🔥 Popular | Latest

ask-kirby-sans: paddysnuffles: cyhiraeth: jumpingjacktrash: vertisol: offendedfunyarinpa: dduane: laurelai: angelalchemy: standbyfortitanfall: girlwithalessonplan: heliosapollo: losed: A CROW TRIED TO GO IN OUR CLASSROOM AND HE HAD A PEN yes hello i am here to learn geometries That crow is more prepared than some of my students. You’ve all just like, completely skipped over the possibility that this crow has seen people using pens in this room, found one, and is trying to return it. There’s been videos of crows picking up sweet wrappers and stuff and placing them in bins after seeing humans put their litter in bins. I really do believe that this crow is trying to return the pen and that is ADORABLE AS HELL.  THEY ARE SO SMART I LOVE THEM Crows are thought to be self aware by some scientists. Its perfectly possible the crow wants to return the pen to humans. Knowing it belongs to humans. Corvids. Who KNOWS. :) Another cool crow deal: Once, when trying to assess if crows could reason and use tools, scientists had two crows who didn’t know each other each take a wire from a table (one was hooked, one was straight) and try to grab meat from a bottle with it. The crows could see each other, though they had separate bottles. Only the straight wire worked for this, so they hypothesized that if crows could reason, the second trial would have the two crows fighting over the straight wire. The second trial started and, to the surprise of the scientists, the two crows both went for the bent wire, one held it down and the other unbent it. They both got meat out of their bottles. They came to a peaceful solution without verbal communication. Crows are probably smarter than we are. they still shit all over the place and eat garbage ok but so do we @neurodivergent-crow Cool facts about crows: 1. Crows understand the concept of gifts. There’s a little girl who started feeding the murder by her house and they started bringing her trinkets (cool pebbles, coins, shiny things, bleached animal bones, etc) as a thank you.  2. Crows remember who has been kind to them and tell other crows about the nice humans. There are various examples of people who have helped crows and the crows not only come back to say hi, but also bring friends who need help over for the nice human to help. 3. Crows are the only other animal known to make tools in order to make another tool. 4. Crows have been proven to have a sense of self If you mark them with a coloured dot that they can see and then show them their reflection in a mirror they soon realize that the reflection is them and not another crow. 5. Crows have regional dialects and accents. They are also able to copy each other’s dialects and accents to fit in if they move to an area where the accent is different. 6. Crows regularly visit their parents after leaving the nest. They also regularly live with their parents after reaching adulthood to help with raising their younger siblings for up to five years before moving out. Crows are better than people : ask-kirby-sans: paddysnuffles: cyhiraeth: jumpingjacktrash: vertisol: offendedfunyarinpa: dduane: laurelai: angelalchemy: standbyfortitanfall: girlwithalessonplan: heliosapollo: losed: A CROW TRIED TO GO IN OUR CLASSROOM AND HE HAD A PEN yes hello i am here to learn geometries That crow is more prepared than some of my students. You’ve all just like, completely skipped over the possibility that this crow has seen people using pens in this room, found one, and is trying to return it. There’s been videos of crows picking up sweet wrappers and stuff and placing them in bins after seeing humans put their litter in bins. I really do believe that this crow is trying to return the pen and that is ADORABLE AS HELL.  THEY ARE SO SMART I LOVE THEM Crows are thought to be self aware by some scientists. Its perfectly possible the crow wants to return the pen to humans. Knowing it belongs to humans. Corvids. Who KNOWS. :) Another cool crow deal: Once, when trying to assess if crows could reason and use tools, scientists had two crows who didn’t know each other each take a wire from a table (one was hooked, one was straight) and try to grab meat from a bottle with it. The crows could see each other, though they had separate bottles. Only the straight wire worked for this, so they hypothesized that if crows could reason, the second trial would have the two crows fighting over the straight wire. The second trial started and, to the surprise of the scientists, the two crows both went for the bent wire, one held it down and the other unbent it. They both got meat out of their bottles. They came to a peaceful solution without verbal communication. Crows are probably smarter than we are. they still shit all over the place and eat garbage ok but so do we @neurodivergent-crow Cool facts about crows: 1. Crows understand the concept of gifts. There’s a little girl who started feeding the murder by her house and they started bringing her trinkets (cool pebbles, coins, shiny things, bleached animal bones, etc) as a thank you.  2. Crows remember who has been kind to them and tell other crows about the nice humans. There are various examples of people who have helped crows and the crows not only come back to say hi, but also bring friends who need help over for the nice human to help. 3. Crows are the only other animal known to make tools in order to make another tool. 4. Crows have been proven to have a sense of self If you mark them with a coloured dot that they can see and then show them their reflection in a mirror they soon realize that the reflection is them and not another crow. 5. Crows have regional dialects and accents. They are also able to copy each other’s dialects and accents to fit in if they move to an area where the accent is different. 