Random Thoughts

[The Heretic]

My dog passed away at the start of the new year, and I still really feel the loss and its gonna take time to get over it, but I cant understand this carry on, this removes all dignity surely?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13136799/freeze-drying-dead-pets-preserve-forever.html

[Bürggermeister]

Creepy as fuck.

[Carnage]

That's just wrong, morose. If nothing else, it just draws out the grieving process.

[The Great Cull]

Probably still be able to fetch better than the fucker I have now

[Eoin McLove]

That's cats for you.

[hellfire]

Nowhere better to put this. Someone at Facebook/Meta is is serious trouble right now. Whole thing is crashing.

[open face surgery]

Hopefully it's all beyond repair.

[The Butcher]

Nowhere better to put this. Someone at Facebook/Meta is is serious trouble right now. Whole thing is crashing.

Last time this happened (facebook logging all the users out) was due to hackers getting in via the 'view as' bug. So wonder what was hacked this time 

[The Great Cull]

My dog passed away at the start of the new year, and I still really feel the loss and its gonna take time to get over it, but I cant understand this carry on, this removes all dignity surely?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13136799/freeze-drying-dead-pets-preserve-forever.html

I think there's a possible gap in the market here to make these things animatronic/radio controlled... surely there's someone out there willing to pay for it. You could leave Lulu the dog in her charging station until walkies time!

[hellfire]

Nowhere better to put this. Someone at Facebook/Meta is is serious trouble right now. Whole thing is crashing.

Last time this happened (facebook logging all the users out) was due to hackers getting in via the 'view as' bug. So wonder what was hacked this time 

Would not like to be their head of security at this time.

[astfgyl]

Nowhere better to put this. Someone at Facebook/Meta is is serious trouble right now. Whole thing is crashing.

Last time this happened (facebook logging all the users out) was due to hackers getting in via the 'view as' bug. So wonder what was hacked this time 

Would not like to be their head of security at this time.

Fuck em. They locked me out until I provide them with verified id so good luck and thanks and I hope it exploded

[astfgyl]

https://www.ontheditch.com/attorney-general-referendum/

I wonder why the government wouldn't release this and instead resorted to trying to bludgeon the populace into voting for something even they don't understand themselves?

A definite yes from me now!

Some eejits on here will actually vote yes tomorrow to wording that they can't possibly understand. This will happen.

Aside from feeling sorry for you, I would like to remind anyone voting Yes of the age old wisdom contained in the words "you don't buy a pig in a poke".

A yes vote to something that nobody understands is simply confirmation that you are willing to outsource your thinking, ie a soft intellect.

And no I didn't need the ditch to point it out as you can all see evidenced by my posts.

"Hey"

"What?"

"Eat this"

"What is it?"

"I'll tell you after you eat it"

"Okay"

That is the mindset of anyone who votes yes tomorrow to something even the government can't define.

And yet I still think both will pass, such is the faith I have in people.

Edit: Actually I've changed my mind after seeing this clip, where they bedazzled me with buzz words like "Inclusive" and "Progressive" without actually even attempting to define what any of that means in terms of what is included or indeed what it progresses you towards. "But hey!, get it written into the constitution anyway why don't you" Yes they can keep it as vague as they like and people will still be swayed by a few buzz words.

Yes, that is how little regard they have for the intellect of their target audience, and I wouldn't blame them given that a yes vote is even a possibility.

[The Butcher]

Can't trust this government and their intentions. Plus as I thought the wording going from ensure to strive is weak like the AG suggests and that the courts will have to decide what a durable relationship is. A clear vote no no for me anyway.

[ochoill]

Since my last posts here I have done some more looking into it all and reading on various interpretations of it and have changed my idea of it.  Not entirely, but I won't be voting for the second part of it.  The statements are too vague and as much as I would like to see the constitution modernised, there is severe doubt on the wording they are suggesting here.  The main one being the second portion actually removing the state's obligation to provide for anyone at all, rather than support a broader range of carers other than mothers.  Both the carer's association and a number of disability support groups have came out drastically against it, so this makes me tread back to what I said earlier - if I can see it do no harm here there is no issue.  The harm has now been clearly pointed out to me.  I am now 50/50 on the first part.

I don't agree with this:

A yes vote to something that nobody understands is simply confirmation that you are willing to outsource your thinking, ie a soft intellect.

This is a combination of no true Scotsman (you are a master at that hiy I spot it regularly) and slight gish.  It isn't that nobody understands it - it is that nobody can clearly see an outcome on the change.  They are two separate things no matter how you correlate them yourself.  "Outsourcing your thinking" is a fool of a phrase.  I am absolutely not the smartest chap going and I am happy to admit that, to take help and accept discussion on topics like these.  I won't ever be ashamed of that because it is the only way I can understand them.  I'm not an island of political ingenuity by any means.  I saw no negative outcome, I had it clearly explained from a stance I could get behind and changed my view.  The only other arguments I saw for voting no are "you don't know what they have planned for you" (with nobody even able to suggest an idea when pushed) or from a more religious conservative perspective of how it will change the nuclear family (which I completely avoid, full separation of church and state for me thanks).

In any case, my own views on the yes vote being harmless or beneficial were proven wrong on the second vote but not the first.  That ditch article gives me less faith but means I have some more reading and thinking to do.

[The Butcher]

That's how I saw it, it goes from a state obligation (albeit to women only) on care but instead want to replace it with a general strive to support all types of carers. Leo came out in a video there recently saying he doesn't think it's the states responsibility to look after the elderly in terms of care type work. He suggested he'd look after his sisters kids if something happened to them or his parents. What about people with no siblings? Or people not on over 200k like himself. True intentions shown that the government and others do not want to provide this as our generations eventually become a big aging demographic, they only see the big cost coming down the tracks.

I agree a lot of the wording is archaic but I'm definitely not happy replacing it with either weak or vague language that many lawyers will have a field day with.