn't feel like taking it to court?

If the former, is this considered an optimal thing? Why?

I mean, it seems like, if we tried a guy and he got off, then found photos or video or other persuasive evidence that he'd actually done the thing he was acquitted of, that we would want to be able to haul him back into court. So, my not-educated-in-law mind is just not comprehending why things work this way.

Some countries allow an acquittal to be appealed. The United States does not. Allowing retrial in the face of compelling new evidence encourages prosecutors to withhold compelling but not vital evidence so that it can later be "discovered" to justify a retrial if the defendant is acquitted. Its bad policy.

Double Jeopardy prohibitions exist because prosecutors simply retrying people until they get the verdict they want was once a problem. It's been enshrined in common law since the Norman Conquest because most people thought that this was bad. And weakening it does open the door to civil rights abuses, especially in politically-charged cases.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:52 pm

True story Prak, literally every single evidence exclusion rule case that has ever been heard by the Supreme Court involves someone who was convicted.

That's how the system works. Guilty people have to get the same protections because they are the only ones who can litigate them. This same problem applies to double jeopardy for similar reasons, very rarely do innocent people get retried, because as innocents, there isn't pretty much any chance of discovering new evidence finding them guilty. But we still have to not allow guilty people to be retried, because the alternative is just not having double jeopardy, and then people get tried until convicted.