6. Crows regularly visit their parents after leaving the nest. They also regularly live with their parents after reaching adulthood to help with raising their younger siblings for up to five years before moving out. Crows are better than people
Save
41 Tumblr Posts That Are Made To Improve Your Mood – Sarcasm: Scott "Hug Honey" Fearichs Following @KaiserNeko Fun fact: I once asked Jeff Goode (creator of Jake Long: American Dragon) at a furry con, "How do you feel about people making lewd art of your characters?" He said, "Oh, Disney sat me down and showed me a bunch of Kim Possible porn and said, 'This will happen to your show." 10:50 PM 26 Oct 2018 19 Retweets 42 Likes t19 42 thedarksideoflimbo Three things I find hilarious about this: 1: Jeff Goode goes to Furry Cons 2: Disney acknowledges and prepares show creators that their show will, most definitely, become porn. 3: Disney has examples on hand of how said show will, most definitely, become porn faeforge Pffft!!!!! Disney doesn't just have examples of said porn!! Ok story time. Yeaaaars ago i dated an animator chick. During that short time together we ran around a lot and met a bunch of industry people in our area One of them used to work for Disney. So we are hanging out at his apartment and conversation being what it is he kinda says "hold on" and goes off to dig in the closet. He comes back and sets down a couple STACKS (and im talking foot high) of printer paper. What followed were a couple hours of hysterical laughing as we paged through "a history of Disney animation- porn edition" See Disney has this weird rule in their artist contracts- everything you create while in their employ is THEIRS. Even in the off time. Its one of the reasons they are reviled in the industry. But the rule was set in place to basically steal good ideas from their staff or force them to ONLY work on Disney ip's while employed.. The jokes on them though. They didn't count on most artists being giant perverts (this story is also why i laugh when people tell me drawing smut will 'ruin your art career') So! Disney being bastards ended up earning them smut of everything they've ever created. And also per their policies they had to keep it. Every artist knew about the smut vault and our buddy here had photocopied a chunk of it. Yes... 2-3 feet of smut was just a chunk of it Snow white? Rescue rangers? Goofy? Minnie? Micky? Beauty and the beast? Aladdin? Yup you name it it was there. Some of it was mild. The topless little mermaid stuff made sense at least. Some was raunchy as hell. ALL OF IT in the animation style of the films and shows. So yes, not only does Disney know there will be porn, have the porn, but they official porn You're welcome Source: maswartz 41 Tumblr Posts That Are Made To Improve Your Mood – Sarcasm
Save
prolifeproliberty: metalcatholic: danthesantana: metalcatholic: atheist-freethinker: https://www.no-gods-no-masters.com/anti-religion-atheist-shirts-C84733/ Apollo 11 Astronaut Buzz Aldrin took communion on the moon Apollo 8 astronauts read from Genesis when in orbit Roger B. Chaffee (Died in Apollo 1 fire) is quoted as saying  “The world itself looks cleaner and so much more beautiful. Maybe we can make it that way—the way God intended it to be—by giving everybody that new perspective from out in space” James Irwin (Apollo 15) wrote “Being on the moon had a profound spiritual impact upon my life. Before I entered space with the Apollo 15 mission in July of 1971, I was a lukewarm Christian, to say the least! I was even a silent Christian, but I feel the Lord sent me to the moon so I could return to the earth and share his Son, Jesus Christ.” John Glenn the first American to orbit the Earth told reporters  “To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible. It just strengthens my faith.” These are just a few examples of astronauts that had faith in God. I’m not here to start a debate. Just to say I feel it’s a bit disingenuous to tie in scientific discoveries with a lack of faith when some of the key people in those discoveries clearly had strong beliefs in some form of a higher power. Also the quote is attributed to yuri gagarin the first man in space, however, wether he actually said that0 he saw no god in space is highly disputed, and he may have even been a convinced