|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 19, 2009 1:05:13 GMT -5
In what way does being an old man prevent you from having feelings about Barbie, but not about finding facts about Barbie to be relevant information? I find it appalling that a textbook of any sort would have such terrible information about something that is so very easily checked for factual accuracy. It is of course reasonable for a person on a forum to think what they read in a textbook is accurate. A textbook author randomly hearing something somewhere and putting it into a textbook when the correct number could be ascertained with about 10 minutes of work by a remedial math student makes me want to punch someone. (This is quite independent of the nature of the fact in question, other than that fact be readily determinable by anyone at all.) No need to make a federal case out of it. I simply dropped what I thought was an interesting factoid into a relevant conversation. You corrected it. No need to get yourself worked up. I apologize if my getting worked up seemed to be targeted at you. I *do* get worked up about bad information presented as facts (no matter how trivial the content) in textbooks. And I won't likely stop getting worked up about that anytime soon. But I'm sorry that I came across as snapping at you.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 18, 2009 13:50:41 GMT -5
No. Barbie is 11.5" If that translates to 6'3" it gives her (in the original, non-rescaled form) a proportion of about 1:6.52. As such, it would give her measurements of 39-20-36. That's a bra size of 36D, 34D or 34DDD, etc. The waist size is insanely small, and that figure is probably unattainable without a corset, but your actual numbers are wrong. (Feel free to buy one at a thrift store for a dollar and check my measurements.) Generally Barbie is considered a 1:6 scale doll, making her 5'9", 36-18-33. Again, the waist size is not going to occur in nature, but your actual numbers are wrong. Wikipedia has the same numbers I came up with. Wikipedia also tells me Barbie was remodeled in the early 2000s to have a wider waist (but I think the other proportions are the same?) which would probably bring the proportions into existing-in-nature but unusual territory. I'm not a Barbie fan myself, but if you're going to dislike something, don't do so on the basis of misinformation. I don't dislike Barbie. Being an old man I have no feelings whatsoever about Barbie. In what way does being an old man prevent you from having feelings about Barbie, but not about finding facts about Barbie to be relevant information? I find it appalling that a textbook of any sort would have such terrible information about something that is so very easily checked for factual accuracy. It is of course reasonable for a person on a forum to think what they read in a textbook is accurate. A textbook author randomly hearing something somewhere and putting it into a textbook when the correct number could be ascertained with about 10 minutes of work by a remedial math student makes me want to punch someone. (This is quite independent of the nature of the fact in question, other than that fact be readily determinable by anyone at all.)
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 18, 2009 6:44:16 GMT -5
Oh load of fail from the less crazy side of this:
AV1611: Luke, those scoffers on FFF have gone so far into solipsism I'm sure the majority could not prove their own existence.
FFF in reply: Actually, my existence is easy to prove: I think, therefore I am.
I am dying here, of laughter.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 18, 2009 6:39:30 GMT -5
Holy fucktations. The KJVO crowd outdoes all the hate at RR by an order of magnitude. I... do not have the words.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 18, 2009 5:41:26 GMT -5
Actually, if Barbie were scaled up to human proportions, she would be 6'3" tall, 42DD-24-34. That is in no way a realistic or healthy woman. No. Barbie is 11.5" If that translates to 6'3" it gives her (in the original, non-rescaled form) a proportion of about 1:6.52. As such, it would give her measurements of 39-20-36. That's a bra size of 36D, 34D or 34DDD, etc. The waist size is insanely small, and that figure is probably unattainable without a corset, but your actual numbers are wrong. (Feel free to buy one at a thrift store for a dollar and check my measurements.) Generally Barbie is considered a 1:6 scale doll, making her 5'9", 36-18-33. Again, the waist size is not going to occur in nature, but your actual numbers are wrong. Wikipedia has the same numbers I came up with. Wikipedia also tells me Barbie was remodeled in the early 2000s to have a wider waist (but I think the other proportions are the same?) which would probably bring the proportions into existing-in-nature but unusual territory. I'm not a Barbie fan myself, but if you're going to dislike something, don't do so on the basis of misinformation.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 18, 2009 5:28:39 GMT -5
