Valsuelm

Yes its perfectly safe, you'll be fine. Many people I know travel to Europe all the time The chance of you being involved in some terrorist attack must be so remote its not worth worrying about ? Really now? This coming from you? Who clamors probably more than anyone else on these forums that we 'must stop the 'terrorists'!', who swallows whole any government endorsed tale of 'terrorism', and who happily wholeheartedly endorses any evil thing done in the name of stopping 'terrorism'. It's a wonder your head doesn't explode due to so much dissonance. Seriously, if you're ever in NY look me up. You're one person I've got to see for myself. Note: I fully endorse the idea that one shouldn't be concerned with 'terrorists'. The politicians who decry 'terrorism' are a far greater and more immediate danger for average Joe. As for traveling in Europe, that of course depends on where you go. A general rule of thumb is don't wear sneakers, and don't be obviously American. While it's getting uglier over there, most of it (I'd probably only skip Ukraine) hasn't reached Afghanistan, much of Africa, or northern Mexico levels of danger yet. Just talk to the indigenous locals about the best places to go/avoid, and pay attention to your surroundings.

Its probably better to not see this as idiocy but rather Sweden's attempts to make all reasonable efforts to integrate the refugees I have to admire there endeavors, I'm not sure I would be so supportive if I was Swedish ...but I'm not Swedish so I'm sure the local citizens see it differently? It is idiocy Bruce. Suicidal idiocy. Like most other western nations, the Swedish government is selling out it's own people. Sweden just happens to arguably be doing it faster than most. Probably the only nation further along the path of self destruction is Germany.

30 years ago this week, this song was #1 in the U.S.:

Nope. The entire left/right paradigm is a false one.

Not really. The argument is still over a dog's worth for the most part. It's just expanded a bit, which is the natural result of discussion. I'd say this is one of the most on topic threads there are at page 4 in WoT.

I think you're jumping to conclusions calling the guy in that video dumb. There isn't really much or anything he says or does that indicates he's dumb or smart, though it could be argued he's smarter than the girl, I'd say even that is inconclusive. If you think he's dumb based on the way he looks, such as aluminiumtrioxid seems to... well, that itself is dumb. This isn't about mere college students. The 'cultural appropriation' movement of sorts has been growing all over the media in the last couple of years, and has come more to the forefront of it in the last few months. Whittle just offered those two students as an example, and for brevity it's a pretty good one as it quickly encapsulates the issue. If you want to roll your eyes, ignore something, and hope it goes away, that's fine and your prerogative. You seem to do that a lot. Getting a bit vitriolic over Whittle's video is hardly just rolling your eyes and moving on however. And as for the video, pointing out the other side of a coin, or giving a taste of the same medicine in a different light, is generally a good way to point out how ridiculous/evil/stupid something is. The idea of 'cultural appropriation' being a bad thing in the manner that girl and many SJWs are championing these days, is indeed ridiculous, evil, and stupid. Not challenging such ideas allows them to flourish. The longer an individual holds on to a bad idea, the harder is usually is for them to abandon it, especially if they've invested themselves into it. And bad ideas, especially when they manifest into a movement, rarely die on their own.

I also find the video racist ...he makes some very concerning comments and generalizations about " people of color " as he calls them. He goes on and on about what hypocrites SJW are and he throws around the terms " cultural appropriation " and how serious accusations of this is in society....and then his example is the white guy being criticized for dreadlocks? That video looks staged to me ..like the people are actors Sorry Vals but unless I'm missing something this video is going to be another one of your videos that I will moving to my list of " offensive and unhelpful " No offense should be taken and the message is lost if you didn't watch the entire thing. If you did watch the entire thing and still find offense, well, there's something wrong in your upstairs. As for the video where the girl accosts the dreadlocked boy, it's not staged. Perhaps you are unaware of the 'you culturally appropriated me!' movement among some of the lesser intelligents or evil here in the U.S.. Justin Bieber certainly is aware. How does it feel to have Bieber be more aware than thee?

