The Funny/Stupid Pics Thread

[Hoplite]

That's what Short Term Disability/Long Term Disability is for. Most employers have that as part of their benefits programs. I've been in deep shit before from hiking accidents, mountain biking accidents, whitewater kayaking accidents, and so on. I would have been royally screwed without that benefit. Accourse, ya gotta be employed to have that bennie, Catch 22.

[Hoplite]

Is it just me, or is this happening for everyone else as well? I am getting a HTTP 500 trying to open the Hellenic Chick tract link a page or two back. All I did was post it in another website, maybe the foo.ca guy thought I was a bad guy or something? One possibility I thought of was the traffic I generated brought the server down, but the others on the website say they see it just fine...  huh?

[Witchyjoshy]

Chitoryu, that exact mindset you display is exactly why Republicans fight so hard to prevent any kind of aid to the poor.  Because they believe it's all their fault, that anyone can become rich if they work hard, so if they're poor, they aren't working hard.

Let me put it as plainly as I possibly can.

Everyone who needs aid must receive it.  If you start adding qualifiers like "it must not be their fault", then it allows people to exploit all kinds of loopholes.

If everyone doesn't receive aid when they need it, then eventually, no one will get aid when they need it.

And I must say, I agree with Ironbite's assessment.  Not because he provided any arguments for it, but because you provided them for him.

[chitoryu12]

Chitoryu, that exact mindset you display is exactly why Republicans fight so hard to prevent any kind of aid to the poor.  Because they believe it's all their fault, that anyone can become rich if they work hard, so if they're poor, they aren't working hard.

That has literally nothing to do with what I was saying, though I already knew somebody would try to pull that argument.

There's a difference between "The poor should not receive aid because it's their fault that they're poor and anyone can become rich if they try hard enough" and "This idiot should not receive aid because she willingly flung herself off a roof and fucked it up." If you can't see the difference, you shouldn't be participating in this argument. If you CAN see the difference and think that I'm falling into right-wing anti-poor bullshit, you need to consider what a Slippery Slope Fallacy is.

Everyone who needs aid must receive it.  If you start adding qualifiers like "it must not be their fault", then it allows people to exploit all kinds of loopholes.

She's not receiving any kind of official aid! Her mother is asking random folks on the internet to give her money to pay for her mistakes. Again, you're equating two things that are barely similar and making a false accusation about my mindset.

If everyone doesn't receive aid when they need it, then eventually, no one will get aid when they need it.

She needs brains more than she needs aid. "Help the poor" is not the same as "Donate your own money to people who fuck up and hope that they don't do it again."

[Witchyjoshy]

First of all, she did have brains, hence why she hesitated at the edge.  Unfortunately, that hesitation actually cost her.

Second of all, yes, there is a difference between the two, but they follow the same set of logic -- a logic which has demonstrably proven to be harmful to humanity as a whole.

Guess what?  She probably won't do this again.  She'll probably be too scared to do this.  Do you know what she's going to have to go through just to RECOVER?  Months of painful rehabilitation, for one thing.

Protecting her from the consequences of her actions?  SHE ALREADY HAS FACED THEM!  My god, you're like the people who say that condoms are bad because they protect people from the consequences of sex outside of marriage.

She screwed up, she's facing the consequences, but the whole point of family is to try to help where they can.

You try to attack the character of the mother and daughter, and guess what?  Now YOU are facing the consequences of that.

Seriously, I'm disappointed in you.

[chitoryu12]

First of all, she did have brains, hence why she hesitated at the edge.  Unfortunately, that hesitation actually cost her.

She was in the process of jumping off the roof when she hesitated. That doesn't scream "intelligence" to me.

Second of all, yes, there is a difference between the two, but they follow the same set of logic -- a logic which has demonstrably proven to be harmful to humanity as a whole.

No they don't. You haven't proven how they logically follow beyond a vague connection: they both involve "aid".

Guess what?  She probably won't do this again.  She'll probably be too scared to do this.  Do you know what she's going to have to go through just to RECOVER?  Months of painful rehabilitation, for one thing.

She was going to be out of work for 6 weeks. In less than 2 months she'd have been back to her job.

Protecting her from the consequences of her actions?  SHE ALREADY HAS FACED THEM!  My god, you're like the people who say that condoms are bad because they protect people from the consequences of sex outside of marriage.

That is literally one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said to me. You're talking about a preventive measure in a discussion on someone being protected from consequences after the fact. Even if I was saying the stuff you think I'm saying, that would be a shitty comparison.

She screwed up, she's facing the consequences, but the whole point of family is to try to help where they can.

So? Asking strangers to give money to help pay for a stupid stunt that got someone hurt may be kind to their daughter, but nobody should be expected to actually hand over a cent. Many more people than myself are justifiably unhappy with said decision and don't think she deserves random people giving her ANYTHING to pay for her mistakes.

You try to attack the character of the mother and daughter, and guess what?  Now YOU are facing the consequences of that.

No I didn't. I called the daughter an idiot because she jumped off a motherfucking roof, one of the first things that sounds like a bad idea to anyone with common sense, and I said that the mother was "begging random people on the internet for donations to keep her daughter from facing the consequences for her stupidity." That's not attacking anyone's character. That is a fact that is backed up by the very existence of the donation page and the exact statement as to what the money is going to pay for. I actually went back and read every single one of my posts in this thread just to make sure I didn't inadvertently engage in any character assassination. Clearly, you didn't bother to do the same.

