diff --git "a/SOCKET_DATA/talkdown-pairs/val_text.txt" "b/SOCKET_DATA/talkdown-pairs/val_text.txt"
--- "a/SOCKET_DATA/talkdown-pairs/val_text.txt"
+++ "b/SOCKET_DATA/talkdown-pairs/val_text.txt"
@@ -1,650 +1,650 @@
-Thank you for that, I've not played the game, I just happen to know the comic reference. As to the down-voters, congratulations you defended a bible reference on the Internet. Your God must be proud of you. [SEP] As to the down-voters, congratulations you defended a bible reference on the Internet. Your God must be proud of you.
-Sure buddy. He just up and decided to rape someone. If he didn't put on a condom, why did they continue to have sex with him? Could they not tell? This is so ridiculous that it's sad. This is just a trumped up charge to lock him up because of the leaks. Edit: forgot that r/politics is infested with CTR idiots pushing an agenda. Assange = bad [SEP] If he didn't put on a condom, why did they continue to have sex with him? Could they not tell?
-because the people perpetrating war were not these victims of it. If it was mustard gas or chemicals? yes. If it's killing families or razing crops? yes. Men aren't really raped as a war prize, or used as "relief" for soldiers. Not to say there aren't, of course, but the epidemic isn't there and while people fight for them to be recognized, it's other men that need to, and therein lies the problem. They only just began recognizing victims of this in Korea, China and Japan. Meanwhile, in the US, women soldiers who try to report being assaulted or harassed while on active duty aren't even taken seriously, and me bringing it up here on reddit will be shouted down..... and people wonder why it wasn't a priority until now. These are facts, they aren't my "feminist opinion", yet it will be treated as such, and that's part of the problem. [SEP] Not to say there aren't, of course, but the epidemic isn't there and while people fight for them to be recognized, it's other men that need to, and therein lies the problem.
-I agree. Now is not the time for us to meekly remain quiet as a show of unity. Obama and the neoliberals are doing real fucking damage, and they need to be called out. If that is off-putting to you, then you're not paying enough attention. Wake the fuck up. [SEP] Wake the fuck up.
-> we have to pay microtransactions on top of our initial buy Oh shit someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy cosmetics!? You need to be calling the cops right now, dude. Seriously. I'm scared for your life. Let me know if you're okay. [SEP] Oh shit someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy cosmetics!? You need to be calling the cops right now, dude. Seriously. I'm scared for your life. Let me know if you're okay.
-I can tell you are new to this but there is a reason the soft sciences and studies like this are laughed at in the hard sciences. I'll take a large coffee while you are here. [SEP] I'll take a large coffee while you are here.
-If I offer you a beer, and you refuse because you only drink fancy shit, you're a jerk. If you said something like that to me I probably wouldn't invite you over anymore [SEP] If I offer you a beer, and you refuse because you only drink fancy shit, you're a jerk.
-> I do like to find and make note of instances of irony when I encounter them. You must be fun at parties. Lol again. It's more that I can't be bothered talking to you mate, you are still not getting it. You can keep replying with nonsense if you like, but I do not wish to be a part of whatever grumpiness you wish to heap upon yourself this fine day. [SEP] Lol again. It's more that I can't be bothered talking to you mate, you are still not getting it.
-lmao, funny story. I was going to explain why I talked about before wow, but I assumed you were smart enough to understand. Sorry about that. High-elves are part of the Alliance's faction identity since before wow. Which means before and during wow. They just didn't magically disappear from the lore on november 23 of 2004... As of wow today, Pandaren and Elves are both, in both factions. By themselves as races, they don't have anything to do with faction identity. Only their subgroups do. You have the Huojin versus the Tushui, the Night Elves of Darnassus versus the Nightfallen and the Blood elves versus the High-elves. So if I talked about the past, it's because it's relevant today. Blood Elves of Silver Moon are part of Horde's identity now, but as a race they are not, because they've always been High-elves in the alliance. I mean, where the hell do you think the Silver Covenant comes from? [SEP] Blood Elves of Silver Moon are part of Horde's identity now, but as a race they are not
->Your widespread stereotyping of subs frequented by thousands of people an hour is shocking. You really can't see how /r/politics is biased in favor of Hillary and against Trump? You really can't see how /r/TwoXChromosomes is in favor of women's issues and against men's issues? >I am subbed to r/aww. Do I hate babies? Do you comment and upvote on /r/aww, or just subscribe? Because the comments that get upvotes are pro animals and the comments that get downvotes are pro babies. Your argument is essentially "there are people who visit these subs but don't contribute in any way and they clearly don't conform to the hive mind." That's a lofty assertion. >It's bizarre that you think you're somehow the authority on so many people that you've never met. What are you talking about? It's pure math. Just a pattern of comments, upvotes, submissions, etc. that all conclusively point to a certain (and heavy) bias in the subs mentioned. The concept of a hive mind is bizarre to you? You innocent little thing. >And while I appreciate your attempting a more civil tone, frankly I don't care whether or not you respect me. I am 'playing nice' with bot because he deserves my respect. If he did before, I wouldn't have had to intervene. Learn from your mistakes and don't make them again. [SEP] The concept of a hive mind is bizarre to you? You innocent little thing.
-You must have missed my comment where I said each type would have to be requested individually AND have an artist volunteer to draw it. I don't see a huge number of people asking for what I'm asking nor do I see a whole lot of artists here. I don't imagine they will get a whole lot of submissions at once, any more than for the other stuff anyway. Besides, are you saying that they should avoid religious headgear entirely just because it may cause "clutter"? Your excuse is clutter? Seriously? [SEP] You must have missed my comment where I said each type would have to be requested individually AND have an artist volunteer to draw it.
-You can't compare hitscan in this game to hitscan in CS, you should know that. They are two very different games in their shooting, movement and TTK. If you can't grasp it I can give you a rundown: In CS you need a lot lower time to kill someone than in tribes. A shitload even. The aiming is also mostly horizontal. You simply can't dismiss this. This means that for aiming to become actually hard, they've had to implement spread, but they've done this in a genius way - spread patterns. It's not random as in many other games, you can learn the pattern and control it. In tribes we have movement and aiming vertically as well, and a higher TTK - this means you have to keep a constant track of your target. Spread is dumb here, it means you'll miss shots you should've hit and hit where you should've missed. ¨ Also, your post below in response to Lester is silly, did you read his post? You just skimmed it, right? Go read it again. [SEP] In tribes we have movement and aiming vertically as well
->I think a men's center would include any issues people who are men happen to be having at the time that they want to discuss in a male-specific setting. Honestly, if it were limited to issues that aren't intersectional, you would probably end up with a SAWCSM center I agree. I just don't think intersectionality should be the focus, since that excludes people who fit in or identify with normalized groups. >and then there might be good reason to object to the use of limited University funds to create a space for a group that already has exclusive or near-exclusive access to a great number of privileged spaces. This is the part I don't like. I don't agree that straight white males, as individuals, have a greater access to university functions or are better off in a university setting than their peers. What clubs or classes are there that only accept SAWCSMs? How does the fact that some SAWCSMs might be outgoing and socially involved help SAWCSMs who aren't? What is your point? >Even without considering that objection, there are a lot of questions about whether (at college age) there would really be much to talk about that's male-specific and not intersectional and can't be discussed in traditional male-dominated spaces like, yeah, a sports bar or LAN party. "There are a lot of questions whether there would really be much to talk about that's female-specifc and not intersectional and can't be discussed in traditional female-dominated spaces, like, yeah, a nail salon or a slumber party." Do you not see how your logic can be used both ways? >The above two paragraphs are valid only if you accept that SAWCSM is a privileged class in most of America, at least at typical university student age. If you reject that, that's your right, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to dissect SRS perspectives on this particular issue if you reject male privilege entirely even where it concerns ONLY males who are also middle income or above, white, able-bodied, and cisgender. I'm not rejecting SAWCSM as a privileged class, I'm rejecting SRS's erroneous and anti-intellectual usage of the ideas of class privilege. To my knowledge, their sole usefulness is as generalizations with which to examine society at large, and they're not supposed to be used to cast judgement on individuals or small groups of people (like a university class). [SEP] I agree. I just don't think intersectionality should be the focus, since that excludes people who fit in or identify with normalized groups.
-Ummm, millionaire wife goes on a rant about how they contribute more in taxes, and her sacrifices. She is a failed D list actress who married a rich guy 20 years her senior a little over two months ago. She doesn't contribute shit. He earns, she spends. He greatest accomplishment in life is marrying a rich guy. [SEP] She doesn't contribute shit. He earns, she spends. He greatest accomplishment in life is marrying a rich guy.
-Sudafed is still Sudafed. It looks like the Sudafed brand sells cold medications that don't contain pseudoephedrine, but there are still multiple medications sold by the brand that contain pseudoephedrine. x In Indiana, there are a bunch of laws restricting pseudoephedrine sale to abate meth produciton, but you do NOT need a prescription for it. x maybe your confusion comes from the fact that it is stored behind the counter, despite being an over the counter medicine. The reason is just that pharmacists have to be sure to limit the ammout an individual can buy. [SEP] maybe your confusion comes
-> You suggested a mod loader that was more restrictive. It has to be to make it "safer." You agreed that Squad would not support both loaders, which would lead to one being chosen over the other; which one would that be? You have agreed that the more restrictive loader wouldn't support all mods, kill off mods in the process. I don't see why killing off mods doesn't count as "breaking" things or is not "harmful." Or do they not count if you can say that mod installation has been dumbed down sufficiently. What I've suggested, and into what it could be refined is a different thing. I've agreed that there is a chance, that Squad, if ever took this into consideration, MAY break mods. And I too don't want that. Also, I agree that what I said may be restrictive, that's why I asked for discussion and refinement. What I propose is simple, I've coded (Albeit generic) system that can handle it. Basically, in KSP this could work that 'protected' mods would be set up correctly, THEN 'old methods' could be applied. No flexibility lost. Would that mean another layer for modders to work on? Yes. Would this help a lot of new players? Most likely, yes. And this is the main purpose of everything I wrote here, is it viable? Would it help? > You're working in part configs, but you understand the issues (what issues?) with plugins? Also, [citation needed] on CKAN fixing things. There was one mod, I can't really remember. It had very weak config patch in mm. I've fixed it, for myself only. I really don't keep a list of broken things ;) By CKAN 'fixing' things I meant dependency and conflict handling, as explained before. > Every single scheme proposed does the same thing; sacrifice modders for the sake of users. What happens when you've pissed off the modders; who creates for the users then? A little, yes. Ferram, I respect what you did, I use your mod and I think it's amazing. But I can see, on the example of few my friends, even IT specialists, that they bounced off because of mods. They could fix it, but they had little time to spare. I've never pursued programmer path, but even with the projects I wrote, I understood, that I am not writing for myself, but for users. That's why I use apple as a example so many times, they get it right. It's frustrating for power users, but vast majority enjoy simplicity. And here's the catch. I want to marry these two things. Simple, 'walled' system AND power of the existing tools I don't want to fight Ferram, I want to discuss a possibility of easing the use of mods which could be easily implemented by Squad. So don't take my words as an offense, because I am really grateful for your and other modders work. I never intended for yours work to be nulled. [SEP] That's why I use apple as a example so many times, they get it right. It's frustrating for power users, but vast majority enjoy simplicity. And here's the catch. I want to marry these two things. Simple, 'walled' system AND power of the existing tools
->sexists rarely believe they're sexist Ok, yeah, while this may be true it's still a faulty comparison. The entire feminist movement isn't down for misandry — like any movement, there are some extremists and to imply that those people are the "average" "feminist" is not only damaging to the feminist movement but also an act of bad faith. Also Animal Farm is not a good example of anything considering it's prose and like.... not fact [SEP] — like any movement, there are some extremists
-> I have no idea what your definition of weak or strong AI is so this is incredibly difficult to follow. These are standard terms in the field you say you intend to get a MSc in. They have their own Wikipedia pages. These are the first results on Google for "weak AI" and "strong AI": http http > my question was clearly asking about the theoretical prospects The theoretical properties of strong AI are not worth discussing without defining their implementation in a way that is computable. I was being completely serious when I said its provable that basic formal methods in strong AI, the sort that use provable algorithms where heuristics would do, exceed the computational capability of the entire universe for modest problem sizes even if only one Planck entropy was generated per operation. I was also being completely serious when I said that arbitrarily large quantum computers run into the same limitations, despite (in the best circumstances having) exponential advantages over classical computers. Go look at the graph of exp(x)/Gamma(x) and see how soon combinatorial growth outpaces geometric growth. Evaluate x at 10, 100, and 1000. (to be clear, that ~10^-2100 represents how the advantage a (non-existant!) quantum computer gains you scales against the formal approach) You are just playing at being a philosopher if you willfully ignore these problems and start fantasizing about what it would be like to solve AGI. You would literally need a Zeno machine to start solving these problems. The only way to get around this is to accept that you need to reason robustly about uncertainty, admitting that you might hold false/incomplete information, and once you start doing that it is not long before you start trying to optimize over a prior. > developing the methods to match human ability They can already outperform us. Have you ever balanced a power grid? They are better at classifying images than us now, too (kind of). Look at ImageNet and ILSVRC. There is also mounting evidence that they will be better able to drive better than us (under good enough conditions). My point was that you dismissing something because it was of a limited domain is... insane. Physics isn't solved. We will both be dead before it is. We very well may never know what dark matter is. Worse, only a handful of exactly solvable problems exist in quantum mechanics; most of them do not have solutions but permit approximations. That hasn't stopped the transistor or the space program. If you were a physicist would you abandon experiment and work all your life (and let us be sure on this: fruitlessly) to build a new unified formulation of all of physics that was perfect and allowed everything to be solved explicitly? > its fully reasonable for me to ask if we could develop systems with current methods that could for example learn linear algebra from a book. Actually it is really naive. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of not only the state of AI research, but also the direction and purpose of the field as well as the methods in which this is carried out. > literature Modern Artificial Intelligence Probabilistic Robotics Computer Vision: Models Learning and Inference Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications Clever Algorithms: Nature-Inspired Programming Recipes Pattern Recognition & Machine Learning Andrew Ng's online Stanford class G. Hinton's Coursera class The FastSLAM paper & its follow ups Again, you can find a university who will let you play around with Prolog and give you a degree. But I challenge you to understand that FastSLAM paper, and consider how big of a deal it was to factor that covariance matrix. The old approach "only" had polynomial scaling anyways and was already a series of statistical approximations... The closest thing to what you are asking about going on in serious contemporary research is in simulation of a few thousand synapses at a time. (Surprise! It's all statistics.) [SEP] These are standard terms in the field you say you intend to get a MSc in. They have their own Wikipedia pages. These are the first results on Google for "weak AI" and "strong AI":
-I think you are too young and don't understand that those over 40 are generally very anti socialism. Those attacks of socialism on Obama...most people knew that wasn't true. It's like calling Trump 'hitler'. But Bernie is indeed a socialist and those attacks would stick. And BTW, how can you think the attacks on Obama as a socialist didn't really hurt him? He had very low approval numbers throughout much of his 8 years....especially early on when he tried pushing obamacare and the 'socialist' label was sticking and working. This is why I can stand taking poltics on Reddit...you guys are very uninformed and try to push a narrative rather than talk about actual facts [SEP] generally very anti socialism
-In academia that line is blurred all the time, and engineers and scientists freely cross back and forth as the development of new tools requires fundamental knowledge we don't yet have, or as difficult fundamental questions require new tools to answer. Your condescension about so-called "engineering departments" where so-called "engineers" actually do science is amusing, though. It feels as though you haven't spent much time in academic science labs, and no time in academic engineering labs. [SEP] Your condescension
-Is presented with facts > yyy you're just emotional! Whatever you say mate. Saying the same thing back to me doesn't change anything though little guy. Nowhere did I deny that Trump is comrade in chief. Too bad he didn't get as many votes as Hillary Clinton though. He'll always have that hanging over his head. [SEP] Saying the same thing back to me doesn't change anything though little guy.
-I even shy away from terms like น้อง because even though they're correct linguistically, they indicate position in a social hierarchy which foreigners are outside of. I still use the respectful terms for older individuals but usually just use people's names that are younger than me. I feel like am in an interesting and sometimes awkward position. I'm quarter Thai and have many family members here in Thailand that I interact with and don't always get all the nuances right like when and who to wai and how long/deep, etc... but it seems expected that I still try and explicit feedback isn't given when I do things right or wrong so I have to just by reactions and ask those I'm closer with later on about it. [SEP] even though they're correct linguistically, they indicate position in a social hierarchy which foreigners are outside of
-> I think the concept can be gender neutral. Maybe it can, but it isn't. It isn't used as a gender-neutral concept and I don't think it's a term worth salvaging. > Friendzoning to me is the act of one person using another's one-sided feelings to their advantage. But it's not how ~~you described it~~ it was described. ~~You described it~~ It was described as a woman abusing the feelings of a man. > I think it started out with people confusing innocents with the first scenario, and now it has taken a life of its own. Could you clarify? I'm not really sure what you mean. Edit: Just saw that you are not the person I was originally replying to. Sorry. [SEP] Maybe it can, but it isn't. It isn't used as a gender-neutral concept and I don't think it's a term worth salvaging.
-Even Wayne Chrebet had a better career than Josh McCown has, and he was a fan favorite who made some clutch catches (on some very good Jets teams for a while) his entire career. Not for 8 games during a 3-13 season. I get it, the tough scrappy underdog types are always great to root for. McCown was a top prospect that never panned out early, then eventually became a solid backup QB late in his career. I'm all for him being a fan favorite considering the alternatives, and having Manziel as his competition at QB made him an even more likable guy on a personal level this year. Saying he's your favorite brown ever is just odd though given how many great players and great guys have played for the franchise that helped us win far more meaningful games. [SEP] Saying he's your favorite brown ever is just odd though given how many great players and great guys have played for the franchise that helped us win far more meaningful games.
+Thank you for that, I've not played the game, I just happen to know the comic reference. [SEP] As to the down-voters, congratulations you defended a bible reference on the Internet. Your God must be proud of you.
+Sure buddy. He just up and decided to rape someone. This is so ridiculous that it's sad. This is just a trumped up charge to lock him up because of the leaks. Edit: forgot that r/politics is infested with CTR idiots pushing an agenda. Assange = bad [SEP] If he didn't put on a condom, why did they continue to have sex with him? Could they not tell?
+because the people perpetrating war were not these victims of it. If it was mustard gas or chemicals? yes. If it's killing families or razing crops? yes. Men aren't really raped as a war prize, or used as "relief" for soldiers. They only just began recognizing victims of this in Korea, China and Japan. Meanwhile, in the US, women soldiers who try to report being assaulted or harassed while on active duty aren't even taken seriously, and me bringing it up here on reddit will be shouted down..... and people wonder why it wasn't a priority until now. These are facts, they aren't my "feminist opinion", yet it will be treated as such, and that's part of the problem. [SEP] Not to say there aren't, of course, but the epidemic isn't there and while people fight for them to be recognized, it's other men that need to, and therein lies the problem.
+I agree. Now is not the time for us to meekly remain quiet as a show of unity. Obama and the neoliberals are doing real fucking damage, and they need to be called out. If that is off-putting to you, then you're not paying enough attention. [SEP] Wake the fuck up.
+> we have to pay microtransactions on top of our initial buy [SEP] Oh shit someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy cosmetics!? You need to be calling the cops right now, dude. Seriously. I'm scared for your life. Let me know if you're okay.
+I can tell you are new to this but there is a reason the soft sciences and studies like this are laughed at in the hard sciences. [SEP] I'll take a large coffee while you are here.
+If you said something like that to me I probably wouldn't invite you over anymore [SEP] If I offer you a beer, and you refuse because you only drink fancy shit, you're a jerk.
+> I do like to find and make note of instances of irony when I encounter them. You must be fun at parties. You can keep replying with nonsense if you like, but I do not wish to be a part of whatever grumpiness you wish to heap upon yourself this fine day. [SEP] Lol again. It's more that I can't be bothered talking to you mate, you are still not getting it.
+lmao, funny story. I was going to explain why I talked about before wow, but I assumed you were smart enough to understand. Sorry about that. High-elves are part of the Alliance's faction identity since before wow. Which means before and during wow. They just didn't magically disappear from the lore on november 23 of 2004... As of wow today, Pandaren and Elves are both, in both factions. By themselves as races, they don't have anything to do with faction identity. Only their subgroups do. You have the Huojin versus the Tushui, the Night Elves of Darnassus versus the Nightfallen and the Blood elves versus the High-elves. So if I talked about the past, it's because it's relevant today. , because they've always been High-elves in the alliance. I mean, where the hell do you think the Silver Covenant comes from? [SEP] Blood Elves of Silver Moon are part of Horde's identity now, but as a race they are not
+>Your widespread stereotyping of subs frequented by thousands of people an hour is shocking. You really can't see how /r/politics is biased in favor of Hillary and against Trump? You really can't see how /r/TwoXChromosomes is in favor of women's issues and against men's issues? >I am subbed to r/aww. Do I hate babies? Do you comment and upvote on /r/aww, or just subscribe? Because the comments that get upvotes are pro animals and the comments that get downvotes are pro babies. Your argument is essentially "there are people who visit these subs but don't contribute in any way and they clearly don't conform to the hive mind." That's a lofty assertion. >It's bizarre that you think you're somehow the authority on so many people that you've never met. What are you talking about? It's pure math. Just a pattern of comments, upvotes, submissions, etc. that all conclusively point to a certain (and heavy) bias in the subs mentioned. >And while I appreciate your attempting a more civil tone, frankly I don't care whether or not you respect me. I am 'playing nice' with bot because he deserves my respect. If he did before, I wouldn't have had to intervene. Learn from your mistakes and don't make them again. [SEP] The concept of a hive mind is bizarre to you? You innocent little thing.
+I don't see a huge number of people asking for what I'm asking nor do I see a whole lot of artists here. I don't imagine they will get a whole lot of submissions at once, any more than for the other stuff anyway. Besides, are you saying that they should avoid religious headgear entirely just because it may cause "clutter"? Your excuse is clutter? Seriously? [SEP] You must have missed my comment where I said each type would have to be requested individually AND have an artist volunteer to draw it.
+You can't compare hitscan in this game to hitscan in CS, you should know that. They are two very different games in their shooting, movement and TTK. If you can't grasp it I can give you a rundown: In CS you need a lot lower time to kill someone than in tribes. A shitload even. The aiming is also mostly horizontal. You simply can't dismiss this. This means that for aiming to become actually hard, they've had to implement spread, but they've done this in a genius way - spread patterns. It's not random as in many other games, you can learn the pattern and control it. , and a higher TTK - this means you have to keep a constant track of your target. Spread is dumb here, it means you'll miss shots you should've hit and hit where you should've missed. ¨ Also, your post below in response to Lester is silly, did you read his post? You just skimmed it, right? Go read it again. [SEP] In tribes we have movement and aiming vertically as well
+>I think a men's center would include any issues people who are men happen to be having at the time that they want to discuss in a male-specific setting. Honestly, if it were limited to issues that aren't intersectional, you would probably end up with a SAWCSM center >and then there might be good reason to object to the use of limited University funds to create a space for a group that already has exclusive or near-exclusive access to a great number of privileged spaces. This is the part I don't like. I don't agree that straight white males, as individuals, have a greater access to university functions or are better off in a university setting than their peers. What clubs or classes are there that only accept SAWCSMs? How does the fact that some SAWCSMs might be outgoing and socially involved help SAWCSMs who aren't? What is your point? >Even without considering that objection, there are a lot of questions about whether (at college age) there would really be much to talk about that's male-specific and not intersectional and can't be discussed in traditional male-dominated spaces like, yeah, a sports bar or LAN party. "There are a lot of questions whether there would really be much to talk about that's female-specifc and not intersectional and can't be discussed in traditional female-dominated spaces, like, yeah, a nail salon or a slumber party." Do you not see how your logic can be used both ways? >The above two paragraphs are valid only if you accept that SAWCSM is a privileged class in most of America, at least at typical university student age. If you reject that, that's your right, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to dissect SRS perspectives on this particular issue if you reject male privilege entirely even where it concerns ONLY males who are also middle income or above, white, able-bodied, and cisgender. I'm not rejecting SAWCSM as a privileged class, I'm rejecting SRS's erroneous and anti-intellectual usage of the ideas of class privilege. To my knowledge, their sole usefulness is as generalizations with which to examine society at large, and they're not supposed to be used to cast judgement on individuals or small groups of people (like a university class). [SEP] I agree. I just don't think intersectionality should be the focus, since that excludes people who fit in or identify with normalized groups.
+Ummm, millionaire wife goes on a rant about how they contribute more in taxes, and her sacrifices. She is a failed D list actress who married a rich guy 20 years her senior a little over two months ago. [SEP] She doesn't contribute shit. He earns, she spends. He greatest accomplishment in life is marrying a rich guy.
