c4countdown

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:46 pm

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:11 pm Women, generally, are worse drivers.

Yeah that must be why they have cheaper insurance...

In my experience women are no better or worse than men.
Men are more likely to speed however
I have a problem with octogenarians and older drivers
They should only be allowed to drive in daylight

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:46 pm

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:11 pm Women, generally, are worse drivers.

Yeah that must be why they have cheaper insurance...

Heh well quite. But nothing is as pervasive as anecdotal evidence.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 9:42 pm

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:46 pm

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:11 pm Women, generally, are worse drivers.

Yeah that must be why they have cheaper insurance...

Heh well quite. But nothing is as pervasive as anecdotal evidence.

Is this an example of prejudicial affirmation the kids of today talk about?

The Sound of Freedom is a terrible movie.
Barbie is extremely over-rated.
THE Dial of Destiny was a fine film

Being trans is not really related to being gay, except in a superficial sense, and the concept of an LGBT (plus some extra letters maybe) "community" is somewhat bizarre.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 6:45 pm Being trans is not really related to being gay, except in a superficial sense, and the concept of an LGBT (plus some extra letters maybe) "community" is somewhat bizarre.

Are you suggesting you can't be Trans and Gay?

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 7:39 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 6:45 pm Being trans is not really related to being gay, except in a superficial sense, and the concept of an LGBT (plus some extra letters maybe) "community" is somewhat bizarre.

Are you suggesting you can't be Trans and Gay?

No.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 6:45 pm Being trans is not really related to being gay, except in a superficial sense, and the concept of an LGBT (plus some extra letters maybe) "community" is somewhat bizarre.

I basically feel this way too, except I realise I don't know very much about this so it's very possible I'm missing something that would change my mind. At the very least I think it can be unhelpful both to trans people and to non-heterosexual people to lump the T in with the other three letters that specifically refer to sexuality.

I guess Asexual people have a right to be included if its really a group for non heterosexuals (nor Trans)

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 9:49 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 6:45 pm Being trans is not really related to being gay, except in a superficial sense, and the concept of an LGBT (plus some extra letters maybe) "community" is somewhat bizarre.

I basically feel this way too, except I realise I don't know very much about this so it's very possible I'm missing something that would change my mind. At the very least I think it can be unhelpful both to trans people and to non-heterosexual people to lump the T in with the other three letters that specifically refer to sexuality.

Totally agree, I've been saying this for ages, the T and the rest of the letters need to be dropped. The Trans lobby have been taking advantage of the LGB situation for their own benefit alone!

You all (recent commenters) seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Persons under the rainbow flag(s) all deviate from societal norms of fitting with binary gender roles, which is much wider than who/what someone is attracted to. Anyone in these groups has endured, and continue to endure, attacks of various kinds, and only by banding together have they managed to advance their cause as far as has happened in the last fifty years or so.

The toxicity masquerading as the 'trans debate' is another way of driving a wedge into this solidarity; divide and conquer etc.

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 6:14 pm You all (recent commenters) seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Persons under the rainbow flag(s) all deviate from societal norms of fitting with binary gender roles, which is much wider than who/what someone is attracted to. Anyone in these groups has endured, and continue to endure, attacks of various kinds, and only by banding together have they managed to advance their cause as far as has happened in the last fifty years or so.

Just to clarify, I do understand the wider community of the "rainbow flag(s)" you refer to, which includes all sorts of other things. The confusion I have is why, of all the dozen+ letters that form up that group, the T is more readily grouped together with LGB (the three that have more intuitive shared characteristics). As Marc alluded to above, even something like LGBAQ+ would seem to make more sense than LGBTQ+.

And again:

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 9:49 pm I realise I don't know very much about this so it's very possible I'm missing something that would change my mind.

Tall people should get paid more cos our food bills are higher.

We would be better off as a country if we had kept Boris Johnson as PM.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 10:07 pm We would be better off as a country if we had kept Boris Johnson as PM.

Theresa May, possibly but BJ was a disaster.
Though I fear in 10 years (it will take that long for the Tories to recover) he may be back

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 12:43 pm

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 6:14 pm You all (recent commenters) seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Persons under the rainbow flag(s) all deviate from societal norms of fitting with binary gender roles, which is much wider than who/what someone is attracted to. Anyone in these groups has endured, and continue to endure, attacks of various kinds, and only by banding together have they managed to advance their cause as far as has happened in the last fifty years or so.

Just to clarify, I do understand the wider community of the "rainbow flag(s)" you refer to, which includes all sorts of other things. The confusion I have is why, of all the dozen+ letters that form up that group, the T is more readily grouped together with LGB (the three that have more intuitive shared characteristics). As Marc alluded to above, even something like LGBAQ+ would seem to make more sense than LGBTQ+.

