Funny pictures and images
- This topic has 1,002 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
Author
-
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Hope this may change a few minds…
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Hope this may change a few minds…
DP can save lives? I hear it’s a porn thing – where’s Parker when we need him?
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
7 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
8 users thanked author for this post.
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
7 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
i owe the Jurassic Park franchise an apology, it is in fact very realistic the rich would reopen a park in spite of it consistently resulting in mass death
— Brett (@Relentlessbored) April 22, 2020
What the next Jurassic Park movie really needs is a scene of protestors who want to re-open the park getting attacked by the wild dinosaurs.
— Ryan McDermond (@RyanMcDermond) April 22, 2020
If I can't go to a genetically engineered theme park and risk being eaten what is freedom for even?!
— Jhonni *Stay the Fuck Home* (@Lecteronthelam) April 22, 2020
Good call. Apparently it really was a cautionary tale we didn’t know we needed.
— Shuri's Lab Partner (@Dimitri246) April 22, 2020
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Walking around on penis legs would be hard.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
-
Yeah God forbid there is a small chance we catch a disease that kills maybe 0.2 % of who catches it.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
What if it’s giving temporary liberty for an essential security?
I’d happily get in that air raid shelter to avoid a bomb, not though being given a life sentence to stay in one.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
It's a wee bit ironic, he's in scrubs and she's hanging out the passenger side of her best friend's ride trying to holler pic.twitter.com/T2g2UeafA8
— shawn (@nwahs086) April 21, 2020
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
Yeah God forbid there is a small chance we catch a disease that kills maybe 0.2 % of who catches it.
Tell that to the people who have died.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
7 users thanked author for this post.
-
arjandirkse wrote:
Yeah God forbid there is a small chance we catch a disease that kills maybe 0.2 % of who catches it.
Tell that to the people who have died.
He can’t; they’re dead.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
He can’t; they’re dead.
For a necromancer with a stature such as Todds, death is but a minor inconvenience.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
Hope this may change a few minds…
Wait, Adorpion? Am I missing something?
Edit: oh, wait, that’s probably the joke. I dumb
-
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Hope this may change a few minds…
Wait, Adorpion? Am I missing something?
Edit: oh, wait, that’s probably the joke. I dumb
-
-
Hope this may change a few minds…
Wait, Adorpion? Am I missing something?
Edit: oh, wait, that’s probably the joke. I dumb
I thought the joke was to do with penetration.
Clearly my mind is in a different place to yours
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
It can be two things. So to speak.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Yeah God forbid there is a small chance we catch a disease that kills maybe 0.2 % of who catches it.
Tell that to the people who have died.
That’s the game being played with us, there is a danger something bad will happen so you have to do what we tell you. Some politicians are exploiting the disease, eager to see how much nonsense we are going to accept in the name of safety. The Benjamin Franklin quote is not that great because there are of course some safety issues that override some freedom issues, but if anything the covid madness proves his point.
Now some are saying it is bad to hug or kiss someone, period, even when there is no epidemic. Because there is always a chance you might infect someone with some nasty germ you’re carrying. Now that makes some dictatorial control freaks really happy.
Oh, what fucking bullshit.
You have conservative politicians who have said that the economy is more important than people. If more people have to die to restart the economy, they have no problem with that. COVID-19 has been especially hard on the poor and minorities. They would love to only have the barest minimum of safety measures (so they can say they did “something”) so it could wipe out whole blocks of what they probably consider the “undesirables” of the world.
Wearing a mask in public, closing businesses to the public, and maintaining social distancing for a relatively short period of time are not infringing on someone’s “liberty”. It’s about public safety. Not taking those precautions is what is truly against “liberty”. If we had not or do not do these things, the death count increases very significantly.
I have friend who is a nurse who deals with COVID-19 patients. His shifts are spent in full hazmat gear. He has told Christel and I what he has seen and what it does to people. This shit is real.
7 users thanked author for this post.
-
Oh, what fucking bullshit.
He lives in the Netherlands. If someone in that bastion of liberalism is paranoid about dictatorial over-reach then we’re all fucked.
I have to be a little blunt and say Arjan has been reading too many of the wrong websites. Nobody wants these lockdowns, it is losing them all a lot of money, even disaster capitalists had their market collapse 2 weeks before the measures came in so they don’t need to extend it. Disaster capitalism needs a collapse but then a recovery or it doesn’t work.
Every day extended it is emphasising how vital ‘low value’ workers like cleaners, fruit pickers and truck drivers really are. Nothing the ‘powers to be’ want.
Maybe it’s a slight concern in some places with autocratic leaders but otherwise this is something that will pass, in a few countries already being lifted. Live day to day and try and cope.
To be fair it can addle the mind so we need to talk it all out but it’s all about saving lives, not just 85 year olds but people like the hundreds of nurses, care workers, even bus drivers, that have died from the viral load at young ages.