+Sudafed is still Sudafed. It looks like the Sudafed brand sells cold medications that don't contain pseudoephedrine, but there are still multiple medications sold by the brand that contain pseudoephedrine. x In Indiana, there are a bunch of laws restricting pseudoephedrine sale to abate meth produciton, but you do NOT need a prescription for it. x from the fact that it is stored behind the counter, despite being an over the counter medicine. The reason is just that pharmacists have to be sure to limit the ammout an individual can buy. [SEP] maybe your confusion comes
+> You suggested a mod loader that was more restrictive. It has to be to make it "safer." You agreed that Squad would not support both loaders, which would lead to one being chosen over the other; which one would that be? You have agreed that the more restrictive loader wouldn't support all mods, kill off mods in the process. I don't see why killing off mods doesn't count as "breaking" things or is not "harmful." Or do they not count if you can say that mod installation has been dumbed down sufficiently. What I've suggested, and into what it could be refined is a different thing. I've agreed that there is a chance, that Squad, if ever took this into consideration, MAY break mods. And I too don't want that. Also, I agree that what I said may be restrictive, that's why I asked for discussion and refinement. What I propose is simple, I've coded (Albeit generic) system that can handle it. Basically, in KSP this could work that 'protected' mods would be set up correctly, THEN 'old methods' could be applied. No flexibility lost. Would that mean another layer for modders to work on? Yes. Would this help a lot of new players? Most likely, yes. And this is the main purpose of everything I wrote here, is it viable? Would it help? > You're working in part configs, but you understand the issues (what issues?) with plugins? Also, [citation needed] on CKAN fixing things. There was one mod, I can't really remember. It had very weak config patch in mm. I've fixed it, for myself only. I really don't keep a list of broken things ;) By CKAN 'fixing' things I meant dependency and conflict handling, as explained before. > Every single scheme proposed does the same thing; sacrifice modders for the sake of users. What happens when you've pissed off the modders; who creates for the users then? A little, yes. Ferram, I respect what you did, I use your mod and I think it's amazing. But I can see, on the example of few my friends, even IT specialists, that they bounced off because of mods. They could fix it, but they had little time to spare. I've never pursued programmer path, but even with the projects I wrote, I understood, that I am not writing for myself, but for users. I don't want to fight Ferram, I want to discuss a possibility of easing the use of mods which could be easily implemented by Squad. So don't take my words as an offense, because I am really grateful for your and other modders work. I never intended for yours work to be nulled. [SEP] That's why I use apple as a example so many times, they get it right. It's frustrating for power users, but vast majority enjoy simplicity. And here's the catch. I want to marry these two things. Simple, 'walled' system AND power of the existing tools
+>sexists rarely believe they're sexist Ok, yeah, while this may be true it's still a faulty comparison. The entire feminist movement isn't down for misandry and to imply that those people are the "average" "feminist" is not only damaging to the feminist movement but also an act of bad faith. Also Animal Farm is not a good example of anything considering it's prose and like.... not fact [SEP] — like any movement, there are some extremists
+> I have no idea what your definition of weak or strong AI is so this is incredibly difficult to follow. http http > my question was clearly asking about the theoretical prospects The theoretical properties of strong AI are not worth discussing without defining their implementation in a way that is computable. I was being completely serious when I said its provable that basic formal methods in strong AI, the sort that use provable algorithms where heuristics would do, exceed the computational capability of the entire universe for modest problem sizes even if only one Planck entropy was generated per operation. I was also being completely serious when I said that arbitrarily large quantum computers run into the same limitations, despite (in the best circumstances having) exponential advantages over classical computers. Go look at the graph of exp(x)/Gamma(x) and see how soon combinatorial growth outpaces geometric growth. Evaluate x at 10, 100, and 1000. (to be clear, that ~10^-2100 represents how the advantage a (non-existant!) quantum computer gains you scales against the formal approach) You are just playing at being a philosopher if you willfully ignore these problems and start fantasizing about what it would be like to solve AGI. You would literally need a Zeno machine to start solving these problems. The only way to get around this is to accept that you need to reason robustly about uncertainty, admitting that you might hold false/incomplete information, and once you start doing that it is not long before you start trying to optimize over a prior. > developing the methods to match human ability They can already outperform us. Have you ever balanced a power grid? They are better at classifying images than us now, too (kind of). Look at ImageNet and ILSVRC. There is also mounting evidence that they will be better able to drive better than us (under good enough conditions). My point was that you dismissing something because it was of a limited domain is... insane. Physics isn't solved. We will both be dead before it is. We very well may never know what dark matter is. Worse, only a handful of exactly solvable problems exist in quantum mechanics; most of them do not have solutions but permit approximations. That hasn't stopped the transistor or the space program. If you were a physicist would you abandon experiment and work all your life (and let us be sure on this: fruitlessly) to build a new unified formulation of all of physics that was perfect and allowed everything to be solved explicitly? > its fully reasonable for me to ask if we could develop systems with current methods that could for example learn linear algebra from a book. Actually it is really naive. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of not only the state of AI research, but also the direction and purpose of the field as well as the methods in which this is carried out. > literature Modern Artificial Intelligence Probabilistic Robotics Computer Vision: Models Learning and Inference Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications Clever Algorithms: Nature-Inspired Programming Recipes Pattern Recognition & Machine Learning Andrew Ng's online Stanford class G. Hinton's Coursera class The FastSLAM paper & its follow ups Again, you can find a university who will let you play around with Prolog and give you a degree. But I challenge you to understand that FastSLAM paper, and consider how big of a deal it was to factor that covariance matrix. The old approach "only" had polynomial scaling anyways and was already a series of statistical approximations... The closest thing to what you are asking about going on in serious contemporary research is in simulation of a few thousand synapses at a time. (Surprise! It's all statistics.) [SEP] These are standard terms in the field you say you intend to get a MSc in. They have their own Wikipedia pages. These are the first results on Google for "weak AI" and "strong AI":
+I think you are too young and don't understand that those over 40 are . Those attacks of socialism on Obama...most people knew that wasn't true. It's like calling Trump 'hitler'. But Bernie is indeed a socialist and those attacks would stick. And BTW, how can you think the attacks on Obama as a socialist didn't really hurt him? He had very low approval numbers throughout much of his 8 years....especially early on when he tried pushing obamacare and the 'socialist' label was sticking and working. This is why I can stand taking poltics on Reddit...you guys are very uninformed and try to push a narrative rather than talk about actual facts [SEP] generally very anti socialism
+In academia that line is blurred all the time, and engineers and scientists freely cross back and forth as the development of new tools requires fundamental knowledge we don't yet have, or as difficult fundamental questions require new tools to answer. about so-called "engineering departments" where so-called "engineers" actually do science is amusing, though. It feels as though you haven't spent much time in academic science labs, and no time in academic engineering labs. [SEP] Your condescension
+Is presented with facts > yyy you're just emotional! Whatever you say mate. Nowhere did I deny that Trump is comrade in chief. Too bad he didn't get as many votes as Hillary Clinton though. He'll always have that hanging over his head. [SEP] Saying the same thing back to me doesn't change anything though little guy.
+I even shy away from terms like น้อง because . I still use the respectful terms for older individuals but usually just use people's names that are younger than me. I feel like am in an interesting and sometimes awkward position. I'm quarter Thai and have many family members here in Thailand that I interact with and don't always get all the nuances right like when and who to wai and how long/deep, etc... but it seems expected that I still try and explicit feedback isn't given when I do things right or wrong so I have to just by reactions and ask those I'm closer with later on about it. [SEP] even though they're correct linguistically, they indicate position in a social hierarchy which foreigners are outside of
+> I think the concept can be gender neutral. > Friendzoning to me is the act of one person using another's one-sided feelings to their advantage. But it's not how ~~you described it~~ it was described. ~~You described it~~ It was described as a woman abusing the feelings of a man. > I think it started out with people confusing innocents with the first scenario, and now it has taken a life of its own. Could you clarify? I'm not really sure what you mean. Edit: Just saw that you are not the person I was originally replying to. Sorry. [SEP] Maybe it can, but it isn't. It isn't used as a gender-neutral concept and I don't think it's a term worth salvaging.
+Even Wayne Chrebet had a better career than Josh McCown has, and he was a fan favorite who made some clutch catches (on some very good Jets teams for a while) his entire career. Not for 8 games during a 3-13 season. I get it, the tough scrappy underdog types are always great to root for. McCown was a top prospect that never panned out early, then eventually became a solid backup QB late in his career. I'm all for him being a fan favorite considering the alternatives, and having Manziel as his competition at QB made him an even more likable guy on a personal level this year. [SEP] Saying he's your favorite brown ever is just odd though given how many great players and great guys have played for the franchise that helped us win far more meaningful games.
 Here's the thing, your comment was "OP is responsible for the content". No, they are not. They didn't write the article. They didn't write the title. The only thing they are responsible for is posting it on Reddit (which you've mentioned). It's not their fault you find it a shit article. They didn't force you to read anything. You blame OP for everything wrong with the article, which for some reason escapes me and many others in this thread. As for digging through my post history (which, frankly I never understand why anyone does that kind of thing and is pretty creepy to be honest), some of those comments are down right illogical (let's tell women what they can and can't wear to free them from the religion which tells them what they can and can't wear!). For my other comment, sorry but when you write something like "I don't want to go to war over stolen nuclear warheads" you deserve the harshest criticism. You decided to be an asshole right off the bat to me, when I didn't understand your logic. I decided to be an asshole right off the bat to someone who had the most flawed logic possible. [SEP] ...some of those comments are down right illogical (let's tell women what they can and can't wear to free them from the religion which tells them what they can and can't wear!).
-Your last criticism is one that needles me somewhat, because it's one that people kept using to try and call 'sexism!' during a time when the majority of comments she was getting were sexist abuse and harassment. Endless comments about how ugly she is, what a fucking bitch cunt she is, how she's an idiot for her views on sexism in gaming, how she should get back to the kitchen and make a sandwich, or she should get beaten, and that nobody would date her because she's ugly. People editing her Wikipedia page to add childish sexual comments about her. Then, the moment she explains she's been getting this sexist abuse, everyone immediately starts screaming as if they'd been writing insightful replies to her arguments. And she definitely isn't as bad. This is not in any way like the general public throwing money at AADworkin, because Sarkeesian has no iffy and convoluted history. Her MO is open and clear to everyone who checks her YouTube page, everybody knew what they were getting when they donated, more videos of a similar style, and they will get that. [SEP] Sarkeesian has no iffy and convoluted history. Her MO is open and clear to everyone who checks her YouTube page, everybody knew what they were getting when they donated, more videos of a similar style, and they will get that.
-> Messing with an election, or Cuban missile. According to you messing with an election is worse than the threat of nuclear missiles right off our shores. Messing with our elections is infinitely worse. And it is a weird comparison: they are both bad, but one happened 55 years ago, this is happening now. Kind of a strange arguement "Trump is still a citizen, not a turncoat" not mutually exclusive. If he colluded with the russians to overturn our elections, he is worse than a turncoat and needs to sent to prison. "Who knows maybe his campaign did use foreign connections to cheat on the election. All politicians cheat it's just a question of how much and which of them get caught." Collusion with the russians to undermine our democracy is the single biggest threat we have ever had. You do not meet with the Russians. You call the FBI "Which of you would pay more for a movie if you could get one hacked by a Russian hacker." That is stealing. I certainly never have stolen anything, on line or not. It is criminal . How old are you? "He will never resign." He will have no choice. I predict within the next 6 months he will be gone. [SEP] How old are you?
-Respectfully I don't think your comment addresses the issue at all. You seem to labor under the assumption that the data should be released just because it exists. I don't think that wise at all. As much as you might wish for parents to be understanding that the data is meaningless, many of them will not understand. This would put the jobs of teachers in jeopardy just because people don't understand the data and their administrators are unwilling to support them against the tirade of angry parents or reporters who don't know what they are talking about. The only way the data should be released is with both teacher and student information redacted so overall trends can be seen, but no one person can be targeted. [SEP] As much as you might wish for parents to be understanding that the data is meaningless, many of them will not understand.
-> No it was incredibly relevant. If you bring up one example of doxxing as if it implies that AMR are constantly breaking rules and false flags are expected, I naturally wonder if you apply the same logic to other communities you apparently object to. But you don't. >> That's a really weird expectation. It's like it's not required to decry all doxxings in order to decry one doxxing. > If you decry the doxxings of one group as if they completely invalidate the entire community and everything they stand for, I expect you to apply the same reasoning to other groups you apparently object to. But you don't. Don't you find that odd? Look, I don't know what to say. You're all kinds of confused. You're attributing stuff to me that's coming from somewhere else (e.g. I've never even typed the words "false flag" in my life until just now, and I'm only vaguely familiar with the concept, but apparently you think I expect AMR to do that constantly). I feel like you're trying to slot me into a stereotype of yours. I think this might be the time to end this conversation. I think you've posted more reddit comments in the last few days as /u/StandWithLilith than I've ever posted on reddit over a year. Maybe take a break? [SEP] I think you've posted more reddit comments in the last few days as /u/StandWithLilith than I've ever posted on reddit over a year. Maybe take a break?
-Let me try to say this again. Not every woman out there is like you, so my original comment wasn't going to apply to you obviously. The fact that you guys have to automatically come in and spew out all this rage about your boyfriend is pretty hilarious to be honest. "Don't forget to duck behind cover" when you die playing Mass Effect is not advice, that's someone reminding you of common sense. My advice to that would be to leave him for someone who doesn't think you're brain dead. There's a difference between good advice and bad advice. You know what I would do for a woman who's never played Mass Effect before? Give them a basic run down of the controls and show them the things they can do for about the first 10 minutes of the game. Then they're on their own because a game like that is about learning. If someone tells you you should hide behind cover so you don't die while being 20 hours into the game, that's dumb on their part. >If she likes it, great, but I think assuming that she needs everything explained to her like she's five is really patronizing. In fact it's literally infantilization. So everyone who posts on /r/explainlikeimfive are babies and should be treated as such? I take something that can be extremely complex and very intricate and size it down in a much more manageable and accessible way. I don't understand why you're throwing out things like "infantilization" and saying that the way I ease someone into a game with a giant pile of information is essentially me being patronizing. >They are getting frustrated with my inability to play perfectly, so they impatiently try to fix it Again, another person that got instantly on the defensive because YOUR boyfriend lacks the tact to properly teach someone and be helpful. So again, ladies, if you have a boyfriend that's being helpful and wants to include you in his game sessions, it means he cares about you. He wants you to spend time with him. He wants you to be successful at hobby that's supposed to be fun. [SEP] So again, ladies, if you have a boyfriend that's being helpful and wants to include you in his game sessions, it means he cares about you. He wants you to spend time with him. He wants you to be successful at hobby that's supposed to be fun.
-It's my goddamn right to make fun of people who refuse to learn the basics, yet complain about crappy results, and I will continue to do so. [SEP] It's my goddamn right to make fun of people who refuse to learn the basics, yet complain about crappy results, and I will continue to do so.
+Your last criticism is one that needles me somewhat, because it's one that people kept using to try and call 'sexism!' during a time when the majority of comments she was getting were sexist abuse and harassment. Endless comments about how ugly she is, what a fucking bitch cunt she is, how she's an idiot for her views on sexism in gaming, how she should get back to the kitchen and make a sandwich, or she should get beaten, and that nobody would date her because she's ugly. People editing her Wikipedia page to add childish sexual comments about her. Then, the moment she explains she's been getting this sexist abuse, everyone immediately starts screaming as if they'd been writing insightful replies to her arguments. And she definitely isn't as bad. This is not in any way like the general public throwing money at AADworkin, because [SEP] Sarkeesian has no iffy and convoluted history. Her MO is open and clear to everyone who checks her YouTube page, everybody knew what they were getting when they donated, more videos of a similar style, and they will get that.
+> Messing with an election, or Cuban missile. According to you messing with an election is worse than the threat of nuclear missiles right off our shores. Messing with our elections is infinitely worse. And it is a weird comparison: they are both bad, but one happened 55 years ago, this is happening now. Kind of a strange arguement "Trump is still a citizen, not a turncoat" not mutually exclusive. If he colluded with the russians to overturn our elections, he is worse than a turncoat and needs to sent to prison. "Who knows maybe his campaign did use foreign connections to cheat on the election. All politicians cheat it's just a question of how much and which of them get caught." Collusion with the russians to undermine our democracy is the single biggest threat we have ever had. You do not meet with the Russians. You call the FBI "Which of you would pay more for a movie if you could get one hacked by a Russian hacker." That is stealing. I certainly never have stolen anything, on line or not. It is criminal . "He will never resign." He will have no choice. I predict within the next 6 months he will be gone. [SEP] How old are you?
+Respectfully I don't think your comment addresses the issue at all. You seem to labor under the assumption that the data should be released just because it exists. I don't think that wise at all. This would put the jobs of teachers in jeopardy just because people don't understand the data and their administrators are unwilling to support them against the tirade of angry parents or reporters who don't know what they are talking about. The only way the data should be released is with both teacher and student information redacted so overall trends can be seen, but no one person can be targeted. [SEP] As much as you might wish for parents to be understanding that the data is meaningless, many of them will not understand.
+> No it was incredibly relevant. If you bring up one example of doxxing as if it implies that AMR are constantly breaking rules and false flags are expected, I naturally wonder if you apply the same logic to other communities you apparently object to. But you don't. >> That's a really weird expectation. It's like it's not required to decry all doxxings in order to decry one doxxing. > If you decry the doxxings of one group as if they completely invalidate the entire community and everything they stand for, I expect you to apply the same reasoning to other groups you apparently object to. But you don't. Don't you find that odd? Look, I don't know what to say. You're all kinds of confused. You're attributing stuff to me that's coming from somewhere else (e.g. I've never even typed the words "false flag" in my life until just now, and I'm only vaguely familiar with the concept, but apparently you think I expect AMR to do that constantly). I feel like you're trying to slot me into a stereotype of yours. I think this might be the time to end this conversation. [SEP] I think you've posted more reddit comments in the last few days as /u/StandWithLilith than I've ever posted on reddit over a year. Maybe take a break?
+Let me try to say this again. Not every woman out there is like you, so my original comment wasn't going to apply to you obviously. The fact that you guys have to automatically come in and spew out all this rage about your boyfriend is pretty hilarious to be honest. "Don't forget to duck behind cover" when you die playing Mass Effect is not advice, that's someone reminding you of common sense. My advice to that would be to leave him for someone who doesn't think you're brain dead. There's a difference between good advice and bad advice. You know what I would do for a woman who's never played Mass Effect before? Give them a basic run down of the controls and show them the things they can do for about the first 10 minutes of the game. Then they're on their own because a game like that is about learning. If someone tells you you should hide behind cover so you don't die while being 20 hours into the game, that's dumb on their part. >If she likes it, great, but I think assuming that she needs everything explained to her like she's five is really patronizing. In fact it's literally infantilization. So everyone who posts on /r/explainlikeimfive are babies and should be treated as such? I take something that can be extremely complex and very intricate and size it down in a much more manageable and accessible way. I don't understand why you're throwing out things like "infantilization" and saying that the way I ease someone into a game with a giant pile of information is essentially me being patronizing. >They are getting frustrated with my inability to play perfectly, so they impatiently try to fix it Again, another person that got instantly on the defensive because YOUR boyfriend lacks the tact to properly teach someone and be helpful. [SEP] So again, ladies, if you have a boyfriend that's being helpful and wants to include you in his game sessions, it means he cares about you. He wants you to spend time with him. He wants you to be successful at hobby that's supposed to be fun.
+ [SEP] It's my goddamn right to make fun of people who refuse to learn the basics, yet complain about crappy results, and I will continue to do so.
 >This is a question that's bothered me for a long time now. Even on the Republican side, nobody even comes close to the level of sheer vicious hatefulness as Reddit's group of Sanders supporters. Really? Trump supporters go around calling people cucks, ffs. >Or did we simply have the misfortune of attracting every brogressive, fratboy, Socialist-Until-Empolyment, hatemoner, liar and clueless rabble-rouser on the Internet? I think it's time somebody looked into the mirror, because this is base hypocrisy. [SEP] I think it's time somebody looked into the mirror, because this is grade level hypocrisy.
-> Your problem is that you are setting the criteria too high for your expectations i think. You either want absolute proof or you disqualify everything as blind faith. > Keep an open mind, as the cliche goes , the truth maybe weirder than your wildest imagination. ;) Hey, d'you think you could try to keep the condecension to a minimum? Because you're being seriously fucking insulting here. No. I don't want "absolute proof", I. Want. EVIDENCE. Some feature of the universe that indicates that it might be a simulation. NOT speculation that "Well, simulations exist, so we could be a simulation". A feature of the universe that could indicate the reality of the hypothesis. That's not a demand for "absolute proof". If you can't tell the difference between "evidence" and "absolute proof", then you have no business discussing either. [SEP] Hey, d'you think you could try to keep the condecension to a minimum? Because you're being seriously fucking insulting here.
-Those teams didn't have a technical partnership with Ferrari, the 2016 chassis will be very similar to the Ferrari. Not to mention they will get the second best engine on the grid, and support directly from the team. You have been living under a rock if you don't think it's possible haas scores points next year. You probably though mclaren Honda was a good idea huh [SEP] You probably though mclaren Honda was a good idea huh
-It isn't a brain drain, it's climate change. Early Reddit was an environment friendly towards tech geeks who wanted something more indepth than slashdot or HN. As such, it attracted erudite geeks. Middle Reddit was an environment friendly towards thinkers and seekers who were looking for discussion beyond what was available on the archetypal PHPBBs, news outlet comment sections and, notably, Digg. As such, it attracted thinkers and seekers. Late Reddit is an environment friendly towards image macros and memes. As such, it attracts ineloquent teenagers. Something Reddit did early on, under Alexis and Steve, was curate content. They very much seeded the site with the sorts of content they wished for it to have. Once the content took over for itself, they had a nice, successful little site that reflected their interests which they sold to Conde Nast. From that point forth they grew keenly disinterested in the site and established the current culture of "hands off at all costs." You will certainly get a robust ecosystem if you do this, but it might not be what you're looking for. Australia had one of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet prior to the arrival of Aborigines. Now it has dingos and kangaroos. New Zealand had an impossibly diverse ecosystem prior to the arrival of Europeans, who brought their cats. Kiwi can't compete with cats. The American Southeast is a great environment for Kudzu. The Pacific Northwest is a great environment for English Ivy. Etc. Etc. Etc. The bottom line is that if you want an herb garden with diversity, you need to keep the mint from taking over. If you want an herb garden that takes care of itself, don't bother planting anything but mint because after a couple years it'll be the only thing left. I'm still making the same comments I used to. The difference is nobody notices anymore. Reddit has gone from a place where people said "OMFG Paul Lutus!" to a place where nobody notices when the actor in question comments on the photo taken of him. All the people you mention could be in the conversation, mixing it up to the best of their abilities, and never even be able to connect with each other because everyone's busy saying "HURR DURR KURT RUSSELL". In other words, Reddit is no longer a place that facilitates commentary beyond the basest, most immediately accessible platitudes one can regurgitate. Even if you catch something you know extremely well early early in its post life, if you don't keep it under a sentence, make it universally acceptable, and directly appeal to the wants and needs of teenaged boys no one will even notice you said anything. Might as well save the effort of writing something up. Go to /r/all. Set RES to block Imgur. Behold - you have eight posts on the front page. Six if you also block min.us and liveleak.com. Caulerpa is beautiful unless you're a reef. [SEP] Early Reddit was an environment friendly towards tech geeks who wanted something more indepth than slashdot or HN.
-It's impossible to communicate just how innocuous "puto" is in mexican society. It's profane, yes, but it's not hateful, and over time its been reduced to a swiss army knife used to describe weather, express joy or disappointment, and something friends of both genders use to refer to each other. My gay brother and my gay best friend use it all the time, and just about anyone under 40 uses it as well. In any case, outsiders will never understand and that's fine. If it were up to me, I'd change the word to something that doesn't carry so much negative weight in other cultures; instead say bobo, menso, or even just a random vowel. It's a simple fix, really, and would go a long way in bridging the gap between cultures. That said, don't interpret its usage as homphobic; if anything, and most mexicans would agree, it's crass and rude, and still needs to be addressed by the FA. [SEP] and just about anyone under 40 uses it as well.
-This is a psychology article? This story doesn't actually have anything to do with Disney other than mentioning their characters. You'd want to direct your anger at the department store who ordered these creepy mannequins. Disney sucks in much worse ways, like the way they train young girls that you aren't valuable unless you're a princess. [SEP] Disney sucks in much worse ways, like the way they train young girls that you aren't valuable unless you're a princess.
-Whatever gets you to sleep mate, I am sure you are a really productive, albeit crying, member of society. You have proven nothing, anyone can post shit online, as you said. You have proven yourself wrong, now go back to being lazy. [SEP] now go back to being lazy.
+> Your problem is that you are setting the criteria too high for your expectations i think. You either want absolute proof or you disqualify everything as blind faith. > Keep an open mind, as the cliche goes , the truth maybe weirder than your wildest imagination. ;) No. I don't want "absolute proof", I. Want. EVIDENCE. Some feature of the universe that indicates that it might be a simulation. NOT speculation that "Well, simulations exist, so we could be a simulation". A feature of the universe that could indicate the reality of the hypothesis. That's not a demand for "absolute proof". If you can't tell the difference between "evidence" and "absolute proof", then you have no business discussing either. [SEP] Hey, d'you think you could try to keep the condecension to a minimum? Because you're being seriously fucking insulting here.
+Those teams didn't have a technical partnership with Ferrari, the 2016 chassis will be very similar to the Ferrari. Not to mention they will get the second best engine on the grid, and support directly from the team. You have been living under a rock if you don't think it's possible haas scores points next year. [SEP] You probably though mclaren Honda was a good idea huh
+It isn't a brain drain, it's climate change. As such, it attracted erudite geeks. Middle Reddit was an environment friendly towards thinkers and seekers who were looking for discussion beyond what was available on the archetypal PHPBBs, news outlet comment sections and, notably, Digg. As such, it attracted thinkers and seekers. Late Reddit is an environment friendly towards image macros and memes. As such, it attracts ineloquent teenagers. Something Reddit did early on, under Alexis and Steve, was curate content. They very much seeded the site with the sorts of content they wished for it to have. Once the content took over for itself, they had a nice, successful little site that reflected their interests which they sold to Conde Nast. From that point forth they grew keenly disinterested in the site and established the current culture of "hands off at all costs." You will certainly get a robust ecosystem if you do this, but it might not be what you're looking for. Australia had one of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet prior to the arrival of Aborigines. Now it has dingos and kangaroos. New Zealand had an impossibly diverse ecosystem prior to the arrival of Europeans, who brought their cats. Kiwi can't compete with cats. The American Southeast is a great environment for Kudzu. The Pacific Northwest is a great environment for English Ivy. Etc. Etc. Etc. The bottom line is that if you want an herb garden with diversity, you need to keep the mint from taking over. If you want an herb garden that takes care of itself, don't bother planting anything but mint because after a couple years it'll be the only thing left. I'm still making the same comments I used to. The difference is nobody notices anymore. Reddit has gone from a place where people said "OMFG Paul Lutus!" to a place where nobody notices when the actor in question comments on the photo taken of him. All the people you mention could be in the conversation, mixing it up to the best of their abilities, and never even be able to connect with each other because everyone's busy saying "HURR DURR KURT RUSSELL". In other words, Reddit is no longer a place that facilitates commentary beyond the basest, most immediately accessible platitudes one can regurgitate. Even if you catch something you know extremely well early early in its post life, if you don't keep it under a sentence, make it universally acceptable, and directly appeal to the wants and needs of teenaged boys no one will even notice you said anything. Might as well save the effort of writing something up. Go to /r/all. Set RES to block Imgur. Behold - you have eight posts on the front page. Six if you also block min.us and liveleak.com. Caulerpa is beautiful unless you're a reef. [SEP] Early Reddit was an environment friendly towards tech geeks who wanted something more indepth than slashdot or HN.
+It's impossible to communicate just how innocuous "puto" is in mexican society. It's profane, yes, but it's not hateful, and over time its been reduced to a swiss army knife used to describe weather, express joy or disappointment, and something friends of both genders use to refer to each other. My gay brother and my gay best friend use it all the time, In any case, outsiders will never understand and that's fine. If it were up to me, I'd change the word to something that doesn't carry so much negative weight in other cultures; instead say bobo, menso, or even just a random vowel. It's a simple fix, really, and would go a long way in bridging the gap between cultures. That said, don't interpret its usage as homphobic; if anything, and most mexicans would agree, it's crass and rude, and still needs to be addressed by the FA. [SEP] and just about anyone under 40 uses it as well.
+This is a psychology article? This story doesn't actually have anything to do with Disney other than mentioning their characters. You'd want to direct your anger at the department store who ordered these creepy mannequins. [SEP] Disney sucks in much worse ways, like the way they train young girls that you aren't valuable unless you're a princess.
