• Placeholder (disco)

    Since @Remy asked for it, here is my angry, poorly thought out response to the contents of this article:

    #FRIST

    Bold, all caps, and large text. You can't get much angrier than that.

  • boomzilla (disco)

    "I'm Not Married to the Idea"

    Of course not. It's going to take a while for that ridiculous opinion to open up marriage to abstract thought.

  • Maciejasjmj (disco) in reply to Placeholder
    Placeholder:
    Bold, all caps, and large text.

    6/10 not enough misspellings and "1"s.

  • Placeholder (disco) in reply to Maciejasjmj
    Placeholder:
    poorly thought out
    [image]
  • abarker (disco)
    remy:
    I suppose I should apologize to the forum mods in advance…

    We're waiting … [image]

  • accalia (disco) in reply to abarker

    [quote=remy]WHAAAAARRRGARBL[/quote]

    i see remy's been taking rant lessons from me. :-D

  • Severity_One (disco)

    Things change. Get used to it. Be happy that you don't have to design a database for a hybrid polygamous marriage with any number of parties of either sex, or who haven't decided yet what sex they are.

  • accalia (disco) in reply to Severity_One
    Severity_One:
    Be happy that you don't have to design a database for a hybrid polygamous marriage with any number of parties of either sex, or who haven't decided yet what sex they are yet.

    FTFY

    ;-)

  • loose (disco) in reply to Placeholder

    You are making a fundamental, mistaken, buttsumption about the quantitative value of "frist". As such an activity / motivation is intently competitive, successful application disenfranchise everybody else of even making the attempt. A spokesperson for the "I want to be frist" movement was quoted as saying "...that this is considered to be bad because it denies the opportunity of our members and deincentivises them to contribute...". It is expected that a Kangaroo Court Ruling, soon to be issued, will require that "frist" can no longer be used (anybody caught doing so, or promoting its continued use, will be severely punished). Therefore, all instances of it, past present and future, MUST be replaced with "Also Frist".

  • loose (disco) in reply to Placeholder
    ##### ####   ###   ###  #####
    #     #   #   #   #       #
    #     #   #   #   #       #
    ####  ####    #    ###    #
    #     #   #   #       #   #
    #     #   #   #       #   #
    #     #   #  ###   ###    #
    
  • GettinSadda (disco)

    The most appropriate use of a cornify link ever!!!

  • OllieJones (disco)

    Here in Massachusetts, back in 2004, it took a while (a few weeks) to get the forms and software changed. But the town clerks muddled through. Some clerks messed around with Acrobat to change the forms. Others used wite-out. The municipalities with electronic records (yeah, I know, not all of them, why would people of Puritan colonial heritage spend money on expensive stuff like servers when a shoebox does the job perfectly well?) waited to punch in the licenses until their software was fixed.

    Some ministers and JPs were asked to re-do some licenses on the new forms just so they would be perfect.

    I don't think our town clerks (the ones who issue marriage licenses) saw this change coming as clearly as people could have in 2015.

    The only problem: "Party A" and "Party B" ? There HAS to be a more elegant way to word it.

  • kupfernigk (disco)

    [edit - the following post resulted from reading @OllieJones post above, it isn't complete OT]

    Progress, isn't it wonderful? What would now be nice is to find a way to stop the continuing misstatement that there are different human "races" (since the Neanderthals and Denisovans, and possibly the hobbits, died out there has been only one human race which only developed color variations a few thousand years ago) without at the same time being unable to record the bad things done by people who think that there is more than one human race (and that they belong to the important bit.)

    It seems to me wrong that people are forced to categorise themselves in order to stand up against the people who want to categorise them. How do you force police forces to record the evidence that they are discriminating against black people, without allowing them to pretend that there is a real difference here which justifies their behavior?

  • RFoxmich (disco) in reply to OllieJones

    There is and has long been:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u8AgUXPpLM

  • RFoxmich (disco)

    The software changes are all just jiggery pokery ..and applesauce. A. Scalia

  • boomzilla (disco) in reply to Severity_One
    Severity_One:
    Things change. Get used to it. Be happy that you don't have to design a database for a hybrid polygamous marriage with any number of parties of either sex, or who haven't decided yet what sex they are.

    Coming soon!

    http://www.kxlh.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

  • Maciejasjmj (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    Coming soon!

    OH MY GOD THAT WOULD SO TOTALLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON MY LIFE IF THEY GET MARRIED.

    Oh wait, it won't. Fuck off.

  • aliceif (disco) in reply to Maciejasjmj
    Maciejasjmj:
    Oh wait, it won't. Fuck off.

    You forgot the tax-related side of marriage.

  • boomzilla (disco) in reply to Maciejasjmj
    Maciejasjmj:
    OH MY GOD THAT WOULD SO TOTALLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON MY LIFE IF THEY GET MARRIED.

    I'm...not sure why you felt the need to share that, but thanks!

    Maciejasjmj:
    Fuck off.

    Now you're just being hurtful.

  • Luhmann (disco) in reply to OllieJones
    OllieJones:
    "Party A" and "Party B"

    Party On & Party Off !!

    I'm calling dips on Party On !

  • Maciejasjmj (disco) in reply to aliceif
    aliceif:
    You forgot the tax-benefitting side of marriage.

