You also have no head. Get that looked at, chief.

Excuse me, I have to raid the art store.

So begins a mysterious string of head injuries.

He can now carry out multiplications like 147,631,789 by 23,674 in his head instantly.

Source

The answer's no. The matter still does it's thing: it bounces around regardless of whether you're there or not -- but sound is only the brain's interpretation of what's going on in the outside world. Interpretations can't exist without interpreters.

Like the reason we like the taste of sugar is because of the way our brains adapted, not because of anything inherent in sugar. (http://blog.ted.com/2009/03/16/dan_dennett_cute/)

Why does Batman have a gun? ._.

Fits all sizes up to a 32’ waist.

Batman Utility Belt set circa 1966 :: scanned from Chip Kidd’s Batman Collected :: Little, Brown & Company :: 1996

Killer Queen - Queen (Isolated Vocals)

This is what I imagine God must sound like.

#eargasm

#CHRIST #i feel like i’m being welcomed into heaven holy hell

Karaoke, anybody?

Reductio Ad Hitlerum

  Patrick's post was better left ignored on facebook, Alan thought. Hold a match to his eyebrows and Alan would not be able to give one reason why Patrick remains on his friends list. The post was an invitation for a screening of this documentary, ostensibly about Black Genocide in the 21st century. In reality: a thinly veiled "pro-life" smear campaign against planned parenthood. 

Alan had argued for pages with Patrick. Before. There's a reason he doesn't anymore. Patrick does not know how to argue. He knows how to contradict, but not to evaluate his sources, scrutinize whether they logically contribute to the conclusion, or how to separate the the argument he's attacking from the person doing the arguing. Patrick has called Alan ignorant, fascistic, a communist, comparable to a Nazi, and a hypocrite, almost in the same breath. If any of the slander was true, it wouldn't make a blastocyst (a collection of 70-100 cells) any more conscious.

Alan doesn't bother anymore. After a few dozen ad hominems, a guy gets the message that he isn't being treated with the same generosity and respect he offers in discussions. Instead Alan logged onto tumblr and posted a passive-aggressive fictionalized story to see if other people think "Patrick" is a shithead. Okay, Alan's a bit of a hypocrite. Who cares?

Well I just watched an episode of Angel... so if I fucked I'd turn evil and grow a really gnarly forehead, and I'd be pretty miserable anyway. Or I'd be a geeky demon hunter with a British accent. There would be a team of demon-summoning lawyers hounding me and I'd probably die if I wasn't in the main cast. 8.5/10

What's up with 'is anyone up?'

It's a site where people post naked pictures of their exes, complete with links to their facebook and google accounts so anyone can send the victims messages. The aim isn't erotica, but mortification. To make people feel bad about themselves for being sexual. Especially if they are heavy, transgendered, or if they fail to meet patriarchal expectations. It's a ghastly site and it gives a podium for the worst of us to shame people based on pictures that were sent in very intimate, vulnerable moments. It's abuse. Perfectly legal abuse.

There is only so much one can blame Hunter Moore for. He does curate the site, posts reactions of approval or disapproval of the pictures, and is an unpleasant human being in general. He's aware of his critics. He jokes about them. But this kind of site would exist with or without Moore. If there's demand for a site, it's going to happen. If not, it would die. If nobody submits photos and information, if nobody watches the site, if nobody buys ads, it dies.

So why does the site have an audience? The majority of it is not porn or intended to be erotic. It's primarily a shame site. It's made to reinforce the ideas that certain kinds of people shouldn't be sexual and that sexual expressions can be used as weapons. It exists because there are people who will agree and participate, who see it as an opportunity to ruin someone's life, or who are willing to turn a blind eye to make a buck.

Do the people posting this shit want society to be like this? Abusive, vile, invasive, sex-negative? Why do these people try to make themselves feel better through revenge, through hurting others, when there's a ready supply of alcohol and shitty club beats?

I'm not against pornography or erotica, but this is something else. If I were the benevolent dictator of the universe I'd say: Go out. Have a good time. Don't make the world shittier.

(Photo: Facepalm Ringo, shamelessly pilfered from the internet.)

Same thing happens in the Lucifer comics (a spinoff of Sandman), but with the roles reversed. This happens after he quits hell and runs a piano bar in LA.

Gods, I love Vertigo.

“Baby comes first,” so kill the dog?

An unattributed opinion piece in the Calgary Herald calls for “destroying” a dog that killed a baby: 'Baby, not dog, comes first.'

Is anyone else tired of this false dichotomy that plagues the minds of animal rights detractors? It's like they want to frame the world as “us” against “them,” as if animals are conspiring to pounce on humanity the second we put down our forks.

The author displays a bizarre inversion of anthropomorphism: “If the dog had inadvertently killed the baby through nurturing instincts ... a case might be made that the dog should live.” The author's treating this dog as if it were a murderer; like a person who understands the quality and character of its actions. Dogs can't do that. They do have interests, they are capable of feeling pleasure and pain, they can suffer, but they cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

I am morally concerned over what happens to toddlers. That said, I would never accuse a toddler of murder.

I'm surprised at how readily people-at-large would execute animals for “murder” when they don't recognize them as sensitive beings with interests that don't include them being exploited and butchered for a shitty meatloaf. Despite the stereotype, animal rights activists don't attribute human qualities to animals. We aren't fighting for the right of chickens to vote or for cows to be judged by a jury of their peers. Differences aside, we recognize that we and many other animals share common traits: we have experiences, we see things through our own eyes, we each have a unique access to our own pleasure and pain. We're sentient and so are they.

What would killing the dog accomplish? Would it save more babies? I find it hard to believe that parents would leave any more young children unattended with the dog. What's the point then: To teach the dog a lesson? To offer the deceased a sacrifice? To satisfy the bloodlust surging through the veins of some bystander who wrote to the Herald?

None of that makes a lick of sense.