+Whatever gets you to sleep mate, I am sure you are a really productive, albeit crying, member of society. You have proven nothing, anyone can post shit online, as you said. You have proven yourself wrong, [SEP] now go back to being lazy.
 you are making iteven worse. your life corcumstances suck and you literally blame it all on women and society. that‘s beyond pathetic. if you need a companion then get one, friends dont care about your looks, at least not where i and pretty much everyone else outside of thid sub come from. most of the guys gere are also stupidly hostile and will just bark at you it‘s a fucking waste. also they literally ssmit to being of average looks, some even above and still manage to blame their failure on women(average guys do get dates easily just look outside once in. awhile) this sub is truly pathetic, it is literal aids [SEP] most of the guys here are also stupidly hostile and will just bark at you it‘s a fucking waste
-> What you think that people from Brussels wont care about Ireland or something? Maybe maybe not, they certainly won't care about it as much as someone from Ireland. > I literally do not understand this argument. I guess your just too smart to understand a pleb like me > There is no need to understand every Irish issue to deal with things like Roaming charges and freedom of movement. Yeah sure I mean like, we'll make laws for people we don't know or understand or who didn't elect us because that makes sense. Up next for Bulgaria's presidential election: a 24 year old Brazilian Janitor, a 37 year old Texan rancher and 63 year old Turkish kebab owner. [SEP] I guess your just too smart to understand a pleb like me
-> I am losing the love of my life. No, you're not. If she was really the love of your life she would not be acting as she is. Besides, you're only 19. You have no clue what those words even mean. > I don't know what to do anymore. Move on and be glad you didn't marry her. If you had, this stuff with her controlling, overbearing parents would only have been the tip of the iceberg. Always remember the most important word in dating: "Next!" [SEP] No, you're not. If she was really the love of your life she would not be acting as she is. Besides, you're only 19. You have no clue what those words even mean.
-Immigrant is such an insanely broad term that to associate it with bigotry seems kinda hilarious. The hard work and commitment it takes to move your life from Australia to New Zealand, or Iran to the US, or wherever to wherever, is a big fucking deal. If using words to identify the people who do so is bigotry, then so is calling someone a doctor or an engineer and attaching further meaning to those classifications. [SEP] Immigrant is such an insanely broad term that to associate it with bigotry seems kinda hilarious.
-By fucking, both parties are choosing the possibility of parenthood. Having an abortion, or delivering a baby, are both medical procedures with serious risks. There really isn't an even stevens equivalent when it comes to choice because the health risks aren't the same. If you're looking at conception as some type of zero sum gender game, you're probably not ready for sex. [SEP] If you're looking at conception as some type of zero sum gender game, you're probably not ready for sex.
-It is possible to care about more than one thing. But there is also such a thing as protest fatigue. At what point do you start losing people's interest at overwhelming them with things to protest? When do you prioritize? With all the daily evil going down with this administration, Whitewashing falls so low I cant count the fucks I give. Aloha was bad and not really excusable. Iron Fist was manufactured bullshit protest. As was GitS too. The manga creator had no issues with the casting. So at that point, people should shut up. [SEP] Whitewashing falls so low I cant count the fucks I give.
->Worst-case scenario is the NBN goes massively over budget... and turns into a white elephant due to technological or economic changes. Ah, a specific objection at last! Budget concerns I will grant. It may cost more than currently forecast, it may cost less. Either way, the cost will ultimately be borne out in service pricing. That's more of an issue of implementation though, not an argument against the policy itself. And it's worth noting that same risk applies to any alternate proposal. But the white elephant thing is clutching at straws. The demand for more fixed-line bandwidth is there now. It's a demand that has done nothing but grow since the telegraph was first invented, and will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. The current copper and wireless infrastructures cannot meet that demand. Fibre can. So discounting the idea that our economy doesn't need more bandwidth, now or in the future, all you're left with is the concern that some as-yet-unknown technology (not based around fibre optics) is going to come along and make fixed-line communications entirely redundant. And without being overly critical, I think that concern is almost more ridiculous. Certainly it's not much help as a basis for making investment decisions. We can only make decisions based on what we know and can forecast, and all the information now is telling us that fibre is the answer. [SEP] all you're left with is the concern that some as-yet-unknown technology (not based around fibre optics) is going to come along and make fixed-line communications entirely redundant.
-> Using or not using a turn signal, passing with or without three feet, these things are decisions. Yea, exactly. Humans make bad decisions sometimes. Because for whatever reason, they weren't thinking about the consequences of those actions. So because he made the mistake (or poor decision) of being reckless with his vehicle, that makes his whole existence shit? I used to go hunting a lot with my dad. The first (and last) time he saw me mishandle my gun(I was being lazy with it), he most definitely did not get in my face and scream at me and insult me. He grabbed the gun away from me and he was angry. But he kept a stern but level tone. He explained to me exactly how dangerous my fuck up was. He was stern and angry but calm and rational. He asked me if I knew how to avoid doing that again and I told him. He said yes and gave me more advice. Then handed the gun back to me and we continued on through the woods. I respected what he had to say and took him very seriously. If he had screamed at me, at 8 years old I probably would have just broke down into tears and it would not be a productive exchange. At 14 if he had screamed at me, I would have rolled my eyes thinking he was over reacting. But instead, 14 year old me actually listened because he removed the emotion from the situation. It was factual and logical. Now when he saw first turned and saw me he did shout "NO! What the fuck are you doing with that thing!" So he even expressed his outrage but then rolled it back so that we could have a meaningful conversation about a very serious offense. Those times you have been corrected on shitty behavior, how did those people speak to you? [SEP] So because he made the mistake (or poor decision) of being reckless with his vehicle, that makes his whole existence shit?
-Im an ex-user of ten years clean for about about that long. I only used herion, and only in NZ where it is treated as a health issue, not a criminal one.Things have changed, radically worldwide. To get a modern perspective I would suggest you talk to the good people at r/opiates, just make a post explaining who you are, what you do, and what you want to know and you will get plenty of feedback Im sure. If there is one thing junkies like to do its talk about drugs. Good luck with your work, its not an easy job you have chosen. But done right, its one that will be appreciated by many. [SEP] To get a modern perspective I would suggest you talk to the good people at r/opiates
-LOL Comprehension isn't your strong point if that's what you've gotten out of it. Let me help you. Religion = belief. Science/logic =/= belief. Where you got "hatred of all things logical" out of "religion is illogical"...well, Fundies say the darnedest things. Atheism is the conclusion that the God hypothesis is unsupported by EVIDENCE. If evidence comes forth, people will adjust. Hasn't happened yet, and no, hallucinations and pieces of toast don't count. If you're capable of reading, take a look at this. If you still don't get it after that- well, maybe if you pray harder, you will. The evidence suggests that probably won't work, though. Edit: typos [SEP] Fundies say the darnedest things.
-yes, dear, I know that YOU didn't. However, the comment to which you were replying, hours ago now, said (and sorry, I don't know how to do the kicky thing with the side border) "This just proves that given the opportunity Religion ( especially a religion with only male figureheads) will try to control women into being submissive drones." You replied to one half of that--I added a comment that replied to the other. Now, go drink something cool and calm the fuck down. It's a reddit thread, not a viva voce for your PhD or anything. [SEP] calm the fuck down
-> Some objective constructive pointers about being kind to people hardly qualifies me as "an asshole" if that's what you're trying to say. Inappropriate criticism, which is what you did, qualifies you as an asshole. We don't need to take people to a field of flowers and hold their hand, simply answering questions objectively and succinctly is what most people are looking for. OP didn't say, please be gentle with me, OP simply wanted answers. I stand by saying you were out of line in this case. Most 14 year olds are pretty damn sophisticated on the internet. Your condescension with this 14 year old was insulting. Loki5654 was not abrasive in any way that I saw. What exactly did he say that you thought was abrasive? [SEP] Your condescension with this 14 year old
->We don't go out and find evidence of 2 and 2 making 4s Yeah, actually we do. We know that 2+2=4 because we have consistent evidence that this is true. You take two apples, you pair them with two apples, the result is always the same. Evidence. >"A bachelor is an unmarried man" is true without the use of evidence. No, it isn't. "Bachelor" is the term we use to describe a concept. We have evidence that this concept of an unmarried man exists. So, we label it. >One day a black swan came about and the claim was amended. But, until they actually had evidence of a black swan, the claim "black swans exist" was unsupported by the evidence. Without that evidence, we would have no reason to believe that claim. >The evidence overwhelmingly supported the claim that all swans were white, but was not at all truthful. Correct. Which is why there is a difference between "I don't believe x is true" and "I believe x is not true." When I say I don't believe god exists because I have insufficient evidence to support that belief, I am not saying "I believe God does not exist because all the evidence points to him not existing." Again, without sufficient evidence, the belief in a God is unwarranted. If there is some other method for determining god's existence, other than the examination of evidence, that method needs to be presented. And, it needs to be demonstrated why that method is reliable. >How can he even support that claim without evidence? It's self-defeating. I don't mean to offend. I am enjoying this conversation. But, if you wish to continue, I would ask that you try to communicate a bit more clearly and effectively. I literally have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. [SEP] I don't mean to offend. I am enjoying this conversation. But, if you wish to continue, I would ask that you try to communicate a bit more clearly and effectively. I literally have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.
-Man, I am playing MTG for already 14 years and I even was in National team for one of World Cups. And in MTG there were metas with 2 or 3 decks but usually those deck really required skill to pilot correctly (like CawBlade etc). In Shadowverse now power level for cards from op classes are so high and do not have correct answers that those decks almost do not require skill. You only need to play cards on curve and you win. And as for HS. For me HS was NOT viable all last year. That is why from Kharazan I didn't even do dailies there. I was playing Shadowverse instead. The problematic thing is that Cygames didn't took that HS experience into consideration. In TotG they printed cards on power level of Patches if not stronger. In MTG also worst metas was in times when Wizards printed too powerful cards. And for HS it is easier to get players back then for Shadowverse so Cygames should be more careful with what they do then Blizzard. [SEP] Man, I am playing MTG for already 14 years and I even was in National team for one of World Cups.
->surviving a bullet to the head Scientifically possible and factually accurate >being buried alive Dug out by nearby friendly moments later, you'd know this if you'd had walked around and talked to people in the first town >TV controlled His brain was directly linked into the computer network so he had direct control over it, not the other way around >200 year old guy in a stasis chamber It was a cryonic preservation chamber which is literally a thing which you can go and get yourself put inside of right now, cryonics are a currently existing technology >makes more sense So yes, 100% yes makes more sense :) [SEP] cryonics are a currently existing technology
-Please, where in the article did it say they gave them a snarky verbal comment? > "I looked over and said, 'It's okay sir. You won't have to worry about it, we won't hurt you," Homestead police Officer Chuck Thomas said. "He looked at me hard again and said he's not sitting here and walked away." That's the only verbal comment the officers gave the couple. It's far from snarky. [SEP] It's far from snarky.
-Name a person you know or have ever heard of who claims to be love itself besides Jesus and ask yourself if they followed what love is in every single imaginable way. If they didn't keep it all they are not love just love mixed with other qualities. "Does the parent disciplining their child with the rod qualify for the bible's understanding of love? [Proverbs 13:24] Or is such discipline against kindness/gentleness?" The bible says that to spare the rod means you hate the child because you are not disiplining them but to use the rod means you love them because you are teaching them valuable lessons. Some of the qualities are exhibited in different amounts at different times. Obviously if you are spanking a child you would be showing less kindness (though maybe you would show still much kindness by using a paddle instead of something more painful like a razor strap). At times like this you would be showing perhaps more of a stern hand which is another quality involved in love. I answered those questions with analogies I'm sorry you didnt like or understand the analogies. All these "giants" are ants compared to God You are silly if you think I have not tasted of feeling like God doesn't exist and having those same thoughts many times. In fact I grew up in a very well known atheistic area, Austin Texas. So no I do know how it all feels I dont know what makes you think you know if I know how it feels isnt that a double standard in itself? [SEP] All these "giants" are ants compared to God
-The AA process is linked with the concept of a higher power, submitting to it, and using that as a starting point to heal. This doesn't mean a specific religion, or religion at all. However, it does mean faith of some sort. If this is too much, you may not find the recovery you need. That said, give it a try. The groups are mainly about the people involved and I hope you are able to find one whose members are able to help your family while remaining sensitive to your beliefs. http [SEP] If this is too much, you may not find the recovery you need.
-social contract: I don't think you understand what this term means. >The argument "Because it's religion..." doesn't hold up to any logic Logic, like morality and religion is also a social and cultural construct. >Every LGBT person I've ever met has told me they were born that way You're either exaggerating or you know very few homosexuals. Quite a few lesbians I personally know prefer women because they don't like men, and quite a few gay men that I work with moved into the gay lifestyle after realizing that they enjoy the sex associated with it. This isn't to say that it is entirely chosen, because some people ARE born attracted to the same sex, and some people ARE born in the "wrong body". If anything, what we DO conclusively know about sexuality should tell us that it is irrational and illogical, just like religion and morality. With regards to sexuality, there are no ABSOLUTELY correct answers other than reproductive viability, which isn't the basis of marriage. Let religious institutions decide what "marriage" is, and let anyone have a civil union, with the same legal ramifications for hetero- and homosexual marriages. [SEP] social contract: I don't think you understand what this term means.
-I'm getting pretty tired of introducing myself. Either sticky my introduction at the top of this sub as it deserves to be or search for the full details. Quick copy-paste from my last thread: >So most of you know me, but I'll introduce myself quickly. My username is "Capcuck", I am 54 years old from Bern, Switzerland. I am a polyglot; I speak 6 languages as well as speaking 5 different dialects of Nihongo. I have many other credentials but I'm just giving you a rough idea here of what makes me the supreme authority on this sub regarding matters of wits and arts. Recently, I have come under controversy on this sub for espousing viewpoints that challenge the status quo; namely, I have opened your eyes to the fact that the SMT series has more bad games than good ones at this point. In fact, the good games can pretty much be summarized as Nocturne, Strange Journey, and the Persona games if they count. In addition to the above, a lot of the users here feel threatened by my superior intellect and social skills, so I get a lot of hate comments (wish the mods would ban these rudie puddies already). [SEP] a lot of the users here feel threatened by my superior intellect and social skills
-Yes and if you hadn't tapped out, it would have taken 6-10 seconds for a brown belt to injure a blue belt for several months. Not many people expect their ribs to pop out when sitting in someone's guard. Why someone two belt levels above you felt it necessary to use a pain compliance move on you is puzzling. I typically don't can opener or rape choke white belts, but that is just me. Also if I put someone in a Kimura, twister or heel hook, I stop before it could hurt them and tell them it is time for them to tap out. I don't keep applying pressure until they tap out as I know it will fuck them up seriously (as in more than a sore elbow). [SEP] Also if I put someone in a Kimura, twister or heel hook, I stop before it could hurt them and tell them it is time for them to tap out. I don't keep applying pressure until they tap out
-If you find genuine, professionally acquired data to be a lame argument, then I doubt you'll actually consider anything I have to say. That makes what you're saying less of an argument and more of just simply bickering. And if you're saying that Clinton winning the primary is somehow proof she has a better chance in the general, then I also question your ability to understand the data collected. To put this real world scenario simply for you, rock beating scissors is not proof it'll beat paper. To use that logic would be a bad decision. [SEP] To put this real world scenario simply for you
-I've listened. I am unconvinced. Claiming authority by virtue of race might be an effective tactic with some people, but actually weakens your argument with others. Especially in this case, where you are are discussing the actions of people of one race using your membership of another for authority - I really don't see how you consider this sensible. [SEP] Claiming authority by virtue of race might be an effective tactic with some people, but actually weakens your argument with others
-Incredibly poor article, it's gobsmacking that was published by the NYT. "Last year the Australian team toured South Africa, one of its strongest rivals." No, no they didn't, that was 2014, NOT last year (no fact checking by NYT). [SEP] it's gobsmacking that was published by the NYT.
-You do not make any sense. Franklin Graham considers himself a Christian. How is that not about Christianity? And if politics intrude into Christianity, we are more than justified in criticizing this intrusion. I am raised in a country where conservative evangelicals taught me many bigoted falsehoods when I was young. And their views come from these right-wing evangelicals. I have cause to be concerned for my own faith as well. [SEP] You do not make any sense.
-Where have I focused on the physical? Sexual needs are emotionally and physically tied together. What is wrong with this woman trying to please her partner? Please explain. [SEP] What is wrong with this woman trying to please her partner?
-It doesn't matter to me if you have or want kids, doesn't affect me. People generally say "you'll change you mind" because people are always changing and the things you want or don't want today may change later in life or maybe they won't. Like I never wanted kids ever but when I turned 30,something changed and I wanted one, that could happen to you or not. I don't think people are trying to be mean, so even though annoying just brush them off. I'm perfectly cool with child-free people as long as they don't call me a breeder or I have fuck trophies or my kids are spoiled little crotch fruit or compare crap parenting that they witness to my parenting. You know really disrespectful things. Having kids isn't for everyone. [SEP] People generally say "you'll change you mind" because people are always changing and the things you want or don't want today may change later in life or maybe they won't
-I still don't get your point. Debt sucks, but it ties the US and the Chinese together in a way that no other way can. It still exists and is an issue and should be considered. China buying this debt is a token of friendship and as far as I know they are considered one of our allies. If this is so, we should try to talk to them before getting others involved. >We'll still buy their products anyway and if they stop it we'll just buy from somewhere else that allows it. If the US and Europe takes a stand and puts an embargo on countries that do not comply with our standards on labor then no we will not. If we did it for the "Red Hate" you are resurrecting (look at what a shit hole Cuba is because of it), then surely we can put such a tactic to good use. P.S. >Have you noticed how the daily stories about Chinese mining conditions have stopped ever since the recent tragedy in the US? WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT? If people die in your city you hear about that first if you get your news locally. Why would it be any different on a country wide, or even hemisphere wide, scale. There is plenty shit to be pissed about without jumping at shadows. [SEP] If people die in your city you hear about that first if you get your news locally.
-He definitely wasn't being intentionally disrespectful but his attitude/stance is one shared by many members of the church. I don't know if it's willful ignorance or an uncanny ability to rationalize things. >Some people suggest there is a harmful effects the church has on the LGBT community, especially the youth, which I agree could be true. If the church does indeed have a negative impact on the LGBT community, dont you think it would be a better idea to have a constructive conversation rather than name calling? I dont think you can argue that they are intentionally causing harm to individuals of the LGBT community. Lets keep that conversation going but its not a good idea to use name calling. The church has and can change. So does medicine. He kinda-sorta-not really admits that the church harms members of the LGBT community but somehow thinks that the church isn't targeting said members. I don't know how he can say that with a straight face given the new church policy directed towards children of gay parents found in Handbook 1 Section 16.13 that reads as follows. >A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1. >The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage. 2. >The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage. This is an especially hurtful policy given the contradiction of one of the Articles of Faith (basic beliefs of the LDS church originally penned by Joseph Smith). Article of Faith 2 reads "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." Growing up in the church, I was taught that Article of Faith this extends such that children will not be punished for the sins of their parents; individuals are to be punished when they personally transgress. Incognito_bill thinks that it is inappropriate to lash out at these sorts of policies in favor of calm, measured discussion. LDS church leaders don't listen, they don't want to listen, to people who disagree with them (see the September Six, [Kate Kelly]( http John Dehlin, and the Strengthening Church Members Comittee). The church does not allow members (not just church leaders) to vocally (and politely, I might add) dissent from what those at the top have decided is true/best/correct. When polite discourse inside the church is stifled, angry discourse outside the church will grow. [SEP] dont you think it would be a better idea to have a constructive conversation rather than name calling?
-It's really not though, and I'm quite sure you know there's a difference. That's why you can buy an S&W M&P 22 as well as the .223 version. They're not the same thing at all. [SEP] It's really not though, and I'm quite sure you know there's a difference.
-He hit on the one thing I don't like about the game. The racism doesn't feel well used in the game. It feels like it is there to make me dislike Comstock. I wish they would have developed Comstock's two sides more. They covered his prophet/racist side well, but I would like to see more of the person with political aspirations. Maybe a recording talking about why he needs to kill his political opponents, where he talks more like Andrew Ryan. [SEP] It feels like it is there to make me dislike Comstock. I wish they would have developed Comstock's two sides more. They covered his prophet/racist side well, but I would like to see more of the person with political aspirations.
-First of all, worth is quite relative but consensus-derived opinion is different. Second of all, you think because I'm downvoted people have objectively read my comment and replied with a succinct reason why they downvoted? Or a lot of people going "Oh, he's downvoted so clearly you're wrong," which d'you think it is? Read this: > Why does reddit need moderation? Can't you just let the voters decide? >The reason there are separate reddits is to allow niche communities to form, instead of one monolithic overall community. These communities distinguish themselves through their policies: what's on- and off-topic there, whether people are expected to behave civilly or can feel free to be brutal, etc. > The problem is that casual, new, or transient visitors to a particular community don't always know the rules that tie it together. > As an example, imagine a /r/swimming and a /r/scuba. People can read about one topic or the other (or subscribe to both). But since scuba divers like to swim, a casual user might start submitting swimming links on /r/scuba. And these stories will probably get upvoted, especially by people who see the links on the reddit front page and don't look closely at where they're posted. If left alone, /r/scuba will just become another /r/swimming and there won't be a place to go to find an uncluttered listing of scuba news. > The fix is for the /r/scuba moderators to remove the offtopic links, and ideally to teach the submitters about the more appropriate /r/swimming reddit. www.reddit.com/help/faq Should I spell it out or can you understand the simple analogy? [SEP] Should I spell it out or can you understand the simple analogy?
-To my knowledge toxic masculinity is a societal concept (already making it something that cannot be defined without generalizing, so take with a grain of salt here and there) that is perpetuated by members of said society regardless of their gender. A man isn't expressing toxic masculinity when he's both: not harming other people with his expression; is comfortable being his own, masculine self. The 'toxic' part of the term doesn't refer to masculinity as a whole being a toxic concept (that's both silly to assume and far beyond our current understanding of the human psyche) but rather specific traits that people would describe as masculine and especially "proper" masculinity. Traits such as unnecessarily aggressive behaviour, an endless thirst for sexual pleasure, lack of empathy, never allowing oneself to show any sign of 'weakness' and overly harsh and rough responses towards new or deviating situations. Furthermore, those traits are only really toxic when the previously mentioned two criteria aren't met. If a man's worth is determined by others on how much sexual intercourse he has had (despite him possibly not being very interested in sex or maybe having trouble approaching such a concept) and as a result the negative emotions that come with such treatment are either damaging the man himself or those around him, the situation becomes an example of 'toxic masculinity'. Or how 'cuck' has been such a popular insult in recent times. Stand your ground at all times, don't consider opinions people might find odd at first glance, be harsh and rough towards it or else you'll be considered a cuckold and therefore an embarrassment of a man and to manhood!! That doesn't mean a man who is comfortable being a very tough stand-your-ground type of guy or someone who does have a lot of sex in his days are also bad. There's nothing objectionable about it if they're not harming themselves or others (by forcing themselves to act that way at the fear of being an outcast, for instance). You enjoy fucking a lot and don't abuse people through it? Cool! You're someone who can easily pick himself up again after taking an emotional hit without much help? Awesome! But don't shame the men who aren't exactly like that. Toxic Masculinity is called that not because it's something that's supposedly 'naturally' apparent within all men. It's called that because people (all of them) assume that those certain behaviours are considered the norm of masculinity for all men, and deviating from it as a man is something he should be laughed at and shamed for. Note: This is just what I know about the concept, I'm not gonna go claiming around like I'm some sort of professor on it. I just want to offer another perspective. [SEP] The 'toxic' part of the term doesn't refer to masculinity as a whole being a toxic concept (that's both silly to assume and far beyond our current understanding of the human psyche) but rather specific traits that people would describe as masculine and especially "proper" masculinity. Traits such as unnecessarily aggressive behaviour, an endless thirst for sexual pleasure, lack of empathy, never allowing oneself to show any sign of 'weakness' and overly harsh and rough responses towards new or deviating situations.
-I have directly responded to your questions several times, your lack of understanding is not my concern and not a reason for me to continually repeat myself. But please continue trying to show that your bias is not driving your opinion instead of logic and reason. You ignore the reality of the situation and facts at hand, instead you have fallen victim to a blatant PR stunt. Good luck with buying that bridge for sale. I just hope you're not gullible enough to brag about that purchase too. [SEP] I have directly responded to your questions several times, your lack of understanding is not my concern and not a reason for me to continually repeat myself.
-> You did nothing wrong and have nothing to feel guilty over. I hear you. However, the author stated:- > I had no idea, but I have been groping my daughter in my sleep for years. Typically, groping people for years isn't a good thing. There's no mens rea, but the actus reus exists. That's Latin for "doing something wrong". You'll have a hell of a job convincing a jury that she's the rapist when for years he has been entering her bed and touching her. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean you'll have to do better than black-and-white thinking. No one is innocent in this situation, and I think it's counterproductive to try to make him feel even more like a victim. My interpretation of events differs from yours. It sounds to me as if he and his daughter are victims of an illness that he doesn't understand and cannot control. Name-calling wouldn't be productive at this stage. [SEP] entering her bed and touching her.
-It's not easy. That's what makes it fun. It appeals to a different type of gamer than you. Not everyone enjoys a challenge. That's ok. That's the reason we have these two franchises. [SEP] Not everyone enjoys a challenge.
-This is coming from the person who put one single puffer in a tank alone. Dude now that is cruel. You want your fish to be alone, just like you. [SEP] You want your fish to be alone, just like you.
-> ...If that's legal then I would think that should be illegal as well lmao. Why? >So are you saying that an AR15 is only more effective at a minimum of 300 yards? No, but in a confined enviroment (indoors, like a school) full length rifles are not optimal. Carbines or PDWs would be better. > By the way, is it possible to load higher caliber ammunition in an AR15 than the standard? Yes. You just have to change the upper receiver, the lower reciever and the barrel. Basically get a new gun and keep the sights. >Your best solution to this mass shooting problem that we have more than any other country is to post kids up against the doors. Nope. That is just one solution that doesn't cost anything, doesn't require depriving people of their rights and is more effective than anything legislators have proposed. >Why do most mass shooters choose AR15 type weapons over hand guns? There has to be some benefit in general no? Much the same reason they do it to begin with. For decades, mental health professionals have said that the way the media treats these events is the reason they are repeated. Aside from the AR-15 being very common, it is what the "heroes" of the shooters used. >Do they think that though? Yes >Yet we're the only country that has far and I mean FAR more mass shootings than any other developed country. So what is the problem? Mental health? Why dont other countries have this massive outbreak of mental health problems that leads to multiple shootings all year and it's just us? In your opinion, what is the cause of the problem and what is your solution? If you are seriously interested in reducing the amount of mass shootings, I absolutely encourage you to read what mental health professionals have written on the issue. Don't take my word for it, go out, do some reading, think critically and arrive at your own, informed, conclusion. [SEP] Nope. That is just one solution that doesn't cost anything, doesn't require depriving people of their rights and is more effective than anything legislators have proposed.
-You're not experienced enough to be making your own program. Read the Wiki Many (most) of us here manage to go to the gym more than twice a week whilst also juggling work/school and other hobbies. I'm sure you can too. [SEP] Many (most) of us here manage to go to the gym more than twice a week whilst also juggling work/school and other hobbies. I'm sure you can too.
