Tuesday TOON Roundup 2

[n2doc]

Economy
















Evolution




Environment
















Electronics






Hubble




Cats

[Blue_Tires]

1. lol at the food label...so true

and there is NOTHING wrong with Duran Duran!!

POOR GM!

[Occam Bandage]

2. The social-security/duran duran one is strange.

Nobody has recently suggested a cutback in social security, to say nothing in an elimination. It's true that they projected no COLA increase for 2010, but that's because they aren't projecting an increase in the cost of living as a result of the recession.

[Mari333]

3. one isnt funny.

but it was probably drawn by some kid who is mad at his mom and dad and is tired of living in their basement.

[Chulanowa]

5. Truth seems to itch a little, huh?

[Mari333]

6. what truths?

I saw bias. the greatest generation did a wonderful job of helping bring down the nazis..they also condoned homophobia, condoned Jim Crow laws, and brought us Joe McCarthy and Vietnam

I was on the front line fighting for civil rights and womens rights and protesting Vietnam as a baby boomer

dont paint with so broad a brush...every generation has its assholes and its saints. including yours.

[Chulanowa]

9. Oh, you protested Vietnam? I protested Iraq

I suspect we both know that protesting doesn't accomplish a fucking thing then, don't we?

You were on the "front lines" of the civil rights movement? Well shit, I've never been hit in the face by a firehose, tell me how it feels!

[Mari333]

11. my god, kid, relax.

and just admit that all generations have their saints and sinners. hugs to you .

[Chulanowa]

12. Well, I would love to relax...

But i've got all this baby boomer shit that needs shoveling.

Maybe in a few decades, when I can finally tamp that shovel for the last time, I'll take a breather.

[Mari333]

14. yeah, and I blamed my parents generation too

and your kids will blame you. count on it.

[Chulanowa]

18. Well, I guess I should thank your generation for a few things...

Mostly showing mine what not to do. Which is another thing that can be said all the way back to the beginning, huh? I have to note more curiosity about what my kids and grandkids will be blaming me for.

Assuming of course, the zombies your generation is bound to create in your eternal and frantic quest for eternal youth and virility don't eat us all :D

[Mari333]

20. another broad brush

the first thing you might want to learn is not to paint everyone with it.
its a sign of immaturity.
there are wonderful people who are young who are doing wonderful things.
there are wonderful people who are middle aged doing wonderful things.
there are wonderful very old people doing wonderful things.

and there are mean people in all those groups also.

I wont keep debating you, you want to blame someone so you are creating your own gollum.
fine. whatever floats your boat.

[Chulanowa]

21. Well, going back to the comic you bitched about...

You notice the context is generational conflict, not individual. when you try to change to arguing about this individual or that one, you are in effect trying to change the entire context. Of course some people are better or worse than others. That's not the point. In fact it's a straw man - you're creating a nonexistent statement to argue against.

You do understand "context" right, old timer? It's from a Latin root, so it might be after your time.

[Ishoutandscream2]

23. Forget it, Mari. You will get nowhere with this

There's a lot of anger there that you can't combat.

[Chulanowa]

27. That's right!

Turn on, tune in, drop out.

[Mari333]

29. I think he is mad at his parents

nothing else can explain the temper tantrum. :)

[annabanana]

15. I wonder how much snark Ghandi threw around?

I remember him, do you?

[Mari333]

16. ...

:)

[Chulanowa]

17. I don't know about this "Ghandi" fellow you remember...

But I imagine that Mohandas Gandhi had quite a bit to dole out. His quotes sound more Mark Twain than Saint Mark.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

No snark there! :rofl:

[Ishoutandscream2]

19. Great post, and "right on"

Using the old saying there, doncha know. Yours was a great generation.

[elvisbear]

4. Thanks for the toons.

:kick:

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. First I've heard of guns in National Parks.

Why in the world would they be considered necessary?

[Mari333]

8. I dunno but Im staying out of them now

if they want to have parks where people shoot em up, let them. Im going to avoid them. theres a lot of kooks out there.

[Chulanowa]

10. Because some people can't go anywhere without their magic talismans

The wacky christians need the Ten Commandments everywhere, and hte Nugentians need to have a gun handy. Without their little totems, they feel powerless.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Why would it be considered necessary to ban them?

[Chulanowa]

22. because people who take guns into the woods tend to want to shoot them

And there tend to be things that we don't want shot in national parks.

Can't even say it's a case of a few yahoos ruining it for everyone else, 'cause really I can't think of any reason to carry a gun into a national park if you're not thinking about shooting something.

[Occam Bandage]

24. I don't believe that's so.

I think quite a few people carry them purely for self-defense.

[Chulanowa]

25. Self-Defense; the answer for every gun question.

Well, now that someone's packing, I guess everyone oughtta start just to be on the safe side. Yes sir, makes us all safer!