    Well that's simple to solve. Just take the tax privileges away from all marriages.

  • loose (disco) in reply to Maciejasjmj

    What! Even the arranged ones?

  • Maciejasjmj (disco) in reply to loose
    loose:
    What! Even the arranged ones?

    Nah, that's fine I guess. As long as they breed, I suppose.

  • boomzilla (disco) in reply to Maciejasjmj
    Maciejasjmj:
    Just take the tax privileges away from all marriages.

    Good idea, but doesn't go far enough. Let's create public orphanages and put all the kids in there.

  • Maciejasjmj (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    Let's create public orphanages and put all the kids in there.

    Pfft, orphanages? So that the bastards could just sit around doing nothing? Gulags is where it's at.


    Filed under: not sure what is being argued anymore, but whatever

  • boomzilla (disco) in reply to Maciejasjmj
    Maciejasjmj:
    So that the bastards could just sit around doing nothing?

    I certainly wasn't implying that. Never that.

    Maciejasjmj:
    Filed under: not sure what is being argued anymore, but whatever

    I don't know. If there was an argument, it was you. I don't recall arguing.

  • loose (disco)

    Argument = discussion with vehemence

  • Steve_Sheldon (disco) in reply to Severity_One

    You've highlighted the next problem in database design without even realizing it. No... not polygamous marriage, that's not going to happen.

    I'm talking about your outdated Victorian view of sex being an either/or concept.

    In the future sex will be multiple choice with the ability to select multiple options as well as a fillintheblank other type.

  • Vault_Dweller (disco) in reply to Steve_Sheldon

    Why? Will there ever be any other options than "Yes" or "No"?

  • HardwareGeek (disco) in reply to Vault_Dweller

    "Not with you!"

  • Kian (disco) in reply to Steve_Sheldon

    This obsession with recording everything is why data breaches are so damaging. If you've already determined that anyone can marry anyone else, why do you care about the gender of the involved parties? The license should simply have some way to identify each person, not a description of them.

  • EatenByAGrue (disco) in reply to Luhmann
    Luhmann:
    Party On & Party Off !!

    See, now I'm just waiting for this to appear on the marriage certificate: "Party On: Wayne" "Party Off: Garth"

  • dkf (disco) in reply to Steve_Sheldon
    Steve_Sheldon:
    I'm talking about your outdated Victorian view of sex being an either/or concept.

    You plan to use a floating-point complex number?

  • antiquarian (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    Good idea, but doesn't go far enough. Let's create public orphanages and put all the kids in there.

    There's a Mr. Huxley on the phone looking for you. He says he wants royalties.

  • dkf (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    Let's create public orphanages and put all the kids in there.

    The Romanian approach?

  • Gal_Spunes (disco)

    This post identifies itself as Frist!

  • Jaloopa (disco) in reply to Vault_Dweller
    Vault_Dweller:
    Will there ever be any other options than "Yes" or "No"?

    "Not tonight, dear. I have a headache. Why not go and watch some porn?"

  • FrostCat (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    Let's create public orphanages and put all the kids in there.

    Didn't the Soviets effectively experiment with that in the 20s and 30s? That is, raise all the children communally, rather than in familes?

  • boomzilla (disco) in reply to FrostCat

    If so, that wouldn't have been the dumbest thing they tried.

  • FrostCat (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    If so, that wouldn't have been the dumbest thing they tried.

    I've read that they flirted--briefly--with eliminating marriage altogether. People could just have sex with whoever they wanted, since if someone got pregnant, they would just put the kid in the creche with the rest of them. Supposedly the women complained in large numbers after less than a year and the idea was scrapped.

  • jkshapiro (disco) in reply to dkf

    They tried it on the kibbutzim in Israel too.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz_communal_child_rearing_and_collective_education

  • xaade (disco) in reply to boomzilla

    Are you a :barrier: to love.

  • narbat (disco) in reply to accalia
    accalia:
    Severity_One:
    Be happy that you don't have to design a database for a hybrid polygamous marriage with any number of parties of either sex, or who haven't decided yet what sex they are yet this week.

    FTFY

    Don't be a gender-temporal-normative bigot.

  • xaade (disco)
    enum boolean
    {
        true,
        false,
        transtruthy
    }
    
  • Maciejasjmj (disco) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    Are you a :barrier: stranger to love.

    Come on, @boomzilla. You know the rules, and so do I *wiiink*

  • xaade (disco)

    If it's a microaggression for me to flirt with a lesbian. Is it a microaggression for a gay guy to flirt with me?

  • Gal_Spunes (disco) in reply to xaade

    Microagressions are for pussies.

    Macroaggression is where it's at ;)

  • xaade (disco) in reply to Gal_Spunes

    As a white man, being visible is a microaggression.

    So, I'd like to apologize for offending people for my level of success, which is, not being quite as poor as the rest of my family.

  • Yamikuronue (disco) in reply to xaade

    We already have a thread for that shit.

  • Maciejasjmj (disco) in reply to Maciejasjmj
    [image]

    Is that... rounded corners? Fucking hell.


    Filed under: i guess it's more organic and human

Leave a comment on “I'm Not Married to the Idea”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article