patrick.net

Strategist says

Hell, most of us spend most of our time trying to survive or make a living and don't have time to get so obsessed with such fucking nonsense

Probably the way it's been for much more fortunate generations of the past up until now.

P N Dr Lo R says

Probably the way it's been for much more fortunate generations of the past up until now.

Sorry I don't understand that comment - how is this generation different where it isn't surviving or making a living??

Strategist says

He he he. You seem to have the time. Long long vacations....retire at 55. :)

Hate to burst our propaganda infused bubble, but I started teaching in my mid - late 40s, I teach summer school, and if I teach until I'm 70 my pension will be maybe about 40k.

Even if I had taught from age 22, I couldn't retire with anything.close to a full salary at 55. That is after only 33 years of paying in to the fund and the district and state paying in too. But just keep right on lying to yourself.

Without constantly lying to yourself, how can you hold on to your fucked up irrational beliefs ? Well I guess there's always Fox news and all the other sources of mind control that you so gullibly fall for. Hehehe.

marcus says

don't pigeonhole me

Or ignore you?

marcus

Ignoring 42

marcus says

Civic unions would have sufficed, but then I also don't understand the issue of heteros sharing a word or definition (marriage). Wtf ?

That's because you're confusing your books.
Marriage belons in the Bible before the Dictionary.
Civil Union should be all over the dictionary.

Church and state are separate, therefor if a state issues rights based on marriage, it cannot be denied to someone on religious grounds, and religion loses the right to wholly define it.

Supreme Court has already ruled big here. No amount of right wing bible thumping tears changes that now.

Then in that case every marriage in the eye of the law. Marriages should then be left up church ritual.
I also believe that all long term cohabitants are worthy of any government, civic, or financial benefits as anyone else then in the sense of marriage being defined in that regard.
Whether they are gay lovers, heterosexual couples, sibling taking over their deceased parents estate(end of the estate tax), or just two long term friends that never got their own places since college.
They all should deserve tax breaks for cohabitation and easing odds of the burden that the state will have to care for one of them. Cooperative households are just more successful regardless of the relationship dichotomy. There should be tax benefits for long term cohabitation.
The Church how ever should be the only one allowed to define marriage.

marcus says: "..suffering from some kind of a psychiatric or psychological disorder."

Great description of Democratic & Republican voters.

What about straight marriages that were performed outside of the church? Are they valid?

Various religions each have their own rules and meanings for marriages. The states has always had their definitions. These have always been separate. Various states have been changing their definitions, and even he catholic Pope is talking about changing the rules.

Further, word meanings are constantly in a state of flux. I don't know how this need for a constant definition of a word is at all meaningful for people. It seems to be an argument that is accepted soley because it justifies their feelings.

YesYNot says

What about straight marriages that were performed outside of the church? Are they valid?

Not in the eyes of the court. I got married at the JP, so my marrige is no more special in the eyes of the law, than what I would consider a civil union should be.
The Catholic Church turned my wife away(She's catholic, I'm Baptist), becuase we weren't regular congreants or going to a church regularly. They would have through a wedding planner though, had we made a $30,000 night out of it. Another reason to get married at the JP, the only cost was the mariage license. My wife has been my accountant ever since.

CaptainShuddup says

The Church how ever should be the only one allowed to define marriage.

And state laws, and morals, and education, and when to burn witches.

marcus says

Hate to burst our propaganda infused bubble, but I started teaching in my mid - late 40s, I teach summer school, and if I teach until I'm 70 my pension will be maybe about 40k.

Even if I had taught from age 22, I couldn't retire with anything.close to a full salary at 55. That is after only 33 years of paying in to the fund and the district and state paying in too. But just keep right on lying to yourself.

If the government pays into the pension fund for you, then it must for everyone else too.
Like I said before, retiring at 55 or even 60 is not fair to those who have to keep working, while paying into your pension plan.
I am actually attacking your views, which represent what is wrong with our system. We have a financial problem here because we are following in the footsteps of Greece. The Greeks enjoyed sponging off the Europeans for a long time, but we are sponging off our future generations.
No government employee deserves more benefits than it's citizens.

HEY YOU says

Great description of Democratic & Republican voters.

the two parties have rigged the system such that a losing third party vote is exactly identical to not voting at all.