What an insufferable a-hole. It's basically him saying "I don't like what these people are doing, so let me sink down to their level and wallow around." I'm 100% positive that is a ridiculously dumb tactic and will only make things worse. Take the fricken' high road. You obviously didn't watch the video to completion, or what Whittle ultimately said is very lost on you.

Not exactly Trump related, but certainly SJW related: Though, in a way it is Trump related, as he's the only Presidential candidate to express anything similar to what Bill says in this video.

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species. A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua. When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre. Some dogs certainly do appreciate symphonies. One of mine loves classical music, not so much most other music. The other isn't really phased either way, at least not obviously, other than I can tell he'd like me to turn it down sometimes. My mother has a dog that absolutely loves to watch TV. Dogs aren't going to write them though, you're right on that. But neither will the vast majority of other humans out there. Also, hypothetical symphony writer might be an all around ugly human in every other way. Some dogs have abilities humans do not, and vice versa. And as for providing insight into the nature of reality, one of my dogs did once, though not in a manner where he said 'yo Vals, here's the thing'. I learned something important by watching him. One can learn important things by watching people, animals, and other things, then reflecting. Truth is, the vast majority of people are just as incapable of providing me with any more insight on reality via conversation as my dog is. Humans are not equal. That's a culturally Marxist aberrant contortion of the idea of equal rights under the law (something I agree that humans should have). Dogs are not equal either. Both species comes in all shapes, sizes, levels of intelligence, qualities of being, etc.. Some dogs should be put down. So should some humans. At the very heart of the definition of a 'stranger' is one does not know what one is dealing with. And when one does not know, humans on average by far pose a greater potential threat than dogs on average. So, in light of that, in a generic situation where I'm faced with saving 6 strange humans or a dog I know, I'm more than likely going to go with the dog I know. It'd really be a situational thing though. It'd have to be a judgement call on the fly, and perhaps said strange humans might give me a compelling reason where I'd want to save them. I can also say that I'd probably save one strange human over six strange dogs, though again, I'd have to be in the situation, and read the individual as best I could as well as the dogs. I may try and save everyone, but as I said in a previous post, depending on the situation, I may try and save no one. There is no self loathing involved in such thinking, at least for most. On the contrary, self love and self preservation are likely involved in such thinking for most. Valuing individuals of one species, particularly one where a relationship exists, over individuals of another, where a relationship does not exist, is not the same as valuing the whole of one over the whole of another. You're making a correlation where one does not exist for most. Also, you're a fool if you think that dogs are as simplistic as plants, or equate much to them. There might be some individuals that do, as there might be some humans that do as well, but overall, no. And that said, there's been studies that show apparently even some plants like music.

Yeah, thats probably the best way to determine peoples intentions I very much appreciate the potential lost in translation aspects of text. However, If sarcasm/satire/humor wasn't gleaned from the link I provided, I deem thee immeasurably dense (no sarcasm here at all).

You shouldn't have too much trouble finding a foster group to accept them if such a donation is given. My sister has been involved with one that certainly would take them. Tis a shame you don't have anyone in your life that could/would take them. Hopefully you don't predecease your dogs. Hopefully you can trust your lawyer and your lawyer is resourceful enough to do what would need to be done.

is unlikely hurl and val would ever be on the same boat... 'cause val would no doubt refuse a berth on what is obviously a cia front meant to ship weapons, drugs and human slaves to _________, with the military-industrial complex using its control o' the media to camouflage hurl's ship o' fools from public view... but you would know all o' this if you would just read the Constitution. HA! Good Fun! Yep, it's true. It's all right there in Article 8. Go see for yourself! I see ignored ogreboy is still trying to troll me. He is right in that I likely wouldn't ever be on a boat with Hurl, at least not one that had strangers on it. As fond as I am of boating and the ocean, I am not fond of such things as 'cruises'. In the unlikely event I was ever on a boat with Hurl and my dog, chances are very high we'd know everyone on board. As for the rest, well... lala land.

Some kids aren't deserving of a penny of inheritance. That said, some parents are total Fwads.

