What's new
By:

Stupid Pet Peeves

moevillini said:
Can you a "known traveler number" so you're eligible for TSA Pre-check (or whatever it would be called where you live)?
Click to expand...
The KTN is a god-send with airport security as stupid and intrusive as it is. Oh not to mention completely ineffective, like 96% ineffective according to homeland security. Security theater is all it is. It is such a load of crap and just another way to try to herd the sheeple.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topo...-airport-security-charade-20150608-story.html

So in 2015 they showed it was a joke, then with that feedback they revamped the process and got this:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188

And in 2017 it remains a joke. Seriously stupid.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/9/14558298/tsa-screening-unscientific-unreliable-aclu-report

Hate the TSA. Luckily my KTN has allowed me to get through most places very smoothly, and at times with things like a leatherman in my carry-on, since TSA security in general is a joke. I had a full bottle of water (*gasp* I know, right?) and they let me through. Once I had a bottle of shampoo that was bigger than 3 oz, and they let me through. I guess they only need to stop some of the people and make them throw away their stuff, right? That should be good enough. Waste of money and time for everyone.
 
Jack Strop said:
OK, my new pet peeve....idiot parkers

1. Those who insist on backing in to parking places. It takes twice as long, they have to either go the wrong way or pull past the spot, swing wide and interfere with cars going the RIGHT way. And 95% of these idiots back in crooked, which sometimes means the parking spot next to them is rendered unusable.

2. Big-*** SUVs parking in compact spaces. C'mon, you idiots know you're parking insanely close to the car on your right. And I don't feel one bit guilty for kicking the hell out of your fender when I was forced to crawl in from my passenger side. You deserved the dent, *******. Find a bigger spot and walk a few more yards, you lazy SOB.
Click to expand...
This. Big truck parking in general is ****. They should be forced to take up their 3 spots as far away from the establishment as possible, the assholes. I pulled into a parking spot with my wife the other day, and we sat there chatting for a few minutes, long enough for a truck to pull in next to me so close I couldn't open my door at all, nearly hit my mirror. The guy got out, adjusted his aviators, and locked his truck as he walked like an ******* into the store, fully ignoring my honk and yelling out the window to move his truck. So I moved my car, to the other side as close to his driver door as I could get, and we waited until he left before we did, just to see him get pissed off he had to crawl in through the other door. It should be legal to shoot assholes like that.
 
The fascination guys have with owning a truck baffles me.

Way more expensive to buy. More expensive to insure. Way more expensive to fill with gas (or diesel, because real men have a turbo diesel). More expensive to change oil. More expensive to maintain. WAY Way more expensive to replace tires.

Now if you're pulling a camper or toy-hauler every other weekend, fine. But if it's your commuter vehicle and you justify it by saying that you have it in case you need to haul stuff... They rent trucks at U-Haul for less than $50/day. That's less than the difference in what you pay for gas in a month over what I pay for a car. But yeah, you're pretty ****ing manly with your big *** truck you can't figure out how to park right.
 
LogGrad98 said:
This. Big truck parking in general is ****. They should be forced to take up their 3 spots as far away from the establishment as possible, the assholes. I pulled into a parking spot with my wife the other day, and we sat there chatting for a few minutes, long enough for a truck to pull in next to me so close I couldn't open my door at all, nearly hit my mirror. The guy got out, adjusted his aviators, and locked his truck as he walked like an ******* into the store, fully ignoring my honk and yelling out the window to move his truck. So I moved my car, to the other side as close to his driver door as I could get, and we waited until he left before we did, just to see him get pissed off he had to crawl in through the other door. It should be legal to shoot assholes like that.
Click to expand...
I hate trying to park my truck (i suck at it) so i always park really far away where there are no cars around.
 
One Brow said:
The question would be whether they are using make-up to attract anyone at all, as opposed to other reasons. It's our western view that associates make-up with sexual signaling.



I have doubts about putting so much into an attribute.
Click to expand...

I'm aware there are other reasons but how do you know those reasons, i.e. career woman, aren't coming from genetically caused attraction?

I don't see why you specify this as a western view, at all. The Egyptian women used makeup. Traditional Chinese and Native American and Indian and pretty much every society's makeup. It's all designed to beautify the woman for men, often in ceremonies. Weddings, etc.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
I'm aware there are other reasons but how do you know those reasons, i.e. career woman, aren't coming from genetically caused attraction?
Click to expand...

You are thinking like a Western man again. For example, a bindi (in and of itself) is not applied for the reasons of beauty nor for sexual attractiveness.

idestroyedthetoilet said:
I don't see why you specify this as a western view, at all. The Egyptian women used makeup. Traditional Chinese and Native American and Indian and pretty much every society's makeup. It's all designed to beautify the woman for men, often in ceremonies. Weddings, etc.
Click to expand...

Time-centric, as well. For how long do you think English men used make-up for various reasons? When did that stop? Do you think that cause was biological/evolutionary?
 
One Brow said:
You are thinking like a Western man again. For example, a bindi (in and of itself) is not applied for the reasons of beauty nor for sexual attractiveness.
Click to expand...

I thought we had already established that foundation. If not, consider us in agreement on alternative reasons.

My question still stands in other situations like the example I gave.
 
