I would not be averse to a very small nuke hitting just his house. Baby nuke? Micro Nuke? Teeny tiny itti bitti micro nuke tested in bikini?

LMFAHS!!!
Still no answer?
Still can’t say who she slept with to advance to the second highest elected position in the land besides her husband, who’s not in politics, but you still say she’s a whore who could only sleep her way up because she’s a woman….but you don’t think you’re sexist!?! ROTFLMFAHS,! You utter moron, what do you think “sexist” means?

Elected Attorney General twice, Senator once before being elected VP. How many public offices did Trump hold before president? How many women did he sleep with while married? How many women did he rape? How many children age 13? The answer to three of these questions is not zero.

Compared to your messiah’s abysmal record of failed businesses, various crimes, racism, sexism, rape, theft, pedophilia, tax evasion, bank frauds, and an allergy to the truth and fact, (and now an aversion to democracy) she’s insanely over qualified to be president or VP. Enjoy, she’ll probably be in the whitehouse for the rest of your life.

There isn’t a Republican in office that is elected official material. They’re all anti American, anti democracy terrorists that should be shot in the face as enemies of the state who give aid and comfort to other enemies of America constantly. You know it well, comrade.

I’m guessing we haven’t heard from you for a week because both anonymous and the American cyber warfare division have attacked Putin’s troll farm and you can’t get online.
Hope you like borscht….it’s all there will be left for you.

Edit: lemme guess, Jackson (3 times confirmed by a bipartisan congress) is also unqualified and slept her way to the top of the judicial branch, right? You don’t know how, or with who, but you just know it’s true (because a black woman could never accomplish what she has)….but not because you’re a racist sexist troll….you say that for some other reason you just can’t articulate.
But Barrett, with zero judicial experience before Trump nominated her and obvious overt religious bias that she has let dictate her decisions despite saying she never would, you had no problem with her, right?

The chick on the left looks like she just swallowed a turd when they cut back from Pete.

And yeah, he should have been the nominee, but the DNC is averse to actually winning.

Oh @bobknight33, you slurp up the moronic lies every time.

Obama didn't separate those children from their families, they came alone.
Were they held in "cages", technically yes, for up to 72 hours (but usually less), but not for up to 20 days after being separated from their families. Obama was lambasted none the less by both parties and quickly made efforts to minimize the incarnation of children, Trump has maximized it while minimizing our ability to process them by not supporting the funding of more immigration judges.
Also note, Obama era "cages" had walls, not just open chain link, a small but psychologically significant difference.

"You don't like parents and kids separated, you don't want them detained (indefinitely) together either...what do you want?!"....really, she and the right are too dumb to come up with any other alternatives? That's impressive stupidity.
How about more immigration judges so families can go through the legal application process within the legal time frame instead of just warehousing them indefinitely and making the process longer and harder, breaking US and international laws in the process in the hopes they'll give up and just go home to die.

Liberals, and all other humans with a conscience, have been fighting this policy since day one, no one saved their outrage....how moronic a lie....but I expect nothing less from oan, whose hyper bias and aversion to fact is more apparent than Fox.

The Trump family separation policy was the distraction, distracting you from the ever increasing conviction rate in the Russia probes and our precipitously falling international standing.

By risk aversion I meant intellectually, not financially. It would be a rarity for Hollywood to give us anything with a deep plot/philosophical in a blockbuster. Heck even a sensical plot to not easy to come by these days.

I don't expect too much in a blockbuster, it's meant to be loud, and fun first & foremost, meant to stimulate the senses more than the brain. A really good plot is an appreciated good bonus, not expectation.

I am glad GitS is doing well. Much more deserving than TF:TLK at least IMO.

And yet all that risk aversion got them a whopping 169 million world wide.

I've seen most of the GitS material incl. the comics & anime. I actually found the Hollywood adaptation watchable.... because I placed it in its own little isolated corner and the lowest of expectations -- Hollywood, blockbuster, skin-deep sci-fi... and I came out much relieved it wasn't as bad as the critics said. At least I had a nostalgia blast from the visuals. My blockbuster movies watching has evolved into a state of "don't care to be angry/don't pay to watch at the theatre/ just wait them out to be on Netflix/clearance DVD BluRay)

Seriously... how can anyone expect anything of above average depth from a Hollywood blockbuster anymore? Don't be silly and set yourself up for disappointment.