[Occam Bandage]

26. Whether it's reasonable is beside the point, I think.

People have the right to act unreasonably. I can buy five hundred condoms and head off into the woods alone if I want to, despite the fact that there is no reasonable cause for me to do such a thing.

[Chulanowa]

28. Are we having a Zardoz moment? The penis is evil, the gun is good?

Are you seriously comparing a gun to a condom? Look, if you can kill a bison, or permanently deface a landmark with a condom, I say you go out and show me how it's done.

[Occam Bandage]

30. What a strange reading of the statement.

That is simply one of millions of unreasonable things one could choose to do; my imagination was sparked by the fact that I came across an empty box of Trojans when last I was hiking. Your eagerness in leaping to a gun-penis link is hardly surprising though, and I should have been more careful to avoid giving you the opportunity. After all, I note many gun-control advocates are practically obsessed with linking guns to penises (I wonder what exactly they're actually trying to control). But regardless. Replace the 500 condoms with any other quantity of items that would be nigh-comically useless for a single hiker.

The mere fact that there is no reasonable advantage to doing something is not cause to ban it, nor is the mere threat of misuse. Were there an epidemic of landmark-defacement with guns, or were bison poaching a significant problem, you might have a point. However, neither are, and so a restriction on liberty is inappropriate. Meanwhile, littering certainly is a problem in national parks, and I could create quite a mess with my 500 condoms (or 500 packages of cigarettes, or 500 White Castle hamburgers, or what have you). Ought we impose limits on how many White Castle hamburgers a person may possess at any one time?

[Chulanowa]

32. You could stand to pay a little more attention

Sure. 500 condoms is just a totally random choice of irrational products. :) As for the assosiation, well, see my earlier post. Most Nugentians see their gun as a sort of magical talisman, a symbol of potency - not necessarily sexual potency, but they certainly feel powerless without one on hand.


yeah. No connection.

At any rate, you're still missing my point. You can clean up litter. You can't ressurrect wildlife, or repair damage to the landmarks and monuments. Your random, completely unrelated decision to pack along a fuckload of condoms (no pun intended, how dare your mind go there!) could, at best, cause an unsightly but temporary irritation.

Again, if you can show me how to kill a bison with a motherfucking white castle hamburger, PLEASE demostrate to me.

[Occam Bandage]

33. I already explained what the link was.

I had found a box of condoms when last hiking. My mind may have been primed to recall that particular bit of litter by the frequent gun=penis arguments in such threads; who knows. But regardless.

I admit freely a gun could cause far more damage than a few gross of white castles. At the same time, a gun is very unlikely to cause any damage whatsoever, and a gun is extraordinarily unlikely to cause damage that is totally irreparable. Animals are constantly dying and reproducing; the loss of one may be irreparable to that particular animal, but not to the park. Poaching is unfortunate, but is not a significant problem, in part due to the large room for error with most wildlife populations, and in part due to the fact that firing guns tends to attract attention. As for damage to landmarks/monuments? If you're looking to cause irreparable damage to either, a gun is a pretty bad choice. It's loud, it attracts attention, and it doesn't do much damage. A chisel or a can of spray paint are much easier to come by, and would work much better. Banning guns on the basis that someone might start shooting monuments is like banning trailer hitches because someone might throw a chain around a statue and their truck's hitch and then pull the statue over. It's the kind of potential problem that is better solved by prosecuting people who commit such flagrant crimes.

A white castle wrapper, at least, is likely to cause damage, if only of the temporary sort.

[Chulanowa]

35. I don't think we're going to reach an agreement

Especially since you apparently think there will be one, and only one, gun in any given park, and that it will always be carried by someone who has a lick of sense. This idiocy was pushed by people who want to blow things away, to accomodate other people who want to blow things away. Now, you gun people can clasp your hands and tell me how wonderful and responsible yo uall are, and that's great. But it leads you to a no true scotsman fallacy. Of course there's lots of responsible gun owners, but I would put a large sum of money on the notion that the majority of gun owners aren't too bright with them.

What's one animal? Not much. What's one animal, repeated a few dozen time by each redneck with personal insecurity issues? It starts adding up.

Now, maybe I'm privileged, but I do have actual experience in this area. While living in Alaska, there was a "recreation area" nearby where two glaciers (Miles and Childs') fed into the Copper River. And people would go out there and shoot away at the glaciers, and at the wildlife. Nothing quite ruins a picnic like a dead bear missing most of its head in the middle of the parking lot, wouldn't you agree? And at least in this case, shooting the landmark poses to honest and real danger, to the shooter as well as anyone nearby - ever seen a glacier calving? Creates quite a wave.

But of course, the Department of Fish and game was completely unwarranted in declaring guns a no-no in the area and doing patrols to enforce it, huh?

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. May you live long and prosper Hubble

so true... that one is very close

We are far from where we should be. After all wars are more fun than science... :sarcasm:

[proteus_lives]

34. The students ones!

Ouch! Right on the money!