Christian. Well I don’t think the soviet union took to kindly to any religion so that info doesn’t surprise me. I was trying to figure out if op had a source but couldn’t. Also even if he did say that, I don’t know any Christian who would expect to see God just kind of hanging out in orbit around the earth… Everyone knows God floats about in space like Princess Leia in The Last Jedi: Isee no GOD up here... NO-GODS-NO-MASTERS.COM prolifeproliberty: metalcatholic: danthesantana: metalcatholic: atheist-freethinker: https://www.no-gods-no-masters.com/anti-religion-atheist-shirts-C84733/ Apollo 11 Astronaut Buzz Aldrin took communion on the moon Apollo 8 astronauts read from Genesis when in orbit Roger B. Chaffee (Died in Apollo 1 fire) is quoted as saying  “The world itself looks cleaner and so much more beautiful. Maybe we can make it that way—the way God intended it to be—by giving everybody that new perspective from out in space” James Irwin (Apollo 15) wrote “Being on the moon had a profound spiritual impact upon my life. Before I entered space with the Apollo 15 mission in July of 1971, I was a lukewarm Christian, to say the least! I was even a silent Christian, but I feel the Lord sent me to the moon so I could return to the earth and share his Son, Jesus Christ.” John Glenn the first American to orbit the Earth told reporters  “To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible. It just strengthens my faith.” These are just a few examples of astronauts that had faith in God. I’m not here to start a debate. Just to say I feel it’s a bit disingenuous to tie in scientific discoveries with a lack of faith when some of the key people in those discoveries clearly had strong beliefs in some form of a higher power. Also the quote is attributed to yuri gagarin the first man in space, however, wether he actually said that0 he saw no god in space is highly disputed, and he may have even been a convinced Christian. Well I don’t think the soviet union took to kindly to any religion so that info doesn’t surprise me. I was trying to figure out if op had a source but couldn’t. Also even if he did say that, I don’t know any Christian who would expect to see God just kind of hanging out in orbit around the earth… Everyone knows God floats about in space like Princess Leia in The Last Jedi

prolifeproliberty: metalcatholic: danthesantana: metalcatholic: atheist-freethinker: https://www.no-gods-no-masters.com/anti-religi...

Save
vladislava: mylistofthangs: Antique Jewish wedding rings.  These are absolutely gorgeous. Some info: Antique Jewish wedding bands are stellar examples of the artistry of jewelry making. The rings are made of a metal circle, molded to fit the would-be owner, topped with an architectural feature resembling a house. The goldsmith would then engrave something on the exterior of the “house”; engravings were also commonly hidden inside, in which case the “house” – or bezel – would slide open. The engraving would usually read Mazal Tov, or the Hebrew initials M.T. The rings’ houses varied in design from castle-like, to square, round or hexagonal. The structures were representations of either the Holy Temple or synagogues in the diaspora. Large in diameter and heavy due to the architectural features, many of the rings are practically unwearable. Morgan ponders the question as well, saying that there is no conclusive evidence, either in Jewish tradition or in the Christian documentation recording Jewish practices, of such rings ever having been worn. Trading in gold, jewels and precious stones was the trade of choice by wealthy Jewish merchants for hundreds of years. The memoir portrait of Gluckel of Hamlen, the daughter of a gold merchant of those times, depicts a wedding ring embroidered in gold thread, hanging from a necklace, which may have been the way the rings were worn after the wedding ceremony.  Jewish wedding bands are unique and although many of them are magnificent and expensive, none have stones set in them. The rings are devoid of their classical focal point due to a rabbinical ordinance barring setting gemstones in wedding bands, or engraving them with hallmarks – the latter first appearing in the 19th century. Also, Jewish goldsmiths were not allowed to join guilds and mark their creations until circa that time. (via) : OUL vladislava: mylistofthangs: Antique Jewish wedding rings.  These are absolutely gorgeous. Some info: Antique Jewish wedding bands are stellar examples of the artistry of jewelry making. The rings are made of a metal circle, molded to fit the would-be owner, topped with an architectural feature resembling a house. The goldsmith would then engrave something on the exterior of the “house”; engravings were also commonly hidden inside, in which case the “house” – or bezel – would slide open. The engraving would usually read Mazal Tov, or the Hebrew initials M.T. The rings’ houses varied in design from castle-like, to square, round or hexagonal. The structures were representations of either the Holy Temple or synagogues in the diaspora. Large in diameter and heavy due to the architectural features, many of the rings are practically unwearable. Morgan ponders the question as well, saying that there is no conclusive evidence, either in Jewish tradition or in the Christian documentation recording Jewish practices, of such rings ever having been worn. Trading in gold, jewels and precious stones was the trade of choice by wealthy Jewish merchants for hundreds of years. The memoir portrait of Gluckel of Hamlen, the daughter of a gold merchant of those times, depicts a wedding ring embroidered in gold thread, hanging from a necklace, which may have been the way the rings were worn after the wedding ceremony.  