101–110 of 115 posts
"You knew what I was when you picked me up," said the snake as it slithered away.
For those not getting the reference http://www.gballard.net/lifes_lessons/girl_rattlesnake/
Benjamin Franklin (6th US president, inventor, 1706-1790)
"You knew what I was when you picked me up," said the snake as it slithered away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
江山易改秉性难移
Google translate says: Leopard change its mettle difficult to move To a Chinese speaker: Is this a botched translation or is the parent's comment nonsense?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-chinese-t...
(which matches the above characters)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The drug cartels brutally murder thousands and commit many other crimes -- they are as brutal as ISIS in many ways -- they undermine and oppress entire countries and ruin large parts of American cities. Many organizations such as the Taliban and Hezbollah fund themselves via the drug trade. Some people boycott companies over political issues; how many of them still buy drugs? Every user I know, to whom I've mentioned…
I have never heard someone claim their heroin and cocaine were "homegrown".
>While other sites followed the original Silk Road’s ethos of selling only victimless contraband While human sacrifices may not be a literal ingredient of drugs, calling it victimless ignores a whole lot of problems caused by drugs. Buying pot from your friend who grows it is victimless. But fueling any black market, even one that avoids identity theft, means you are supporting the marketplace that provides service t…
We're talking victimless , not harmless . With drugs, there is no victim, because the person making the purchase is making a conscious choice to buy something to put into their body. They are well aware of the effects and risks. Contrarily, identity theft is clearly not victimless. A person's credit card or social security number is taken from them without their knowledge or consent so that it can be sold. To go on a…
First, many are not aware.
Second, there are other parties who are hurt directly or indirectly by the drug use (granted, this only applies to some drugs).
Third, there are victims in getting the drugs to the person (once again, not in all cases, but with the black market, you can't be sure which case you fall under).
Finally, much like with alcohol, just because I do not consider it victimless does not mean I am against it being legalized. In fact I think that legalization would greatly reduce the number of victims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using drugs is victimless, but given that a lot of drug manufacture and cultivation is directly linked to organized crime, buying drugs is only victimless if you know for a fact that your drugs are ethically grown, fair trade, etc. Which you don't.
By that logic, there's a good chance you're a perpetrator of slavery due to the labor that put your computer and/or its constituent parts together...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
江山易改秉性难移
Google translate says: Leopard change its mettle difficult to move To a Chinese speaker: Is this a botched translation or is the parent's comment nonsense?
The "mettle difficult to move" bit is a fairly direct translation of the last four characters. CC-CEDICT glosses this saying as "rivers and mountains are easy to change, man's character much harder", which again renders the characters fairly directly.
>While other sites followed the original Silk Road’s ethos of selling only victimless contraband While human sacrifices may not be a literal ingredient of drugs, calling it victimless ignores a whole lot of problems caused by drugs. Buying pot from your friend who grows it is victimless. But fueling any black market, even one that avoids identity theft, means you are supporting the marketplace that provides service t…
Applying your logic, purchasing anything from US, Saudia Arabia or Russian companies is "supporting the marketplace that provides service to" government officials and politicians "of the sort that kill", abuse and torture people. Do you agree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or the Scorpion and the Frog [1] [1] http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?4&TheScorpionandth...
I had only ever heard the scorpion version, never the snake. I MUCH prefer the scorpion version because it focuses on the scorpion and not the frog. The scorpion dooms himself by his own nature, where as the girl is merely trusting and punished for it.
On a different note, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog is only listed in WP's "apocryphal" subcategory of Aesop's fables, dated to 1954. What's it doing on "www.aesopfables.com"?