…but yeah e 85 year olds too. My mother will reach that age this year, she’s in as good physical and mental health as can be expected, writing books and giving lectures to Robert Plant on Welsh history. I’d exchange 2-3 months stuck playing Final Fantasy and ordering pizza at home over losing 10 good years with her very easily.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by .
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by
-
(I am currently using a half-bow with a fist to the heart and a smile.)
I just shout nuqneH qaleghnes while brandishing a weapon.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
it’s all about saving lives, not just 85 year olds
Society: “Stop being selfish, think of the old people and NHS staff!”
Old people and NHS staff: *Dying in droves because we fucked up on how to actually protect them*
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Wearing a mask in public, closing businesses to the public, and maintaining social distancing for a relatively short period of time are not infringing on someone’s “liberty”. It’s about public safety. Not taking those precautions is what is truly against “liberty”. If we had not or do not do these things, the death count increases very significantly.
The truth is that even in normal times there are shitloads of ways in which we are restricted for our own safety by the rules of our society.
Yes, we could rail against a state that makes us wear seatbelts or prevents us from smoking in public or whatever, and say that these are outrageous restrictions on our liberty. But that would be bollocks. Most people understand that there are good reasons for these rules to exist and that they serve a positive purpose (and ultimately save lives).
We’re obviously living in extreme times at the moment, but the principle is the same: no, we can’t always do anything and everything that we want if it poses a risk to health. And if the current restrictions are enough to significantly change the course of this pandemic then I don’t object to them.
Unfortunately the situation has been very accelerated (with changes happening suddenly, over days and weeks, rather than over years and decades as in the case of the smoking and seatbelt examples) and inevitably not everyone is going to be on board with the idea quickly.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
I just shout nuqneH qaleghnes while brandishing a weapon.
But…doesn’t everyone?!
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Yes, we could rail against a state that makes us wear seatbelts or prevents us from smoking in public or whatever, and say that these are outrageous restrictions on our liberty.
Ok, I’ll do that
The smoking ban is another example of stupid government thinking, applying a “fix” to a problem without applying logic and analysing what the problem is and who it affects.
Problem: smoking is bad and we want people to stop it!
Proper solution: Make smoking illegal!
Actual knee-jerk solution implemented by a government wanting to be perceived as doing something: Ban smoking in pubs!
Actual effect on me (who doesn’t smoke and has always had the freedom not to go into a pub where smoking is allowed) walking down the high street: “Cough cough splutter splutter what the hell is this crowd of smokers doing blocking the pavement outside this pub? Cough cough die”
-
Old people and NHS staff: *Dying in droves because we fucked up on how to actually protect them*
Right. So, what’s your plan, David? How do we save everybody?
If I knew the answer to that, I’d be South Korean.
-
Yes, we could rail against a state that makes us wear seatbelts or prevents us from smoking in public or whatever, and say that these are outrageous restrictions on our liberty.
Ok, I’ll do that
The smoking ban is another example of stupid government thinking, applying a “fix” to a problem without applying logic and analysing what the problem is and who it affects.
Problem: smoking is bad and we want people to stop it!
Proper solution: Make smoking illegal!
Actual knee-jerk solution implemented by a government wanting to be perceived as doing something: Ban smoking in pubs!
Actual effect on me (who doesn’t smoke and has always had the freedom not to go into a pub where smoking is allowed) walking down the high street: “Cough cough splutter splutter what the hell is this crowd of smokers doing blocking the pavement outside this pub? Cough cough die”
When you study law, an element of that is the study of jurisprudence which delves deeper into how law functions on a societal level. And part of that involves exploring what makes good law and what doesn’t.
One of the ideas that really stuck with me is that good law needs the general support of society to function. Bluntly, if most people think the law is a good idea it will probably work. If they don’t or even if they’re indifferent then you’ll have more trouble enforcing it. (Not that revolutionary a concept, and you can probably think of lots of areas of current law that fall foul of this – when I was young most of my friends didn’t have much respect for music copyright laws for example.)
A blanket ban on smoking almost certainly wouldn’t be followed and would be very difficult to enforce effectively. But selective measures that limit the impact of smoking, particularly on third-party non-smokers, are more likely to gain widespread support and be upheld by citizens.
On the coronavirus lockdown measures I think there are similar considerations, and I think it’s why the government has taken the approach that it has in rolling them out.
There’s not much point in imposing restrictions that most people don’t agree with and will flout as we simply don’t have the infrastructure to enforce them if society at large decides that they aren’t ‘good’ law.
But by introducing measures that most people think are proportionate and sensible you have a better chance that people will largely stick to them.
-
Old people and NHS staff: *Dying in droves because we fucked up on how to actually protect them*
Right. So, what’s your plan, David? How do we save everybody?
Are you familiar with the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?
-
If I knew the answer to that, I’d be South Korean.