Perot in 1992 had the most serious national effort, and all he did was make it harder for Bush to win reelection.

That was fine by me, but Perot voters who preferred Bush over Clinton should have voted for Bush, at least in the 4 states that the Perot vote swung the EVs to Clinton.

This is not rocket science. On election day it's pretty clear which races are tight and which are not.

At any rate the Democratic and GOP platforms are not outside the mainstream of center-left and center-right / far-right polities. Conservatives control the GOP and centrists control the Dems.

I'd like to vote socialist but not at the cost of throwing the election to the more conservative candidate.

Again, this is not rocket science.

5% of the country is socialist. 45% is conservative. Guess who has more money and control of the media, too, LOL.

Bellingham Bill,
I'm not a rocket scientist but just smart enough to not vote against my best interest. A rocket scientist might say that voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. Money can control elections,easily, as long as voters are unable to think critically.
"One is part of the solution or part of the problem"?

HEY YOU says

One is part of the solution or part of the problem?

Neither are part of the solution.

Voting Dem to avoid the GOP taking the election is just damage mitigation, though here and there the left is thrown a bone by the system as a reward.

"just smart enough to not vote against my best interest."

Your best interest is unreachable in our system. You've got to go for the least worst.

The solution requires electoral reform and a smarter, better-informed electorate, though the latter is debatable given how the conservative mind works.

We may not be able to get there from here.

"A rocket scientist might say that voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil."

That is quite a thought-terminating cliche* you got there; at any rate (assuming you're to the left of the conservatives) the GOP thanks you for continually throwing your vote away, as our current electoral system is constructed to facilitate. But by all means, if you're conservative, vote third party to your heart's content. Purity is everything, the actual consequences of who takes the seat are of course completely irrelevant compared to your feelings as you cast your vote.

* "The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis."

Strategist says

If the government pays into the pension fund for you, then it must for everyone else too.

Strategist says

No government employee deserves more benefits than it's citizens.

You can't see the mental gymnastics you go through for this. I get it, that you feel this way, but you say it as if there is some logical merit to this view.

THe government is just another employer. And since the government represents you, you as a citizen are certainly free to protest the way they choose to apportion salary and benefits to it's employees, or the total amount of compensation, but you are not (presumably) a government employee The idea that if they choose one particular way of compensating their employees, then the government must do the same for everyone ? That's so retarded, I can't even begin to understand what you're talking about.

Back in the day, most people thought of government jobs as secure, with pay that's lower than most jobs, but with benefits that are better than many. That was back when more private sector jobs had pensions. Back then you wouldn't have thought of this objection. But somehow Rush Limbaugh or some other moron has apparently gotten in to your head.

IF they took our pension away, and put us on social security instead, they would have to pay more, in order to attract the same quality of people they do now (not saying that the compensation is as good as it should be for all the teachers, cops, mailmen, district attorneys, whatever). That is if they wanted the compensation to be as good as it is now. I'm assuming you believe in markets and that the level of compensation affects the quality of people that pursue a given career.

What we're talking about is the level of compensation. How much is salary and how much is other benefits is irrelevant. If you want overall government worker compensation to be less, then just say so. But don't act as if it's all about those unfair pensions, or as if the everyone else must get the same argument makes sense.

The under funding of pensions, or mistaken pension policies are another issue.

marcus says

Strategist says

No government employee deserves more benefits than it's citizens.

MAybe you just think you're being clever, making an argument similar to marxists who argue that there's no way a CEO should make 300 times as much as the average employee.

marcus says

But at the same time, some of the tolerance related to sexuality may (in my view) go too far. I really do agree with this. For example I think it's likely that Bruce Jenner is suffering from some kind of a psychiatric or psychological disorder. I think that there is such a thing as too much tolerance of transgender behavior. Hell, most of us spend most of our time trying to survive or make a living and don't have time to get so obsessed with such fucking nonsense. "Gee, should I really have a penis ? Maybe it should have been a vagina." What the fuck man, stop obsessing about yourself so much.

