A very stupid survey question



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I can't tell you people how much I enjoy being on a site where people don't get even the simplest of jokes.
    I knew you were being sarcastic, I just could not help myself.  Seriously how could you not like a typo like: Thou shalt commit adultery?



  • @Anketam said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I can't tell you people how much I enjoy being on a site where people don't get even the simplest of jokes.
    I knew you were being sarcastic, I just could not help myself.  Seriously how could you not like a typo like: Thou shalt commit adultery?

    The same way you could not like a typo like aiughiagudhdfisef,.  It's just not really that funny, especially when you use it to ruin a joke.

  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Sutherlands said:

    @Anketam said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    I can't tell you people how much I enjoy being on a site where people don't get even the simplest of jokes.

    I knew you were being sarcastic, I just could not help myself.  Seriously how could you not like a typo like: Thou shalt commit adultery?

    The same way you could not like a typo like aiughiagudhdfisef,.  It's just not really that funny, especially when you use it to ruin a joke.

    I dunno...I always chuckle about that version of the bible. And I always wonder if it was really a mistake. It's in a pretty prominent part of the text, after all.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @Anketam said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I can't tell you people how much I enjoy being on a site where people don't get even the simplest of jokes.
    I knew you were being sarcastic, I just could not help myself.  Seriously how could you not like a typo like: Thou shalt commit adultery?

    The same way you could not like a typo like aiughiagudhdfisef,.  It's just not really that funny, especially when you use it to ruin a joke.

    +1

    If you want to hang out with humorless pedantic dickweeds, go back to Slashdot.

    This site has pedantic dickweeds who appreciate humor rather than pissing all over it.

    Well, except you.

    And Cassidy.

    And Boomzilla seems to post purely to antagonize me. Also ASheridan.

    And some people are just here to poke a stick at the crazy guy in the "Funny Stuff" forum and laugh at him.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Unused felony credits rollover at the end of the year, up to a total of 27 accumulated felony credits. By the time he retired, Souter had enough credits to get away with genocide or the killing of a single animal on the endangered species list, had he wanted to.

    He's planning on wiping out an obscure tribe with only 27 members? Or do people killed in a genocide count as fractional felonies?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    And Boomzilla seems to post purely to antagonize me.

    No, but I won't deny that side effect is a nice bonus, and well earned on your part.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    +1

    If you want to hang out with humorless pedantic dickweeds, go back to Slashdot.

    This site has pedantic dickweeds who appreciate humor rather than pissing all over it.

    Well, except you.

    A +1 AND calling me humorless.  I'd be surprised if it came from anyone else.


  • @Sutherlands said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    +1

    If you want to hang out with humorless pedantic dickweeds, go back to Slashdot.

    This site has pedantic dickweeds who appreciate humor rather than pissing all over it.

    Well, except you.

    A +1 AND calling me humorless. I'd be surprised if it came from anyone else.

    "You" obviously referred to Anketam. You're doing ok on the humor front, but you gotta work on the reading comprehension.



  • @ekolis said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Unused felony credits rollover at the end of the year, up to a total of 27 accumulated felony credits. By the time he retired, Souter had enough credits to get away with genocide or the killing of a single animal on the endangered species list, had he wanted to.

    He's planning on wiping out an obscure tribe with only 27 members? Or do people killed in a genocide count as fractional felonies?

    I think they usually try war criminals with "crimes against the peace" and "crimes against humanity" rather than 100 million individual cases of murder.

    And part of the joke is the idea that under Federal law the lives of millions of humans are worth the life of a single animal on the endangered species list.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Sutherlands said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    +1

    If you want to hang out with humorless pedantic dickweeds, go back to Slashdot.

    This site has pedantic dickweeds who appreciate humor rather than pissing all over it.

    Well, except you.

    A +1 AND calling me humorless. I'd be surprised if it came from anyone else.
    "You" obviously referred to Anketam. You're doing ok on the humor front, but you gotta work on the reading comprehension.
    I am actually restraining myself quite a bit.

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    Consider that in the US, it is illegal to give IQ tests to job applicants.
    That's not what your link says:
    @Wiki said:
    The Supreme Court ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, if such tests disparately impact ethnic minority groups, businesses must demonstrate that such tests are "reasonably related" to the job for which the test is required.



  • @PJH said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Consider that in the US, it is illegal to give IQ tests to job applicants.
    That's not what your link says:
    @Wiki said:
    The Supreme Court ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, if such tests disparately impact ethnic minority groups, businesses must demonstrate that such tests are "reasonably related" to the job for which the test is required.

    Even more recently.. However, from a practical standpoint, you aren't going to find many employers giving IQ tests. The places I was tested were lax about things like "laws" and "SQL injection". When I've done interviewing I've generally been told to avoid any kind of performance test which isn't directly applicable to the job (code tests: OK; IQ tests: too broad to be specifically applicable to the job). I feel Boomzilla's statement a reasonable reflection of the truth.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I think they usually try war criminals with "crimes against the peace" and "crimes against humanity" rather than 100 million individual cases of murder.

    And part of the joke is the idea that under Federal law the lives of millions of humans are worth the life of a single animal on the endangered species list.