I can totally understand their reasons for risk-aversion. From their perspective, they got burned too many times financially (not saying it's not their own doing) to make films that demand thoughtfulness from the audience. I just don't believe in Hollywood will give us anything deep anymore for these big budget films...

The dictionary disagrees with you
homophobia
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

But for the sake of argument, elaborate.

Why is being anti-gay different from homophobia? And why isn't this preacher homophobic?

He clearly has an aversion to homosexuality and is advocating discrimination against it. Unless you can provide a rational reason for this (hint: "because my imaginary friend said so" does not count as a rational argument), I'd say he falls squarely under the definition of homophobic.

Thailand, where I live now is called the "Land of Smiles". But I ran into some hiccups trying to fit in that conform to some of what the video said:

Basically, the "Land of Smiles" thing is pretty accurate -- generally Thais want to keep a (somewhat subdued) smile on their face. Even/particularly in frustrating/aggravating situations; Thais are extremely confrontation-averse and I think the smiling is a cultural adaptation to try to defuse those situations before they escalate.

BUT, when I first came here, I caught on to the "try to smile through all situations" culture but kind of went overboard on the enthusiasm in what I gather might be a typically American way. One time some Thais that I knew were introducing me to somebody that I hadn't met before. The new person didn't speak any English, and I couldn't speak much of any Thai at the time, so I was just trying to smile through the awkward second-hand introduction. Since I was just passively sitting back and smiling, the new person asked my friends if I was a "special person" -- a direct translation from Thai which means exactly the same thing that it does in English.

So I guess even in the "Land of Smiles", going overboard can make people think you're a bit dim...

I did have an instinctive aversion to the title -- it felt like it would be a woman hating clip and I watched with trepidation.

Turns out it was nothing to do with gender. But the woman-hating site saw it as such.

We gotta get away from this binary crap. We are all people being good or bad or opportunistic or childish.

Look, democrats are obstructionist, sure, but what you're saying is that a guy who speeds to get to work is as bad as a drunk driver who speeds through school zones because they're both basically just disobeying traffic laws. There's a world of difference and conflating the two is simply inappropriate.

I notice from your sentence length, grammar, and use of buzz phrases that you don't have an especially good grasp on any of this, so I'll leave it at that. Add in your aversion to actually being forced to think about your positions and I know all I need to about you.

If you'd paid any attention to me, you wouldn't have made any of the obvious factual mistakes you have here, so it's apparent there's no means of getting through to you, except, perhaps, life experience and/or more education than you have at the moment (though I suspect you'd reject that too).

I just know/work with the tech intimately, and I'm showing my aversion to PR videos. Their claim is *technically* true insofar as they had to write the software to do it the way they wanted to, because that's how they do things (and well; zero criticism of Pixar here). It certainly would have been more technically challenging to animate it with the tools of 2003, but whoever said it wasn't possible for technical limitations works for marketing, not art or animation.

It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

Haha, he has to clean up because its dirty money. Oh Sepp, always promising to clean things up, never actually doing any cleaning up. To be fair, he probably has quite an aversion to touching money. His M.O. is/was turning turning a blind eye to the rot within his organisation in order to remain at the top of the festering pile.

@eric3579 Please read the third paragraph and this post's title.

@gorillaman Thanks for the surprisingly positive feedback. That's a small victory by itself.

@MilkmanDan Thanks for being so respectful with your negative feedback. No worries at all about sharing your true reaction and thoughts. Aversion to change is expected. All I'll try to clarify is that everything isn't harder to figure out now; all the old content you're referring to is now neatly tucked centrally in the easily accessible header menu.

@enoch Thanks for the kind feedback!

@blackfox42 Whoops! The edit link is one of the things excluded accidentally. I'll work on adding it back in asap. To opt back in use the link at the bottom of this ST post body.