And again:

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 9:49 pm I realise I don't know very much about this so it's very possible I'm missing something that would change my mind.

I suspect it's habit to an extent; these letters are the first listed because they're the first recognised, most common or most obvious characteristics. It would probably be much easier to have an overarching term that isn't derived from an insult (or, like queer for example), and is accepted by most people under the banner. There's always going to be someone that feels the need to set themselves apart though, which I think will mean we'll continue to evolve more letters as well as moving towards umbrella terms.

I think The Pride movement with the rainbow flag should be the all encompassing banner
When I was younger it was Gay Pride but over the years I think the Pride part is more important than the gay part for me, being proud of who you are

I really don't think Michael Jackson did it.

He did do it but he had special shoes that had a groove in the heel that a screw on the stage could slot into which is why he didn't fall over.

I don't think we will ever a man walk on the moon, this century

That's quite a claim, considering they want to do so in the relatively near future. Well September 2026 at the earliest.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 2:14 pm That's quite a claim, considering they want to do so in the relatively near future. Well September 2026 at the earliest.

Yes it's bold.
Maybe I should have said, I won't see a moon landing this century, given I'm in my sixties.
I think that manned space travel beyond the ISS is full of pitfalls, I'm convinced that the moon Landings 50 odd years ago happened because of a lack of health and safety and the astronauts were Guinea pigs

Ariel, the six legged puppy (assuming she couldn't lead a happy life with 6 legs) should have been put to sleep.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68017390

While I realise their rapid rise is tough to adjust to for everyone, self included, and the fact that energy companies are pleading poverty while recording record turnover is highly unsavoury.....for what we get, energy costs are fine. Think about how much we use and how comfortable life is compared to what it was and what it could be. This is what money is for.

What I found ridiculous (and I mentioned this on here before) was when the prices all went up (due to the war in Ukraine I think) but then the companies recorded record profits as well. That was obviously a piss take, and they were never pulled up on it. If prices go up for them, then sure, raise prices for us to keep the equilibrium. But if it gives them higher profits, they're just fleecing us and using higher prices for them as an excuse.

Sure, but that's privatised industry for you.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 2:29 pm Sure, but that's privatised industry for you.

If you see Sid, tell him.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 2:29 pm Sure, but that's privatised industry for you.

And that itself is a problem. Essential services like this should not be privatised.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 3:33 pm

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 2:29 pm Sure, but that's privatised industry for you.

And that itself is a problem. Essential services like this should not be privatised.

You will have to speak up, they can't hear you from back the 1980s .

But seriously, I could never understand how Tony B Liar did not try and reverse the privatised industries back to being nationalised

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 3:59 pm

But seriously, I could never understand how Tony B Liar did not try and reverse the privatised industries back to being nationalised

You seem to parrot this as though you're being paid to do so. Have you not yet thought of a more original nickname for him than the tabloids have?

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 5:38 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 3:59 pm

But seriously, I could never understand how Tony B Liar did not try and reverse the privatised industries back to being nationalised

You seem to parrot this as though you're being paid to do so. Have you not yet thought of a more original nickname for him than the tabloids have?

Fwiw, I came up with his anagram before the tabloids but probably not first
There's a good one for Margaret Thatcher too
Baroness Thatcher The Iron Lady becomes
That sad Tony Blair Cheers her on
But if you want another nickname how about the father of Tory lite or the killer of socialist Labour

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 6:02 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 5:38 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 3:59 pm

But seriously, I could never understand how Tony B Liar did not try and reverse the privatised industries back to being nationalised

You seem to parrot this as though you're being paid to do so. Have you not yet thought of a more original nickname for him than the tabloids have?

Fwiw, I came up with his anagram before the tabloids but probably not first
There's a good one for Margaret Thatcher too
Baroness Thatcher The Iron Lady becomes
That sad Tony Blair Cheers her on
But if you want another nickname how about the father of Tory lite or the killer of socialist Labour

How about we talk about politics without pretending to be in a playground at the same time?

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 12:47 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 6:02 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 5:38 pm

You seem to parrot this as though you're being paid to do so. Have you not yet thought of a more original nickname for him than the tabloids have?

Fwiw, I came up with his anagram before the tabloids but probably not first
There's a good one for Margaret Thatcher too
Baroness Thatcher The Iron Lady becomes
That sad Tony Blair Cheers her on
But if you want another nickname how about the father of Tory lite or the killer of socialist Labour

How about we talk about politics without pretending to be in a playground at the same time?

Grown up talk is for the politics thread.
This is just a thread designed to grind people's gears

Cats and dogs are the same. People think cats are cold and heartless and dogs show love. Bullshit. They've both learned to manipulate humans to get food.

