Thats
Thats

Thats

Behind The
Behind The

Behind The

From
From

From

The
The

The

Personalize
Personalize

Personalize

But
But

But

When
When

When

Gotted
Gotted

Gotted

Shoulders
Shoulders

Shoulders

Someone Looking
Someone Looking

Someone Looking

🔥 | Latest

America, Ass, and Bitch: oyal HighnesS Follow @FlawdazFinest86 Really @DunkinDonuts? 2:45 PM - 18 Nov 2017 from Dunkin' Donuts 543 Retweets 2,626 Likes Raphael Follow @iam_raph Do you think this woman would prefer to carry around her child at work if she had another choice? You have no clue what the back story is behind this pic but here you are, snitching on what could probably be a single mother dedicated to making sure her son can eat. Wild Royal Highness@FlawdazFinest86 Really @DunkinDonuts? 11:25 AM 20 Nov 2017 149,586 Retweets 366,288 Likes captain-snark: lonely-vault-boy: lord-kitschener: leggo-my-steggo: agirlwithachakram: labellabrianna: gahdamnpunk: women just can’t win.. I’ve had to bring my daughter into work with me a couple times. 🤷🏽‍♀️ How about: Really, Dunkin’ Donuts? You don’t pay enough for this woman to get childcare or paid maternity leave? How about: Really, America? You don’t have childcare and maternity leave covered as a standard right? but also fuck Dunkin’ Donuts too I hope that bitch-ass snitch never has another good day again for a long time Okay, yeah, sure, maternity leave and shit is understandable, but what I believe what the picture (correct me if I’m wrong) is implying is that it’s unsanitary as fuck to have a child behind the counter where the food is. (At least, at all the Dunkin’ Donuts I’ve been to, they openly display the donuts.) Listen, I’ve gone to dunkin donuts where the men’s bathroom looked like the toilet threw up and watched several employees and a manager USE the bathroom and just leave without giving a fuck.Been to a dunkin donuts where a friend asked an employee to make sure her drink was half ice and the woman put something in her drink.Is it sanitary? No, obviously not. Do you think employees at Dunkin Donuts and other places get paid enough to give a shit about health and safety when they don’t make enough to take care about their own health and safety?No, probably not.I’d rather get this kid’s cold on my donut than go to fucking Chipotle and get e coli because i ate some lettuce.I’d also rather the kid give people his sickness than him getting accidentally scalded by hot water. Lets also talk about the times where people of color have had to leave their kids in mall food courts and the like in order to either go to work/job interview whatever and have been arrested for child abandonment.Capitalism is a fucking joke.
America, Ass, and Bitch: oyal HighnesS
 Follow
 @FlawdazFinest86
 Really @DunkinDonuts?
 2:45 PM - 18 Nov 2017 from Dunkin' Donuts
 543 Retweets 2,626 Likes

 Raphael
 Follow
 @iam_raph
 Do you think this woman would prefer to
 carry around her child at work if she had
 another choice? You have no clue what the
 back story is behind this pic but here you are,
 snitching on what could probably be a single
 mother dedicated to making sure her son can
 eat. Wild
 Royal Highness@FlawdazFinest86
 Really @DunkinDonuts?
 11:25 AM 20 Nov 2017
 149,586 Retweets 366,288 Likes
captain-snark:

lonely-vault-boy:
lord-kitschener:

leggo-my-steggo:


agirlwithachakram:

labellabrianna:

gahdamnpunk:
women just can’t win..

I’ve had to bring my daughter into work with me a couple times. 🤷🏽‍♀️ 

How about: Really, Dunkin’ Donuts? You don’t pay enough for this woman to get childcare or paid maternity leave?

How about: Really, America? You don’t have childcare and maternity leave covered as a standard right?
but also fuck Dunkin’ Donuts too


I hope that bitch-ass snitch never has another good day again for a long time

Okay, yeah, sure, maternity leave and shit is understandable, but what I believe what the picture (correct me if I’m wrong) is implying is that it’s unsanitary as fuck to have a child behind the counter where the food is. (At least, at all the Dunkin’ Donuts I’ve been to, they openly display the donuts.)