Jewish wedding bands are unique and although many of them are magnificent and expensive, none have stones set in them. The rings are devoid of their classical focal point due to a rabbinical ordinance barring setting gemstones in wedding bands, or engraving them with hallmarks – the latter first appearing in the 19th century. Also, Jewish goldsmiths were not allowed to join guilds and mark their creations until circa that time. (via)

vladislava: mylistofthangs: Antique Jewish wedding rings.  These are absolutely gorgeous. Some info: Antique Jewish wedding bands are...

Save
cranniesinmybrain: why-animals-do-the-thing: enghurrd: calleo: the-last-teabender: hiboudeluxe: pancakemilkshake: pancakemilkshake: Kitties who eat too fast get THE  PUNISHMENT  BOWL Tags: wow this seems cruel Sometimes cats eat so fast they puke bruh. It’s not healthy. There are a ton of people reblogging this actually happy that there’s a solution for this. my cat does this. and honestly this might solve his problems… i.e. SLOW THE FUCK DOWN, CAT. I’m not gonna lie, I think I need one of these for me. Dishes like this also help with dogs who eat too fast; it significantly lowers their chances of choking or bloat. You know, these looks all silly but… they are perfect! Is your cat annoyed? Is your cat depressed? Does your cat eat too fast and suffocated itself? Does your cat eat too much? Is your cat castrated? Do your cats fight over food? These are all perfect for that! Your cats like to hunt and have fun with their food so it’s better to give them some “difficulties” and way to use their brains: this is why a lot of these are called “intelligent toys”, because they stimulate play and hunt. “I don’t have money for that!” DON’T WORRY! You can create your own intelligent toy with whatever you have at home! This is better for cats than dogs, mostly because dogs try to destroy the toy first so I won’t suggest you to use toiler paper rolls or plastic bottles! “My cat is too old for this stuff, it would stop eating!” YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ELSE! Is your cat too old to play, buy a lot of little bowls and instead of putting its food in a single one, split the food around the house. The cat will go around, searching for its food in a easy way and having a little hunt/play that will surely make its day a little more fun! A+ examples of cat food enrichment! I swear these all are awesome because we have one cat but she likes to play with her food. : cranniesinmybrain: why-animals-do-the-thing: enghurrd: calleo: the-last-teabender: hiboudeluxe: pancakemilkshake: pancakemilkshake: Kitties who eat too fast get THE  PUNISHMENT  BOWL Tags: wow this seems cruel Sometimes cats eat so fast they puke bruh. It’s not healthy. There are a ton of people reblogging this actually happy that there’s a solution for this. my cat does this. and honestly this might solve his problems… i.e. SLOW THE FUCK DOWN, CAT. I’m not gonna lie, I think I need one of these for me. Dishes like this also help with dogs who eat too fast; it significantly lowers their chances of choking or bloat. You know, these looks all silly but… they are perfect! Is your cat annoyed? Is your cat depressed? Does your cat eat too fast and suffocated itself? Does your cat eat too much? Is your cat castrated? Do your cats fight over food? These are all perfect for that! Your cats like to hunt and have fun with their food so it’s better to give them some “difficulties” and way to use their brains: this is why a lot of these are called “intelligent toys”, because they stimulate play and hunt. “I don’t have money for that!” DON’T WORRY! You can create your own intelligent toy with whatever you have at home! This is better for cats than dogs, mostly because dogs try to destroy the toy first so I won’t suggest you to use toiler paper rolls or plastic bottles! “My cat is too old for this stuff, it would stop eating!” YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ELSE! Is your cat too old to play, buy a lot of little bowls and instead of putting its food in a single one, split the food around the house. The cat will go around, searching for its food in a easy way and having a little hunt/play that will surely make its day a little more fun! A+ examples of cat food enrichment! I swear these all are awesome because we have one cat but she likes to play with her food.
