[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
stuffwehate

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 19485)
Message
File  []
close
RayBanAviator[1].jpg
194851948519485
>> No. 19485 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 8:35 am
19485 spacer
I really fucking hate sunburn. My nose is all fucking liquidy now.
Expand all images.
>> No. 19489 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 12:39 pm
19489 spacer
You only have yourself to blame for sunburn. Sun lotion is cheap and shade is free.
>> No. 19490 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 12:54 pm
19490 spacer
>>19489

Hats blud, best believe.
>> No. 19491 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 1:06 pm
19491 spacer
>>19489

Is it free? Shade comes from an object which blocks the sun. Usually you can find shade in vegetation, buildings, or PPE (parasols, hats etc).

In an urban environment, there is no vegetation which wasn't purposefully planted. Trees, bushes etc which can provide shade were planted there at cost by a charity or a local government agency. So that shade actually costs money, either taxpayer-funded or donated. If you lean towards libertarian politics, it would be hypocritical to enjoy the shade given by something funded by Big Government using money which you consider stolen from the workers. If you lean towards socialist politics, you probably consider the replacement of the Welfare State by charity action reprehensible; for example in the case of food banks you hate the increased reliance. But as well as that, should you not also hate increased reliance on charity trees? A true socialist would rather stay in the sun than demean himself with the produce of a poisoned fruit.

Buildings, as well, cost money. You can find solace in the shade of the London City Hall, for example, but that building was constructed at a cost of £43,000,000. Therefore, the shade from that building cost £43,000,000. Somebody had to pay that money for you to enjoy your shade. It certainly wasn't free for them! How about Beetham Tower in Manchester? £150,000,000. Somebody paid a substantial sum for you to enjoy the shade from this giant sun-blocker.

As for PPE, I don't even need to explain why the shade from them isn't free. Hats and parasols might not cost a lot in the long run, but they present quite a large short-term bill and they have a limited scope of use, since you can only really use them properly when it's sunny enough to be sunburned. We get that maybe a couple of weeks at the most here. So to really get value for money with your PPE, you have to go abroad. A package holiday to Spain costs roughly £400pp. Quite a hefty sum for your shade!

In conclusion, you're full of shit and wrong in every possible way. Sun lotion might be cheap, but shade is not free in this country and hasn't been for quite some time.
>> No. 19492 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 2:16 pm
19492 spacer
>>19491
Wow you actually bothered to write all that bollocks? Why? Was it important to you?
>> No. 19493 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 3:16 pm
19493 spacer
>>19492
I am not him, but I wish I was. You go, >>19491­, fucking tell 'em all.
>> No. 19494 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 3:16 pm
19494 spacer
>>19491
I'm having a hard time deciding if I'd hate you more if you wrote this earnestly or as a "joke".
>> No. 19495 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 3:28 pm
19495 spacer
>>19492

Not him, but come the fuck on m8! It was clearly intentional, over the top pedantry for the sake of comedy.

I am in no doubt you are unfamiliar with the concept of holding and defending a disingenuous position for comedic affect, but remember where you are lad.
>> No. 19496 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 3:30 pm
19496 spacer
>>19493

Exactly, if you can't have a pedantic rant on /101/ where can you?
>> No. 19499 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 4:54 pm
19499 spacer
Who closes all the fucking windows in Spring?
>> No. 19500 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 4:59 pm
19500 spacer
>>19495
>I am in no doubt you are unfamiliar with the concept of holding and defending a disingenuous position for comedic affect
Personally, I am unfamiliar with the concept of holding and defending a disingenuous position for comedic affect. I am, however, familiar with concept of holding and defending a disingenuous position for comedic effect.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 19501 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 5:28 pm
19501 spacer
>>19499
Hay fever.
>> No. 19502 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 5:28 pm
19502 spacer
>>19489
At £7.50 a bottle which is only good for 12 months before the UVA/UVB protection can't be guaranteed, I don't find it bloody cheap at all. How much of that bottle will you ever use in the [unlikely] maximum 3 months of summer? Half, at a push, if you're reapplying every 2 hours as you should and spending at least 6 hours a day outside. It's bollocks.
>> No. 19503 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 5:29 pm
19503 spacer
>>19502
You're getting bent over, mate, get thee to Tesco.
>> No. 19507 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 6:04 pm
19507 spacer

Riemann-P20[1].jpg
195071950719507
Get some of this shit. It'll set you back some but it works all day, it's waterproof and it's the dogs bollocks when it comes to sunproofing.

>>19491
When I was doing my BA I was going to do an essay on 'shade in ancient cities' along these lines. Shade was pretty important in them days, such as the ones put up by sailors over amphitheatres (or withheld from naughty crowds).
>> No. 19508 Anonymous
28th May 2015
Thursday 7:47 pm
19508 spacer
>>19491
I actually really liked this post.
>> No. 19516 Anonymous
29th May 2015
Friday 12:08 pm
19516 spacer
>>19507
I don't mind having to reapply sun block at all, it's mostly that all sun blocks (including P20) like most cosmetic products aren't guaranteed after 12M - there's a little symbol on the back of all these things which tells you how long you can expect them to be good for. When it comes to avoiding cancer I'm very militant so I wouldn't trust an out of date bottle of sun block. It must degrade over time.
>> No. 19518 Anonymous
29th May 2015
Friday 1:31 pm
19518 spacer
>>19516
>most cosmetic products aren't guaranteed after 12M

Balls, the bottle of P20 I've got has lasted over 2 years and it's still working.
>> No. 19521 Anonymous
29th May 2015
Friday 6:10 pm
19521 spacer
>>19518
>it's still working

And you know that how? Got a UV camera handy? I'm talking about the Period-After-Opening date which is marked using the open jar symbol - after this period cosmetics are considered no longer usable, and their performance isn't guaranteed.
>> No. 19522 Anonymous
29th May 2015
Friday 6:18 pm
19522 spacer
>>19521
Well I used it when iI was working as an archaeologist in the baking Neapolitan sunshine last summer, I'd had the bottle for around 1.5-2 years before then. Didn't get any burns.
>> No. 19524 Anonymous
29th May 2015
Friday 6:20 pm
19524 spacer
>>19522
And I'd used it the year before that when I was labouring too so it'd sat opened for over a year.
>> No. 19525 Anonymous
29th May 2015
Friday 6:46 pm
19525 spacer
>>19522
"Working" is hard to define.

For example it might have been SPF 30 when you bought it, after 2 years it could be SPF 15. It's still going to be good enough to stop you from getting burnt but the actual protection you're getting from it will be drastically lower.

I agree that the 12 months from opening is going to be highly conservative, a 2 year old bottle is still going to be far better than nothing at all.
>> No. 19526 Anonymous
29th May 2015
Friday 7:15 pm
19526 spacer
>>19525
Nothing at all.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password