But here is a thing Marcus. Your level of tolerance is much higher than mine. What you don't think is a big deal, such as homosexuality, to me is an abomination. You are a teacher, you know how kids copy and repeat everything they see. It's only a matter of time before the gay thing gets media popularity and will be up front in schools abducting children. And for a while that line of "not allowed" has been there. But it's been broken recently, and I fear for our nation, I really do.

FortWayne says

It's only a matter of time before the gay thing gets media popularity and will be up front in schools abducting children. And for a while that line of "not allowed" has been there. But it's been broken recently, and I fear for our nation, I really do.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think this speaks to your latent homosexuality. You see, people judge others based on themselves. If you think chioldren could be sold the idea that being gay is cool or something like that, then it means that you think maybe you could have been convinced of that. I don't think so (unless deep don that's your orientation).

I may be tolerant of gays, for their sexuality (which is really none of my business) but I'm still a little creeped out by it, if I think about it very deeply,, and I'm not promoting it to anyone.

I guess I can understand the logic (sort of) of your thinking. IT seems to me that usually gayness is something a person is born with. But becasaue of the behavior we see in prison environments for example, we know that sometimes its maybe more of a perversion. But the perversion, of say the typical right wing politician that gets caught in a foot tapping airport bathroom stall hookup, is probably exciting to him partly because of how forbidden it is. Once it's not forbidden, it probably loses some of it's appeal to him. But also there will in any case be less closet homos around for him to hook up with.

The things is, at least 85% of the population is hetero. I don't see that changing. But even if it did decrease a little, so ? THe global population has gone from 3 billion to 7 billion in just 70 years or so. It's not going to harm us if we start reproducing a little slower.

marcus says

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think this speaks to your latent homosexuality. You see, people judge others based on themselves. If you think chioldren could be sold the idea that being gay is cool or something like that, then it means that you think maybe you could have been convinced of that. I don't think so.

Children can be convinced of anything. I've raised a few of my own, I know that it takes a village. It's monkey see monkey do. And no point to pretend that somehow homosexuality isn't part of that, it is. And it is a top priority to keep it away from children. Think about it, and I think you said it too. Straight men to to prison, and it ain't straight what they do out there. It ain't just "born this way" okey dokey bullshit story media likes to sell.

It's easier to be more tolerant of it, when media doesn't try to shove sexual material on everyone. Television and radio isn't exactly wholesome these days, ain't what it used to be unless you keep it on AM, and even that gets sketchy.

marcus says

IF they took our pension away, and put us on social security instead, they would have to pay more, in order to attract the same quality of people they do now

That's the problem. We don't want the same quality of people.
Here is an offer. Tell me what you think:
20% pay raise for good teachers.
30% pay cut for bad teachers.
100% pay cut for the worst teachers. Boot em out.
Would that be a good deal? It would attract the quality people, and the bad ones will out out, further creating a pool of quality people. With a 20% pay raise, you won't even need the unions anymore.

marcus says

MAybe you just think you're being clever, making an argument similar to marxists who argue that there's no way a CEO should make 300 times as much as the average employee.

Look at your rotten logic.
You want others to decide the pay of CEO's, when it's not even their money that is at stake.
You don't want us to decide the pay of public employees, when it IS our money at stake.

bgamall4 says

Strategist says

20% pay raise for good teachers.


30% pay cut for bad teachers.


100% pay cut for the worst teachers. Boot em out.


Would that be a good deal? It would attract the quality people, and the bad ones will out out, further creating a pool of quality people. With a 20% pay raise, you won't even need the unions anymore.

That would attract fewer teachers. You know how many people teach a few years and quit? It is overwhelming.

A 20% pay raise over and above what the greedy unions negotiated would attract all the good teachers. It's the bad ones that won't be attracted, but no one wants them.

bgamall4 says

His assassin, Lyndon Baines Johnson, signed the bill

L.B Johnson killed JFK?? I thought it was the Martians who faked Sandy Hook so they could go back in time and stage the JFK assassination.

lostand confused says

L.B Johnson killed JFK??

I'm a thinking this one might be true

FortWayne says

Children can be convinced of anything. I've raised a few of my own, I know that it takes a village. It's monkey see monkey do. And no point to pretend that somehow homosexuality isn't part of that, it is. And it is a top priority to keep it away from children.