[Witchyjoshy]

That is literally one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said to me. You're talking about a preventive measure in a discussion on someone being protected from consequences after the fact. Even if I was saying the stuff you think I'm saying, that would be a shitty comparison.

You're right, actually.

The "morning after" pill would be a MUCH better comparison.

That being said, guess what?  One stupid act does not a stupid person make.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Big ones, too.  And yes, even you.  Doesn't mean people don't deserve to lose their livelihood or their homes over them.

[chitoryu12]

The "morning after" pill would be a MUCH better comparison.

Still no. Birth control pills are willingly purchased by the party intending to use them as an acknowledgement of the consequences of sex. A better comparison would be someone who has unprotected sex with someone they don't know well and suffers from an STD, then starts asking random strangers to pay for their treatment for them.

That being said, guess what?  One stupid act does not a stupid person make.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Big ones, too.  And yes, even you.  Doesn't mean people don't deserve to lose their livelihood or their homes over them.

She's in a good position to rebound. It doesn't seem like she's in dire straits with her parents (considering that her mother is the one who put up the donation page), so even if she gets evicted she'd likely just end up moving back in with them. There's also no guarantee that she's even going to be fired for her injury; the donation was for her living expenses while she's invalid for 6 weeks, not constant payment until she can find work.

Again, nobody's being bankrupted or finding themselves homeless. Nobody is paying for an expensive medical treatment.

[Witchyjoshy]

Actually a better comparison would be a girl who gets pregnant from unprotected sex, and then her parents start a fundraiser so that she can keep her home since her money's going towards getting a necessary abortion.

Also, morning after pill.  It's a little different from birth control pills.  Morning after pills are used "the morning after", in the event that an emergency happens like the condom breaking or such.

And I don't mean that she'll be homeless, but she'd still be losing her home.  I'm not sure how this doesn't mean anything to you.  Imagine losing your home over a mistake.  Sure, you could go live with your parents, but it's YOUR HOME.  Unless you already live with your parents.

[Shane for Wax]

Allow me to interrupt with Yoga with Kitty:

[chitoryu12]

Actually a better comparison would be a girl who gets pregnant from unprotected sex, and then her parents start a fundraiser so that she can keep her home since her money's going towards getting a necessary abortion.

I did consider bringing up abortion in my previous post instead of STDs.

Also, morning after pill.  It's a little different from birth control pills.  Morning after pills are used "the morning after", in the event that an emergency happens like the condom breaking or such.

Yes, and nothing I said indicates otherwise. You purchase it willingly as an acknowledgement of the consequences of what would happen without protection. You also purchase it BEFORE said consequences are immutable. If you want to make a condom comparison, it would have been setting up airbags or nets under the roof in case she missed the jump. Instead, she did something dangerous that has immediate (as in "seconds until fuckup") consequences of her own free will with no safeguards except good aim.

And I don't mean that she'll be homeless, but she'd still be losing her home.  I'm not sure how this doesn't mean anything to you.  Imagine losing your home over a mistake.  Sure, you could go live with your parents, but it's YOUR HOME.  Unless you already live with your parents.

If I ended up jumping off a roof at a party and putting myself in a wheelchair, I'd probably be told "Why were you such a complete fucking idiot?" I'd be angry, yeah. But I also understand when I've made a really stupid mistake and shouldn't expect other people to try and help me out of pity.

[Askold]

Returning you now back to your scheduled funny pictures and comics.



Ha HA! Child endangerment.

[Alehksunos]

Meanwhile on Stormfront.org... (though the post is over a year old)

[PosthumanHeresy]

I feel like a kitten sneezing would "spark [a] firestorm online". I don't see anything wrong with it. She shattered her ankles. That's punishment enough. No need to spitefully try to ruin her life further.

Nobody is being "spiteful" or "trying to ruin her life." She was an adult living independently who did something dumb and injured herself and her mother was trying to keep her from suffering the consequences.

If the girl was replaced with a 28-year-old redneck man who prefaced his jump with "Hold my beer", would you be so willing to say that it's "punishment enough" that he got hurt?

Yep. The comments being made are extremely spiteful, and are wishing her extreme hardship. She's a human being. We all fuck up, but perhaps the world wouldn't be such a shithole if we looked at a neighbors making a mistake and helped them out rather than went "Solve it yourself or suffer".

[Trillian]

So, let me get this straight.  Magus and Posthuman, you guys are saying that when someone willingly and with knowledge of the possible consequences, does something stupid that results in painful, but not permanent damage, they are entitled to beg random strangers for help WITH RENT AND LIVING EXPENSES, NOT MEDICAL EXPENSES and we should all consider this perfectly acceptable and we should consider this donation as we might consider a donation to an animal shelter or orphanage?
Really?

Sure, if this girl was permanently/long term physically or mentally damaged then aid would be perfectly appropriate and highly acceptable REGARDLESS of how it happened.

Lets not forget that we are talking about a temporary injury, no loss of employment and an available home to go to if evicted.  She will be off work for 6 weeks, not six months, not six years.

Does the same principle apply if I get a really bad flu and have to be off work without pay for two weeks and can't afford my rent?  Is it then also okay to beg for donations?  Is 1 week okay?  What about if I don't have to miss work at all, but I dunno, just felt like quiting my job (an action with foreseeable consequences, taken by me anyway)?

I agree with Chitoryu12 that this girl should accept the consequences of her actions JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET.  If her family want to assist her financially with what will basically amount to ONE MONTHS RENT, the go for it, but to beg internet strangers for help is in severe poor taste.

On the other hand, anyone has the right to beg complete strangers for money for any reason they want.  If you don't like it, don't donate!