-Yeah, more typical teenage r/politics stuff. "Why shouldn't a wage be livable?" Uh, I don't know, there are countless reasons. One might be that, uh... (maybe grip your head firmly between your hands so it doesn't explode here...) THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING IS NOT WEALTH. Even defining "livable wage" would be way too tall an order for you; not that you tried. You betray your absolute lack of perspective and I again fervently hope you're no older than about 16. Seriously, though, do I really have to use another example or could you use the pizza one I already gave? "Hey, high schooler making $5 an hour to wash dishes... sorry, but I have to fire you because I can't pay anyone less than $10 and you're not worth it." [SEP] Yeah, more typical teenage r/politics stuff.
-You obviously have zero understanding of the basic fundamentals of human beings. Women have a womb for a reason. In all species, reproduction is the whole and absolute point of a species, and in our species females are the queens of reproduction. Every single person is born from a mother. Every single one. Now how you get little babies is sex. Maybe you've never had this talk before, but that's how it works. A man + a woman = baby. Now what drives attraction for women. Security to protect her and (future baby), This can be big muscles. It can be intelligence. It can be money. It can be a stable social position. If you have all 4 I can guarantee you are getting married. GUARANTEE IT. The other one is leadership. This one also stems from the primal urge to know where she and baby are going in life. Just like nomadic tribes, just like where to go and get food. Instinctively women are drawn to someone who can lead. Leadership also signals confidence which is important because when things get bad. Mother and Baby don't want someone to run away who a scaredy cat, or someone who doesn't know what they are doing with their life because uncertainty leads to insecurity...and as I mentioned earlier. Security is important. All women operate on that fundamental principle. ALL OF THEM. Women are smart and complex and wonderful creatures, but the basic biological drive for mating (dating) is that, and it has been that way for tens of thousands of years. They are evolved to be wired that way. The reason being. Secure Mom => Secure Baby = Secure future generation. The entire primary fundamental point of the species. Everything else you have been told to believe is total social psychology conditioning bullshit. None of it matters. Attraction isn't a choice. It's a primal instinct that women are subconsciously turning on to push them in a direction for breeding. It always works this way. It always has. [SEP] You obviously have zero understanding of the basic fundamentals of human beings.
->The main reason I seem to see again and again for UKIP gaining ground. Islam and ISIS. Surely no body can deny that islam has statistically higher extremists than any other religion. >Extra-lol for the vehement desire to protect your own culture I'm sorry you feel that way, do you hate your own culture? People of every background should be proud of their ancestry. [SEP] I'm sorry you feel that way, do you hate your own culture? People of every background should be proud of their ancestry.
-Hillary Clinton was a great candidate. She had the misfortune of being subjected to 30+ years and half a billion dollars worth of witch hunts. The fishing expedition on her husband, and that's all it was, was a fishing expedition, they found nothing on him but they kept going till he fucked up. Bernie was NOT. A. DEMOCRAT. He only joined the party on April 30, 2015 -- less than two years ago. Solely to run for president. You can't jump in line in front of people who have spent their entire lives as public servants and then kick a big baby fit when you don't get your way. No wonder spoiled ass special snowflake millennials gravitated to him! You don't get to jump to the front of the line ahead of Hillary Clinton, one of the most intelligent and thoroughly fucking vetted (see 30+ year half billion dollar non stop gang stalking gaslighting witch hunt) candidate in modern history. I mean, she was, is, and remains a better vetted candidate than Barack Obama, as great as he is. YOU cut the bullshit. You've been spoon fed Gerbers baby food by the GOP establishment, laced with poison, if you think Bernie Sanders was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. Sanders has some great ideas and great traits, but he is not and never has been presidential material. He'd make one hell of a tank had Clinton won -- put him on one issue at a time that he was passionate about, and tell him to not come back until it's fixed. That's how you deal with stubborn assed, single issue grumps. Bernie is the tank in every raid, but never the quartermaster. Hillary Clinton is CLEAN as fuck. She made a lot of mistakes and was a little bit too hawkish for my tastes, but she's one of the most intelligent people in DC. She's not the rockstar that Bill was, but she's much smarter than he is. Oh, and if I had an entire cottage industry who spent fucking decades with only one goal, to destroy me, yeah, she gets a pass for being closed up and secretive even. How can she not be in an institution with PTSD at this point? Because she's that tough-as-fuck. I apologize for hitting hard. But it's bullshitbullshitbullshit and not merely naive but willfully ignorant to believe that 1) Sanders deserved to cut to the front of the line 2) Sanders was presidential material 3) Hillary Clinton was shitty, unlikeable, and untrustworthy, and 4) that anyone other than Hillary Clinton was qualified. Now, the bad guys, having divided, are now going in for the kill. And they are truly the bad guys. I'm not even talking about that big fucking titty baby Donald Trump, who can't see past his vanity mirror. I'm talking about the American and Russian oligarchs who pull the strings. Donald Trump is just one more Black Sea yacht whore, and he doesn't even know it because he's only in it for the grift. You, me, the people who fucking voted for Donald Trump, the shit heads on the_cheeto -- we're all fucked. Because they don't care about us, they never have, and they never will. Imma ask the bartender to send the bill for my first shot to you. I'll buy the second one, but your post is just fuckery. And looking at your post history, your beliefs overlap mine. Except for your opinion of Hillary stated above. She is not perfect but she's great. And I have liked her since day 1. The jobs are gone, they're not coming back. Robots and automation and China until robots take away China's labor. The goal is a stateless society where corporations answer to no government, no god (and no trick bitch single issue voting Christian), no law. [SEP] and then kick a big baby fit when you don't get your way. No wonder spoiled ass special snowflake millennials gravitated to him
-You obviously don't understand how Riven's animation cancelling works, but E-R is better than R-E because it cuts the animation of Riven's Ultimate. Edit: Why am I being downvoted? I explained why E-R is better and I contributed to the discussion [SEP] You obviously don't understand how Riven's animation cancelling works
-I get it already, you take the doctrine for granted. You do not comprehend it's significance today. You do not understand the pragmatic application it had then, nor now. The constitution empowers American citizens, shields it from tyrannical governments and keeps it in check by ensuring accountability amongst the different branches, and offers exclusive benefits that brought us into modern times as one of the most highly respected forms of governing. There have been 11,000 attempts to amend U.S. Constitution since 1789, only 27 amendments have passed, 10 of them in one shot with the Bill of Rights. Changes to the constitution can only be accomplished through the amending process. It places strict limitations on how the national government can use its power. Later amendments gave rights to other groups and some changed how the government functions, such as making slavery illegal, giving women the rights to vote, things you care about I'd figure. You clearly haven't read the 3rd amendment if you think that's true. > No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. There isn't a labeled expiration date on the constitution, it would last as long as the government of the country upholding it does. It'll most likely outlive you. Who knows what the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the constitution, I'm sure they didn't imagine the 1st amendment would apply to radio, television, the internet, nor did they imagine the 4th amendment would cover electronic wiretapping and video surveillance etc. Which is why it's described as a living document, it grows and changes with the changing needs of the country. Through the addition of amendments, the constitution is able to adapt in ways that are needed for the nation to succeed. The electoral college is more relevant today than it ever was, it prevented a war criminal bought by Saudi Arabia [\[2nd source\]]( http from ever becoming president. I'd advise you read the constitution in it's entirety before you make another shitpost. Thanks. [SEP] The constitution empowers American citizens, shields it from tyrannical governments and keeps it in check by ensuring accountability amongst the different branches, and offers exclusive benefits that brought us into modern times as one of the most highly respected forms of governing.
-So basically impatience trumps safety? If certain people can't handle being out in snowy/icy conditions, they should do themselves a favor and wait patiently for the roads to be cleared. You should always assume the worst when you head out. Anticipate unplowed roads and drive accordingly (or stay home). It just seems pretty selfish to potentially endanger the lives of other drivers who have no trouble getting around (comfortable with the conditions) just for the sake of making roads more accessible to inexperienced and/or ill-equipped drivers. Even if the state decides to take your side and makes it legal, it's plain old common sense to give these plow trucks the same equipment as emergency response vehicles to cross intersections safely. [SEP] It just seems pretty selfish to potentially endanger the lives of other drivers who have no trouble getting around (comfortable with the conditions) just for the sake of making roads more accessible to inexperienced and/or ill-equipped drivers.
-You're bad at this. Gently wording things is condescension? I'm not sure you know what that word means, since your comments in this thread reek of condescension yet you accuse me of it. You mean crawl back into my books and information? Sure thing. Enjoy your echo chamber of white supremacy and edgelord sociopathy. I'm glad to see you've found reddit, a place full of like-minded people to share your twisted, racist worldview. [SEP] Gently wording things is condescension?
-Express admiration and respect for those who have managed to lose weight. It's a terribly difficult struggle. Showing that you don't take that struggle for granted just because you haven't had to endure that particular hardship counts for something. Ask them questions about how they did it - what was the hardest part? What are they most proud of? Give them an opener to express pride in their accomplishment, and encourage those who are trying. Secondly, while I don't quite understand the context of your neurologist topic diet, I think the part of it that you can take away and bring to such conversations is this: Everyone has different needs. A diet that works for one person may not be as effective for another. That is the most polite way of dealing with it, IMO. As a more specific example, if two women are debating whether one diet is better than the other, your contribution can simply be "Well that one might work very well for so & so, but maybe this other one would fit better with your life." Be encouraging for whatever someone chooses, as long as it doesn't seem dangerous - but honestly, even if it does seem dangerous, it might be better to just keep your mouth shut about it. I tend to open my mouth about this sort of thing far too often, and come off as a judgmental jerk. Basically, if you aren't sure what to contribute to the diet conversation, stick to supportive and encouraging questions. [SEP] Express admiration and respect for those who have managed to lose weight.
->Once the liberal elite get pulled down with us, I couldn't care less. And this is why people look down on Trump supporters: we know the majority of you are malicious willing to vote against your self interest to lash out against people who you think have excluded you. You won't gain their respect that way. You're just confirming what they already think of you. Maybe you should sit down with yourself, do some research and focus on what will improve your own life. Aiming to bring others down is destructive and useless. [SEP] And this is why people look down on Trump supporters: we know the majority of you are malicious willing to vote against your self interest to lash out against people who you think have excluded you. You won't gain their respect that way. You're just confirming what they already think of you.
-Ugh, I'm not a guy and this is just embarrassing to read. I don't understand why "manspreading" is even a thing. I never noticed it before, everyone sits awkwardly on public transport. Everyone explains things, everyone swears. What's next? Oh, dick pics. Because only straight white people send those. >find someone who looks nothing like you and let them speak. Soooo... be racist? What? >We, as a demographic, have been really quite terrible to other genders, races, and sexual orientations over the millennia Why do SJWs love the sins of the fathers thing? And why are they so badly educated when it comes to history? Men have every right to offended by some of the filth that comes from these people. >“slut”, “bitch”, “whore” .... It tends not to be a turn-on. This man has never had sex. >Appropriation is crime enough lol no Don't go outside, don't speak, feel bad about yourself for your race, gender, and orientation. Just kill yourself, basically. You're probably a rapist anyway. [SEP] I don't understand why "manspreading" is even a thing.
-Queuing as 5 peoples does not bind you to forever play with them again haha.... if you dont like them move on and find others. Even the rank mode is going to be 5man queu only, which further back my point that this is a team game. Its a game that shines while playing as a team... otherwise its simply a very easy version of LoL and Dota. Teamfights is the name of the game, if you dont understand that now, you will eventually. And if this guy still dont understand that after 700 games quein alone, he probly never will unless someone try to explain it to him. If hes fine having fun alone, good for him! Cause as you said, he can play the game however he wants its none of my business. Though dont come showin off builds that are made to play solo... there is little substance to that. Even worst, dont go saying youre continuing to play solo cause you want to improv even more.... when thr masterable aspect of the game lies in the teamwork. [SEP] Teamfights is the name of the game, if you dont understand that now, you will eventually. And if this guy still dont understand that after 700 games quein alone, he probly never will unless someone try to explain it to him.
-Temperature delta is a function of energy into the radiator vs energy out of the radiator. The material carrying the heat to the rad doesn't change that. Come on dude, this is highschool level conservation of energy. The thermal mass keeps the water temps from rising rapidly with core temps, it doesn't make the CPU cooler. [SEP] The thermal mass keeps the water temps from rising rapidly with core temps, it doesn't make the CPU cooler.
+> What you think that people from Brussels wont care about Ireland or something? Maybe maybe not, they certainly won't care about it as much as someone from Ireland. > I literally do not understand this argument. > There is no need to understand every Irish issue to deal with things like Roaming charges and freedom of movement. Yeah sure I mean like, we'll make laws for people we don't know or understand or who didn't elect us because that makes sense. Up next for Bulgaria's presidential election: a 24 year old Brazilian Janitor, a 37 year old Texan rancher and 63 year old Turkish kebab owner. [SEP] I guess your just too smart to understand a pleb like me
+> I am losing the love of my life. > I don't know what to do anymore. Move on and be glad you didn't marry her. If you had, this stuff with her controlling, overbearing parents would only have been the tip of the iceberg. Always remember the most important word in dating: "Next!" [SEP] No, you're not. If she was really the love of your life she would not be acting as she is. Besides, you're only 19. You have no clue what those words even mean.
+The hard work and commitment it takes to move your life from Australia to New Zealand, or Iran to the US, or wherever to wherever, is a big fucking deal. If using words to identify the people who do so is bigotry, then so is calling someone a doctor or an engineer and attaching further meaning to those classifications. [SEP] Immigrant is such an insanely broad term that to associate it with bigotry seems kinda hilarious.
+By fucking, both parties are choosing the possibility of parenthood. Having an abortion, or delivering a baby, are both medical procedures with serious risks. There really isn't an even stevens equivalent when it comes to choice because the health risks aren't the same. [SEP] If you're looking at conception as some type of zero sum gender game, you're probably not ready for sex.
+It is possible to care about more than one thing. But there is also such a thing as protest fatigue. At what point do you start losing people's interest at overwhelming them with things to protest? When do you prioritize? With all the daily evil going down with this administration, Aloha was bad and not really excusable. Iron Fist was manufactured bullshit protest. As was GitS too. The manga creator had no issues with the casting. So at that point, people should shut up. [SEP] Whitewashing falls so low I cant count the fucks I give.
+>Worst-case scenario is the NBN goes massively over budget... and turns into a white elephant due to technological or economic changes. Ah, a specific objection at last! Budget concerns I will grant. It may cost more than currently forecast, it may cost less. Either way, the cost will ultimately be borne out in service pricing. That's more of an issue of implementation though, not an argument against the policy itself. And it's worth noting that same risk applies to any alternate proposal. But the white elephant thing is clutching at straws. The demand for more fixed-line bandwidth is there now. It's a demand that has done nothing but grow since the telegraph was first invented, and will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. The current copper and wireless infrastructures cannot meet that demand. Fibre can. So discounting the idea that our economy doesn't need more bandwidth, now or in the future, And without being overly critical, I think that concern is almost more ridiculous. Certainly it's not much help as a basis for making investment decisions. We can only make decisions based on what we know and can forecast, and all the information now is telling us that fibre is the answer. [SEP] all you're left with is the concern that some as-yet-unknown technology (not based around fibre optics) is going to come along and make fixed-line communications entirely redundant.
+> Using or not using a turn signal, passing with or without three feet, these things are decisions. Yea, exactly. Humans make bad decisions sometimes. Because for whatever reason, they weren't thinking about the consequences of those actions. I used to go hunting a lot with my dad. The first (and last) time he saw me mishandle my gun(I was being lazy with it), he most definitely did not get in my face and scream at me and insult me. He grabbed the gun away from me and he was angry. But he kept a stern but level tone. He explained to me exactly how dangerous my fuck up was. He was stern and angry but calm and rational. He asked me if I knew how to avoid doing that again and I told him. He said yes and gave me more advice. Then handed the gun back to me and we continued on through the woods. I respected what he had to say and took him very seriously. If he had screamed at me, at 8 years old I probably would have just broke down into tears and it would not be a productive exchange. At 14 if he had screamed at me, I would have rolled my eyes thinking he was over reacting. But instead, 14 year old me actually listened because he removed the emotion from the situation. It was factual and logical. Now when he saw first turned and saw me he did shout "NO! What the fuck are you doing with that thing!" So he even expressed his outrage but then rolled it back so that we could have a meaningful conversation about a very serious offense. Those times you have been corrected on shitty behavior, how did those people speak to you? [SEP] So because he made the mistake (or poor decision) of being reckless with his vehicle, that makes his whole existence shit?
+Im an ex-user of ten years clean for about about that long. I only used herion, and only in NZ where it is treated as a health issue, not a criminal one.Things have changed, radically worldwide. , just make a post explaining who you are, what you do, and what you want to know and you will get plenty of feedback Im sure. If there is one thing junkies like to do its talk about drugs. Good luck with your work, its not an easy job you have chosen. But done right, its one that will be appreciated by many. [SEP] To get a modern perspective I would suggest you talk to the good people at r/opiates
+LOL Comprehension isn't your strong point if that's what you've gotten out of it. Let me help you. Religion = belief. Science/logic =/= belief. Where you got "hatred of all things logical" out of "religion is illogical"...well, Atheism is the conclusion that the God hypothesis is unsupported by EVIDENCE. If evidence comes forth, people will adjust. Hasn't happened yet, and no, hallucinations and pieces of toast don't count. If you're capable of reading, take a look at this. If you still don't get it after that- well, maybe if you pray harder, you will. The evidence suggests that probably won't work, though. Edit: typos [SEP] Fundies say the darnedest things.
+yes, dear, I know that YOU didn't. However, the comment to which you were replying, hours ago now, said (and sorry, I don't know how to do the kicky thing with the side border) "This just proves that given the opportunity Religion ( especially a religion with only male figureheads) will try to control women into being submissive drones." You replied to one half of that--I added a comment that replied to the other. Now, go drink something cool and . It's a reddit thread, not a viva voce for your PhD or anything. [SEP] calm the fuck down
+> Some objective constructive pointers about being kind to people hardly qualifies me as "an asshole" if that's what you're trying to say. Inappropriate criticism, which is what you did, qualifies you as an asshole. We don't need to take people to a field of flowers and hold their hand, simply answering questions objectively and succinctly is what most people are looking for. OP didn't say, please be gentle with me, OP simply wanted answers. I stand by saying you were out of line in this case. Most 14 year olds are pretty damn sophisticated on the internet. was insulting. Loki5654 was not abrasive in any way that I saw. What exactly did he say that you thought was abrasive? [SEP] Your condescension with this 14 year old
+>We don't go out and find evidence of 2 and 2 making 4s Yeah, actually we do. We know that 2+2=4 because we have consistent evidence that this is true. You take two apples, you pair them with two apples, the result is always the same. Evidence. >"A bachelor is an unmarried man" is true without the use of evidence. No, it isn't. "Bachelor" is the term we use to describe a concept. We have evidence that this concept of an unmarried man exists. So, we label it. >One day a black swan came about and the claim was amended. But, until they actually had evidence of a black swan, the claim "black swans exist" was unsupported by the evidence. Without that evidence, we would have no reason to believe that claim. >The evidence overwhelmingly supported the claim that all swans were white, but was not at all truthful. Correct. Which is why there is a difference between "I don't believe x is true" and "I believe x is not true." When I say I don't believe god exists because I have insufficient evidence to support that belief, I am not saying "I believe God does not exist because all the evidence points to him not existing." Again, without sufficient evidence, the belief in a God is unwarranted. If there is some other method for determining god's existence, other than the examination of evidence, that method needs to be presented. And, it needs to be demonstrated why that method is reliable. >How can he even support that claim without evidence? It's self-defeating. [SEP] I don't mean to offend. I am enjoying this conversation. But, if you wish to continue, I would ask that you try to communicate a bit more clearly and effectively. I literally have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.
+And in MTG there were metas with 2 or 3 decks but usually those deck really required skill to pilot correctly (like CawBlade etc). In Shadowverse now power level for cards from op classes are so high and do not have correct answers that those decks almost do not require skill. You only need to play cards on curve and you win. And as for HS. For me HS was NOT viable all last year. That is why from Kharazan I didn't even do dailies there. I was playing Shadowverse instead. The problematic thing is that Cygames didn't took that HS experience into consideration. In TotG they printed cards on power level of Patches if not stronger. In MTG also worst metas was in times when Wizards printed too powerful cards. And for HS it is easier to get players back then for Shadowverse so Cygames should be more careful with what they do then Blizzard. [SEP] Man, I am playing MTG for already 14 years and I even was in National team for one of World Cups.
+>surviving a bullet to the head Scientifically possible and factually accurate >being buried alive Dug out by nearby friendly moments later, you'd know this if you'd had walked around and talked to people in the first town >TV controlled His brain was directly linked into the computer network so he had direct control over it, not the other way around >200 year old guy in a stasis chamber It was a cryonic preservation chamber which is literally a thing which you can go and get yourself put inside of right now, >makes more sense So yes, 100% yes makes more sense :) [SEP] cryonics are a currently existing technology
+Please, where in the article did it say they gave them a snarky verbal comment? > "I looked over and said, 'It's okay sir. You won't have to worry about it, we won't hurt you," Homestead police Officer Chuck Thomas said. "He looked at me hard again and said he's not sitting here and walked away." That's the only verbal comment the officers gave the couple. [SEP] It's far from snarky.
+Name a person you know or have ever heard of who claims to be love itself besides Jesus and ask yourself if they followed what love is in every single imaginable way. If they didn't keep it all they are not love just love mixed with other qualities. "Does the parent disciplining their child with the rod qualify for the bible's understanding of love? [Proverbs 13:24] Or is such discipline against kindness/gentleness?" The bible says that to spare the rod means you hate the child because you are not disiplining them but to use the rod means you love them because you are teaching them valuable lessons. Some of the qualities are exhibited in different amounts at different times. Obviously if you are spanking a child you would be showing less kindness (though maybe you would show still much kindness by using a paddle instead of something more painful like a razor strap). At times like this you would be showing perhaps more of a stern hand which is another quality involved in love. I answered those questions with analogies I'm sorry you didnt like or understand the analogies. You are silly if you think I have not tasted of feeling like God doesn't exist and having those same thoughts many times. In fact I grew up in a very well known atheistic area, Austin Texas. So no I do know how it all feels I dont know what makes you think you know if I know how it feels isnt that a double standard in itself? [SEP] All these "giants" are ants compared to God
+The AA process is linked with the concept of a higher power, submitting to it, and using that as a starting point to heal. This doesn't mean a specific religion, or religion at all. However, it does mean faith of some sort. That said, give it a try. The groups are mainly about the people involved and I hope you are able to find one whose members are able to help your family while remaining sensitive to your beliefs. http [SEP] If this is too much, you may not find the recovery you need.
+>The argument "Because it's religion..." doesn't hold up to any logic Logic, like morality and religion is also a social and cultural construct. >Every LGBT person I've ever met has told me they were born that way You're either exaggerating or you know very few homosexuals. Quite a few lesbians I personally know prefer women because they don't like men, and quite a few gay men that I work with moved into the gay lifestyle after realizing that they enjoy the sex associated with it. This isn't to say that it is entirely chosen, because some people ARE born attracted to the same sex, and some people ARE born in the "wrong body". If anything, what we DO conclusively know about sexuality should tell us that it is irrational and illogical, just like religion and morality. With regards to sexuality, there are no ABSOLUTELY correct answers other than reproductive viability, which isn't the basis of marriage. Let religious institutions decide what "marriage" is, and let anyone have a civil union, with the same legal ramifications for hetero- and homosexual marriages. [SEP] social contract: I don't think you understand what this term means.
+I'm getting pretty tired of introducing myself. Either sticky my introduction at the top of this sub as it deserves to be or search for the full details. Quick copy-paste from my last thread: >So most of you know me, but I'll introduce myself quickly. My username is "Capcuck", I am 54 years old from Bern, Switzerland. I am a polyglot; I speak 6 languages as well as speaking 5 different dialects of Nihongo. I have many other credentials but I'm just giving you a rough idea here of what makes me the supreme authority on this sub regarding matters of wits and arts. Recently, I have come under controversy on this sub for espousing viewpoints that challenge the status quo; namely, I have opened your eyes to the fact that the SMT series has more bad games than good ones at this point. In fact, the good games can pretty much be summarized as Nocturne, Strange Journey, and the Persona games if they count. In addition to the above, , so I get a lot of hate comments (wish the mods would ban these rudie puddies already). [SEP] a lot of the users here feel threatened by my superior intellect and social skills
+Yes and if you hadn't tapped out, it would have taken 6-10 seconds for a brown belt to injure a blue belt for several months. Not many people expect their ribs to pop out when sitting in someone's guard. Why someone two belt levels above you felt it necessary to use a pain compliance move on you is puzzling. I typically don't can opener or rape choke white belts, but that is just me. as I know it will fuck them up seriously (as in more than a sore elbow). [SEP] Also if I put someone in a Kimura, twister or heel hook, I stop before it could hurt them and tell them it is time for them to tap out. I don't keep applying pressure until they tap out
+If you find genuine, professionally acquired data to be a lame argument, then I doubt you'll actually consider anything I have to say. That makes what you're saying less of an argument and more of just simply bickering. And if you're saying that Clinton winning the primary is somehow proof she has a better chance in the general, then I also question your ability to understand the data collected. , rock beating scissors is not proof it'll beat paper. To use that logic would be a bad decision. [SEP] To put this real world scenario simply for you
+I've listened. I am unconvinced. . Especially in this case, where you are are discussing the actions of people of one race using your membership of another for authority - I really don't see how you consider this sensible. [SEP] Claiming authority by virtue of race might be an effective tactic with some people, but actually weakens your argument with others
+Incredibly poor article, "Last year the Australian team toured South Africa, one of its strongest rivals." No, no they didn't, that was 2014, NOT last year (no fact checking by NYT). [SEP] it's gobsmacking that was published by the NYT.
+Franklin Graham considers himself a Christian. How is that not about Christianity? And if politics intrude into Christianity, we are more than justified in criticizing this intrusion. I am raised in a country where conservative evangelicals taught me many bigoted falsehoods when I was young. And their views come from these right-wing evangelicals. I have cause to be concerned for my own faith as well. [SEP] You do not make any sense.
+Where have I focused on the physical? Sexual needs are emotionally and physically tied together. Please explain. [SEP] What is wrong with this woman trying to please her partner?
+It doesn't matter to me if you have or want kids, doesn't affect me. . Like I never wanted kids ever but when I turned 30,something changed and I wanted one, that could happen to you or not. I don't think people are trying to be mean, so even though annoying just brush them off. I'm perfectly cool with child-free people as long as they don't call me a breeder or I have fuck trophies or my kids are spoiled little crotch fruit or compare crap parenting that they witness to my parenting. You know really disrespectful things. Having kids isn't for everyone. [SEP] People generally say "you'll change you mind" because people are always changing and the things you want or don't want today may change later in life or maybe they won't
+I still don't get your point. Debt sucks, but it ties the US and the Chinese together in a way that no other way can. It still exists and is an issue and should be considered. China buying this debt is a token of friendship and as far as I know they are considered one of our allies. If this is so, we should try to talk to them before getting others involved. >We'll still buy their products anyway and if they stop it we'll just buy from somewhere else that allows it. If the US and Europe takes a stand and puts an embargo on countries that do not comply with our standards on labor then no we will not. If we did it for the "Red Hate" you are resurrecting (look at what a shit hole Cuba is because of it), then surely we can put such a tactic to good use. P.S. >Have you noticed how the daily stories about Chinese mining conditions have stopped ever since the recent tragedy in the US? WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT? Why would it be any different on a country wide, or even hemisphere wide, scale. There is plenty shit to be pissed about without jumping at shadows. [SEP] If people die in your city you hear about that first if you get your news locally.