If you are with kids at a football match (be it your own or others) and you drink alcohol in any quantity, that is irresponsible and shitty.

In addition, pubs should not serve booze to any group of people with kids regardless of how much. Be a proper parent and leave the booze for fucks sake

(Posted at Preston station having just been on a train from Blackburn with boozed-up knobheads, hence my slight annoyance)

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:04 pm Cats and dogs are the same. People think cats are cold and heartless and dogs show love. Bullshit. They've both learned to manipulate humans to get food.

You can apply this reductive logic to all life, including humans. Obviously not just about manipulating humans to get food, but more generally manipulating the world (including other life in the world) to be able to get food, survive and reproduce.

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:04 pm Cats and dogs are the same. People think cats are cold and heartless and dogs show love. Bullshit. They've both learned to manipulate humans to get food.

This is a good one. I find it odd when people paint dogs as being "they love you unconditionally and will protect you at all costs". If you didn't feed them, they wouldn't love you. If an intruder brought dog treats with them, I reckon there'd be a fair percentage of dogs that would be easily bribed. It's true that a large dog will do more damage than a cat if they attacked an intruder (and there are breeds that would instinctively), but it's nowhere near the binary "dogs will love and protect you at all costs, cats just want food" that people think it is.

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:39 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:04 pm Cats and dogs are the same. People think cats are cold and heartless and dogs show love. Bullshit. They've both learned to manipulate humans to get food.

This is a good one. I find it odd when people paint dogs as being "they love you unconditionally and will protect you at all costs". If you didn't feed them, they wouldn't love you. If an intruder brought dog treats with them, I reckon there'd be a fair percentage of dogs that would be easily bribed. It's true that a large dog will do more damage than a cat if they attacked an intruder (and there are breeds that would instinctively), but it's nowhere near the binary "dogs will love and protect you at all costs, cats just want food" that people think it is.

The main difference is cats have more opportunity to be disloyal and go where the best food is.
Dogs are more demanding but I think both give affection equally though a cats tongue is rough as fuck
Im a dog person but I love big cats but not wild dogs or hyenas, though I do like Wolves

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:39 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:04 pm Cats and dogs are the same. People think cats are cold and heartless and dogs show love. Bullshit. They've both learned to manipulate humans to get food.

This is a good one.

I debunked it. Unless you accept the conclusion that all life is the same.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:38 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:39 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:04 pm Cats and dogs are the same. People think cats are cold and heartless and dogs show love. Bullshit. They've both learned to manipulate humans to get food.

This is a good one.

I debunked it.

No you haven't.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:38 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:04 pm Cats and dogs are the same. People think cats are cold and heartless and dogs show love. Bullshit. They've both learned to manipulate humans to get food.

You can apply this reductive logic to all life, including humans. Obviously not just about manipulating humans to get food, but more generally manipulating the world (including other life in the world) to be able to get food, survive and reproduce.

Yes, I suppose you can.

Matt Rutherford wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:07 pm If you are with kids at a football match (be it your own or others) and you drink alcohol in any quantity, that is irresponsible and shitty.

In addition, pubs should not serve booze to any group of people with kids regardless of how much. Be a proper parent and leave the booze for fucks sake

(Posted at Preston station having just been on a train from Blackburn with boozed-up knobheads, hence my slight annoyance)

I remember when I was little having to stay in the car with a can of tizer and a bag of crisp whilst my dad had a drink in the oub

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 3:00 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:38 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:04 pm Cats and dogs are the same. People think cats are cold and heartless and dogs show love. Bullshit. They've both learned to manipulate humans to get food.

You can apply this reductive logic to all life, including humans. Obviously not just about manipulating humans to get food, but more generally manipulating the world (including other life in the world) to be able to get food, survive and reproduce.

Yes, I suppose you can.

The other thing is that while you can draw this conclusion, it doesn't mean all life (including humans) is consciously acting in this way. When e.g. someone shows love towards their children, then you can take a step back and say this is just a way to make sure their genes survive into the future rather than a genuine act of love.

But the two don't really conflict because this "cynical ulterior motive" doesn't have to be at the conscious level. And this is the same for cats and dogs as well.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 2:59 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:38 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:39 pm

This is a good one.

I debunked it.

No you haven't.

Remember I added "Unless you accept the conclusion that all life is the same."

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:38 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:39 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:04 pm Cats and dogs are the same. People think cats are cold and heartless and dogs show love. Bullshit. They've both learned to manipulate humans to get food.

This is a good one.

I debunked it. Unless you accept the conclusion that all life is the same.

You didn't, you just posted a bunch of tangential philosophy that didn't really address the point at all. If anything, you proved the point further.