But on the same token, they won’t allow their daughters to buy Barbie dolls because those place an emphasis on unattainable standards of beauty rather than concentrating on the inner person of the heart. I doubt they'd have that much of a problem with the "unattainable standards of beauty" issue. Rather, they probably would ban Barbie because she's an example of a girl's capability to become an astronaut, a teacher, a businesswoman, a veterinarian, or any other thing she might want to be besides a wife and mother. ~David D.G. Their post specifies the reason they have banned Barbie is because Paul commands women not to put on outward adornments but instead to make their adornments inward, like being submissive and sweet. While they probably have no problem with the *unattainable* beauty idea specifically, they said very explicitly that the reason they are keeping it away is to keep their daughters from "practicing" the pursuit of physical beauty, attainable or not. Though I would guess they also have a problem with the astronaut, teacher, etc. issue if they have thought that far into it.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 18, 2009 1:33:54 GMT -5
Oh so you're one of those are ya? Ironbite-IDENTIFY BITCH! Don't mind Ibby. He's anti-sexual. That is, he actually destroys the sexuality of people around him. Oh don't worry. He's 12 years or so too late to catch any discomfort I have about my (lack of) gender identity or sexual orientation.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 18, 2009 0:06:42 GMT -5
When will these people understand that there is no such thing as "Evolutionists"? I'm actually perfectly comfortable with the term "evolutionist". If there were still any loud support for geocentrism, I would be comfortable with the term "heliocentrist". I mean, I still am comfortable with being called a heliocentrist, but there's very little need to ever actually use the word. Even though there's no real scientific doubt of evolution, there still is cultural doubt. While there are still creationists who are not as marginalized as flat-earthers currently are, I'm happy to say I'm an evolutionist. It shouldn't be capitalized, though.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 18, 2009 0:01:13 GMT -5
Answering in on the rolecall here.
Pansexual (I don't mind the word "bisexual" either, but pansexual is more accurate to me), genderqueer (of the I identify as neither man or woman variety), I have female anatomy and present in a traditionally feminine fashion, and tend to be attracted to people (of any genital configuration) who present anywhere between androgynous and extremely femme. I'm indifferent to pronouns, but feel very uncomfortable using non-unisex bathrooms.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 17, 2009 12:48:45 GMT -5
*mouth drops open* *drops wine glass onto the tile floor* *faints* Tawny frogmouths? UGLY? BLASPHEMER! Or in other words, I think they're adorable and not just ugly-cute. Oh well, I guess tastes vary. LOOK AT THAT LITTLE PUFFBALL WITH A POUTY BEAK!
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 17, 2009 8:07:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 17, 2009 6:14:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 15, 2009 0:13:00 GMT -5
... Gay missionaries would be awesome. Thought we already had those. They're called Mormons. Unfortunately I never get the cute mormon guys so obviously in the closet. I get the middle aged JW housewives. A friend of mine managed to have sex with a hot Mormon missionary. For this I give him all of the epic applause possible.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 15, 2009 0:11:10 GMT -5
Unlike everyone else on the face of the earth, I always wanted JWs and Mormons to come visit me. But I feel that ordering them from the internet (which you can do) would be cheating. Finally a few years ago I was accosted at the bus stop by JWs. I was so excited. I love to ask people why they believe what they do. However, like everyone had told me I would be, it was very disappointing. When I asked them why they specifically believed the Bible as opposed to any other religious text, the answer was "because it's the Word of God" and when asked how they knew that the answer was "because it's in the Bible", ad infinitum, the basic circular argument. When I told them no, I didn't believe the Bible, they left and wouldn't consider the conversation. Various people raised JW have told me that either they don't try to convert anyone who's not already a Christian or that possibly I would have been able to have more of a conversation if I was male, as the extreme misogyny of the JWs makes male missionaries (this was two men) not enter into in-deapth conversations with females. I don't *really* expect better, but I always think just maybe I can get some real insight into what makes people belive what they do. On a more positive note for anyone who hasn't seen it (I bet it's been posted here somewhere before), God Gave me Cookies
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 14, 2009 6:33:50 GMT -5
|
|