Save
corvussy: thatpettyblackgirl: the US has no excuse some great examples of us hospitals setting pretty exorbitant prices for health care: The infamous $629 bandaid Woman charged $40 for holding her baby after a c-section Two South Korean tourists took their baby to the ER where he was only given some formula and took a nap before being discharged but were given a $18,836 bill Canadian man gets heart surgery in Florida and is billed over 600k USD Some more pictures of people’s hospital bills A public hospital’s ER is out-of-network with all private insurances, resulting in many patients being stuck with unreasonable bills and eventually resulting in a class action lawsuit over their billing practices Annual healthcare spending in the US is estimated at 3.5 trillion, and billing prices are pretty much unfair and inconsistent, even for insured patients with legal loopholes and hospital discretion in setting prices Billing announcements, and million dollar hospital bills on the rise Top 35 Most Expensive Health Conditions in the US Just… facility fees Hospitals are more likely to tell you how much parking costs than how much a basic ECG test costs (meaning they probably inflate prices arbitrarily for patients… possibly on an individual basis) Hospitals are magically able to “discount” hospital bills to less than a thousand dollars for patients that receive national attention in media (x, x) People in the US are less likely to seek medical care because of high prices, even though 42% of doctors believe their patients are receiving too much health care (falsely) : StanceGrounded SJPeace The horrors of Socialized Medicine: A first hand experience by Kevin Bozeat We need Universal Healthcare! RETWEET THIS The Horrors of Socialized Medicine: A first hand experience A few days ago my stomach began to hurt. Thinking it would pass, I went home to try and rest for the night. A bit later I vomited. I thought that was the end of it. But for the rest of the night, I kept vomiting almost every 30-40 minutes. Even after my stomach was completely empty, I kept vomiting. Soon it was nothing but stomach fluid and bile. I tried to drink water to stay hydrated, but I kept throwing it up, no matter how hard I tried to keep it This could have easily cost me hundreds or even thousands in the US without insurance. But here in Taiwan I was able to receive speedy, quality care comparable to what I would have gotten in a US hospital for relatively small amount of money Given this experience, I no longer have a reason to fear or hesitate getting care in Taiwan should I ever need it. America, it's time to stop making excuses. 3:16 PM Feb 25, 2019 Twitter for Android 1.9K Retweets 3.6K Likes The Horrors of Socialized Medicine: A first hand experience A few days ago my stomach began to hurt. Thinking it would pass, I went home to try and rest for the night. A bit later I vomited. I thought that was the end of it But for the rest of the night, l kept vomiting almost every 30-40 minutes. Even after my stomach was completely empty, I kept vomiting. Soon it was nothing but stomach fluid and bile. I tried to drink water to stay hydrated, but I kept throwing it up, no matter how hard I tried to keep it down By 3am I had severe stomach cramps, my body kept trying to vomit even though there was nothing left. I was dizzy and light-headed. My symptoms showed no signs of abating At this point I had to seek medical treatment, I knew had to go to the hospital I wanted to avoid it. I had no idea how different Taiwanese hospitals would be, whether I would be able to find an English speaking doctor, or what it would cost me (my US health insurance has lapsed and I don't qualify for Taiwanese NHI) My Taiwanese roommate called a taxi and took me to the ER at NTU Hospital. I was immediately checked-in by an English speaking nurse. Within 20 minutes I was given IV fluids and anti-emetics. They took blood tests and did an ultrasound to ensure it wasn't gall stones or appendicitis. From there I was given a diagnosis: a particularly severe case of Acute Viral Gastroenteritis (aka the stomach flu). After about 3 hours on an IV I began to feel slightly better, my nausea disappeared and my stomach began to calm down. I was discharged with a prescription for anti-emetics and pain medication. Each day since lve gotten progressively better and am now pretty much back to normal The bill for the ER visit? US$80.00 Eighty. American. Dollars Out of pocket. Full cost. No discounts. No insurance. At one of the best