I just don't see that sexuality is learned or copied. I remember being in a Hardees with my three-year-old son. A group of middle school girls came in and, as loud as can be, my son said in a flirty voice, "Hey girls." When he was five, there was this little girl who he was friends with. At her birthday party, she was paying attention to another little boy. My son got very jealous. Now he's eleven. We went to the beach for the 4th. Every time a large-breasted girl in a bikini walked by, his eyes would follow her until she walked past us.

Now, I didn't teach him these things. I wouldn't know where to begin. Clearly, he's attracted to women. I've seen age-appropriate signs of it over the years. Isn't it possible that for kids who are gay that they naturally feel the same way as my son does about girls... except they feel it about boys? No one teaches a person to crush on someone. It's just happens. Remember your first crush? Was it something you planned or thought about? No, it just happened. You saw that girl and wham... All of a sudden you couldn't concentrate, you had butterflied in your stomach... You couldn't think straight when she was near... etc.... We've all been there at one time or another. It's a crush... or puppy love. It isn't something you control. It's just something you feel. And there's no faking it. You either feel it or you don't.

Seems to me it would work the same way if a person is gay... The object of the crush or puppy love is just directed at the same sex. It's just something the person feels.

lostand confused says

bgamall4 says

His assassin, Lyndon Baines Johnson, signed the bill

L.B Johnson killed JFK?? I thought it was the Martians who faked Sandy Hook so they could go back in time and stage the JFK assassination.

and plant false articles about obama's birth in the newspapers.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/zzWNDPx4Pm0

Bellingham Bill says:
"That is quite a thought-terminating cliche* you got there; at any rate (assuming you're to the left of the conservatives) the GOP thanks you for continually throwing your vote away, as our current electoral system is constructed to facilitate. But by all means, if you're conservative, vote third party to your heart's content. Purity is everything, the actual consequences of who takes the seat are of course completely irrelevant compared to your feelings as you cast your vote."

* "The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis."

I was going to call Bullshit or trolling but after reading this twice I discovered that by my voting for the lesser evil,that does not represent me,becomes good & by voting for my best interest is simply throwing away my vote & voting with a large political theology that is outvoted,as in majority rule, is not throwing away my vote.
I particularly enjoyed-"thought-terminating cliché.",as in "continually throwing your vote away," which I've never heard before today.
I think I understand pretzel logic ,now.

turtledove says

I just don't see that sexuality is learned or copied. I remember being in a Hardees with my three-year-old son. A group of middle school girls came in and, as loud as can be, my son said in a flirty voice, "Hey girls." When he was five, there was this little girl who he was friends with. At her birthday party, she was paying attention to another little boy. My son got very jealous. Now he's eleven. We went to the beach for the 4th. Every time a large-breasted girl in a bikini walked by, his eyes would follow her until she walked past us.

That's an example, but it doesn't cover everyone. In my years I've seen how kids were influenced by seeing couples that had two moms or two dads. Now most of those kids turned out normal, some though went both ways for the lack of better word because they at early enough age were taught that it is more than just ok. Those parents they thought they were doing the right thing, they were very liberal with it. But got what they had coming, I tell you they are not happy parents right now... screwed up kids + hurt pride.

FortWayne says

That's an example, but it doesn't cover everyone. In my years I've seen how kids were influenced by seeing couples that had two moms or two dads. Now most of those kids turned out normal, some though went both ways for the lack of better word because they at early enough age were taught that it is more than just ok. Those parents they thought they were doing the right thing, they were very liberal with it. But got what they had coming, I tell you they are not happy parents right now... screwed up kids + hurt pride.

You are full of crap. There is no way you've watched single sex couple raise kids. I just don't believe it. Anyone as homophobic as you would run screaming in terror at seeing a single sex couple, never mind observing them closely over the years it takes to raise a child.

Or are you saying kids of straight parents went gay because they saw a gay couple at some point and mommy and daddy told them that gay couples were ok? That's even more idiotic. How would you even know such a thing? I seriously doubt you know anyone that's not at least as homophobic as you.

Strategist says

Look at your rotten logic.

You want others to decide the pay of CEO's, when it's not even their money that is at stake.

You don't want us to decide the pay of public employees, when it IS our money at stake.

Actually I never said, nor do I believe either of those things.