+He definitely wasn't being intentionally disrespectful but his attitude/stance is one shared by many members of the church. I don't know if it's willful ignorance or an uncanny ability to rationalize things. >Some people suggest there is a harmful effects the church has on the LGBT community, especially the youth, which I agree could be true. If the church does indeed have a negative impact on the LGBT community, I dont think you can argue that they are intentionally causing harm to individuals of the LGBT community. Lets keep that conversation going but its not a good idea to use name calling. The church has and can change. So does medicine. He kinda-sorta-not really admits that the church harms members of the LGBT community but somehow thinks that the church isn't targeting said members. I don't know how he can say that with a straight face given the new church policy directed towards children of gay parents found in Handbook 1 Section 16.13 that reads as follows. >A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1. >The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage. 2. >The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage. This is an especially hurtful policy given the contradiction of one of the Articles of Faith (basic beliefs of the LDS church originally penned by Joseph Smith). Article of Faith 2 reads "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." Growing up in the church, I was taught that Article of Faith this extends such that children will not be punished for the sins of their parents; individuals are to be punished when they personally transgress. Incognito_bill thinks that it is inappropriate to lash out at these sorts of policies in favor of calm, measured discussion. LDS church leaders don't listen, they don't want to listen, to people who disagree with them (see the September Six, [Kate Kelly]( http John Dehlin, and the Strengthening Church Members Comittee). The church does not allow members (not just church leaders) to vocally (and politely, I might add) dissent from what those at the top have decided is true/best/correct. When polite discourse inside the church is stifled, angry discourse outside the church will grow. [SEP] dont you think it would be a better idea to have a constructive conversation rather than name calling?
+That's why you can buy an S&W M&P 22 as well as the .223 version. They're not the same thing at all. [SEP] It's really not though, and I'm quite sure you know there's a difference.
+He hit on the one thing I don't like about the game. The racism doesn't feel well used in the game. Maybe a recording talking about why he needs to kill his political opponents, where he talks more like Andrew Ryan. [SEP] It feels like it is there to make me dislike Comstock. I wish they would have developed Comstock's two sides more. They covered his prophet/racist side well, but I would like to see more of the person with political aspirations.
+First of all, worth is quite relative but consensus-derived opinion is different. Second of all, you think because I'm downvoted people have objectively read my comment and replied with a succinct reason why they downvoted? Or a lot of people going "Oh, he's downvoted so clearly you're wrong," which d'you think it is? Read this: > Why does reddit need moderation? Can't you just let the voters decide? >The reason there are separate reddits is to allow niche communities to form, instead of one monolithic overall community. These communities distinguish themselves through their policies: what's on- and off-topic there, whether people are expected to behave civilly or can feel free to be brutal, etc. > The problem is that casual, new, or transient visitors to a particular community don't always know the rules that tie it together. > As an example, imagine a /r/swimming and a /r/scuba. People can read about one topic or the other (or subscribe to both). But since scuba divers like to swim, a casual user might start submitting swimming links on /r/scuba. And these stories will probably get upvoted, especially by people who see the links on the reddit front page and don't look closely at where they're posted. If left alone, /r/scuba will just become another /r/swimming and there won't be a place to go to find an uncluttered listing of scuba news. > The fix is for the /r/scuba moderators to remove the offtopic links, and ideally to teach the submitters about the more appropriate /r/swimming reddit. www.reddit.com/help/faq [SEP] Should I spell it out or can you understand the simple analogy?
+To my knowledge toxic masculinity is a societal concept (already making it something that cannot be defined without generalizing, so take with a grain of salt here and there) that is perpetuated by members of said society regardless of their gender. A man isn't expressing toxic masculinity when he's both: not harming other people with his expression; is comfortable being his own, masculine self. Furthermore, those traits are only really toxic when the previously mentioned two criteria aren't met. If a man's worth is determined by others on how much sexual intercourse he has had (despite him possibly not being very interested in sex or maybe having trouble approaching such a concept) and as a result the negative emotions that come with such treatment are either damaging the man himself or those around him, the situation becomes an example of 'toxic masculinity'. Or how 'cuck' has been such a popular insult in recent times. Stand your ground at all times, don't consider opinions people might find odd at first glance, be harsh and rough towards it or else you'll be considered a cuckold and therefore an embarrassment of a man and to manhood!! That doesn't mean a man who is comfortable being a very tough stand-your-ground type of guy or someone who does have a lot of sex in his days are also bad. There's nothing objectionable about it if they're not harming themselves or others (by forcing themselves to act that way at the fear of being an outcast, for instance). You enjoy fucking a lot and don't abuse people through it? Cool! You're someone who can easily pick himself up again after taking an emotional hit without much help? Awesome! But don't shame the men who aren't exactly like that. Toxic Masculinity is called that not because it's something that's supposedly 'naturally' apparent within all men. It's called that because people (all of them) assume that those certain behaviours are considered the norm of masculinity for all men, and deviating from it as a man is something he should be laughed at and shamed for. Note: This is just what I know about the concept, I'm not gonna go claiming around like I'm some sort of professor on it. I just want to offer another perspective. [SEP] The 'toxic' part of the term doesn't refer to masculinity as a whole being a toxic concept (that's both silly to assume and far beyond our current understanding of the human psyche) but rather specific traits that people would describe as masculine and especially "proper" masculinity. Traits such as unnecessarily aggressive behaviour, an endless thirst for sexual pleasure, lack of empathy, never allowing oneself to show any sign of 'weakness' and overly harsh and rough responses towards new or deviating situations.
+But please continue trying to show that your bias is not driving your opinion instead of logic and reason. You ignore the reality of the situation and facts at hand, instead you have fallen victim to a blatant PR stunt. Good luck with buying that bridge for sale. I just hope you're not gullible enough to brag about that purchase too. [SEP] I have directly responded to your questions several times, your lack of understanding is not my concern and not a reason for me to continually repeat myself.
+> You did nothing wrong and have nothing to feel guilty over. I hear you. However, the author stated:- > I had no idea, but I have been groping my daughter in my sleep for years. Typically, groping people for years isn't a good thing. There's no mens rea, but the actus reus exists. That's Latin for "doing something wrong". You'll have a hell of a job convincing a jury that she's the rapist when for years he has been That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean you'll have to do better than black-and-white thinking. No one is innocent in this situation, and I think it's counterproductive to try to make him feel even more like a victim. My interpretation of events differs from yours. It sounds to me as if he and his daughter are victims of an illness that he doesn't understand and cannot control. Name-calling wouldn't be productive at this stage. [SEP] entering her bed and touching her.
+It's not easy. That's what makes it fun. It appeals to a different type of gamer than you. That's ok. That's the reason we have these two franchises. [SEP] Not everyone enjoys a challenge.
+This is coming from the person who put one single puffer in a tank alone. Dude now that is cruel. [SEP] You want your fish to be alone, just like you.
+> ...If that's legal then I would think that should be illegal as well lmao. Why? >So are you saying that an AR15 is only more effective at a minimum of 300 yards? No, but in a confined enviroment (indoors, like a school) full length rifles are not optimal. Carbines or PDWs would be better. > By the way, is it possible to load higher caliber ammunition in an AR15 than the standard? Yes. You just have to change the upper receiver, the lower reciever and the barrel. Basically get a new gun and keep the sights. >Your best solution to this mass shooting problem that we have more than any other country is to post kids up against the doors. >Why do most mass shooters choose AR15 type weapons over hand guns? There has to be some benefit in general no? Much the same reason they do it to begin with. For decades, mental health professionals have said that the way the media treats these events is the reason they are repeated. Aside from the AR-15 being very common, it is what the "heroes" of the shooters used. >Do they think that though? Yes >Yet we're the only country that has far and I mean FAR more mass shootings than any other developed country. So what is the problem? Mental health? Why dont other countries have this massive outbreak of mental health problems that leads to multiple shootings all year and it's just us? In your opinion, what is the cause of the problem and what is your solution? If you are seriously interested in reducing the amount of mass shootings, I absolutely encourage you to read what mental health professionals have written on the issue. Don't take my word for it, go out, do some reading, think critically and arrive at your own, informed, conclusion. [SEP] Nope. That is just one solution that doesn't cost anything, doesn't require depriving people of their rights and is more effective than anything legislators have proposed.
+You're not experienced enough to be making your own program. Read the Wiki [SEP] Many (most) of us here manage to go to the gym more than twice a week whilst also juggling work/school and other hobbies. I'm sure you can too.
+"Why shouldn't a wage be livable?" Uh, I don't know, there are countless reasons. One might be that, uh... (maybe grip your head firmly between your hands so it doesn't explode here...) THE NATURAL STATE OF BEING IS NOT WEALTH. Even defining "livable wage" would be way too tall an order for you; not that you tried. You betray your absolute lack of perspective and I again fervently hope you're no older than about 16. Seriously, though, do I really have to use another example or could you use the pizza one I already gave? "Hey, high schooler making $5 an hour to wash dishes... sorry, but I have to fire you because I can't pay anyone less than $10 and you're not worth it." [SEP] Yeah, more typical teenage r/politics stuff.
+Women have a womb for a reason. In all species, reproduction is the whole and absolute point of a species, and in our species females are the queens of reproduction. Every single person is born from a mother. Every single one. Now how you get little babies is sex. Maybe you've never had this talk before, but that's how it works. A man + a woman = baby. Now what drives attraction for women. Security to protect her and (future baby), This can be big muscles. It can be intelligence. It can be money. It can be a stable social position. If you have all 4 I can guarantee you are getting married. GUARANTEE IT. The other one is leadership. This one also stems from the primal urge to know where she and baby are going in life. Just like nomadic tribes, just like where to go and get food. Instinctively women are drawn to someone who can lead. Leadership also signals confidence which is important because when things get bad. Mother and Baby don't want someone to run away who a scaredy cat, or someone who doesn't know what they are doing with their life because uncertainty leads to insecurity...and as I mentioned earlier. Security is important. All women operate on that fundamental principle. ALL OF THEM. Women are smart and complex and wonderful creatures, but the basic biological drive for mating (dating) is that, and it has been that way for tens of thousands of years. They are evolved to be wired that way. The reason being. Secure Mom => Secure Baby = Secure future generation. The entire primary fundamental point of the species. Everything else you have been told to believe is total social psychology conditioning bullshit. None of it matters. Attraction isn't a choice. It's a primal instinct that women are subconsciously turning on to push them in a direction for breeding. It always works this way. It always has. [SEP] You obviously have zero understanding of the basic fundamentals of human beings.
+>The main reason I seem to see again and again for UKIP gaining ground. Islam and ISIS. Surely no body can deny that islam has statistically higher extremists than any other religion. >Extra-lol for the vehement desire to protect your own culture [SEP] I'm sorry you feel that way, do you hate your own culture? People of every background should be proud of their ancestry.
+Hillary Clinton was a great candidate. She had the misfortune of being subjected to 30+ years and half a billion dollars worth of witch hunts. The fishing expedition on her husband, and that's all it was, was a fishing expedition, they found nothing on him but they kept going till he fucked up. Bernie was NOT. A. DEMOCRAT. He only joined the party on April 30, 2015 -- less than two years ago. Solely to run for president. You can't jump in line in front of people who have spent their entire lives as public servants ! You don't get to jump to the front of the line ahead of Hillary Clinton, one of the most intelligent and thoroughly fucking vetted (see 30+ year half billion dollar non stop gang stalking gaslighting witch hunt) candidate in modern history. I mean, she was, is, and remains a better vetted candidate than Barack Obama, as great as he is. YOU cut the bullshit. You've been spoon fed Gerbers baby food by the GOP establishment, laced with poison, if you think Bernie Sanders was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. Sanders has some great ideas and great traits, but he is not and never has been presidential material. He'd make one hell of a tank had Clinton won -- put him on one issue at a time that he was passionate about, and tell him to not come back until it's fixed. That's how you deal with stubborn assed, single issue grumps. Bernie is the tank in every raid, but never the quartermaster. Hillary Clinton is CLEAN as fuck. She made a lot of mistakes and was a little bit too hawkish for my tastes, but she's one of the most intelligent people in DC. She's not the rockstar that Bill was, but she's much smarter than he is. Oh, and if I had an entire cottage industry who spent fucking decades with only one goal, to destroy me, yeah, she gets a pass for being closed up and secretive even. How can she not be in an institution with PTSD at this point? Because she's that tough-as-fuck. I apologize for hitting hard. But it's bullshitbullshitbullshit and not merely naive but willfully ignorant to believe that 1) Sanders deserved to cut to the front of the line 2) Sanders was presidential material 3) Hillary Clinton was shitty, unlikeable, and untrustworthy, and 4) that anyone other than Hillary Clinton was qualified. Now, the bad guys, having divided, are now going in for the kill. And they are truly the bad guys. I'm not even talking about that big fucking titty baby Donald Trump, who can't see past his vanity mirror. I'm talking about the American and Russian oligarchs who pull the strings. Donald Trump is just one more Black Sea yacht whore, and he doesn't even know it because he's only in it for the grift. You, me, the people who fucking voted for Donald Trump, the shit heads on the_cheeto -- we're all fucked. Because they don't care about us, they never have, and they never will. Imma ask the bartender to send the bill for my first shot to you. I'll buy the second one, but your post is just fuckery. And looking at your post history, your beliefs overlap mine. Except for your opinion of Hillary stated above. She is not perfect but she's great. And I have liked her since day 1. The jobs are gone, they're not coming back. Robots and automation and China until robots take away China's labor. The goal is a stateless society where corporations answer to no government, no god (and no trick bitch single issue voting Christian), no law. [SEP] and then kick a big baby fit when you don't get your way. No wonder spoiled ass special snowflake millennials gravitated to him
+, but E-R is better than R-E because it cuts the animation of Riven's Ultimate. Edit: Why am I being downvoted? I explained why E-R is better and I contributed to the discussion [SEP] You obviously don't understand how Riven's animation cancelling works
+I get it already, you take the doctrine for granted. You do not comprehend it's significance today. You do not understand the pragmatic application it had then, nor now. There have been 11,000 attempts to amend U.S. Constitution since 1789, only 27 amendments have passed, 10 of them in one shot with the Bill of Rights. Changes to the constitution can only be accomplished through the amending process. It places strict limitations on how the national government can use its power. Later amendments gave rights to other groups and some changed how the government functions, such as making slavery illegal, giving women the rights to vote, things you care about I'd figure. You clearly haven't read the 3rd amendment if you think that's true. > No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. There isn't a labeled expiration date on the constitution, it would last as long as the government of the country upholding it does. It'll most likely outlive you. Who knows what the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the constitution, I'm sure they didn't imagine the 1st amendment would apply to radio, television, the internet, nor did they imagine the 4th amendment would cover electronic wiretapping and video surveillance etc. Which is why it's described as a living document, it grows and changes with the changing needs of the country. Through the addition of amendments, the constitution is able to adapt in ways that are needed for the nation to succeed. The electoral college is more relevant today than it ever was, it prevented a war criminal bought by Saudi Arabia [\[2nd source\]]( http from ever becoming president. I'd advise you read the constitution in it's entirety before you make another shitpost. Thanks. [SEP] The constitution empowers American citizens, shields it from tyrannical governments and keeps it in check by ensuring accountability amongst the different branches, and offers exclusive benefits that brought us into modern times as one of the most highly respected forms of governing.
+So basically impatience trumps safety? If certain people can't handle being out in snowy/icy conditions, they should do themselves a favor and wait patiently for the roads to be cleared. You should always assume the worst when you head out. Anticipate unplowed roads and drive accordingly (or stay home). Even if the state decides to take your side and makes it legal, it's plain old common sense to give these plow trucks the same equipment as emergency response vehicles to cross intersections safely. [SEP] It just seems pretty selfish to potentially endanger the lives of other drivers who have no trouble getting around (comfortable with the conditions) just for the sake of making roads more accessible to inexperienced and/or ill-equipped drivers.
+You're bad at this. I'm not sure you know what that word means, since your comments in this thread reek of condescension yet you accuse me of it. You mean crawl back into my books and information? Sure thing. Enjoy your echo chamber of white supremacy and edgelord sociopathy. I'm glad to see you've found reddit, a place full of like-minded people to share your twisted, racist worldview. [SEP] Gently wording things is condescension?
+It's a terribly difficult struggle. Showing that you don't take that struggle for granted just because you haven't had to endure that particular hardship counts for something. Ask them questions about how they did it - what was the hardest part? What are they most proud of? Give them an opener to express pride in their accomplishment, and encourage those who are trying. Secondly, while I don't quite understand the context of your neurologist topic diet, I think the part of it that you can take away and bring to such conversations is this: Everyone has different needs. A diet that works for one person may not be as effective for another. That is the most polite way of dealing with it, IMO. As a more specific example, if two women are debating whether one diet is better than the other, your contribution can simply be "Well that one might work very well for so & so, but maybe this other one would fit better with your life." Be encouraging for whatever someone chooses, as long as it doesn't seem dangerous - but honestly, even if it does seem dangerous, it might be better to just keep your mouth shut about it. I tend to open my mouth about this sort of thing far too often, and come off as a judgmental jerk. Basically, if you aren't sure what to contribute to the diet conversation, stick to supportive and encouraging questions. [SEP] Express admiration and respect for those who have managed to lose weight.
+>Once the liberal elite get pulled down with us, I couldn't care less. Maybe you should sit down with yourself, do some research and focus on what will improve your own life. Aiming to bring others down is destructive and useless. [SEP] And this is why people look down on Trump supporters: we know the majority of you are malicious willing to vote against your self interest to lash out against people who you think have excluded you. You won't gain their respect that way. You're just confirming what they already think of you.
+Ugh, I'm not a guy and this is just embarrassing to read. I never noticed it before, everyone sits awkwardly on public transport. Everyone explains things, everyone swears. What's next? Oh, dick pics. Because only straight white people send those. >find someone who looks nothing like you and let them speak. Soooo... be racist? What? >We, as a demographic, have been really quite terrible to other genders, races, and sexual orientations over the millennia Why do SJWs love the sins of the fathers thing? And why are they so badly educated when it comes to history? Men have every right to offended by some of the filth that comes from these people. >“slut”, “bitch”, “whore” .... It tends not to be a turn-on. This man has never had sex. >Appropriation is crime enough lol no Don't go outside, don't speak, feel bad about yourself for your race, gender, and orientation. Just kill yourself, basically. You're probably a rapist anyway. [SEP] I don't understand why "manspreading" is even a thing.
+Queuing as 5 peoples does not bind you to forever play with them again haha.... if you dont like them move on and find others. Even the rank mode is going to be 5man queu only, which further back my point that this is a team game. Its a game that shines while playing as a team... otherwise its simply a very easy version of LoL and Dota. If hes fine having fun alone, good for him! Cause as you said, he can play the game however he wants its none of my business. Though dont come showin off builds that are made to play solo... there is little substance to that. Even worst, dont go saying youre continuing to play solo cause you want to improv even more.... when thr masterable aspect of the game lies in the teamwork. [SEP] Teamfights is the name of the game, if you dont understand that now, you will eventually. And if this guy still dont understand that after 700 games quein alone, he probly never will unless someone try to explain it to him.
+Temperature delta is a function of energy into the radiator vs energy out of the radiator. The material carrying the heat to the rad doesn't change that. Come on dude, this is highschool level conservation of energy. [SEP] The thermal mass keeps the water temps from rising rapidly with core temps, it doesn't make the CPU cooler.
 It's not "my" college football program, just pointing out how inaccurate it is to suggest that UW-Madison is "only known for having a football team". It's a terrific academic university that also has a strong athletics program [SEP] UW is "only known for having a football team".
->I just don't get how that would be possible. Even if blisters only come in (half-able) 5mg pills, that would allow one to take any dosage necessary. 2.5mg and any multiple thereof. Some people need 10 pills, others need 15, others need 90, a lot of medications aren't just once daily for a month. Also, you can't sell individual blisters, unless you put them in a bottle, because it needs to be child proof. And even if you wanted to, you wouldn't save any time counting blisters than you would pills. And they'd take up way more space on the shelves. >Really? In germany we have, i'm not sure actually how many distributors we have, but every pharmacy has at least next day before opening delivery. And then they will deliver that medication to your door if you like. Cardinal and McKesson are next day delivery, every day. The company warehouses are usually for a limited number of "fast mover" medications. >I literally never heard of this happening, ever. Then you haven't been involved in manufacturing, ever (my background was engineering before pharmacy). Every factory has limits in its machinery, and every factory has workers who make mistakes (the same kind that pharmacy technicians can make). And thus pharmacists have to check even blisters. >Apparently governmental oversight of manufacturers is severely lacking. US sets the standards for the whole world in drug research and manufacturing, but yeah sure, there are always limits. >Huh? You don't trust your delivery drivers? What are they gonna do? Swap medications for others? Actually, in the land of the free and greedy, this might actually be possible. Pharmacy is a business and these are highly controlled drugs, you can't just trust anyone. Every step in the process is documented as mandated by both law and basic business practice, otherwise you end up with drugs that have been tampered (or just left in the heat too long) or diverted with no way of tracking them. I guarantee you every single modern country does it the same way. >Yeah, liability is a bitch in the states. By third party I mean private health insurance payors (and government ones as the US is somewhat of a mixed system), but yes, legal liability is also a major concern and a large reason why pharmacists require a doctorate and are paid pretty well. [SEP] Also, you can't sell individual blisters, unless you put them in a bottle, because it needs to be child proof.
-This game was one of my favorites back in the day. People seem to hate it for the worst reasons though. Like, shoutouts to all my fuck boys, but you all are the most entitled, coddled, bitch bitches who ever tried to nut up fam. Let me break it down Dead Rising is a game Try to keep that in mind as we move forward Time limit That's the whole point of the game. Managing your time is supposed to be hard cuz it's a game. A game that's easy is just a movie anyway Saving Boo hoo you gotta potty to save. Bruh. They're everywhere. Cmon fam chill. AI It's supposed to be bad dawg. That's so you gotta play the game and save em. If they'd save themselves then your not gaming. Bruh. Fam! Smh? Anyway this is like the literal last game I remember playing that was a real game first and "an experience" second. I never bought the sequel because I can't figure out which version I'm supposed to. [SEP] It's supposed to be bad dawg.
-Sure, there are flashbacks. This much is clear. But what is up for questioning is what is a flashback, and what is not. What is in the past, and what is not. And assuming the show is logically consistent, you can draw certain conclusions. Like, for example, that if Dolores remembers Mib before she runs into William, William is in a timeline where Mib is old. Old Mib is in the present. This means William has gotta be in the present. But like I said above, this could be some editing trickery. But if it is, I'd feel like I'd been lied to. In my eyes, that would be bad directing, and it would make me very sad. [SEP] I'd feel like I'd been lied to
-You don't need a revolution by violence, no -- but you will have to use violence to neutralize the capacity of violence on the part of people would use that violence as a basis of making themselves rulers. And, yes, I fully realize some of those would be rulers may be flying a red and/or black flag -- doesn't change the fact that neutralizing their capacity doesn't make you an oppressor, which is what you seem to be asserting. > When a cultural revolution away from competition and violence occurs, people will be less prone to it. I don't see any reason to think that the capacity for violence that exists won't be used by some to try to maintain/re-create authority and hierarchy, unless that capacity is neutralized. > If violence is in self defense, then it's not fascism. If its an assassination, then it is definitely fascism. I'm talking about neutralizing the capacity for violence of people who would try to make themselves tyrants -- if that's not self defense I don't know what is. And what's the problem in your eyes with assassinating people actively using violence to make themselves a tyrant or ruler -- how is that not just a form of self defense? Also, as an aside, fascism actually has a meaning -- it doesn't just mean political violence or even authoritarianism. When you use it in the loose and sweeping way it actually hurts your argument. [SEP] I don't see any reason to think that the capacity for violence that exists won't be used by some to try to maintain/re-create authority and hierarchy, unless that capacity is neutralized.
-> I'm sorry that you aren't interested in that. Perhaps you could say, “fair point. Here’s where I disagree.” With regard to your contention that it is working within the party, yes I do see your perspective there. My point on California was that EVERYONE, even when they are polling <2% thinks that “the machine” is holding them down, when it’s not really possible that every single one of them is The People’s True Favorite. There’s going to be some natural tension between wanting to change what other people don’t think needs changing, and it’s not realistic to think they will welcome you with open arms. You say the people have to decide. Well, I want a Democrat, and I’m flexible on flavor. Why is it okay to deny me my choice because they really, really, really think that they are the super-duper, double-dog flavor that’s going to change the world? If there was a blue dog nipping at Beto’s heels in Texas who consistently polled behind him, but insisted on sucking energy out of his bid, I’d want them to get out too. [SEP] Perhaps you could say, “fair point. Here’s where I disagree.”
-Don't bother. This guy is smarter than all of Harvard and Yale, you will never beat his stellar arguments [SEP] This guy is smarter than all of Harvard and Yale,
-Actually, I do believe it is. I don't think you are well equipped to deal with reality and you seem to lack the mental apparatus to distinguish the difference between your profanity laced posts and mine. [SEP] well equipped to deal with reality
-It’s not so much they are a “bad person” and wish you all would stop twisting my comments like that. It’s this: if you are a short person and some woman openly rejects you on height to your face, that’s not a person worth pursuing, is it? It’s “shitty” for that person to reject someone like that based on height, which is my opinion, but ultimately that girl will end up with who they end up with and you, the proverbial short person, will end up with someone who isn't discrimatory. Just as a Jew isn’t going to marry a Nazi. Or a person of color isn’t going to marry a white supremacist. People have biases. Having a preference for red hair =/= “I refuse to date anyone besides redheads. People always have wish lists. My point was that it’s 99% bullshit, in my experience, because sometimes you meet someone who breaks that list. My OP was really poking at the classic internet complaint: I see more guys bitching about being discriminated against for being short vs. women bitching about short guys. Yeah, it’s a fun stereotype to make fun of girls (or anyone really) with unrealistic expectations of their ideal partner, but at the end of the day, people fall in love with short people All. The. Time. Obviously short guys are getting it. I think some of you are getting way too riled up over some stranger’s opinion, whether is me or some bitch on Tinder. Who cares? The girl says “no short guys” while the guy says “no fatties”. In both cases, you just have to take it as their problem and move on. There are girls who don’t care about height. I’ve got many short friends who were successful. That’s all I was trying to say. [SEP] I think some of you are getting way too riled up over some stranger’s opinion, whether is me or some bitch on Tinder.