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not I was actually thinking similar, as if I find myself in a situation where some irrational and hysterical humans are telling me it's one of them or my ~20 pound dog in a boat, that's not a group of humans I want to be with in a life or death situation, nor a group of humans I'd deem worthy of saving, so I may hurry their demise along right quick to ensure my own well being as well as those I care about. Not all strangers would be worth saving even without the dogs in the picture. Some actually would be quite detrimental to one's own health. Queue some 'Walking Dead' episodes for some hypothetical examples. In fact, this week's 'Fear the Walking Dead' is looking to contain such an example in spades.

Well, worry not. The vast majority of dogs wouldn't take up much room in a boat, and could sit on a human's lap or between their legs. Mine certainly could. You probably have a better chance of winning Powerball a few times than coming across a scenario where it's a choice between a human and a dog in a boat. Also, if you're really packing a lifeboat so full that even a St. Bernard couldn't fit, you're more than likely doomed anyways as that's a boat like to capsize.

No, dogs aren't humans. No one here has argued that. Like humans though they do think differently from one another. They have unique experiences and personalities. There are all sorts of dogs out there, dumb ones, mean ones, smart ones, nice ones, rare super smart ones (smarter than many humans I know), cranky ones, sly ones, strong ones, weak ones, and so on. Unlike you, on principle I'd save most of the dogs I've ever had before any strangers (situation matters), though it'd be an unusual situation for one to even have to make that choice. As previously stated, dogs are a part of the family, and I'll save family and friends over strangers most any day (again, situation matters). I have a great deal of respect for loyalty, and I return it when it's deserved, whatever the species (dogs are one of the few species out there where loyalty is common (cats are not), horses also often have this loyalty, if they are treated well).

The U.S., and it's not just in the sticks. AAA publishes a book called 'Traveling with Your Pet', where it has lists of pet friendly (many places only dogs, no cats) restaurants, hotels, attractions, parks, etc. There's probably not a major metropolitan area without some listings for attractions/restaurants. There's certainly some in NYC and San Fran (places I've looked). I've found the book to be very handy in my travels, but have also found that it's not even close to all inclusive as I've found a lot of dog friendly places in some areas that are not listed in the book (ie: not one of the dog friendly places I previously mentioned are listed). Stay away from major corporate chain restaurants and you'll find that dogs will be allowed a bit more often than you think. To that end, just stay away from major corporate chain restaurants in general, while some are decent, there's almost always a local privately owned non-franchised joint that's better in almost every way nearby. In addition to the AAA book, there are a few websites out there with pet friendly (again, often exclusively dogs) listings.

Tell that to the thousands of pregnant women who have Zika and either do have babies with birth defects or whose babies may have birth defects Here is some information on the virus http://www.cdc.gov/zika/pregnancy/question-answers.html To a degree I was jesting. I had hoped that was obvious. That said, I don't really consider the CDC all that reliable a source. They've cried wolf far too many times, have been caught falsifying studies, done more than their fair share of just plain evil, and are way too politicized to be a reliably believed. I very much support the scrapping of the agency all together. My bad, its hard for me to determine when someone is joking without an emoticon..so I normally assume people are being serious unless its someone like Oby Did you not click on the link I provided? Yes I did but as you know one of the symptoms of Zika is malformed heads So I thought you were just making light of the whole Zika condition I was. In a jesting manner.