    I wonder if it's possible to commit genocide against Americans, seeing as they are not actually an ethnic group...



  • @ekolis said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I think they usually try war criminals with "crimes against the peace" and "crimes against humanity" rather than 100 million individual cases of murder.

    And part of the joke is the idea that under Federal law the lives of millions of humans are worth the life of a single animal on the endangered species list.

    I wonder if it's possible to commit genocide against Americans, seeing as they are not actually an ethnic group...

    I think if you kill 300+ million people all in the same geographic region, it'll be called genocide. Or mega-genocide. You wouldn't be killing "a" ethnic group, you'd be killing dozens of them.



  • @ekolis said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I think they usually try war criminals with "crimes against the peace" and "crimes against humanity" rather than 100 million individual cases of murder.

    And part of the joke is the idea that under Federal law the lives of millions of humans are worth the life of a single animal on the endangered species list.

    I wonder if it's possible to commit genocide against Americans, seeing as they are not actually an ethnic group...

    Nowadays genocide seems to just mean "killing a bunch of people, usually innocents" instead of "intentionally trying to murder an entire race because you think it is inferior".



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @ekolis said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    I think they usually try war criminals with "crimes against the peace" and "crimes against humanity" rather than 100 million individual cases of murder.

    And part of the joke is the idea that under Federal law the lives of millions of humans are worth the life of a single animal on the endangered species list.

    I wonder if it's possible to commit genocide against Americans, seeing as they are not actually an ethnic group...

    Nowadays genocide seems to just mean "killing a bunch of people, usually innocents" instead of "intentionally trying to murder an entire race because you think it is inferior".

    Or killing the entire enemy team in MOBA-style games



  • @lettucemode said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @ekolis said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    I think they usually try war criminals with "crimes against the peace" and "crimes against humanity" rather than 100 million individual cases of murder.

    And part of the joke is the idea that under Federal law the lives of millions of humans are worth the life of a single animal on the endangered species list.

    I wonder if it's possible to commit genocide against Americans, seeing as they are not actually an ethnic group...

    Nowadays genocide seems to just mean "killing a bunch of people, usually innocents" instead of "intentionally trying to murder an entire race because you think it is inferior".

    Or killing the entire enemy team in MOBA-style games

    Unless they are Armenian, in which case it's okay.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    Good point, although it's lacking on quite a few subjects (in particular recent events).
     

    Ok, I've gotta admit - I have no idea to what "particular recent events" you are referring here.  Has my decision to stop paying attention to mass media finally gotten the better of me?

     



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    @Sutherlands said:

    Good point, although it's lacking on quite a few subjects (in particular recent events).
     

    Ok, I've gotta admit - I have no idea to what "particular recent events" you are referring here.  Has my decision to stop paying attention to mass media finally gotten the better of me?

     

    What's the most recent event that the Bible covers?

    edit: It's: "in-particular.... recent events" not "particular recent events"


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Sutherlands said:

    What's the most recent event that the Bible covers?

    Recent enough that it hasn't happened yet. We've got at least another thousand years before we get past the Bible.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    What's the most recent event that the Bible covers?
    Recent enough that it hasn't happened yet. We've got at least another thousand years before we get past the Bible.
    Hmmm....

    Assuming what you implied were true, how does that disprove my point? (Which is that the Bible is lacking in coverage of recent events)


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Sutherlands said:

    Assuming what you implied were true, how does that disprove my point? (Which is that the Bible is lacking in coverage of recent events)

    Please do not Fisk the snark.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    Assuming what you implied were true, how does that disprove my point? (Which is that the Bible is lacking in coverage of recent events)
    Please do not Fisk the snark.

    Valid rebuttal.  I will concede that the end of the world is indeed a recent event.


  • @Sutherlands said:

    What's the most recent event that the Bible covers?

    edit: It's: "in-particular.... recent events" not "particular recent events"

    I gave it a 50/50 shot you were talking about that compared to something else. I suppose I don't think of something that occurred not quite 2000 years ago to be a 'recent event'.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Sutherlands said:

    Valid rebuttal.  I will concede that the end of the world is indeed a recent event.
    Isn't that the Harold Camping that had a few stabs at his predictions since the earlier ones didn't actually happen?



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    What's the most recent event that the Bible covers?

     

    edit: It's: "in-particular.... recent events" not "particular recent events"

    I gave it a 50/50 shot you were talking about that compared to something else. I suppose I don't think of something that occurred not quite 2000 years ago to be a 'recent event'.

    Me neither...  which is why the Bible doesn't cover recent events...


  • @PJH said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    Valid rebuttal.  I will concede that the end of the world is indeed a recent event.
    Isn't that the Harold Camping that had a few stabs at his predictions since the earlier ones didn't actually happen?

    I couldn' t remember his name when searching for it.   But yes,  I believe that would be the same.


  • @PJH said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    Valid rebuttal.  I will concede that the end of the world is indeed a recent event.
    Isn't that the Harold Camping that had a few stabs at his predictions since the earlier ones didn't actually happen?
    I'm more inclined to believe the BBC, who said that it at the start of the month.


Log in to reply