I hope they gave those soldiers some sort of award for being the most persistent motherfuckers ever.

That summation is nearly Soon-Yi's exact statement.

"Please don't try and dramatize my relationship with Woody Allen. He was never any kind of father figure to me. I never had any dealings with him. He rarely came to our apartment before his own children were born. Even then, he never spoke and the truth is I never…

Tata dates back to the Victorian era, so they're practically British by default. Relic of the Empire, you know, pip pip and all that.

I am pretty sure I have a Honda Crossroad JDM brochure that was requisitioned from Honda head office by a young Derek Kreindler while visting my Dad at work. Scan and put it on Kinja?

You're confusing 'meaning' with 'feel emotional about'. They are not the same thing. We're talking about semantic value, not emotional attachment to something. "She really means something to me!" is not the type of meaning being discussed.

No, I'm saying that we can't say with any clarity who or what group of people "owns" something. There are a few exceptions such as trademarked navajo designs, and in that case it can be appropriated. My point is that something has to be clearly owned before it can be appropriated. If a culture somehow can clearly…

People feel strongly about meaningless shit all the time though.

Cultural appropriation still doesn't mean anything unless a culture can clearly define what it is they own. It's meaningless, no matter how strongly you feel about it.

Obligatory.

The creativity warrants a COTD nom but ... goddam ... Nickelback?

What did they do first? Bend wood?

Well, whatever. When my kids have an IQ of 150 and hers have 80, we'll see how sexual selection works out.

They can, but it has to be consented to by the mother, which is like saying men should have to consent to women's abortions.

Every time you have sex you face the possibility of a pregnancy, yes, but every time a woman has sex she has an option to absolve herself of the responsibilities of that pregnancy, while every time a man has sex, he has no such option. This is unreasonable.

So a mother's additional nine months of responsibility dictate that a father's eighteen years of responsibility are out of his hands after conception? You really believe this is fair?

I am suggesting that yes, a father should be able to absolve himself of parental responsibility for just as long as a mother is able to. That's not just not paying child support, it's losing all other parental responsibilities, while also losing all parental rights.

Yes, that's the way it works, but why is that the way it works? Why exactly is that fair? If what is good for the goose is good for the gander, as you yourself said, why is this an exception? Why does the goose get multiple options while the gander does not have any options? What actual reason can you provide for this…

You remind me of someone who can never be wrong

If what's good for the goose is good for the gander, shouldn't there be a way for the metaphorical gander to absolve himself of parental responsibility after conception the way there is for the metaphorical goose?

You know that people use that same logic to try to tell women not to have abortions, right?