hospitals in Taiwan. And if I had NHI, it would have been a fraction of that. This could have easily cost me hundreds or even thousands in the US without insurance. But here in Taiwan I was able to receive speedy, quality care comparable to what I would have gotten in a US hospital for relatively small amount of money. Given this experience, I no longer have a reason to fear or hesitate getting care in Taiwan should I ever need it America, it's time to stop making excuses. corvussy: thatpettyblackgirl: the US has no excuse some great examples of us hospitals setting pretty exorbitant prices for health care: The infamous $629 bandaid Woman charged $40 for holding her baby after a c-section Two South Korean tourists took their baby to the ER where he was only given some formula and took a nap before being discharged but were given a $18,836 bill Canadian man gets heart surgery in Florida and is billed over 600k USD Some more pictures of people’s hospital bills A public hospital’s ER is out-of-network with all private insurances, resulting in many patients being stuck with unreasonable bills and eventually resulting in a class action lawsuit over their billing practices Annual healthcare spending in the US is estimated at 3.5 trillion, and billing prices are pretty much unfair and inconsistent, even for insured patients with legal loopholes and hospital discretion in setting prices Billing announcements, and million dollar hospital bills on the rise Top 35 Most Expensive Health Conditions in the US Just… facility fees Hospitals are more likely to tell you how much parking costs than how much a basic ECG test costs (meaning they probably inflate prices arbitrarily for patients… possibly on an individual basis) Hospitals are magically able to “discount” hospital bills to less than a thousand dollars for patients that receive national attention in media (x, x) People in the US are less likely to seek medical care because of high prices, even though 42% of doctors believe their patients are receiving too much health care (falsely)

corvussy: thatpettyblackgirl: the US has no excuse some great examples of us hospitals setting pretty exorbitant prices for health ca...

Save
rg3ef tg5yhb645rvtctghyygtfrgt5hy6ujio7m6u5yntrdfdx: Scott "Hug Honey" Fearichs Fun fact: I once asked Jeff Goode (creator of Jake Long: American Dragon) at a furry con, "How do you feel about people making lewd art of your characters?" He said, "Oh, Disney sat me down and showed me a bunch of Kim Possible porn and said, 'This will happen to your show. 10-50 PM 26 Oct 2018 19 Retweets 42 Likes (e e'。叭魁 D ( ) Three things I find hilarious about this: 1: Jeff Goode goes to Furry Cons 2: Disney acknowledges and prepares show creators that their show will, most definitely, become porn. 3: Disney has examples on hand of how said show will, most definitely become porn. faeforge Pmtilll Disney doesn't just have examples of said pornl! Ok story time. Yeaaaars ago i dated an animator chick. During that short time together we ran around a lot and met a bunch of industry people in our area One of them used to work for Disney, So we are hanging out at his apartment and conversation being what it is he kinda says "hold on and goes off to dig in the closet. He comes back and sets down a couple STACKS (and im talking foot high) of printer paper. What followed were a couple hours of hysterical laughing as we paged through a history of Disney animation- porn edition See Disney has this weird rule in their artist contracts- everything you create while in their employ is THEIRS. Even in the off time. Its one of the reasons they are reviled in the industry But the rule was set in place to basically steal good ideas from their staff or force them to ONLY work on Disney ip's while employed. The jokes on them though. They didn't count on most artists being giant perverts (this story is also why i laugh when people tell me drawing smut will 'ruin your art career) Sol Disney being bastards ended up earning them smut of everything they've ever created. And also per their policies they had to keep it. Every artist knew about the smut vaulad our buddy here had photocopieda chunk of it. Yes... 2-3 feet of smut was just a chunk of it. Snow white? Rescue rangers? Goofy? Minnie? Micky? Beauty and the beast? Aladdin? Yup you name it it was there. Some of it was mild. The topless little mermaid stuff made sense at least. Some was raunchy as hell ALL OF IT in the animation style of the films and shows. So yes, not only does Disney know there will be porn, have the porn, but they official porn. You're welcome. Source: maswartz rg3ef tg5yhb645rvtctghyygtfrgt5hy6ujio7m6u5yntrdfdx