I might say that I think the system is flawed if it pays CEOs so much more than than it needs to (based on them all being on each other's boards) . But I'm certainly not thinking government needs to intervene in any way, other than taxing them more.

I also clearly said this:

marcus says

And since the government represents you, you as a citizen are certainly free to protest the way they choose to apportion salary and benefits to it's employees, or the total amount of compensation

What's wrong with you ?

Strategist says

That's the problem. We don't want the same quality of people.

Here is an offer. Tell me what you think:

20% pay raise for good teachers.

30% pay cut for bad teachers.

100% pay cut for the worst teachers. Boot em out.

This is also based on more mindless propaganda. How "good" a teacher is percieved to be has a lot to do with the kind of students he or she is working with.

For example how do you figure out the comparitive evaluation for the following 2 teachers.

Teacher A) Teaches honors classes and AP classes to highly motivated hard working students

Teacher B) Teaches classes to students with many years history of poor attendence, low motivation and hating school other than the social aspects.

Maybe teacher B is teaching a high school Math class in which many of the students who don't know their foundation MAth skills they should have obtained in grades 5 - 7. Should this teacher just stop and spend all the time focusing on remediation for the kids that don't know their basics, and also aren't motivated because they deeply feel they are bad at math ? Would that be fair to the strong students in the class, that can handle grade level work ?

To try to evaluate and compare the performance of teacher B against the perfomance of teachewr A, based on standardized tests ? You could say that well, okay then just compare how much the students improve ? But this assumes an impossibly well designed test, that just happenes to accurately guage how good a job the weaker students did of filling in gaps, in their background, while also measuring the improvement of the portion of kids that are operating at grade level.

I don't expect you to want to or be willing to comprehend what I'm describing here. But teacher A has a much more enjoyable job in which its far easier for him to be seen as effective. OF course it's a different challenge and effectiveness is going to have a different meaning. By the way, I have been both types of teacher. They often exist in the same school. In theory, an idealistic teacher is going to want to be teacher B. In practice it's a recipe for burnout, and the teacher A role is more enjoyable while being also a ridiculous amount of work, if done well.

IF you do understand what I'm saying, then you might also understand why some reasonably well qualified teachers choose to teach at private schools, including many that pay worse than public schools.

What actually works is evaluating teachers, but coming at it from a supportive angle. Offering help and training to teachers that can benefit from it. As was mentioned by someone else, ineffective teachers largely weed themselves out, because being an ineffective teacher is very unpleasant. This is based in part on the pressure they already get from above, to do well.

Something like half of teachers quit within the fist 5 years. The pay doesn't get all that decent until more than 10 years in. So who's going to stick around through all that if they aren't doing fairly well with it. Keep in mind, contrary to what the propaganda tells you, they are getting plenty of pressure to perform as it is. And all the negative stats you read are from schools in poor neighborhoods, with populations of kids with a significant percentage being from unstable homes, or english learners. Also public schools have the special ed kids averaged in to their scores. IT's a great political football, but you know absolutely nothing about it. Only what your overlords want you to believe.

marcus says

Teacher B) Teaches classes to students with many years history of poor attendence, low motivation and hating school other than the social aspects.

I think the biggest problem is not the teachers, but the "students" who don't want to learn. Why are these pin heads not failed and kicked out of school. I bet we let a few hundred fail, and the rest will quickly rise up and try hard to graduate. But no, that's not how it works! Liberals want graduation an entitlement, I heard on NPR how liberals were screaming that every child is entitled to a diploma no matter how retarded they are. So combined entitlement, with limited budgets, and with government restraining parents on punishment, and lack of borders, you got schools full of stupid children who do not wish to learn, who do not care to learn, many don't even speak English or care to. And somehow we have to waste all our resources to graduate them, or most commonly just drop standards to the lowest of the low until diplomas are completely meaningless.

Worthless system, and a lot of that comes from those good old liberal "everyone must be equal" and conservative "child-worship" policies. Can't spank them, can't tell them they are wrong because that'll hurt their self-esteem, can't fail them. And so we have bunch of over-babied idiots growing up with too much self-esteem and no brain!

bob2356 says

Or are you saying kids of straight parents went gay because they saw a gay couple at some point and mommy and daddy told them that gay couples were ok? That's even more idiotic. How would you even know such a thing? I seriously doubt you know anyone that's not at least as homophobic as you.