Bulletproof said:
The fascination guys have with owning a truck baffles me.

Way more expensive to buy. More expensive to insure. Way more expensive to fill with gas (or diesel, because real men have a turbo diesel). More expensive to change oil. More expensive to maintain. WAY Way more expensive to replace tires.

Now if you're pulling a camper or toy-hauler every other weekend, fine. But if it's your commuter vehicle and you justify it by saying that you have it in case you need to haul stuff... They rent trucks at U-Haul for less than $50/day. That's less than the difference in what you pay for gas in a month over what I pay for a car. But yeah, you're pretty ****ing manly with your big *** truck you can't figure out how to park right.
Click to expand...

It’s phallic.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
I thought we had already established that foundation. If not, consider us in agreement on alternative reasons.

My question still stands in other situations like the example I gave.
Click to expand...

Since we are in agreement that some make-up usage is not related to sexual attraction, I'm not sure why we can speculate on the reasons of any given person at any given time for, as an example, wearing make-up to work.

Going back, you asked how I knew "those reasons, i.e. career woman, aren't coming from genetically caused attraction?" My best response is that, outside of using foundation to hide blemishes enhance symmetry, any sexual response to make-up seems to have cultural ties rather than genetic ties. People raised in the US understand red lip-stick to mean greater sexual readiness, regardless of their genetic heritage. Having ruby-red lips naturally would indicate disease more than health, as would odd skin colors around the eyes.

What is the positive argument to a genetic/biological response to make-up that is not just as easily explained as a cultural response?
 
Bulletproof said:
The fascination guys have with owning a truck baffles me.

Way more expensive to buy. More expensive to insure. Way more expensive to fill with gas (or diesel, because real men have a turbo diesel). More expensive to change oil. More expensive to maintain. WAY Way more expensive to replace tires.

Now if you're pulling a camper or toy-hauler every other weekend, fine. But if it's your commuter vehicle and you justify it by saying that you have it in case you need to haul stuff... They rent trucks at U-Haul for less than $50/day. That's less than the difference in what you pay for gas in a month over what I pay for a car. But yeah, you're pretty ****ing manly with your big *** truck you can't figure out how to park right.
Click to expand...

It's a way of life for country boys, and I bet most truck owners use them for intended purposes for the most part. Add in the extra cost of a fuel efficient vehicle 3rd vehicle and country boys aren't having any of that. I will always have a pickup, but commute in it? Hell no. My '05 has less than 60k miles. It tows, it hauls, hunting, and gets me a short distance to the train.

It drives me nuts when my dad has to drive his diesel up to Strawberry to fish. "Let's take my car". "Hell no!".
 
One Brow said:
Since we are in agreement that some make-up usage is not related to sexual attraction, I'm not sure why we can speculate on the reasons of any given person at any given time for, as an example, wearing make-up to work.

Going back, you asked how I knew "those reasons, i.e. career woman, aren't coming from genetically caused attraction?" My best response is that, outside of using foundation to hide blemishes enhance symmetry, any sexual response to make-up seems to have cultural ties rather than genetic ties. People raised in the US understand red lip-stick to mean greater sexual readiness, regardless of their genetic heritage. Having ruby-red lips naturally would indicate disease more than health, as would odd skin colors around the eyes.

What is the positive argument to a genetic/biological response to make-up that is not just as easily explained as a cultural response?
Click to expand...

I'm speaking in the aggregate; you are speaking in the specific.

You haven't given any proof behind cultural ties. If anything, makeup is cross cultural. Makeup is universally used to create the allusion of youth and thus fertility. I doubt you can find many examples (even neck stretching is out), that goes against attractive enhancement .

Changing culture won't change attraction, and makeup choice will follow as necessary.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
I'm speaking in the aggregate; you are speaking in the specific.

You haven't given any proof behind cultural ties. If anything, makeup is cross cultural. Makeup is universally used to create the allusion of youth and thus fertility. I doubt you can find many examples (even neck stretching is out), that goes against attractive enhancement .

Changing culture won't change attraction, and makeup choice will follow as necessary.
Click to expand...

The following link is full of traditions, not done for reasons of appeal, but rather as rites of passage for young men. Your post made my mind wander and think of this.

It’s definitely worth the read.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/male-rites-of-passage-from-around-the-world/
 
Wes Mantooth said:
The following link is full of traditions, not done for reasons of appeal, but rather as rites of passage for young men. Your post made my mind wander and think of this.

It’s definitely worth the read.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/male-rites-of-passage-from-around-the-world/
Click to expand...

Interesting. The soft science have been catching up to the helicopter parenting problem as well. The changes I've seen in my short lifetime alone are example enough.

For example, I camped with my fam last week and let the 7-10 year olds axe firewood. My control freak dad comes storming out of his trailer saying "I don't care what your dad says, this isn't a toy", ripping the axe from my son's hands.

Me: you had me chopping wood at five and starting the morning fire at 6 a.m. with [older brother].

Dad: no I did not!

Mom: Yellow house, remember?

Sisters and me: Yup.

That was a right of passage in the same vein even if not nearly as dangerous as your article. And from that point on even the little ones chopped some wood, under even more scrutiny of course.

Letting kids learn seems almost a forgotten, and worse a looked down upon, part of our society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top