Save
But wont somebody think of the children?: kids, the animal world &gender This morning, my 5yo asked us if his new boy-kitten would grow up to be a daddy cat. We said that no, he wouldn't, and were about to explain that this is because the kitten is desexed when my son said, "Oh, that's right - because if you don't grow up to be a mummy or a daddy, then you're not a boy or a girl you're just a person! It turns out, he's been lowkey assuming that there are three grown-up genders: mummy, daddy, and adult, such that anyone who isn't a parent is, in some sense, nonbinary. We explained that, while he's right in thinking there are people who aren't boys or girls, your adult gender isn't determined by whether or not you have a kid, and used examples of people we know as proof. He accepted this with a nod, then went off to play with the kitten, We had a related conversation at bedtime last week, when the "story" he'd chosen was a book of facts about Australian animals. One of the entries we read was about the barramundi fish, which are all male as babies and only turn female during spawning season. This prompted him to ask if human boys could turn into girls, too, and while he was a bit too sleepy for a detailed conversation, I said something along the lines of, "yes, there are some people who look like boys when they're little, but who realise they're girls and change when they get older." He accepted that, too, and then we read another entry about a particular type of bat. These are only two small examples, but it's endlessly fascinating to me to watch how kids are trying to figure out what gender is and what it means from the world around them. There have been times when my son has come home saying that pink is for girls, because that's what he heard at school, and so we have a conversation about how colours are for everyone. The point is not only that children absorb what's going on around them and try to process it through an individual lens, but that how adults answer their questions plays a massive role in comprehension, too. Don't tell kids they're silly for asking these sorts of questions or act as if the truth is obvious: they're not, and it really isn't. But wont somebody think of the children?

But wont somebody think of the children?

Save
“I thought, ‘You fucking guys are so lucky I’m not actually gay and terrified of coming out,’ ” he recalls now. “That’s something that kills people. That’s how sensitive it is. Do you like the songs? Do you like me? Who cares if I’m gay?”: Mendes admits that the attention on his personal life has caused him a lot of stress. "I'd like to say I don't care about it, but that's not true," he says. This brings him to another, much thornier issue that he's been forced to navigate: "This massive, massive thing for the last five years about me being gay." Examples of what he means are all over YouTube and Twitter. There are memes that pair photos of Mendes with jokes about being closeted and videos that scrutinize his gestures. On some parts of the Internet, outing him has become a spectator sport. Mendes often finds himself watching his own interviews, analyzing his voice and his body language. He'll see an anonymous stranger comment on the way he crossed his legs once and try not to do it again He pulls out his phone to show me his Twitter account - his name is the only recent search "In the back of my heart, I feel like I need to go be seen with someone - like a girl - in public, to prove to people that I'm not gay," he says. "Even though in my heart I know that it's not a bad thing. There's still a piece of me that thinks that. And I hate that side of me." Ce Swift was texting Mendes a cellphone video of them together, just to make sure he was cool with her posting it - a short clip of the night they were hanging out backstage at her Reputation tour and she put her glittery eye makeup on Mendes' face, to his delight. He told her it was fine without thinking, but later that night, he woke up in a cold sweat. "I felt sick," he said. "I was like, Fuck, why did I let her post that?' I just fed the fire that I'm terrified of. CS 92 “I thought, ‘You fucking guys are so lucky I’m not actually gay and terrified of coming out,’ ” he recalls now. “That’s something that kills people. That’s how sensitive it is. Do you like the songs? Do you like me? Who cares if I’m gay?”