-It's almost like Rwanda is not a perfect country, but neither is any other country in the world... [SEP] It's almost like
->Really depends on how any given person wants to define the boundaries. No, it doesn't. You're just setting arbitrary rules because you said something dumb and someone called you out on it. Pretending that your stupid, arbitrary rules should be accepted as valid simply because you made it up only makes you look worse. No one would argue that the Witcher games aren't a trilogy simply because they switched engines. The engine has nothing to do with how you group a trilogy, it would be like claiming a film isn't part of a trilogy because it was filmed digitally while the other two were on physical filmstock. That would be ridiculous. By that logic we don't need a Half Life 3 to bring a closure to the narrative of the "trilogy" because we already have two sets of three games released on both of Valves engines. There are 4 games in the series. If you insist on grouping things as "trilogies" even when it doesn't make sense, you can't claim there isn't at the very least a "trilogy" of Counter Strike games. But hey, if you really want to go into the world where words don't actually mean anything and it's all about "how a given person wants to define the boundaries" then fine. I now declare that a trilogy only requires two parts and therefore Valve has now made more Trilogies than any other studio ever. [SEP] You're just setting arbitrary rules because you said something dumb and someone called you out on it. Pretending that your stupid, arbitrary rules should be accepted as valid simply because you made it up only makes you look worse.
-Please sir. This is disgusting. Don't shield rape because the accused is a BJP guy. Please. Edit: And here I get -3 votes because of being sensible. Bhai muze bhi BJP accha lagta hai lekin uparlikhit comment ye saaf chutiyagiri tha. If nothing else, don't you guys want the BJP to fucking win? Do you think it will if it's support base and even one fucking member of the party supports/shields the accused, who is probably guilty as in most highly-covered rape cases or tries to transfer the blame to the opposition to score a political point? Don't you guys at least agree that assholes exist everywhere? Even in the BJP? Don't you think we should rid the BJP of afforementioned assholes? The most politically and more importantly morally correct strategy for the BJP would be to publicly condemn said accused and cut off all ties with the person. And to those who are crying that the BJP MLA is not yet convicted, would you have practiced such sensibility had the accused been from the opposite ideology or party? No you would not. Look at threads about a Maulvi or Congressi being a rapist. Don't let the BJP supporter in you overwhelm the human in you. Okay never mind. Keep downvoting. [SEP] Okay never mind. Keep downvoting.
-1. I have a history degree. 2. Don't go all nationalist on me. When Germans hear "1920s radical German nationalists," there's only one party they're thinking of. [SEP] Don't go all nationalist on me.
-> Having lots of mana to spare is not the reason Anub is/was strong. It's his base kit CC and ultimate that make him strong. Good ol' single-cause fallacy :) We do all realize that him being strong is actually caused by a combination of incredibly many factors and each of them would be a suitable way of regulating his strength? Yeah, the world is complex, it sucks. [SEP] We do all realize that him being strong is actually caused by a combination of incredibly many factors and each of them would be a suitable way of regulating his strength? Yeah, the world is complex, it sucks.
+>I just don't get how that would be possible. Even if blisters only come in (half-able) 5mg pills, that would allow one to take any dosage necessary. 2.5mg and any multiple thereof. Some people need 10 pills, others need 15, others need 90, a lot of medications aren't just once daily for a month. And even if you wanted to, you wouldn't save any time counting blisters than you would pills. And they'd take up way more space on the shelves. >Really? In germany we have, i'm not sure actually how many distributors we have, but every pharmacy has at least next day before opening delivery. And then they will deliver that medication to your door if you like. Cardinal and McKesson are next day delivery, every day. The company warehouses are usually for a limited number of "fast mover" medications. >I literally never heard of this happening, ever. Then you haven't been involved in manufacturing, ever (my background was engineering before pharmacy). Every factory has limits in its machinery, and every factory has workers who make mistakes (the same kind that pharmacy technicians can make). And thus pharmacists have to check even blisters. >Apparently governmental oversight of manufacturers is severely lacking. US sets the standards for the whole world in drug research and manufacturing, but yeah sure, there are always limits. >Huh? You don't trust your delivery drivers? What are they gonna do? Swap medications for others? Actually, in the land of the free and greedy, this might actually be possible. Pharmacy is a business and these are highly controlled drugs, you can't just trust anyone. Every step in the process is documented as mandated by both law and basic business practice, otherwise you end up with drugs that have been tampered (or just left in the heat too long) or diverted with no way of tracking them. I guarantee you every single modern country does it the same way. >Yeah, liability is a bitch in the states. By third party I mean private health insurance payors (and government ones as the US is somewhat of a mixed system), but yes, legal liability is also a major concern and a large reason why pharmacists require a doctorate and are paid pretty well. [SEP] Also, you can't sell individual blisters, unless you put them in a bottle, because it needs to be child proof.
+This game was one of my favorites back in the day. People seem to hate it for the worst reasons though. Like, shoutouts to all my fuck boys, but you all are the most entitled, coddled, bitch bitches who ever tried to nut up fam. Let me break it down Dead Rising is a game Try to keep that in mind as we move forward Time limit That's the whole point of the game. Managing your time is supposed to be hard cuz it's a game. A game that's easy is just a movie anyway Saving Boo hoo you gotta potty to save. Bruh. They're everywhere. Cmon fam chill. AI That's so you gotta play the game and save em. If they'd save themselves then your not gaming. Bruh. Fam! Smh? Anyway this is like the literal last game I remember playing that was a real game first and "an experience" second. I never bought the sequel because I can't figure out which version I'm supposed to. [SEP] It's supposed to be bad dawg.
+Sure, there are flashbacks. This much is clear. But what is up for questioning is what is a flashback, and what is not. What is in the past, and what is not. And assuming the show is logically consistent, you can draw certain conclusions. Like, for example, that if Dolores remembers Mib before she runs into William, William is in a timeline where Mib is old. Old Mib is in the present. This means William has gotta be in the present. But like I said above, this could be some editing trickery. But if it is, . In my eyes, that would be bad directing, and it would make me very sad. [SEP] I'd feel like I'd been lied to
+You don't need a revolution by violence, no -- but you will have to use violence to neutralize the capacity of violence on the part of people would use that violence as a basis of making themselves rulers. And, yes, I fully realize some of those would be rulers may be flying a red and/or black flag -- doesn't change the fact that neutralizing their capacity doesn't make you an oppressor, which is what you seem to be asserting. > When a cultural revolution away from competition and violence occurs, people will be less prone to it. > If violence is in self defense, then it's not fascism. If its an assassination, then it is definitely fascism. I'm talking about neutralizing the capacity for violence of people who would try to make themselves tyrants -- if that's not self defense I don't know what is. And what's the problem in your eyes with assassinating people actively using violence to make themselves a tyrant or ruler -- how is that not just a form of self defense? Also, as an aside, fascism actually has a meaning -- it doesn't just mean political violence or even authoritarianism. When you use it in the loose and sweeping way it actually hurts your argument. [SEP] I don't see any reason to think that the capacity for violence that exists won't be used by some to try to maintain/re-create authority and hierarchy, unless that capacity is neutralized.
+> I'm sorry that you aren't interested in that. With regard to your contention that it is working within the party, yes I do see your perspective there. My point on California was that EVERYONE, even when they are polling <2% thinks that “the machine” is holding them down, when it’s not really possible that every single one of them is The People’s True Favorite. There’s going to be some natural tension between wanting to change what other people don’t think needs changing, and it’s not realistic to think they will welcome you with open arms. You say the people have to decide. Well, I want a Democrat, and I’m flexible on flavor. Why is it okay to deny me my choice because they really, really, really think that they are the super-duper, double-dog flavor that’s going to change the world? If there was a blue dog nipping at Beto’s heels in Texas who consistently polled behind him, but insisted on sucking energy out of his bid, I’d want them to get out too. [SEP] Perhaps you could say, “fair point. Here’s where I disagree.”
+Don't bother. you will never beat his stellar arguments [SEP] This guy is smarter than all of Harvard and Yale,
+Actually, I do believe it is. I don't think you are and you seem to lack the mental apparatus to distinguish the difference between your profanity laced posts and mine. [SEP] well equipped to deal with reality
+It’s not so much they are a “bad person” and wish you all would stop twisting my comments like that. It’s this: if you are a short person and some woman openly rejects you on height to your face, that’s not a person worth pursuing, is it? It’s “shitty” for that person to reject someone like that based on height, which is my opinion, but ultimately that girl will end up with who they end up with and you, the proverbial short person, will end up with someone who isn't discrimatory. Just as a Jew isn’t going to marry a Nazi. Or a person of color isn’t going to marry a white supremacist. People have biases. Having a preference for red hair =/= “I refuse to date anyone besides redheads. People always have wish lists. My point was that it’s 99% bullshit, in my experience, because sometimes you meet someone who breaks that list. My OP was really poking at the classic internet complaint: I see more guys bitching about being discriminated against for being short vs. women bitching about short guys. Yeah, it’s a fun stereotype to make fun of girls (or anyone really) with unrealistic expectations of their ideal partner, but at the end of the day, people fall in love with short people All. The. Time. Obviously short guys are getting it. Who cares? The girl says “no short guys” while the guy says “no fatties”. In both cases, you just have to take it as their problem and move on. There are girls who don’t care about height. I’ve got many short friends who were successful. That’s all I was trying to say. [SEP] I think some of you are getting way too riled up over some stranger’s opinion, whether is me or some bitch on Tinder.
+Rwanda is not a perfect country, but neither is any other country in the world... [SEP] It's almost like
+>Really depends on how any given person wants to define the boundaries. No, it doesn't. No one would argue that the Witcher games aren't a trilogy simply because they switched engines. The engine has nothing to do with how you group a trilogy, it would be like claiming a film isn't part of a trilogy because it was filmed digitally while the other two were on physical filmstock. That would be ridiculous. By that logic we don't need a Half Life 3 to bring a closure to the narrative of the "trilogy" because we already have two sets of three games released on both of Valves engines. There are 4 games in the series. If you insist on grouping things as "trilogies" even when it doesn't make sense, you can't claim there isn't at the very least a "trilogy" of Counter Strike games. But hey, if you really want to go into the world where words don't actually mean anything and it's all about "how a given person wants to define the boundaries" then fine. I now declare that a trilogy only requires two parts and therefore Valve has now made more Trilogies than any other studio ever. [SEP] You're just setting arbitrary rules because you said something dumb and someone called you out on it. Pretending that your stupid, arbitrary rules should be accepted as valid simply because you made it up only makes you look worse.
+Please sir. This is disgusting. Don't shield rape because the accused is a BJP guy. Please. Edit: And here I get -3 votes because of being sensible. Bhai muze bhi BJP accha lagta hai lekin uparlikhit comment ye saaf chutiyagiri tha. If nothing else, don't you guys want the BJP to fucking win? Do you think it will if it's support base and even one fucking member of the party supports/shields the accused, who is probably guilty as in most highly-covered rape cases or tries to transfer the blame to the opposition to score a political point? Don't you guys at least agree that assholes exist everywhere? Even in the BJP? Don't you think we should rid the BJP of afforementioned assholes? The most politically and more importantly morally correct strategy for the BJP would be to publicly condemn said accused and cut off all ties with the person. And to those who are crying that the BJP MLA is not yet convicted, would you have practiced such sensibility had the accused been from the opposite ideology or party? No you would not. Look at threads about a Maulvi or Congressi being a rapist. Don't let the BJP supporter in you overwhelm the human in you. [SEP] Okay never mind. Keep downvoting.
+1. I have a history degree. 2. When Germans hear "1920s radical German nationalists," there's only one party they're thinking of. [SEP] Don't go all nationalist on me.
+> Having lots of mana to spare is not the reason Anub is/was strong. It's his base kit CC and ultimate that make him strong. Good ol' single-cause fallacy :) [SEP] We do all realize that him being strong is actually caused by a combination of incredibly many factors and each of them would be a suitable way of regulating his strength? Yeah, the world is complex, it sucks.
 Some atheists do think that way, or at least use that kind of stereotyping language. Some Christians do think that way about Atheists as well. I see it often enough for it to be "a thing". Both sides of that coin are wrong. There are people on both "sides" who conflate differences of ideology with differences of quality. Stereotyping is a problem, for every people-group. It's a tendency we all have to reduce someone in "the other" camp to less than what they actually are. This article is pointing out the faults of that line of thinking. [SEP] Stereotyping is a problem
->Just so everyone knows, this douchebag, fr-josh, was asked multiple times by multiple people in another AMA thread to prove who he was. I said in the OP text that I would do so if asked by the mods. I didn't get any such message, or it was buried in the 9000 comments in my inbox. >For example, he said he was unaware of all the homosexual activity within the priesthood. I talked in depth about the homosexual activity within the priesthood. I said that I personally wasn't involved in it and didn't have personal stories about secret gay sex (or something like that). Also, where was your link from? >There was a lot of other stuff, too, but it was a while ago, so I don't remember all of it. You tried to say that all that Aquinas wrote was doctrine, as if he never speculated in theology. The man wrote 50,000+ pages in his life- he's bound to make some errors. I really shouldn't be rehashing this with you. I should know better than to feed the troll. [SEP] I said in the OP text that I would do so if asked by the mods. I didn't get any such message, or it was buried in the 9000 comments in my inbox.
-Never said it was a predictor of success but when there are kids involved it's nice to make sure everyone can live together before committing to marriage and work through any bumps Congratulations for reading studies I'm proud of you Also,changing things because you've signed a piece of paper is silly and that's how kids resent stepparents. Move slowly and build a relationship before giving orders but you don't have to be a doormat either. [SEP] Congratulations for reading studies I'm proud of you
-No, these are not all aesthetic criticisms, but rather (mostly) criticisms of how the visual elements either serve or detract from the communicative value. But you are right in that it is still pretty subjective. There is no such thing as objectively good or bad art and that's okay; there is no such thing as objectively good or bad music either. Art is not a philosophy or a value set any more than Writing is. Art makes no claims as to what is or is not valid and I think that the disconnect between most people and art is that they expect it to. [SEP] Art is not a philosophy or a value set
-Well, the military service changes that whole picture and response, but thank you for being forthcoming about it. I also don't know what makes you think that low wage jobs are just for young people. Only about 30% of the population even has a college education, so maybe you are looking at that from a limited perspective. The unpaid internship...sheesh...don't even get me started with that. Indentured servitude. Should be illegal. That's just another way for corporations to take advantage. Let's face it, we have to generate some fake wars just to keep the military going and the economy rolling. Many of the wars in the last 40 years have been started under false pretenses to prop up our fake economy, make other country's resources available to our corporations to satisfy our lusty consumerism. That's probably a touchy area, and I'm not faulting your service. There are many fine things that are military does. I don't want to sound accusatory, because I respect your service and I wish you the best. I'm all for hearty individualism and lifting up your own bootstraps. But, you couldn't have done it without someone else's tax dollars, so try to keep that in mind when you make it big and treat the Tyree's of the world with some respect, too. [SEP] I don't want to sound accusatory, because I respect your service and I wish you the best. I'm all for hearty individualism and lifting up your own bootstraps. But, you couldn't have done it without someone else's tax dollars, so try to keep that in mind when you make it big and treat the Tyree's of the world with some respect, too.
-Sure, but even if they did do the child bones, they would have no reason to show the dragons. Even if they tried to catch them. It'd be better for next season when they can mention every episode "We made an attempt on Drogon. It failed." Episode 3 he flies away. That way his abandonment is fresh in the viewer's mind. They are not the most attentive crowd. They didn't remember Aemon was a Targaryen. Tyrion is going to be the longest, that's for certain. Meaning except for Arya, fringe stories are going to be unused. Brienne. Sansa. All of them. What we're left with in the closing is Stannis and Stoneheart. Stannis--maybe. Just to show a massive force? Maybe fire magic? Stoneheart -- resurrections can be epic if they try. [SEP] They are not the most attentive crowd. They didn't remember Aemon was a Targaryen.
-I really feel like I'm in bizzaro land every time I hear Bernie supporters complaining about how Hillary supporters behave, after 8 months of being attacked personally and insulted by Bernie supporters, called a shill twice a day on this subreddit, and after seeing Bernie supporters actually send death threats to people who blog or tweet about how they support Hillary. I mean, the primary is over, we really need to put that stuff behind us, but I still can't help saying just, what, seriously? [SEP] I mean, the primary is over, we really need to put that stuff behind us
-THAT'S all you had to say. That's good feedback and the sort of stuff that discussions are made from when people ask questions. "Get over it" is shallow and pedantic. Also, I don't know anything about you. The only thing I know about you is what you post on the internet, and when you post dry comments like that, you make yourself look like a douche. [SEP] THAT'S all you had to say. That's good feedback and the sort of stuff that discussions are made from when people ask questions. "Get over it" is shallow and pedantic.
-Is it really necessary to express your dislike for the Conservative party, just to admit that you find yourself agreeing with one Conservative member as he argues against the Conservative party line? You don't need to wear your blanket ideological rejection of the blue team as a badge of honour to have adult political discussions. It's actually better if you don't. [SEP] It's actually better if you don't.
+>Just so everyone knows, this douchebag, fr-josh, was asked multiple times by multiple people in another AMA thread to prove who he was. >For example, he said he was unaware of all the homosexual activity within the priesthood. I talked in depth about the homosexual activity within the priesthood. I said that I personally wasn't involved in it and didn't have personal stories about secret gay sex (or something like that). Also, where was your link from? >There was a lot of other stuff, too, but it was a while ago, so I don't remember all of it. You tried to say that all that Aquinas wrote was doctrine, as if he never speculated in theology. The man wrote 50,000+ pages in his life- he's bound to make some errors. I really shouldn't be rehashing this with you. I should know better than to feed the troll. [SEP] I said in the OP text that I would do so if asked by the mods. I didn't get any such message, or it was buried in the 9000 comments in my inbox.
+Never said it was a predictor of success but when there are kids involved it's nice to make sure everyone can live together before committing to marriage and work through any bumps Also,changing things because you've signed a piece of paper is silly and that's how kids resent stepparents. Move slowly and build a relationship before giving orders but you don't have to be a doormat either. [SEP] Congratulations for reading studies I'm proud of you
+No, these are not all aesthetic criticisms, but rather (mostly) criticisms of how the visual elements either serve or detract from the communicative value. But you are right in that it is still pretty subjective. There is no such thing as objectively good or bad art and that's okay; there is no such thing as objectively good or bad music either. any more than Writing is. Art makes no claims as to what is or is not valid and I think that the disconnect between most people and art is that they expect it to. [SEP] Art is not a philosophy or a value set
+Well, the military service changes that whole picture and response, but thank you for being forthcoming about it. I also don't know what makes you think that low wage jobs are just for young people. Only about 30% of the population even has a college education, so maybe you are looking at that from a limited perspective. The unpaid internship...sheesh...don't even get me started with that. Indentured servitude. Should be illegal. That's just another way for corporations to take advantage. Let's face it, we have to generate some fake wars just to keep the military going and the economy rolling. Many of the wars in the last 40 years have been started under false pretenses to prop up our fake economy, make other country's resources available to our corporations to satisfy our lusty consumerism. That's probably a touchy area, and I'm not faulting your service. There are many fine things that are military does. [SEP] I don't want to sound accusatory, because I respect your service and I wish you the best. I'm all for hearty individualism and lifting up your own bootstraps. But, you couldn't have done it without someone else's tax dollars, so try to keep that in mind when you make it big and treat the Tyree's of the world with some respect, too.
+Sure, but even if they did do the child bones, they would have no reason to show the dragons. Even if they tried to catch them. It'd be better for next season when they can mention every episode "We made an attempt on Drogon. It failed." Episode 3 he flies away. That way his abandonment is fresh in the viewer's mind. Tyrion is going to be the longest, that's for certain. Meaning except for Arya, fringe stories are going to be unused. Brienne. Sansa. All of them. What we're left with in the closing is Stannis and Stoneheart. Stannis--maybe. Just to show a massive force? Maybe fire magic? Stoneheart -- resurrections can be epic if they try. [SEP] They are not the most attentive crowd. They didn't remember Aemon was a Targaryen.
+I really feel like I'm in bizzaro land every time I hear Bernie supporters complaining about how Hillary supporters behave, after 8 months of being attacked personally and insulted by Bernie supporters, called a shill twice a day on this subreddit, and after seeing Bernie supporters actually send death threats to people who blog or tweet about how they support Hillary. , but I still can't help saying just, what, seriously? [SEP] I mean, the primary is over, we really need to put that stuff behind us
+Also, I don't know anything about you. The only thing I know about you is what you post on the internet, and when you post dry comments like that, you make yourself look like a douche. [SEP] THAT'S all you had to say. That's good feedback and the sort of stuff that discussions are made from when people ask questions. "Get over it" is shallow and pedantic.
+Is it really necessary to express your dislike for the Conservative party, just to admit that you find yourself agreeing with one Conservative member as he argues against the Conservative party line? You don't need to wear your blanket ideological rejection of the blue team as a badge of honour to have adult political discussions. [SEP] It's actually better if you don't.
 Cause your accusing someone of cheating who just wants to play the game Then make s thread and post about it [SEP] Accusing someone of cheating who just wants to play the game.
-You just assume that all possibilities for political reform have been exhausted. The LAPD needs intervention from outside agencies. Not vigilantism. Can you point to a police department that has been reformed by Dorner-style vigilantism? No? How, historically, have police departments been reformed? Maybe through a political process? You started this conversation by implying there was no better answer. Putting a message in a bottle would be a better answer than Dorner's, as he is decreasing the odds for serious reform by, as you seem to agree, invalidating his criticisms with his unjustified actions. >THE ONLY THING THAT MATTER IS THAT HE'S A MURDERER. Who's putting words in who's mouth? [SEP] Who's putting words in who's mouth?
-Which is why we elect only 18 year olds to be President, and to serve in Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, and we only draft grandparents to be in the military. ;-) but, over all, all I am suggesting is that there is a phenomena, however explained or not. Along the same line see this author http And in a related angle see also this ted video by Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor (which opens the door to a biological explanation) http along with this NPR piece on the Dali Lama connection to the Society for NueroScience http What Welles provides is one more data point that something is going on there there is something going on there. That's all. I can't say that they are all idiots. [SEP] Which is why we elect only 18 year olds to be President, and to serve in Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, and we only draft grandparents to be in the military.
-Que feo caso, pero no nos hagamos, en todos los partidos han de hacer algo parecido. Qué vergüenza, por eso no progresa México. Y lo más feo, que en la cuna de la inteleptualidá virtual Mexicana, existan 6 downvotes para éste post. ಠ_ಠ [SEP] Y lo más feo, que en la cuna de la inteleptualidá virtual Mexicana, existan 6 downvotes para éste post. ಠ_ಠ
-You don't understand - you are assuming that TERF's 'hate' any group - but WE are the ones who infer that their behaviour is hate. Consider this - your evidence that TERF's hate men is that they exclude them from Women's spaces like they do men. This requires you to have already assumed that TERF's hate men. There are many reasons to exclude men from a women's space - the hate comes in from their refusal to take account of that persons decision to change their gender. This is not something that TERF's could do to cisgendered men, so you must provide more evidence that they hate men. > If you don't view men as "the other," then it simply doesn't matter what your radical views on gender are; you wouldn't view trans women as encroaching onto "women's space," This is your real argument, and it has nothing to do with Trans people. You object to women having separate spaces at all, since Feminists are quite explicit about the need for women's only spaces. It is unneecessary to bring Trans people into it - TERF's are just a particularly hateful form of a group who hates men in this view. I disagree that women's spaces are evidence of feminists hating men, or treating them as 'the other' - for reasons I outlined in my last point. In fact - I am a man, how can I (being a feminist) treat myself as 'the other'? Is that not a contradiction in terms? > because you would think "male" and "female" spaces shouldn't actually exist as false dichotomies of an inherently gendered system. Perhaps, but we live in a society where women are the majority of the victims of gendered abuse, and excluded from political and economic power - if we lived in a completely equal society, you might have a point. Until we do, women are going to need their own spaces. > A rather large one, and two if you include /r/feminisms. But in any case, I'm not particularly worried about the ratio of TERFs to other feminists. Fine, whatever - it's clear that they do not represent mainstream feminist thought. I mean, Trans people are treated pretty badly by ALL of society - shouldn't we applaud the fact that the majority of feminists are supportive of trans issues, and that feminist gender theories have contributed much to the trans movement, instead of focusing on the hateful group (that is present throughout society). > I don't, actually. I see evidence of it over and over and over again that I would be hypocritical to ignore. Uh - where? > I think I might be willing to call myself a feminist if I ever see anyone substantiate 1 Domestic abuse statistics? Rape statistics? Everday Sexism project? How about look into history like, 50 years? Are you really denying that women, who make up half the human race and were excluded from voting for most of America's history, who were considered property until far too recently, who still are treated in this way in other places, experience more sexism than men - the historically more powerful group, who have committed the majority of rapes, the majority of domestic abuse, held exclusive power for most of history, and still do in some places across the world? > coherently define the terms in 2 Ok - we live in a representative democracy. The majority of politicians are men. The majority of CEO's of companies are men. The majority of the owners of capital are men. The majority of millionaires and billionaires are men. America has never had a female president. Are these not coherently defined terms? These are all what I (and most people) would consider political and economic power - so how do men not clearly still hold the majority of political and economic power. > and then substantiate it There is just a ridiculous amount of evidence for this - look up the proportion of women in the house and senate, consider that every single president has been a man. Look up the proportion of male and female CEO's, the proportion of male and female capital ownership. I'm not gonna find these things for you - it is just obvious. > to what extent they are and to what extent these things matter in the grand scheme of moral philosophy. This is ridiculous - you don't think there is something morally wrong when women, who make up half of the population, are represented within a democratic system far less than men, and have far less ownership of capital and control of business within a capitalist system? The only way you can possibly justify this is in thinking that women deserve not to be represented - which is sexism, plain and simple. > It's hard to say what "their" aim is, because "they're" composed of a bunch of different entities and conflicting views, terms, definitions, outlooks, philosophies, plans of actions, etc. Not really - the disagreement is in things like 'method,' where to focus, who to consider women etc. - but all feminists agree on basic premises. 1. Women have historically experienced, and continue to experience, disadvantages on the basis of their gender, and 2. This should be changed. > What I can say is that from what I've seen and in my own experience, I've not been impressed with the direction feminism seems to be headed in: a focus on dividing the genders and alienating men (and women!). I don't know or care what your experience is - I care what feminism as a political theory actually is. Feminism has been, and continues to be, a movement for the advancement of women within a patriarchal society - nothing about this implies alienating men. I am a man, I do not feel alienated - so our anecdotes canel each other out. Now, tell me how exploding gender norms has disadvantaged men? Tell me how campaigning against domestic abuse and rape has disadvantaged men? Tell me how women gaining the right to vote, no longer being considered the property of men, and demanding equal pay, disadvantages men? At most you can claim that they ignroe and exclude men - even if this were true, considering the systematic privilege that men have had, a focus on women's issues isn't exactly sexism. > But I think "feminism" would be remiss to ignore (or laugh off and insult -- which it seems to be doing more often these days) its detractors because those detractors seems to be growing in numbers. Has feminism ever not had detractors? It's hard to take them seriously when they (as you have) deny that men have benefitted from systematic sexism, when they deny that women experience the majority of sexism, abuse and rape. And how would you like them to take their detractors on board? All I ever see is anti-feminist saying 'Feminists hate men, they don't care about mens issues' - and feminists denying that they hate men, and pointing to the many areas where feminist theory and practice has helped men. There is one side denying reality - and it is not feminists. > First of all, since you're the one making the claim here, do you have evidence to substantiate your claim? I will find them for you, but I think it's absolute bullshit that you even try and deny this. Do you deny that it was legal to beat your wife in recent history? Here, from the American BAR association - In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female). - In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims. - Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002. - 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female - Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers Here is where I got these from http #prevalence So, don't make disingenous attempts to deny that women experience abuse because I didn't link you to a nice cushy data set spelling it out to you from the off - if you are serious about considering issues around gender, you would already know this. > you'll see that I frequent /r/femradebates, and I have these sorts of conversations fairly often, This doesn't mean that you're good at having these discussions, or well informed - it just tells me that you're probably too preoccupied with 'taking down feminists' as opposed to doing anything to actually aid debate. > so I'm quite familiar with a wide array of studies that have been done on these subjects Clearly fucking not. > And while more women do get raped, and more women do suffer from domestic abuse.... Just so you can't wriggle away from it - 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female Not the vast majority? Really? I don't think I am the misinformed one here. > That's simply not accurate. A man who's beaten by his wife is the butt of jokes in the media here and everywhere. That's been the case for some time. That doesn't mean support doesn't exist for these men - but absolutely that is a problem, and one which feminists would argue stems from patriarchal gender norms. Which is absolutely something feminists are trying to address - so what is your point? [SEP] I don't know or care what your experience is
-Oh, and also for the record, anyone wearing shoes with white soles...look like they belong behind the counter of a McDonalds. Nothing screams juvenile and trashy more....Sorry, but it needed to be said. It's true what they say...Money can't buy taste, style or class. That's the only way to explain their popularity. >You're entitled to your opinion. Sure, you can pretend to be an authority on style here, but just letting you know that the grown-up crowd has a taste quite contrary to what you've espoused here. [SEP] the grown-up crowd
-We're engaging in an absurd discussion, somehow because I wanted to prove you wrong. There's no need to back anything in an opinion forum, particularly something which is one Google search away. People may ask for proofs, but in practice it's useless, because even if you provide them, proving your assertion true, they react emotionally, not rationally. Proof: see above. [SEP] react emotionally
-Holy shit so freaking toxic, you were complaining about something you had no knowledge about so i corrected you. And now you call me autistic? I wasnt being rude at all i only said if you are going to have such strong opinions about 1 thing in a game then atleast research it before you complain about. [SEP] I wasnt being rude at all i only said if you are going to have such strong opinions about 1 thing in a game then atleast research it before you complain about.