So maybe the answers some of these governments are trying out are not actually all that stupid but rather the best ones they could come up with?
I mean, response has been… more effective in some countries than others. But at least, most of them – you know, outside of Boris at first and Donald fucking Trump – have been listening to expert advice and done their best to follow it as far as politically realistic. The advice in Sweden was different than in Germany, and maybe that was because Sweden has a different framework and maybe it’ll turn out the Swedish got it right, but I do think the German government is really doing their best here. Just railing against the restrictions doesn’t help anyone as long as we do not have any better answers.
Actual effect on me (who doesn’t smoke and has always had the freedom not to go into a pub where smoking is allowed) walking down the high street: “Cough cough splutter splutter what the hell is this crowd of smokers doing blocking the pavement outside this pub? Cough cough die”
Yeah, um, so this may not have been a good solution for Dave M, but…
Whereas trying to outright ban would probably have, well, what the other Dave said.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
MEME WHILE IN NEW ZEALAND…….
.
i am very homesick right now.
Proud of everyone doing the right thing back home.
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
Fuckin Kiwis and their Kiwi fuckery.
I’m watching you, Abnett
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Proper solution: Make smoking illegal!
This ‘proper solution’ was done for a variety of other addictive drugs, it has cost an incredible amount in policing and incarceration. The current favoured model is since people are going to do it anyway then legalise it and earn revenue from sin taxes applied – like cigarettes.
The actual policy was fine but I think the application (in the UK particularly) of forcing people into doorways, instead of providing an area out of the way of passers by was a mistake. It’s more pragmatically implemented in Ireland where in a lot of cases they provide more sheltered areas where staff don’t have to enter – this protecting their health which was the justification for the ban originally. The UK law basically banned that and decrees the area has to be exposed.
In my old workplace in Wales they had an old bus shelter placed out of the way of everyone behind the building and the smokers agreed themselves to clean it – so no impact on non-smokers who can just carry on as if it didn’t exist. Then the law came in which forced them to knock down the walls so it offered little shelter and some smoked on the road in front instead where people pass.
-
Yeah, um, so this may not have been a good solution for Dave M, but…
I’m not entirely sure that graph shows what you hoped it would show. Specifically:
Smoking among women increased after the 2007 ban, and smoking among men plateaued. Then they started decreasing again, but despite the graphic shouting SMOKING RATES DON’T COME DOWN ON THEIR OWN, what it actually shows is a general downward trend in all the years before the smoking ban, with occasional brief flattening in certain years, with the resuming of the downward trend not correlating to new measures being introduced
But that’s not really relevant to my argument. I have no problem with measures to prevent smoking. I have a problem with half-assed measures that give smokers a get-out clause at my expense. And maybe that’s selfish of me, but they are the ones smoking in my face when I’m trying to walk down the street, so I don’t feel like I’m the bad guy here.
-
6 users thanked author for this post.
-
What are you doing posting a funny image in the Smoking discussion thread?
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
Old people and NHS staff: *Dying in droves because we fucked up on how to actually protect them*
Right. So, what’s your plan, David? How do we save everybody?
Are you familiar with the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?
Take your cheap parlor magic elsewhere, peasant!
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
My choice: Attenborough, Pingu, Supergran, then spend the rest on Wasps.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
After playing the Untitled Goose Game there’s no way I’m leaving that crafty fucker out.
Attenborough is your natural lead and then you want Chewy for muscle.
What am I up to now, 90p?
Add in Hong Kong Phooey, Supergran, Godfrey (he’s a medic, useful) and then Davros as the brains of the outfit.
No-one’s messing with that team.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Six geese and Bicycle Repair Man for me.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I don’t know who the hell Bovis is but I’m very glad that’s what he looks like.
Am I misremembering things or was there a poster on MW a long time ago named Bovie….?
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
I don’t know who the hell Bovis is but I’m very glad that’s what he looks like.
Am I misremembering things or was there a poster on MW a long time ago named Bovie….?
Bovis there is Ted Bovis – a character from a 1980s BBC sitcom about a holiday camp called Hi-De-Hi.
Bovey definitely was a past poster in Millarworld and he was a notably crazy one at that.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
Ya all know that the smoking ban existed to protect people who worked in enclosed spaces, right?
Not to limit smoking, but worker protection.
Roy Castle did not die in vain!
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
10 users thanked author for this post.
-
Bookmarked and saved for future use!
6 users thanked author for this post.
-
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
My team is much like Lorcan’s with slight adjustments.
My Lead is Gritty because the theme is Chaos Pure Chaos
Hong Kong Phooey, Goose, Rosa, and Chewy from 20p line
Valdarrama coked to gills(can I switch to Maradona?) the fucking Yemen, and the rest spent on Wasps1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
6 users thanked author for this post.
-
Just F Kids? I’m going to reward myself some sanity today and imagine that the idea is to grade the kids F.
1 user thanked author for this post.