Listen, I’ve gone to dunkin donuts where the men’s bathroom looked like the toilet threw up and watched several employees and a manager USE the bathroom and just leave without giving a fuck.Been to a dunkin donuts where a friend asked an employee to make sure her drink was half ice and the woman put something in her drink.Is it sanitary? No, obviously not. Do you think employees at Dunkin Donuts and other places get paid enough to give a shit about health and safety when they don’t make enough to take care about their own health and safety?No, probably not.I’d rather get this kid’s cold on my donut than go to fucking Chipotle and get e coli because i ate some lettuce.I’d also rather the kid give people his sickness than him getting accidentally scalded by hot water. Lets also talk about the times where people of color have had to leave their kids in mall food courts and the like in order to either go to work/job interview whatever and have been arrested for child abandonment.Capitalism is a fucking joke.

captain-snark: lonely-vault-boy: lord-kitschener: leggo-my-steggo: agirlwithachakram: labellabrianna: gahdamnpunk: women just can’t wi...

Bad, Cheating, and Life: Why Cheating Isn't Actually That Bad Ima count to 3 and that shit better be deleted yellowjuice: tijopi11: Why are people having so much issue with the article, I agreed with it? The title isn’t the most eloquent thing ever but the article wasn’t encouraging cheating, where you go behind your partners back, but instead looking at the issue of cheating as a not black-and-white thing where there’s one horribly evil person who just wanted to have fun/get laid with one traumatized-for-life victim. Instead, like most- nah, let me say with ANYTHING in real life beyond fiction, the article sees the grays in cheating and why the person cheated in the first place. Not to say that cheating isn’t a horrible thing to do, but I feel like people need to understand that there are reasons people do the things they do. People who cheat are human beings. They could feel horrible about it, they could be trapped in a marriage or relationship that they don’t feel they can escape, they can feel insecure and unloved. Again, not to say it’s something you should ever do, but dehumanizing someone over a mistake is just as bad in my opinion. There’s nowhere where they can talk about their experiences, and it’s likely we know a lot of people who have cheated in our lives even if they haven’t (or were too scared) to tell us about it.  “dehumanizing someone over a mistake”
Bad, Cheating, and Life: Why Cheating Isn't Actually That Bad

 Ima count to 3
 and that shit better
 be deleted
yellowjuice:

tijopi11:
Why are people having so much issue with the article, I agreed with it? The title isn’t the most eloquent thing ever but the article wasn’t encouraging cheating, where you go behind your partners back, but instead looking at the issue of cheating as a not black-and-white thing where there’s one horribly evil person who just wanted to have fun/get laid with one traumatized-for-life victim. Instead, like most- nah, let me say with ANYTHING in real life beyond fiction, the article sees the grays in cheating and why the person cheated in the first place. Not to say that cheating isn’t a horrible thing to do, but I feel like people need to understand that there are reasons people do the things they do. People who cheat are human beings. They could feel horrible about it, they could be trapped in a marriage or relationship that they don’t feel they can escape, they can feel insecure and unloved. Again, not to say it’s something you should ever do, but dehumanizing someone over a mistake is just as bad in my opinion. There’s nowhere where they can talk about their experiences, and it’s likely we know a lot of people who have cheated in our lives even if they haven’t (or were too scared) to tell us about it. 
“dehumanizing someone over a mistake”

yellowjuice: tijopi11: Why are people having so much issue with the article, I agreed with it? The title isn’t the most eloquent thing ever...

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Bad, Cheating, and Life: Why Cheating Isn't Actually That Bad Ima count to 3 and that shit better be deleted yellowjuice: tijopi11: Why are people having so much issue with the article, I agreed with it? The title isn’t the most eloquent thing ever but the article wasn’t encouraging cheating, where you go behind your partners back, but instead looking at the issue of cheating as a not black-and-white thing where there’s one horribly evil person who just wanted to have fun/get laid with one traumatized-for-life victim. Instead, like most- nah, let me say with ANYTHING in real life beyond fiction, the article sees the grays in cheating and why the person cheated in the first place. Not to say that cheating isn’t a horrible thing to do, but I feel like people need to understand that there are reasons people do the things they do. People who cheat are human beings. They could feel horrible about it, they could be trapped in a marriage or relationship that they don’t feel they can escape, they can feel insecure and unloved. Again, not to say it’s something you should ever do, but dehumanizing someone over a mistake is just as bad in my opinion. There’s nowhere where they can talk about their experiences, and it’s likely we know a lot of people who have cheated in our lives even if they haven’t (or were too scared) to tell us about it.  “dehumanizing someone over a mistake”
Bad, Cheating, and Life: Why Cheating Isn't Actually That Bad