+You just assume that all possibilities for political reform have been exhausted. The LAPD needs intervention from outside agencies. Not vigilantism. Can you point to a police department that has been reformed by Dorner-style vigilantism? No? How, historically, have police departments been reformed? Maybe through a political process? You started this conversation by implying there was no better answer. Putting a message in a bottle would be a better answer than Dorner's, as he is decreasing the odds for serious reform by, as you seem to agree, invalidating his criticisms with his unjustified actions. >THE ONLY THING THAT MATTER IS THAT HE'S A MURDERER. [SEP] Who's putting words in who's mouth?
+;-) but, over all, all I am suggesting is that there is a phenomena, however explained or not. Along the same line see this author http And in a related angle see also this ted video by Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor (which opens the door to a biological explanation) http along with this NPR piece on the Dali Lama connection to the Society for NueroScience http What Welles provides is one more data point that something is going on there there is something going on there. That's all. I can't say that they are all idiots. [SEP] Which is why we elect only 18 year olds to be President, and to serve in Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, and we only draft grandparents to be in the military.
+Que feo caso, pero no nos hagamos, en todos los partidos han de hacer algo parecido. Qué vergüenza, por eso no progresa México. [SEP] Y lo más feo, que en la cuna de la inteleptualidá virtual Mexicana, existan 6 downvotes para éste post. ಠ_ಠ
+You don't understand - you are assuming that TERF's 'hate' any group - but WE are the ones who infer that their behaviour is hate. Consider this - your evidence that TERF's hate men is that they exclude them from Women's spaces like they do men. This requires you to have already assumed that TERF's hate men. There are many reasons to exclude men from a women's space - the hate comes in from their refusal to take account of that persons decision to change their gender. This is not something that TERF's could do to cisgendered men, so you must provide more evidence that they hate men. > If you don't view men as "the other," then it simply doesn't matter what your radical views on gender are; you wouldn't view trans women as encroaching onto "women's space," This is your real argument, and it has nothing to do with Trans people. You object to women having separate spaces at all, since Feminists are quite explicit about the need for women's only spaces. It is unneecessary to bring Trans people into it - TERF's are just a particularly hateful form of a group who hates men in this view. I disagree that women's spaces are evidence of feminists hating men, or treating them as 'the other' - for reasons I outlined in my last point. In fact - I am a man, how can I (being a feminist) treat myself as 'the other'? Is that not a contradiction in terms? > because you would think "male" and "female" spaces shouldn't actually exist as false dichotomies of an inherently gendered system. Perhaps, but we live in a society where women are the majority of the victims of gendered abuse, and excluded from political and economic power - if we lived in a completely equal society, you might have a point. Until we do, women are going to need their own spaces. > A rather large one, and two if you include /r/feminisms. But in any case, I'm not particularly worried about the ratio of TERFs to other feminists. Fine, whatever - it's clear that they do not represent mainstream feminist thought. I mean, Trans people are treated pretty badly by ALL of society - shouldn't we applaud the fact that the majority of feminists are supportive of trans issues, and that feminist gender theories have contributed much to the trans movement, instead of focusing on the hateful group (that is present throughout society). > I don't, actually. I see evidence of it over and over and over again that I would be hypocritical to ignore. Uh - where? > I think I might be willing to call myself a feminist if I ever see anyone substantiate 1 Domestic abuse statistics? Rape statistics? Everday Sexism project? How about look into history like, 50 years? Are you really denying that women, who make up half the human race and were excluded from voting for most of America's history, who were considered property until far too recently, who still are treated in this way in other places, experience more sexism than men - the historically more powerful group, who have committed the majority of rapes, the majority of domestic abuse, held exclusive power for most of history, and still do in some places across the world? > coherently define the terms in 2 Ok - we live in a representative democracy. The majority of politicians are men. The majority of CEO's of companies are men. The majority of the owners of capital are men. The majority of millionaires and billionaires are men. America has never had a female president. Are these not coherently defined terms? These are all what I (and most people) would consider political and economic power - so how do men not clearly still hold the majority of political and economic power. > and then substantiate it There is just a ridiculous amount of evidence for this - look up the proportion of women in the house and senate, consider that every single president has been a man. Look up the proportion of male and female CEO's, the proportion of male and female capital ownership. I'm not gonna find these things for you - it is just obvious. > to what extent they are and to what extent these things matter in the grand scheme of moral philosophy. This is ridiculous - you don't think there is something morally wrong when women, who make up half of the population, are represented within a democratic system far less than men, and have far less ownership of capital and control of business within a capitalist system? The only way you can possibly justify this is in thinking that women deserve not to be represented - which is sexism, plain and simple. > It's hard to say what "their" aim is, because "they're" composed of a bunch of different entities and conflicting views, terms, definitions, outlooks, philosophies, plans of actions, etc. Not really - the disagreement is in things like 'method,' where to focus, who to consider women etc. - but all feminists agree on basic premises. 1. Women have historically experienced, and continue to experience, disadvantages on the basis of their gender, and 2. This should be changed. > What I can say is that from what I've seen and in my own experience, I've not been impressed with the direction feminism seems to be headed in: a focus on dividing the genders and alienating men (and women!). - I care what feminism as a political theory actually is. Feminism has been, and continues to be, a movement for the advancement of women within a patriarchal society - nothing about this implies alienating men. I am a man, I do not feel alienated - so our anecdotes canel each other out. Now, tell me how exploding gender norms has disadvantaged men? Tell me how campaigning against domestic abuse and rape has disadvantaged men? Tell me how women gaining the right to vote, no longer being considered the property of men, and demanding equal pay, disadvantages men? At most you can claim that they ignroe and exclude men - even if this were true, considering the systematic privilege that men have had, a focus on women's issues isn't exactly sexism. > But I think "feminism" would be remiss to ignore (or laugh off and insult -- which it seems to be doing more often these days) its detractors because those detractors seems to be growing in numbers. Has feminism ever not had detractors? It's hard to take them seriously when they (as you have) deny that men have benefitted from systematic sexism, when they deny that women experience the majority of sexism, abuse and rape. And how would you like them to take their detractors on board? All I ever see is anti-feminist saying 'Feminists hate men, they don't care about mens issues' - and feminists denying that they hate men, and pointing to the many areas where feminist theory and practice has helped men. There is one side denying reality - and it is not feminists. > First of all, since you're the one making the claim here, do you have evidence to substantiate your claim? I will find them for you, but I think it's absolute bullshit that you even try and deny this. Do you deny that it was legal to beat your wife in recent history? Here, from the American BAR association - In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female). - In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims. - Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002. - 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female - Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers Here is where I got these from http #prevalence So, don't make disingenous attempts to deny that women experience abuse because I didn't link you to a nice cushy data set spelling it out to you from the off - if you are serious about considering issues around gender, you would already know this. > you'll see that I frequent /r/femradebates, and I have these sorts of conversations fairly often, This doesn't mean that you're good at having these discussions, or well informed - it just tells me that you're probably too preoccupied with 'taking down feminists' as opposed to doing anything to actually aid debate. > so I'm quite familiar with a wide array of studies that have been done on these subjects Clearly fucking not. > And while more women do get raped, and more women do suffer from domestic abuse.... Just so you can't wriggle away from it - 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female Not the vast majority? Really? I don't think I am the misinformed one here. > That's simply not accurate. A man who's beaten by his wife is the butt of jokes in the media here and everywhere. That's been the case for some time. That doesn't mean support doesn't exist for these men - but absolutely that is a problem, and one which feminists would argue stems from patriarchal gender norms. Which is absolutely something feminists are trying to address - so what is your point? [SEP] I don't know or care what your experience is
+Oh, and also for the record, anyone wearing shoes with white soles...look like they belong behind the counter of a McDonalds. Nothing screams juvenile and trashy more....Sorry, but it needed to be said. It's true what they say...Money can't buy taste, style or class. That's the only way to explain their popularity. >You're entitled to your opinion. Sure, you can pretend to be an authority on style here, but just letting you know that has a taste quite contrary to what you've espoused here. [SEP] the grown-up crowd
+We're engaging in an absurd discussion, somehow because I wanted to prove you wrong. There's no need to back anything in an opinion forum, particularly something which is one Google search away. People may ask for proofs, but in practice it's useless, because even if you provide them, proving your assertion true, they , not rationally. Proof: see above. [SEP] react emotionally
+Holy shit so freaking toxic, you were complaining about something you had no knowledge about so i corrected you. And now you call me autistic? [SEP] I wasnt being rude at all i only said if you are going to have such strong opinions about 1 thing in a game then atleast research it before you complain about.
 Yes, what you're missing is an accurate perspective on Americanization and the harm that it does globally. Good day simplejack [SEP] Good day simplejack.
-It's called a defense mechanism. When you've been hurt so many times, you lower expectations so if the hurt happens again...you don't quite feel it as much. You clearly haven't been a diehard fan a long time, if at all. Inside every cynic is a disappointed idealist. Give it time. You'll understand. You know how you know you bleed purple and gold? Because we've bleed so many times. Yet we still cheer. Realistic expectations of this game were we were going to lose. Realistic expectations of this season was getting into the playoffs as a wildcard. Realistically Blair Walsh missed several extra points this year. It's realistic to expect he may miss at that distance. And he did. Sure we were in this game and really should have won, but did you expect to go to the super bowl? Not hope. Expect. We are optimistic as fuck. What do we always say? Every fucking year we say this. Not just on reddit. IRL. "Next year, we will do better." Why even watch the game? Because we are diehards even though we have been hurt a lot by hope. And that's all we have is hope. Yet we still hope. Don't mistake being jaded as not being a diehard. We know we are a good team, but you need a great and fantastic team to win a championship. Your fuck your fandom attitude is worse than pessimism. Being a Vikings fan isn't about one year. It isn't about 2 or 5 years. It's about every year. You'll learn that when you grow up. Edit: Realistically we didn't have any offense when we first faced them. No injuries on offense. We didn't have any offense this game either. WEIRD [SEP] It isn't about 2 or 5 years. It's about every year. You'll learn that when you grow up
-Firstly, this is BadPhilosophy, simplifications are to be expected. Secondly, look at the annual salaries of CEOs and then compare them to the workers; the general point still stands. If you've capital, you are at liberty to obtain far more of the value produced than if you're forced to rent yourselves to the owners of capital. Working is an integral part of earning as a worker, but not as a capitalist. Merely owning a certain amount of capital is enough to guarantee a continual, and expanding, income. >you don't like capitalism. Lol imagine liking that shit wtf [SEP] Firstly, this is BadPhilosophy, simplifications are to be expected
-All we know is he was fired for this, and IMO the manager would be well within their rights to fire him on the spot for a stunt like this, for a million different reasons. Can you have a manager that would keep someone around for something like this? Sure. The manager weighed the risks of keeping the kid vs the gain from keeping him, and said it was too much, and decided to get someone else. The world isn't black and white here. This was probably just the straw that broke the camel's back. [SEP] an you have a manager that would keep someone around for something like this? Sure.
-You realize that Tempo Mage is a thing, right? I don't understand why you're being so combative over a bland, obvious statement. The coin alone triggers Mana Wyrm. The reason why Undertaker was overpowered was because it gained health, not because it was easier to trigger than Mana Wyrm. Am I complaining about the power level? No. Calm down there fella. [SEP] Am I complaining about the power level? No. Calm down there fella.
-The only thing I learned reading this is that I shouldn't bother to read your comments. You're hitting the most pathetic and main stream ideas that could be summed up in 6 words or less. Look at ALL of what he has said because you haven't based on what you wrote. Literally the first thing when I googled "Bernie sanders police" was this: http The four points? 1. ALL in custody deaths are AUTOMATIC USAG investigations 2. cops are held to the EXACT same standard as citizens 3. demilitarize 4. diverse police departments Here are the problems that don't take a mind at all to present: 1. Who the fuck pays for that? The AG is already overworked and only takes them when it's DIRE. WHY the AG only? Because no reasons. 2. Good-bye policing. This is literally impossible to do and still have a function law enforcement group. Police can't put hands on you to arrest you since EXACT SAME STANDARD, right? Right. 3. Let's take away long guns (the obvious preferred firearm for anything ever) and protective equipment while we don't limit civilian ownership of ANY of it. You know how LOTS OF PEOPLE DIE? When the police are outgeared. 4. Kinda hard when you have VERIFIED statistics from departments out East that showed departments didn't receive many minority applications and when they did, almost all of them were disqualified for CRIMINAL HISTORY. ____ TLDR: Learn before you speak. [SEP] Kinda hard when you have VERIFIED statistics from departments out East that showed departments didn't receive many minority applications and when they did, almost all of them were disqualified for CRIMINAL HISTORY.
-It's faster but there's a pretty huge tradeoff. Hideous sprawling suburbs, much less energy efficient, unwalkable cities, etc. But really, we screwed the pooch back in the 50s when we collectively decided that cars were the greatest thing ever so let's build EVERYTHING around the assumption that everyone wants to drive everywhere. Can't be fixed now without something like a war that destroys 90% of our infrastructure. However I suspect that being Americans if this happened we'd build it all back just as sprawling, ugly, and unwalkable. [SEP] Hideous sprawling suburbs
-Yes, have you watched any of the videos? The people saying it are saying Fuck Her Right in the Pussy. They aren't saying I want to , or I am going to and they aren't even looking at the reporter but into the camera. Fucking isn't raping. You need to go to a sex ed class or get laid. I have asked my wife and showed her the video and she just rolled her eyes. It's stupid, but there is always going to be stupid people doing stupid things. http They are even doing it in foreign language interviews. The fact that the reporters are trying to make it a personal thing is beyond ridiculous. [SEP] The fact that the reporters are trying to make it a personal thing is beyond ridiculous.
-> Advocate for basic income, welfare, housing for homeless people. I vote Democrat down the ticket. Done. > If there are people begging for money in the street and you can afford it give them some money. How much money? Would it be more efficient to stand on a corner holding a sign saying "Free Cash To Anyone Who Needs It". That way, they can just come to me. > Give people the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming everyone who asks for help is just out to get out your well deserved hard earned cash. You just told me in another thread that they are out to get my cash by whatever means necessary. You can't have it both ways. While we're talking about it, I'm having some problems making rent this month. I just got laid off, and my medical bills are through the roof. Can you PayPal me some money? I mean, assuming you're not an elitist asshole, of course. [SEP] While we're talking about it, I'm having some problems making rent this month. I just got laid off, and my medical bills are through the roof. Can you PayPal me some money? I mean, assuming you're not an elitist asshole, of course.
->Oh, please. The average consumer can't realistically trace the supply chain on one thing they buy, much less everything. Right, but they can do simple things like investigating the track records of a company or researching a topic to better know what they need for their problem. You don't ask the car salesman which vehicle you should buy. >No, it doesn't, and it will misalign to ever greater degrees as information asymmetry and manipulation techniques continue to develop. What, pray tell, do you get paid for then? I don't care how much you advertise to me, I don't need your test prep services, regardless of how shady your former company was. I bought my laptop because I needed one. I shopped for one that best suited my needs at the best price. Same for my condo, my furniture, the services I purchase daily, my wifi, and my food. The odd time some advertising may make me aware of a product I didn't know existed. I don't buy it willy nilly. >That's such a dodgey non-answer. If someone took shortcuts that hurt you or a loved one badly, I don't think you'd be shrugging off blatant immorality so easily I meant it seriously. The great thing about living in a country like ours (I live in Canada, still a free, western democracy) is that you can do pretty much whatever you want. I just don't think other people should obligated to pay for any poor choices that you may make. But if working in a lower paying profession for greater personal satisfaction is what makes you happy, I sincerely advise you to do so. Besides, blatant personal or corporate negligence is against the law. I don't think anyone advocates for a lawless society, besides ancaps and hardcore socialists >No, you very obviously are not. If your mom drank while she was pregnant with you, or someone fucked up and leeched lead into your water supply, or your town got blown up by a civil war, or you were born with some crippling genetic condition, or any number of other things, you're going to be put in a shitty place through absolutely no fault of your own This is a minority of circumstances. Still part of the hand you're dealt, though. You can simply look at the Jews if you want a to find a group of people that excels at overcoming hurdles not of their own making. Of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against negligence. >Perfect! Then there shouldn't be so much objection to taxes and/or wealth redistribution, since billionaires will surely recognize that Christmas doesn't come from a store. Besides the fact you're taking something form them that they likely worked very hard for? >Less sarcastically: money does buy happiness, especially if you're poor. Money is necessary for good health, since you need to afford good food, get good medical care, etc. Money is necessary for safety, because it's what gets you out of shitty, dangerous neighborhoods and pays for someone to guard your community. And money is necessary for happiness, because no one is happy when they're stressing out over how to pay a bill every week. Studies show that no, money doesn't increase happiness past a certain point, I concede that. But I don't think the answer is to give people stuff. Again, I'm not against basic welfare, but we shouldn't just give people stuff. In fact, I'm more in favor of programs that provide the tools necessary for poor people to pull themselves out of poverty. Things like means tested college subsidization. Actually, I recently read that the way the UK has been conducting their secondary schooling has been working well, although I haven't looked into it to a great extent yet. >I'm sure not every one of them is, but it sure seems like a disproportionate percentage. Wanting to make money doesn't make you evil >I do, precisely because I focus on providing actual value and making the world a better place, as opposed to just spamming whatever incentive structure is in front of me 24/7. I do provide disproportionate value - the people I'm talking about, as a rule, do not, and often provide actively negative value. Willingness to exploit is not merit. The problem is, this is your opinion. Markets allow everyone to vote on these things with their money. I know you'll probably make a statement about manipulation, so see my first little blurb. I will say that you sound like a person that genuinely wants to help people, and that you'd be the kind of person I would want hire to help me for my test prep. Maybe you should put yourself out there more? Advertising isn't always bad, sometimes it makes people aware of a quality product they weren't aware existed. >If the poorest people in the country got $20k a year, and the richest got $100k, I'd be pretty okay with that world (the obviously non-trivial economics of getting there notwithstanding). This would absolutely destroy investment. Western countries would have third world economies almost instantly. Why take risks if you can only make $100k a year? Reminds me of this [SEP] Maybe you should put yourself out there more?
-It's not that we turn our noses up at velcro. It's that velcro/nylon belts aren't legal in competition. If I'm going to spend money on a belt and I know I'm competing down the road, I wouldn't want to buy two belts. Also, I'd be concerned about the amount of pressure I could feasibly produce without the velcro giving out. But you do you, babe! The fact that you are doing something is awesome! [SEP] But you do you, babe! The fact that you are doing something is awesome!
->Why marry the two concepts at all? What's the justification for creating a gendered aspect? Obviously toxic men and women exist, as violent men and child-abusing women amply demonstrate. Aka "people have been explaining to me what toxic masculinity means a hundred times but I still don't understand what words mean" >But why gender toxicity? It should go without saying that any differences between the types of violence committed by toxic individuals of both sexes is best explained by women's vastly weaker upper body strength and consequent relative difficulty in causing injury to adults. Delete this thread and feel ashamed for still not even knowing the basics of what toxic masculinity is about. "only gay men read" is toxic masculinity, not caring about reading isn't. "only faggots eat vegetables" is toxic masculinity, preferring meat over vegetables isn't. "real men don't cry" is toxic masculinity, having control of your feelings isn't. Toxic masculinity refers to harmful constructions of masculinity in society. Why are critics of toxic masculinity literally incapable of understanding these simple definitions or even just anything that's slightly nuanced? But to answer your question: because we think that men being discouraged from going to the doctor or therapy, but encouraged to risk their life and to be aggressive is harmful to them. [SEP] Aka "people have been explaining to me what toxic masculinity means a hundred times but I still don't understand what words mean"
-Just put the pipe down and walk away while you still got a little bit of dignity. [SEP] Just put the pipe down and walk away while you still got a little bit of dignity.
+It's called a defense mechanism. When you've been hurt so many times, you lower expectations so if the hurt happens again...you don't quite feel it as much. You clearly haven't been a diehard fan a long time, if at all. Inside every cynic is a disappointed idealist. Give it time. You'll understand. You know how you know you bleed purple and gold? Because we've bleed so many times. Yet we still cheer. Realistic expectations of this game were we were going to lose. Realistic expectations of this season was getting into the playoffs as a wildcard. Realistically Blair Walsh missed several extra points this year. It's realistic to expect he may miss at that distance. And he did. Sure we were in this game and really should have won, but did you expect to go to the super bowl? Not hope. Expect. We are optimistic as fuck. What do we always say? Every fucking year we say this. Not just on reddit. IRL. "Next year, we will do better." Why even watch the game? Because we are diehards even though we have been hurt a lot by hope. And that's all we have is hope. Yet we still hope. Don't mistake being jaded as not being a diehard. We know we are a good team, but you need a great and fantastic team to win a championship. Your fuck your fandom attitude is worse than pessimism. Being a Vikings fan isn't about one year. . Edit: Realistically we didn't have any offense when we first faced them. No injuries on offense. We didn't have any offense this game either. WEIRD [SEP] It isn't about 2 or 5 years. It's about every year. You'll learn that when you grow up
+. Secondly, look at the annual salaries of CEOs and then compare them to the workers; the general point still stands. If you've capital, you are at liberty to obtain far more of the value produced than if you're forced to rent yourselves to the owners of capital. Working is an integral part of earning as a worker, but not as a capitalist. Merely owning a certain amount of capital is enough to guarantee a continual, and expanding, income. >you don't like capitalism. Lol imagine liking that shit wtf [SEP] Firstly, this is BadPhilosophy, simplifications are to be expected
+All we know is he was fired for this, and IMO the manager would be well within their rights to fire him on the spot for a stunt like this, for a million different reasons. C The manager weighed the risks of keeping the kid vs the gain from keeping him, and said it was too much, and decided to get someone else. The world isn't black and white here. This was probably just the straw that broke the camel's back. [SEP] an you have a manager that would keep someone around for something like this? Sure.
+You realize that Tempo Mage is a thing, right? I don't understand why you're being so combative over a bland, obvious statement. The coin alone triggers Mana Wyrm. The reason why Undertaker was overpowered was because it gained health, not because it was easier to trigger than Mana Wyrm. [SEP] Am I complaining about the power level? No. Calm down there fella.
+The only thing I learned reading this is that I shouldn't bother to read your comments. You're hitting the most pathetic and main stream ideas that could be summed up in 6 words or less. Look at ALL of what he has said because you haven't based on what you wrote. Literally the first thing when I googled "Bernie sanders police" was this: http The four points? 1. ALL in custody deaths are AUTOMATIC USAG investigations 2. cops are held to the EXACT same standard as citizens 3. demilitarize 4. diverse police departments Here are the problems that don't take a mind at all to present: 1. Who the fuck pays for that? The AG is already overworked and only takes them when it's DIRE. WHY the AG only? Because no reasons. 2. Good-bye policing. This is literally impossible to do and still have a function law enforcement group. Police can't put hands on you to arrest you since EXACT SAME STANDARD, right? Right. 3. Let's take away long guns (the obvious preferred firearm for anything ever) and protective equipment while we don't limit civilian ownership of ANY of it. You know how LOTS OF PEOPLE DIE? When the police are outgeared. 4. ____ TLDR: Learn before you speak. [SEP] Kinda hard when you have VERIFIED statistics from departments out East that showed departments didn't receive many minority applications and when they did, almost all of them were disqualified for CRIMINAL HISTORY.
+It's faster but there's a pretty huge tradeoff. , much less energy efficient, unwalkable cities, etc. But really, we screwed the pooch back in the 50s when we collectively decided that cars were the greatest thing ever so let's build EVERYTHING around the assumption that everyone wants to drive everywhere. Can't be fixed now without something like a war that destroys 90% of our infrastructure. However I suspect that being Americans if this happened we'd build it all back just as sprawling, ugly, and unwalkable. [SEP] Hideous sprawling suburbs
+Yes, have you watched any of the videos? The people saying it are saying Fuck Her Right in the Pussy. They aren't saying I want to , or I am going to and they aren't even looking at the reporter but into the camera. Fucking isn't raping. You need to go to a sex ed class or get laid. I have asked my wife and showed her the video and she just rolled her eyes. It's stupid, but there is always going to be stupid people doing stupid things. http They are even doing it in foreign language interviews. [SEP] The fact that the reporters are trying to make it a personal thing is beyond ridiculous.