Oh the timing. I just now finished up a meal that I picked up from a local Tex Mex restaurant that actually asked me just ~30 minutes ago to bring my dogs in next time I was there. Backstory: Every time I go I always pick up a side of chicken (their favorite food) to bring home to my dogs, and tonight they asked if they were in the car. They weren't but often they are when I stop by there. So they said bring them in next time so they can meet them, and next time I happen to have them with me when I stop there, I will. At least three of the local bars I go to (all which serve food) allow dogs in them, and while it's not common to see them, there are some customers that occasionally bring them in. No one complains, quite the opposite generally occurs. I spent years working in restaurants too, from the rock n roll bar to the fine dining establishment. Out of the seven different dining establishments I've worked at, about half of them allowed dogs and about half didn't. I can see and respect both allowing and disallowing depending on the type of establishment we're talking about. I personally have never brought my dogs into a restaurant, though I have brought them to outdoor picnic areas of dog friendly restaurants where dogs are regularly found. There are indeed people obsessed with their pets and animals in general. There are people obsessed with all sorts of things. I've said before and I'll say it again, most people are insane to some degree. Really, well over half of the population is. However, bringing a pet into a restaurant isn't necessarily an indicator of pet obsession or of insanity. In fact, while it would take me a lot more time than I'm willing to spend, I would argue it's more often an indicator of sanity than not. Insofar as pet obsession and people constantly posting pictures of them, I'll say that most people who constantly post pictures of anything are bat poop nuts. Hello most prolific facebookers, snapchatters, and instagramers. Insofar as country folks having a better handle on their animal relationships. Well, as someone who bounces back and forth between the big city and the sticks relatively often, is very comfortable in both, and has traveled extensively throughout the U.S. and Canada (been to 47 of the states, and 8 of the 10 Canadian provinces, most many more times than once), it's been my observation that in general, the rural folk have a better handle on almost everything compared to the average urbanite. The stereotypical backwards redneck is in actuality a lot less brainwashed, a lot less bigoted, a lot more worldly, and a lot more grounded in reality than the average urbanite. And that said, country peoples, farmers and others, usually respect their animals quiet a lot, as well as love their pets. Having a hard working sheep dog for example does not keep a farmer from returning the great deal of love and loyalty most such animals have for their owners, if anything it amplifies it. Looking at a pet as primarily a tool is akin to looking at one's spouse as primarily a means to an end as well (hello sperm receptacle/donor). Some people certainly do both. Some people are shallow and insane. Just about all people and pets bring something to a relationship insofar as 'usefulness', but if one's relationship with their family/friend/pet is only based on that... well, I feel sorry for such a person. And yea, there are a lot of such people out there. Seemingly an ever increasing amount even. All this said, I don't think anyone here was advocating pet obsession, nor is the lawsuit in question necessarily brought by pet obsessed people (don't know them so can't say either way).

Tell that to the thousands of pregnant women who have Zika and either do have babies with birth defects or whose babies may have birth defects Here is some information on the virus http://www.cdc.gov/zika/pregnancy/question-answers.html To a degree I was jesting. I had hoped that was obvious. That said, I don't really consider the CDC all that reliable a source. They've cried wolf far too many times, have been caught falsifying studies, done more than their fair share of just plain evil, and are way too politicized to be a reliably believed. I very much support the scrapping of the agency all together. My bad, its hard for me to determine when someone is joking without an emoticon..so I normally assume people are being serious unless its someone like Oby Did you not click on the link I provided?

Tell that to the thousands of pregnant women who have Zika and either do have babies with birth defects or whose babies may have birth defects Here is some information on the virus http://www.cdc.gov/zika/pregnancy/question-answers.html To a degree I was jesting. I had hoped that was obvious. That said, I don't really consider the CDC all that reliable a source. They've cried wolf far too many times, have been caught falsifying studies, done more than their fair share of just plain evil, and are way too politicized to be a reliably believed. I very much support the scrapping of the agency all together.

You don't. Only corporeal things can have legitimate value. That's a ridiculous and untrue statement, even if applied in purely a monetary sense, which is seemingly the way you mean it. That is how I meant it. Yeah, and those attempts are stupid. I pity you.

You don't. Only corporeal things can have legitimate value. That's a ridiculous and untrue statement, even if applied in purely a monetary sense, which is seemingly the way you mean it. Pets aside, there are all sorts of things intangible things in the world that have monetary value. One biggie is business reputation, which very much can calculate into the valuation of one. Relationships have value. While it might be neigh impossible to put actual value on a priceless relationship, or things that are intangible such as reputation, attempts can be and are made all the time.