Save
libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. : 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Save
65 Friday Funny Pictures: Scott "Hug Honey" Fearichs Fun fact: I once asked Jeff Goode (creator of Jake Long: American Dragon) at a furry con, "How do you feel about people making lewcd art of your characters?" He said, "Oh, Disney sat me down and showed me a bunch of Kim Possible porn and said, This will happen to your show. 050 PM-26 201 thedarksideoflim Theee things find hilanious about this 1 Jef Goode goes to Furry Cons 2 Disney acknowledges and prepares show creators that their show will, most definidely, become pon 3 Disney has examples on hand of how said show will, most definitely, become pom Disney doesot just have examples of said pom Ok story time. Yeaaaars ago i dated an animator chick During that short time together we ran around a lot and met a bunch of industry people in our area One of them used to work for Disney So we are hanging out at his apartment and conversation being what it is he kinda says hold on and goes of to dig in the closet He comes back and sets down a couple STACKS (and im talking foot high) of printe paper What followed were a couple hours of hysterical laughing as we paged theough a history of Disney animation pom edition" See Disney has this weird rule in their artist contracts everything you create while in their employ is THEIRS Even in the of time. its one of the reasons they are rewled ih the industry But the rule was set in place to basically steal good ideas from their staf or force them to ONLY work on Disney ip's while employed The jokes on them though. They didn't count on most atists being giant perverts tell me drawing smut will ruin your at caee his story is also why i laugh when people Sol Disney being bastards ended up eaning them smut of everything they ve ever created And also per their policies they had to keep it Every artist knew about the smut vault and our buddy here had photocopied a chunk of it Yes 2-3 feet of smut was just a chunk of it Snow white? Rescue rangers? Goofy? Minnie? Micky? Beauty and the beast? Aladdin? Yup you name it it was there Some of t was mild The topless little memaid stuf made sense at least. Some was raunchy as hell ALL OF I7 in the animation style of the fims and shows So yes, not only does Disney know there will be pom, have the pom, but they official pom You're welcome gagzilla.info 65 Friday Funny Pictures
Save
Rule 34 is a universal constant: Scott "Hug Honey" Fearichs @KaiserNeko Following Fun fact: I once asked Jeff Goode (creator of Jake Long: American Dragon) at a furry con, "How do you feel about people making lewd art of your characters?" He said, "Oh, Disney sat me down and showed me a bunch of Kim Possible porn and said, 'This will happen to your show." 10:50 PM-26 Oct 2018 19 Retweets 42 Likes thedarksideoflimbo Three things l find hilarious about this 1:Jeff Goode goes to Furry Cons 2: Disney acknowledges and prepares show creators that their show will, most definitely, become porn 3: Disney has examples on hand of how said show will, most definitely become porn faeforge Disney doesn't just have examples of said porn! Ok story time. Yeaaaars ago i dated an animator chick. During that short time together we ran around a lot and met a bunch of industry people in our area One of them used to work for Disney. So we are hanging out at his apartment and conversation being what it is he kinda says "hold on" and goes off to dig in the closet. He comes back and sets down a couple STACKS (and im talking foot high) of printer paper What followed were a couple hours of hysterical laughing as we paged through "a history of Disney animation- porn edition" See Disney has this weird rule in their artist contracts- everything you create while in their employ is THEIRS. Even in the off time. Its one of the reasons they are reviled in the industry. But the rule was set in place to basically steal good ideas from their staff or force them to ONLY work on Disney ip's while employed The jokes on them though. They didn't count on most artists being giant perverts (this story is also why i laugh when people tell me drawing smut will ruin your art career') So! Disney being bastards ended up earning them smut of everything they've ever created. And also per their policies they had to keep it. Every artist knew about the smut vault and our buddy here had photocopied a chunk of it. Yes... 2-3 feet of smut was just a chunk of it Snow white? Rescue rangers? Goofy? Minnie? Micky? Beauty and the beast? Aladdin? Yup you name it it was there. Some of it was mild. The topless little mermaid stuff made sense at least. Some was raunchy as hel ALL OF IT in the animation style of the films and shows So yes, not only does Disney know there will be porn, have the porn, but they official porn You're welcome Source: maswartz Rule 34 is a universal constant
Save