Non Footy Chat Thread II

[strider]

Why should a women have to shave if a man doesn't?
I don't even mind a nice set of hairy legs.

I agree it is unfair women have to shave everything while dudes have always been gorillas .... i thought things would change a while back ... they did, tho not what i thought ... now dudes are also hairless

 

[Eelogical]

As if thats not gonna be the most exciting discussions this forum will have over xmas

It's going to be up there, and I just tapped the sarcasm meter a couple of times, seems to be working OK.

 

[Bandwagon]

Why should a women have to shave if a man doesn't?
I don't even mind a nice set of hairy legs.

I'm not judging her, you never told us her name FFS, and the only identifiable features you gave us was that she had hairy armpits.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I know what I would and wouldn't argue and under what circumstances I would argue whatever the hell I would argue, I don't expect others to know though, that's an argument I wouldn't ( and strangely enough didn't ) make.

Do you even know what it is you are arguing about?

Well you implied that HJ is "dumb" for expecting you to defend "an argument you wouldn't make". How is he to know what argument you wouldn't make? Certainly your stated position is at least adjacent to the one you imply you wouldn't make.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I love seeing words like 'probably', 'could', 'might' and 'potentially' in these debates... Might as well shake an 8 ball and tell people to act on the advice that spins up....

Actually these are real terms used by analysts to indicate confidence in an assessment. Obviously it's very difficult to tell the difference between a capable analyst and one that's full of shit.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I gave up discussing anything with Pou a long time ago.
I'm glad I did and now lead a better, healthier life because of it.

Ignorance is truly bliss.

 

[Bandwagon]

Well you implied that HJ is "dumb" for expecting you to defend "an argument you wouldn't make". How is he to know what argument you wouldn't make? Certainly your stated position is at least adjacent to the one you imply you wouldn't make.

Well, no I didn't, I said...

Well at the very least, the last thing you wanna be doing is defending an argument you wouldn't make, cause that be real f**king dumb.

.............which implies no such f**king thing.

#noit'snotf**kingsemantics

 

[Poupou Escobar]

.............which implies no such f**king thing.

Within the context I reckon it does.

 

[Gronk]

I'm not judging her, you never told us her name FFS, and the only identifiable features you gave us was that she had hairy armpits.

True dat.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Within the context I reckon that Pou implied that he f**ks frozen chickens.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Then I either need to improve my communication or I don't. Either way it's my business.

 

[Bandwagon]

Within the context I reckon it did.

I reckon you're reading into the context as poorly as you read the post.

 

[Bandwagon]

And I agree with @Gary Gutful on the Chickens

 

[hindy111]

Within the context I reckon that Pou implied that he f**ks frozen chickens.

Your a sicko

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It's my fault for not being clearer.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Your a sicko

He's the sicko. I f**k 'em when they are alive but I have standards. Chicken necrophilia is where I draw the line.

 

[hindy111]

He's the sicko. I f**k 'em when they are alive but I have standards. Chicken necrophilia is where I draw the line.

Ever use a coqopan?
Apparently it keeps it moist

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Ever use a coqopan?
Apparently it keeps it moist
View attachment 34706

If you squint it looks like a fat bloke with no head. Or shame.

 

[Gary Gutful]

If you squint it looks like a fat bloke with no head. Or shame.

Its Clive Palmer on the 18th green at Coolum.

 

[Gronk]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ng-and-thwarting-global-deal?CMP=share_btn_tw

Disagreement over Australia’s plan to use an accounting loophole to meet its climate target will spill into 2020 after a United Nations conference in Madrid failed to reach consensus on rules to implement the global deal.

As talks dragged past the scheduled Friday close into Sunday afternoon, Australia was accused of “cheating” and named by other countries and conference observers as one of a handful of nations that thwarted a deal on the rulebook for the Paris climate agreement.

The Morrison government drew criticism throughout the fortnight-long conference for planning to use carryover credits, an accounting measure linked to the expiring Kyoto protocol, to meet the 2030 emissions target it set at the Paris summit four years ago.
Australia claims access to the carryover credits for beating its Kyoto targets. Opponents say those targets were unambitious and based on earlier favourable account rules won by the Howard government more than 20 years ago.

Laurence Tubiana, a former French environment minister and architect of the Paris accord, told the Financial Times: “If you want this carryover it is just cheating. Australia was willing in a way to destroy the whole system, because that is the way to destroy the whole Paris agreement.”

Using the credits would reduce what Australia needs to do to meet its 2030 target of a minimum 26% cut in emissions below 2005 levels by more than half. Analysts said there was no legal basis for Australia using the credits as the Kyoto and Paris agreements were separate treaties, and noted officials had acknowledged Australia was the only country planning to still count them.

In a last-ditch bid to reach agreement on Saturday, a group of nations, led by Costa Rica and including Britain, Germany and New Zealand, released a set of minimum standards for a deal. Described as the “San Jose principles”, they included an explicit prohibition on the use of carryover credits and other Kyoto-era allowances sought by some major developing countries, particularly Brazil.

Costa Rica’s environment and energy minister, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, called out “Australia, Brazil and the US” for blocking progress. The group said the steps were necessary to keep open the possibility of limiting industrial global heating to as close to 1.5C as possible, a goal agreed in Paris four years ago.