 Ima count to 3
 and that shit better
 be deleted
yellowjuice:

tijopi11:
Why are people having so much issue with the article, I agreed with it? The title isn’t the most eloquent thing ever but the article wasn’t encouraging cheating, where you go behind your partners back, but instead looking at the issue of cheating as a not black-and-white thing where there’s one horribly evil person who just wanted to have fun/get laid with one traumatized-for-life victim. Instead, like most- nah, let me say with ANYTHING in real life beyond fiction, the article sees the grays in cheating and why the person cheated in the first place. Not to say that cheating isn’t a horrible thing to do, but I feel like people need to understand that there are reasons people do the things they do. People who cheat are human beings. They could feel horrible about it, they could be trapped in a marriage or relationship that they don’t feel they can escape, they can feel insecure and unloved. Again, not to say it’s something you should ever do, but dehumanizing someone over a mistake is just as bad in my opinion. There’s nowhere where they can talk about their experiences, and it’s likely we know a lot of people who have cheated in our lives even if they haven’t (or were too scared) to tell us about it. 
“dehumanizing someone over a mistake”

yellowjuice: tijopi11: Why are people having so much issue with the article, I agreed with it? The title isn’t the most eloquent thing ever...

Animals, Bad, and Choose One: Interesting Fact: Alex the parrot's (A subject of a 37-year experiment) last words to his caretaker were "You be good. I love you. interesting-fact.tumblr.com arry-truman casatoo: sugar-spider: a-whole-clan-of-johnnys: interesting-fact: Source CRY A LOT TRY NOT TO CRY LIE DOWN holy shit dude If you don't know Alex, I suggest you read up on him. Because yeah, sure, any parrot can mimic, but Alex was one of the first to prove on many occasions that he understood the meaning behind the words he said With that in mind, just think about what he said for a sec. Alex had to understand on some level that death means leaving. That's fucking mindblowing. Alex also was shown to have the intelligence of a young child, anywhere from 3 to 5 years old. He could do basic addition and subtraction, and independently taught himself the concept of zero (something that most CIVILIZATIONS couldn't do!) He had a vocabulary of thousands of words, some of which he made up himself, and had deep interpersonal bonds with many scientists and trainers, as well as other parrots. Alex the parrot is basically the coolest bird ever animals are often smarter than you think. There is/was a gorilla they taught sign language to. And one day she asked for a kitten. they gave her a stuffed animal but she signed sad. She wanted a real one. She was allowed to choose one from a litter. She named it All Ball and she loved it Except one day All Ball escaped from the cage and was hit by a car. And this shows you just how much animals can understand. They signed what had happened but didn't think the gorilla would understand. But she started making weeping, howling/crying sounds and the signs for bad, sad, etc. And then "Sleep, cat". She understood death. She's had two kittens since then Animals understand more than you think. Depends on the animal, yes. Animals are incredible
Animals, Bad, and Choose One: Interesting Fact:
 Alex the parrot's (A subject of a 37-year
 experiment) last words to his caretaker were
 "You be good. I love you.
 interesting-fact.tumblr.com
 arry-truman
 casatoo:
 sugar-spider:
 a-whole-clan-of-johnnys:
 interesting-fact:
 Source
 CRY
 A LOT
 TRY
 NOT TO CRY
 LIE
 DOWN
 holy shit dude
 If you don't know Alex, I suggest you read up on him. Because yeah,
 sure, any parrot can mimic, but Alex was one of the first to prove on
 many occasions that he understood the meaning behind the words he
 said
 With that in mind, just think about what he said for a sec. Alex had to
 understand on some level that death means leaving. That's fucking
 mindblowing.
 Alex also was shown to have the intelligence of a young child, anywhere from 3
 to 5 years old. He could do basic addition and subtraction, and independently
 taught himself the concept of zero (something that most CIVILIZATIONS
 couldn't do!) He had a vocabulary of thousands of words, some of which he
 made up himself, and had deep interpersonal bonds with many scientists and
 trainers, as well as other parrots.
 Alex the parrot is basically the coolest bird ever
 animals are often smarter than you think. There is/was a gorilla they taught sign
 language to. And one day she asked for a kitten. they gave her a stuffed animal but she
 signed sad. She wanted a real one. She was allowed to choose one from a litter.
 She named it All Ball and she loved it
 Except one day All Ball escaped from the cage and was hit by a car. And this shows you
 just how much animals can understand. They signed what had happened but didn't
 think the gorilla would understand. But she started making weeping, howling/crying
 sounds and the signs for bad, sad, etc.
 And then "Sleep, cat". She understood death.
 She's had two kittens since then
 Animals understand more than you think. Depends on the animal, yes.
Animals are incredible

Animals are incredible