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:05 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:38 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:39 pm

This is a good one.

I debunked it. Unless you accept the conclusion that all life is the same.

You didn't, you just posted a bunch of tangential philosophy that didn't really address the point at all. If anything, you proved the point further.

OK, so humans and fungus are the same.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 1:54 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:05 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:38 pm

I debunked it. Unless you accept the conclusion that all life is the same.

You didn't, you just posted a bunch of tangential philosophy that didn't really address the point at all. If anything, you proved the point further.

OK, so humans and fungus are the same.

I'm not sure how anything you're saying is really related to the original point that cats and dogs are equally as food oriented/loyal.

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 2:35 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 1:54 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:05 am

You didn't, you just posted a bunch of tangential philosophy that didn't really address the point at all. If anything, you proved the point further.

OK, so humans and fungus are the same.

I'm not sure how anything you're saying is really related to the original point that cats and dogs are equally as food oriented/loyal.

That wasn't the original point. It was that they are the same. And essentially that any perceived differences are "cosmetic" and are just different strategies to achieve the same aim.

Which I suppose is fine really. As long as you accept the logical conclusion.

You're taking "the same" from the original post too literally.

The point of the original post was a commentary on how people anthropomorphise animals and attribute to them human like feelings and motivations that they don't really have and that often people consider dogs to have a closer relationship to human than cats when in reality they are just animals and do what they need to to get food, attention, even love from humans. Do cats and dogs love their humans? Probably. Is it the same as the love humans have for other humans? Probably not. Do humans experience love as an evolutionary strategy to aid on survival? Possibly. Does that make it any less special? No. Is Gavin an idiot? Yes.

I don't think you can make such a binary distinction between humans and all other animals. So while the way dogs and cats love humans may differ from how humans love humans, they are also likely to differ from each other in significant ways too.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:39 pmIs Gavin an idiot? Yes.

I'll get over it.

Probably not that unpopular within the unrepresentative population sample that is the C4C community, but in the eider world, it seems to be: I, a straight and reasonably normally libidoed man even with the sertraline, have absolutely no desire to go to a strip club

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:15 am Probably not that unpopular within the unrepresentative population sample that is the C4C community, but in the eider world, it seems to be: I, a straight and reasonably normally libidoed man even with the sertraline, have absolutely no desire to go to a strip club

After getting humiliated at the only time I went to one when I was 18 (but looked 12) I have no desire to ever going back.
Plus I can't fathom a group of men wanting to leeri at naked women in the 21st Century

A group of us were down in Cork recently and we went to a strip club because it was the closest place to us still open and we fancied a late drink. It was 100 quid for a private dance! Just for a dance? You're basically paying to be prick teased. Unless other stuff was actually going on, I couldn't believe people were paying that. My group of friends were happy enough to just have the few drinks and chat with the girls when they came over to us. I had a great a chat with one but once I let her know I wasn't paying for a dance she fucked off. I wouldn't be in a hurry to go back.

The one I went to was a stag do.
Even though I was 18 I was so shy and green I wasn't even sure what was happening apart from that there was a comedian.
My older mates said we can get a seat at the front.
It was like going to Sea world in ad much as anyone worth their salt doesn't sit in the front row.
Though I'd swap getting soaked for getting the piss taken out of me by the strippers.
No wonder I was scared of women for years (6 to be precise)

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 5:18 am Plus I can't fathom a group of men wanting to leeri at naked women in the 21st Century

Of course you can. Leering is eternal. It's not the leering that is illogical. It's the very being there. You're paying for what, exactly? Like Other Mark says.

Too many Mar(k/c)s.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 12:44 pm Too many Mar(k/c)s.

Maybe we can refer to Marc James as MJ.
Although that may not be a handle he would like under the circumstances.
You can call me Meakin for simplicity, my missus does as she had a brother called Mark (though he passed away 6 years ago the name has stuck.)
Which will be fun when she becomes the current (gotta keep her on her toes ) Mrs Meakin after in the spring.
Needless to say I shan't be having a stag do

People walking their dogs should have poo bags on them anyway and are part of the wider dog walking community, so if they see some dog poo that didn't come from their own dog, they should pick it up anyway and not be all "Well it's nothing to do with me" about it. Especially on that bridge on my run route that always has fucking dog shit on it.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 6:31 pm People walking their dogs should have poo bags on them anyway and are part of the wider dog walking community, so if they see some dog poo that didn't come from their own dog, they should pick it up anyway and not be all "Well it's nothing to do with me" about it. Especially on that bridge on my run route that always has fucking dog shit on it.

Well you could carry poo bags and pick the shit up too

It would be nice if the wider McDonalds-eating community acted in similar fashion.