You liberals always looking for a handout. Go figure it for yourself Bobby!

From at least age 5, I had thoughts about the contents of little girls' panties that I won't repeat here.

If my teachers had told me that it was all right to lust after my male classmates, I would have thought it was weird and gross, and males would have remained essentially invisible to me.

Every moment of every day I lust after the sweet, sweet female form. The idea that someone could socialize me out of this is preposterous.

FortWayne says

I heard on NPR how liberals were screaming that every child is entitled to a diploma no matter how retarded they are. So combined entitlement, with limited budgets, and with government restraining parents on punishment, and lack of borders, you got schools full of stupid children who do not wish to learn, who do not care to learn, many don't even speak English or care to. And somehow we have to waste all our resources to graduate them, or most commonly just drop standards to the lowest of the low until diplomas are completely meaningless.

More uninformed nonsense.

Keeping special ed kids in school, and giving them a diploma (with a slightly different designation - in other words not a regular real diploma) is not a problem. And you want them to stay in school and learn some life skills. Maybe they can learn to take care of themselves and get a job and pay taxes. IF you're going to tell me that they aren't learning anough about real jobs, that may be true. But they are young and they are kept in a safe environment while they learn what they can.

You do have a point about the kids that aren't motivated, and have no idea what the opportunity is that they are missing. But we need to continue working to figure out how to make school work better for those kids. Im Math which I was describing, it's very naturally tracked. You have kids that are ready for Calculus in 10th or 11th grade, and others that barely know any algebra when they graduate. So these kids aren't all going to be in the same classes as say 9th graders.

FortWayne says

and a lot of that comes from those good old liberal "everyone must be equal" and conservative "child-worship" policies

This is nonsensical ideological jibberish.

FortWayne says

waste all our resources

THe real waste is what we spend on prisons. And that it's become a private industry, that actually lobbies against laws that would decrease the number of people in prison for non violent offenses.

Better to spend more money sooner on better education.

I'm a strong believer in pubilc education.

What if we had great public education opportunities, but also laws requiring a certain level of education success before someone can reproduce (with an option of simply passing an intelligence test) ?

Two problems with this:

1) Some would scream about the lack of freedom and it being unamerican

2) In such a world, who would do the super low paying work ?

marcus says

Keeping special ed kids in school, and giving them a diploma (with a slightly different designation - in other words not a regular real diploma) is not a problem.

You are getting stuck on semantics too much. I am not just talking about special ed. I mean retarded very broadly and inclusively. Special kids there are like maybe 30 per school, at least that's how ours was. Not a big deal. But when out of a 1000 students 800 are non English speaking and don't care to learn, poorly attend, and don't care to even learn English or Math that's the problem. They act worse then retards, because being completely normal they choose to be stupid! And it's a drain on all our resources. And it all comes from the liberal nonsense that no one should be allowed to fail.

marcus says

THe real waste is what we spend on prisons.

Maybe that is a problem. I don't know. I can tell you that crime went up a lot here when Governor Jerry Brown decided to do prison realignment and just let a bunch of "non-violent" offenders out. Many went right back to robbing.

I'm all for more money for education, but that education has to be better. I've seen kids go to school, I've been in one too. We waste so many resources there it's rediculous. Walk into a classroom and students are practically in charge of the classroom. Some are gang members, some are just stupid, but not a whole lot of collective desire to learn. Just a lot of collective desire to be "different" and a rebel. Which for some reason translate into some form of delinquency. And schools have to babysit them, feed them, and graduate them. It's ridiculous!

"crime went up a lot here"

http://kvpr.org/post/six-months-after-prop-47-has-crime-gone

FortWayne says

I'm all for more money for education, but that education has to be better. I've seen kids go to school, I've been in one too. We waste so many resources there it's rediculous. Walk into a classroom and students are practically in charge of the classroom. Some are gang members, some are just stupid, but not a whole lot of collective desire to learn. Just a lot of collective desire to be "different" and a rebel. Which for some reason translate into some form of delinquency. And schools have to babysit them, feed them, and graduate them. It's ridiculous!

Amazing unintentional comedy here. Top notch.