+> Advocate for basic income, welfare, housing for homeless people. I vote Democrat down the ticket. Done. > If there are people begging for money in the street and you can afford it give them some money. How much money? Would it be more efficient to stand on a corner holding a sign saying "Free Cash To Anyone Who Needs It". That way, they can just come to me. > Give people the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming everyone who asks for help is just out to get out your well deserved hard earned cash. You just told me in another thread that they are out to get my cash by whatever means necessary. You can't have it both ways. [SEP] While we're talking about it, I'm having some problems making rent this month. I just got laid off, and my medical bills are through the roof. Can you PayPal me some money? I mean, assuming you're not an elitist asshole, of course.
+>Oh, please. The average consumer can't realistically trace the supply chain on one thing they buy, much less everything. Right, but they can do simple things like investigating the track records of a company or researching a topic to better know what they need for their problem. You don't ask the car salesman which vehicle you should buy. >No, it doesn't, and it will misalign to ever greater degrees as information asymmetry and manipulation techniques continue to develop. What, pray tell, do you get paid for then? I don't care how much you advertise to me, I don't need your test prep services, regardless of how shady your former company was. I bought my laptop because I needed one. I shopped for one that best suited my needs at the best price. Same for my condo, my furniture, the services I purchase daily, my wifi, and my food. The odd time some advertising may make me aware of a product I didn't know existed. I don't buy it willy nilly. >That's such a dodgey non-answer. If someone took shortcuts that hurt you or a loved one badly, I don't think you'd be shrugging off blatant immorality so easily I meant it seriously. The great thing about living in a country like ours (I live in Canada, still a free, western democracy) is that you can do pretty much whatever you want. I just don't think other people should obligated to pay for any poor choices that you may make. But if working in a lower paying profession for greater personal satisfaction is what makes you happy, I sincerely advise you to do so. Besides, blatant personal or corporate negligence is against the law. I don't think anyone advocates for a lawless society, besides ancaps and hardcore socialists >No, you very obviously are not. If your mom drank while she was pregnant with you, or someone fucked up and leeched lead into your water supply, or your town got blown up by a civil war, or you were born with some crippling genetic condition, or any number of other things, you're going to be put in a shitty place through absolutely no fault of your own This is a minority of circumstances. Still part of the hand you're dealt, though. You can simply look at the Jews if you want a to find a group of people that excels at overcoming hurdles not of their own making. Of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against negligence. >Perfect! Then there shouldn't be so much objection to taxes and/or wealth redistribution, since billionaires will surely recognize that Christmas doesn't come from a store. Besides the fact you're taking something form them that they likely worked very hard for? >Less sarcastically: money does buy happiness, especially if you're poor. Money is necessary for good health, since you need to afford good food, get good medical care, etc. Money is necessary for safety, because it's what gets you out of shitty, dangerous neighborhoods and pays for someone to guard your community. And money is necessary for happiness, because no one is happy when they're stressing out over how to pay a bill every week. Studies show that no, money doesn't increase happiness past a certain point, I concede that. But I don't think the answer is to give people stuff. Again, I'm not against basic welfare, but we shouldn't just give people stuff. In fact, I'm more in favor of programs that provide the tools necessary for poor people to pull themselves out of poverty. Things like means tested college subsidization. Actually, I recently read that the way the UK has been conducting their secondary schooling has been working well, although I haven't looked into it to a great extent yet. >I'm sure not every one of them is, but it sure seems like a disproportionate percentage. Wanting to make money doesn't make you evil >I do, precisely because I focus on providing actual value and making the world a better place, as opposed to just spamming whatever incentive structure is in front of me 24/7. I do provide disproportionate value - the people I'm talking about, as a rule, do not, and often provide actively negative value. Willingness to exploit is not merit. The problem is, this is your opinion. Markets allow everyone to vote on these things with their money. I know you'll probably make a statement about manipulation, so see my first little blurb. I will say that you sound like a person that genuinely wants to help people, and that you'd be the kind of person I would want hire to help me for my test prep. Advertising isn't always bad, sometimes it makes people aware of a quality product they weren't aware existed. >If the poorest people in the country got $20k a year, and the richest got $100k, I'd be pretty okay with that world (the obviously non-trivial economics of getting there notwithstanding). This would absolutely destroy investment. Western countries would have third world economies almost instantly. Why take risks if you can only make $100k a year? Reminds me of this [SEP] Maybe you should put yourself out there more?
+It's not that we turn our noses up at velcro. It's that velcro/nylon belts aren't legal in competition. If I'm going to spend money on a belt and I know I'm competing down the road, I wouldn't want to buy two belts. Also, I'd be concerned about the amount of pressure I could feasibly produce without the velcro giving out. [SEP] But you do you, babe! The fact that you are doing something is awesome!
+>Why marry the two concepts at all? What's the justification for creating a gendered aspect? Obviously toxic men and women exist, as violent men and child-abusing women amply demonstrate. >But why gender toxicity? It should go without saying that any differences between the types of violence committed by toxic individuals of both sexes is best explained by women's vastly weaker upper body strength and consequent relative difficulty in causing injury to adults. Delete this thread and feel ashamed for still not even knowing the basics of what toxic masculinity is about. "only gay men read" is toxic masculinity, not caring about reading isn't. "only faggots eat vegetables" is toxic masculinity, preferring meat over vegetables isn't. "real men don't cry" is toxic masculinity, having control of your feelings isn't. Toxic masculinity refers to harmful constructions of masculinity in society. Why are critics of toxic masculinity literally incapable of understanding these simple definitions or even just anything that's slightly nuanced? But to answer your question: because we think that men being discouraged from going to the doctor or therapy, but encouraged to risk their life and to be aggressive is harmful to them. [SEP] Aka "people have been explaining to me what toxic masculinity means a hundred times but I still don't understand what words mean"
+ [SEP] Just put the pipe down and walk away while you still got a little bit of dignity.
 I mentioned that black was historically better a while back, which is true, and yet I got downvoted to hell by the colored vinyl tourists that roam here. It's nice to see someone else getting upvoted for saying the same exact thing. Maybe it's cuz you are right and not being a "dick" which is practically an impossible feat to accomplish here. Being right about anything, especially if you are correcting the OP pretty much equates to you being a giant dickhole. [SEP] "Colored vinyl tourists"
-1. Football is subjective. If a fan is not looking at the bigger picture from what Mourinho is doing, they're not really worth knowing their opinion. As for the whole "flirting with PSG", we have no evidence other than alleged reports from journalists. And if I recall correctly, when all that came out, Mourinho was very quick to point out he plans to be here next season. 2. Martial started out very well but has suffered injuries. Rashford was our most started player. At what point do you blame the manager for the fact those players are 2 completely different individuals who control themselves? 3. No there isn't. Only the media and people who hate the club want this to happen. There's absolutely zero evidence there are any rifts or fractures within the United dressing room currently. 4. Does that mean that they could come and do it here successfully? Could Guardiola go to a league 2 side and do the same thing as at City? And are they even available? Stability is key to building something great and if you keep switching managers, you end up like Chelsea, whose board are scared of giving any particularly large amount of cash to improve the team because they know the manager could be gone by next season. >Now both sides of the argument have plenty of merit. Perhaps, but certainly none of your points do. >The thing is Mourinho has not done a bad job, but he has not done a great job either, and hence divides opinion. Subjective. >Yet the problem is that there are a lot of fans on this sub who refuse to admit that these are genuine grievances and get personal whenever anyone criticises Mourinho. That's because they're unsubstantiated claims about dressing room fractures, expectations that our manager should be SAF 2.0, should play like SAF, should somehow make every player world class and consequently win everything. When someone actually presents me an argument that isn't completely speculative in nature or ignores rather blatantly obvious factors, maybe I'll consider it. [SEP] If a fan is not looking at the bigger picture from what Mourinho is doing, they're not really worth knowing their opinion
-Well, how you feel about it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Europe doesn't need a big military because we got their back. Japan doesn't have an army at all. If they can spend less because of our bases in their country then we have subsidized their defense. That's pretty straight forward. [SEP] Well, how you feel about it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Europe doesn't need a big military because we got their back.
-When you mock individual Mormons, how do you think that makes them feel about ex-Mormons? You've been hurt, and I'm sorry about that. You shouldn't have been. But when you hit back, it perpetuates the cycle. The more you hate Mormons, the more they will hate the other ex-Mormons in their life. Think about the next teenager who decides he doesn't believe in the Church. If you've spent years mocking and deriding his parents for their beliefs, how easy is that transition going to be for him? Are they going to be kind, or are they going to say--as you are saying--that their pain entitles them to inflict pain on others? I can't force you to be kind. But I can promise you that it will make things better for both you and us. [SEP] The more you hate Mormons, the more they will hate the other ex-Mormons in their life.
-Low elo mindsets.. Yes, leo/draven can be really strong in lane, so can draven/anything else (thresh+blitz+draven>leona). Thing is, draven doesnt need a strong lane sup to pop off, he needs mid/lategame utility to not get dove 24/7 Tldr: its only good if you get to roam>win early, else, no ps: leo just works better with abilities- based -AD (casters) [SEP] Low elo mindsets..
-First off, while I won't feel offended by mild abuse from some internet stranger, I still think it'd be nice if you were to tone down your language a wee bit. As for the points you raise, yes, they're good, but I feel you have kind of the wrong perspective on them. Reddit also has subreddits for a reason, and a mod-system. Furthermore, that there is no [dog stories from missouri] should tell you something. But even if it were hugely popular, and your submission the most interesting one ever, it still wouldn't belong into [worldnews]. Try finding a more appropriate subreddit, or create one or, if all else fails, submit it to the main reddit. Lastly, what you read in this thread is no circle jerk, it's a voluntary service offered to you and others directed here. The alternative'd be silently disappearing the spam. [SEP] First off, while I won't feel offended by mild abuse from some internet stranger, I still think it'd be nice if you were to tone down your language a wee bit.
-I agree with everything you say until you mentioned the last thing. Tell me one multiplayer game that doesn't require you to make sacrifices or time investments. You have no right to complain about not getting an EX pass if you don't want to put in commitments into the game. The issue with the EX raid system is primarily that people that DO make the sacrifices to try to obtain one don't, and then casuals that couldn't give a damn about the game get one and sometimes don't even bother to go to the raid at all. Someones gold is another mans trash apparently. What us "hardcore" players want is the opportunity to get a Mewtwo when we meet all the requirements and raid heavily at gyms our communities have agreed upon to raid at. No one that wants one badly enjoys seeing someone that is completely clueless about what an EX pass is getting one, and worst of all, seeing them say they aren't going to attend. To answer your question though - I sometimes get really invested into trying to get a pass. I'll raid like crazy at gyms I know can get one. I'll keep that gym blue as much as I can despite being Gold. I think it's come to the point where trying to get a pass does keep me interested and raises my competitiveness to keep gyms blue for my team, even though I'm already gold. When a wave gets sent out and I don't get one, it seriously does make me want to quit the game for awhile. I've already decided that I'm done spending money on this game until I get my EX pass. My overall point is I completely agree the EX system is shit, but some of the whining about it is just dumb. People ARE out there willing to make those sacrifices to get their Mewtwo, so seeing people get one and then complain about it is a bit discouraging to those that fund the game. [SEP] Tell me one multiplayer game that doesn't require you to make sacrifices or time investments.
-Why are we wasting time with Ghazi? Seriously, all they do is troll and be retarded on purpose. Plus they always reek of this pathetic air of fedora-tier condescension as if they're above us somehow. [SEP] Plus they always reek of this pathetic air of fedora-tier condescension as if they're above us somehow.
-> I was interested to see what that essay had to say, but opening up with an accusation of being "brainwashed" is a real turn-off. D'aww, feelings hurt, perfect reason to avoid reading arguments. edit: and bring on the downvotes. All i'm pointing out that it's a bit easy to say "I didn't like the opening sentence, so I left". It's basically "no you're wrong!". I'm not saying the article is gospel, that every argument the article makes is valid, but dismissing it entirely just from the opening sentence is pretty easy. [SEP] All i'm pointing out that it's a bit easy to say "I didn't like the opening sentence, so I left".
-> Over nearly a decade participating here, I believe I've heard every possible argument and non-argument for theism. Ok, look, you don’t strike me as being unreasonable or hostile. Yet surely you see my point in this sentiment alone, right? If you believe you’ve seen every argument theism has to offer, why are you here? [SEP] If you believe you’ve seen every argument theism has to offer, why are you here?
-What wars was she proposing? What about NAFTA specifically did people hate? Or was it just the name? Similar to TPP, because I see a lot of people claim how bad TPP is and very few of them can tell me anything about what it does, they just know they don't like it. She also wanted limited fracking done after strict safety regulations are in place, which most people also don't understand the details of fracking either. I think a lot of those became buzz words, people who supported Sanders began to support everything that he did and that became the new standard that everyone had to meet, even if the voter didn't know anything about most positions. You can't make everything black and white, Sanders has been wrong before and he will be wrong again. [SEP] I think a lot of those became buzz words, people who supported Sanders began to support everything that he did and that became the new standard that everyone had to meet
-There's a pretty good deal of this so full of condescension and derision that I'm not going to even bother to respond to it. As for the rest of it, I'll do it out of good faith in the hope you can find it within yourself to not vote like the asshole you are to strangers on the internet. I'm going to start with food stamps. They feed poor people. It is literally government money going to feed people so poor they cannot afford food. You can't even buy enough to live with it, it's so little. I don't want to pull the "you hate poor people" card, because that's putting words in your mouth, but when you say you think that food stamps are bad that is... essentially what I'm hearing. Canadians. I think Canadians are pussies. Not enough of them shoot guns, they're a little too comfortable with their first-world amenities like socialized medicine, and they apologize for everything. What I really hate though, is a fucking Cuban-Canadian pretending to be part of the Latino community in Texas, which he isn't, and pretending to be Texan, which he isn't. Ted Cruz is a Canadian whitewashed opportunist, and has proven so many times over. As for the deficit, this becomes a neutral point if Beto increases government spending. Cruz voted for a tax bill that increases the deficit by cutting government revenue so he could give money to the wealthy (as Econ 101 will tell you, this doesn't fucking work) and if Beto is pro-spending he is also pro-taxes. Which I guess is a con. I don't know, I prefer a government with enough funds to offer a competitive wage in the labor market, so our bureaucrats aren't the dumbest slackjawed idiots they could find to take $8 an hour to desk jockey. With regards to your retirement plan, congratulations. You're wealthy enough to actually have one, which is usually a pretty good start on most people. And you also have the means to run it yourself, which is also pretty good. Again, congrats. While I will add that stock fraud and/or a market crash will do exactly the same thing to your retirement as everyone else's, that is, make it disappear, I'm just gonna let that lie. The trouble with your invincible retirement letting you say "fuck everyone else, I'm fine", is that it doesn't really work that way. See, all those idiots who can't plan are going to get old and run out of money. And then they're going to ask for entitlement spending from your government. And you know who votes? Old people. Which means legions of entitled old people will march to the polls to take your hard-earned money away from you in exponentially greater numbers if we don't figure out what the hell to do for them. Now, lets move on to Harvey. Most people can agree this was pretty bad. Most people can also agree it was pretty bad not to tell people in Katy whose houses flooded that their houses were build on a fucking flood plain. I don't live there, but for those who did that was pretty fucking dirty. To stop that from becoming a regular occurrence, we're going to need new infrastructure. Things like actually building emergency flood drainage, planning our city as we build it, and... maybe disclosing floodwater levels to property buyers. The whole of Houston is a fucking pancake, and this problem is only going to get worse. And frankly, most Republican representatives would rather sit on their own thumb than do anything about it. I'm not really in favor of regulation here, that just distorts markets, but I do think we need flood level disclosure, and no elected Republican will ever do that. Also, you seem like you're not from Houston so I'll explain. The people who got flooded during Harvey weren't required to get flood insurance by the government, because they don't live in a flood prone zone. They live in an area referred to as the "100-year flood plain", which is basically a giant rice paddy that the Addicks reservoir drains into. When Harvey happened, they opened the reservoir into the giant rice paddy - now filled with development - and all the people who hadn't been informed by their real estate agents or the government that they lived in an at-risk area got flooded. Frankly, you shouldn't want to just go and say "fuck poor people" by leaving people who get flooded without government assistance, but in this case it really just wasn't their fault. Now with regards to the Russia thing. The man literally stood up on international television and said, in a conference with a foreign leader, that he believed the Russians over US intelligence officials. He later 'corrected' his speech with a double negative, but it just... who the fuck makes that mistake? A double negative doesn't even make sense there. He constantly fucking talks about how the Russia investigation is a hoax. If the Russia investigation were a hoax, why the hell would he be talking about it? Did Obama ever talk about the Kenya thing? NO! He never even fucking mentioned it. There have been 32 indictments of Russian agents in that investigation, all of the US intelligence agencies have come forward to say the Russians interfered in the 2016 election, and the President is literally the only person in the room besides Sean Hannity saying otherwise. Hell, with the meeting that DJ Jr had with the Russian officials, he has even ADMITTED that he knew it was the Russians and that he knew it was about information on his opponent. We literally know everything except that he promised them something in exchange for that information. And frankly, when you look at the timing of the meeting and Trump's weird complete change of foreign policy to start praising Putin, it becomes obvious that he did. Either that or he just... organically kissed his ass. In evaluating any two conflicting stories you look at your sources. For Donald Trump to be up to something with the Russians, you need to have the CIA, FBI, NSA, a substantial portion of Congress, 4 major news networks, a ton of registered Republicans working in law enforcement, and Mark Zuckerberg all be wrong. At the same time. And they all have to be in on it together, because how the fuck would they coordinate that independent of one another. Or, the same guy who defrauded a bunch of people out of university diplomas, the same guy who did a ton of fucking racist apartment selling who HAS BEEN INDICTED AND FINED FOR DOING SO, who has filed for bankruptcy multiple times, who has cheated on all 3 of his wives, who has insulted decorated veterans for their disabilities, who has relentlessly made publicly inappropriate remarks no matter HOW MANY PEOPLE TELL HIM NOT TO, that guy, took some money from a person he already had tried to do business with when he was hard pressed for an out and wanted to win an election? Fuck it, look at the caliber of official he appoints. Scott Pruitt resigned this summer for ethics violations so heinous half the Republican leaders in Congress called for his indictment. It's not fucking hard to figure out man. I don't know where you're getting your information that you think it's a hoax, because honestly man, if somebody can fake all of that they're scary enough that they can fucking have my government. And just to be clear, I never said I was pro gun control. I think gun control is a big red herring. It does absolutely nothing. It serves no purpose. It is literally paperwork for hobbyists. It is a fucking waste of our collective time as a nation. Just like the "threat" of terrorism, and the "threat" of MS-13 and the scary Mexicans, there is no real consequence of the lack of gun control. Every now and then someone throws a walleyed balleyed fit and shoots some people. Alright. Last I checked drunk drivers killed a few ten thousand more per year. Am I going to take everyone's keys away? Can we get a show of hands to see who has been affected by any of those three things? Nobody? Who has KNOWN someone who was affected by one of those things? Still nobody? Exactly. So yes, I agree, gun control is a gigantic waste of fucking time spurred on by liberal hand-wringing over some mentally ill people. But food stamps, the nation's retirement, functioning healthcare, worker's rights, freedom of information for buyers in the housing market, sane trade policy, the negative impact of Citizens United, and the fucking Russians are all serious business. If someone were to pass legislation banning whatever the fuck 'assault weapon' (this term is meaningless, I agree) means, the gun market will make things to do the same function as 'assault weapons' in about a year. Or you could just mill it yourself. Hell, the milling machine is cheaper than your gun safe. But if all of those pillars of American democracy are eroded, we will essentially be living in the world's largest undeveloped shithole full of corruption. [SEP] They feed poor people. It is literally government money going to feed people so poor
-Do you actually not understand what I'm saying, or are you just trying to be funny? If you literally don't understand, let me explain. "Black issues" is almost exclusively an American issue, because America is pretty much the only place in the world where blacks are a significant minority. In Europe, nobody ever talks about "black issues". In Africa, blacks are obviously not a minority. In Asia, blacks are almost non-existent. So yes, it's very US-centric to talk about "black issues" only, and not about "minority issues" or whatever. Also, again, if you literally were not able to decipher what I mean, I asked how is veganism related to feminism, and I never implied that feminism is a US-centric topic. [SEP] Also, again, if you literally were not able to decipher what I mean, I asked how is veganism related to feminism, and I never implied that feminism is a US-centric topic.
-That's exactly what I'm talking about. In a discussion about anything, lets just say feminism, what would the purpose of saying "You can't understand that" be, if not an attempt to discredit the opposing side, and stifle the discussion? It is most certainly an ad homiem attack, its an attack on your opponent's character and credibility, not one on the actual argument itself. There's literally nothing meaningful that would continue the dialogue if someone already decided that "you can't possibly understand something." [SEP] what would the purpose of saying "You can't understand that" be, if not an attempt to discredit the opposing side, and stifle the discussion?
-"I feel very sorry for you and anyone else that believes in this lie. Communism will never work, because it's the antithesis of Capitalism, and Capitalism is the default state of humanity. See, there's one overarching problem that Communism cannot solve, and without solving this problem it cannot exist. Capitalism will always exist, unless you use force to forbid certain actions being consenting adults. Say you distribute resources like food equally among a given population. Everyone has enough to get by. Josh has a slow metabolism and can comfortably get by with less food than he is given. Today, Karen is feeling a bit more peckish than normal. Josh is horny. Josh goes up to Karen and says, 'I'll give you half my steak in exchange for a blowjob.' BOOM Capitalism. ...Furthermore, if Communism could work, it would have by now. You realize there are hundreds of online video games, with tens of thousands of servers between them, with player run economies? Not one of those is Communist, despite games not having any inherent limitation that prevents Communism from working. When given a choice anyone and everyone defaults to Capitalism and self interest whether they realize it or not." Was sent to me about a week ago lol I just replied with this [SEP] "I feel very sorry for you and anyone else that believes in this lie.
-Thank you for this comment. Something I've been trying to get through to people, on both sides, is to stop treating people as if they're not multidimensional characters. Typical guy who voted for Trump isn't just some stereotypically racist side-character; the majority of Trump supporters probably voted for him because he thought he'd be good for the economy because "he's a business man," or they took his promise at face value to bring jobs back, or some other innocuous reason. Likewise, the amount of people saying that any criticism of Trump is just "liberal tears" or some such nonsense is disgusting. What the fuck happened to respecting your fellow countrymen? Sure, some Trump supporters are racist and unreachable, just like some liberals really do want to take away all your guns that you use for hunting. There are a roughly equal amount of unreasonable people on both sides. Stop acting like the only unreasonable people are on the other side. Progress comes most easily from cooperation and understanding. From my perspective, the easiest way for me to lose respect for someone is if they're not willing to have a real, actual conversation with someone reasonable from the other side. [SEP] What the fuck happened to respecting your fellow countrymen?
-Actually you couldn't be more wrong lol. I've been the most woofed person on Scruff before, I keep a 10/10 response rating there as well as everywhere else I chat. When I get ignored, I just view it as someone else saving me the time of figuring out that they aren't the kind of person I care to associate with. I don't take the moral high ground in order to judge people, my way is simply better. You can tell when someone knows that they have lost an argument, because they start attacking the character of their opponent instead of attacking the message that's being sent. They do this because they realize that their opponent is right, and that they can't argue with what they're saying, so they seek to devalue what was said by devaluing who said it. All you've done here is show that you know you're wrong, and you know that I'm right. And now we both know it. Save your attempted character assassinations for people who are fooled by such desperate tactics. [SEP] You can tell when someone knows that they have lost an argument, because they start attacking the character of their opponent instead of attacking the message that's being sent. They do this because they realize that their opponent is right, and that they can't argue with what they're saying, so they seek to devalue what was said by devaluing who said it.
-Many young mothers have a super flat tummy no stretch marks and perfect tits... That kid is about 2 or 3. Plenty of time to have worked off any sign of having ever had a child. You'll understand when you're older son... [SEP] You'll understand when you're older son...
-But it's one way to be ripped off. You have given them nothing, so they owe you nothing. Be cheerful for what you got, or try to express your disappointment in a way that doesn't make you sound like an entitled, selfish brat. I didn't find this chapter very enjoyable either, but I didn't pay for it either, so I have little reason to complain. I can express my disappointment in other ways. [SEP] You have given them nothing, so they owe you nothing.
-Lol people think MOBAs are going to be as big as professional sports. I don't know why these kids are so short sighted and retarded. They think they're going to be cheering for a Jhin Curtain Call when they're in their 30s and 40s? It's almost obnoxious of them to try and argue that video games and real sports are the same thing. [SEP] argue that video games and real sports are the same thing.
-Came here say this. That would be so fantastic for a time. I frequently turn my UI off, start in one location (say Shaemor), and set a goal to travel somewhere else (say, the Forsaken Halls in Dredgehaunt Cliffs) without using the map. Doing this really gives you a much more solid perspective of the world as a whole, and gets you to pay attention to and appreciate all the little detail that is bursting to life in every corner of Tyria. (Although I continue to despise portals between zones, and loading screens.) I can't help but feel most players would love to be able to appreciate and immerse themselves in the world the same way I do. It's just that they won't ever take the time to do something like this. Sometimes, as developers, you have to force (or, let's call it "guide") players to play a certain way in order to allow them to realize these benefits. As much as I didn't really enjoy the overall world of FFXI when I played that from 2003-2005, and as I hated some of the mechanisms of transportation in that game, I really did love the fact that when you set out to travel to a far away area, it really was an adventure. (Although it's my understanding that travel has been made significantly easier in that game now.) I would be away from my home city for literally real-life months at a time. Then, when I'd finally come home, it truly felt like I was coming home. It wasn't just "that place I teleport to before I log off every night." [SEP] Sometimes, as developers, you have to force (or, let's call it "guide") players to play a certain way in order to allow them to realize these benefits.
-give her the gift of a safety class. That way you both win. She gets to learn in another atmosphere and you get a s/o who learns the important basics about firearms. I'll put it this way. My dad tried to teach me how to drive and failed miserably. He wanted me to learn but just kept getting frustrated at me. I learned in a class. I've also tried to teach various girlfriends things, things that I knew, and for whatever reason they just couldn't take 'their boyfriend' trying to teach them things. I guess they didn't want to appear dumb and I kept getting frustrated. [SEP] and you get a s/o who learns the important basics about firearms.
-A map doesn't need to be a 1:1 precise replica of whatever surface it is trying to represent to be useful. Models don't need to describe absolutely everything to be useful. Language can and does describe reality. Scientists do it every day. Writing with intelligent sounding words doesn't make an intelligent sounding text. Substance is what matters. Define your terms. Can you really clearly explain what 'ideology' even means? And virtue? Don't present arguments that have to be taken at face value without evidence (e.g. Capitalism justifies greed, inequality and oppression, where Communism justifies resentment, reprisal and totalitarianism.) Avoid needless truisms (e.g. To enact change we must define specifically that which requires changing and the appropriate action to change it.) Think before writing. Develop your ideas. Prove your arguments. Bring out counterarguments and refute them. etc etc [SEP] Language can and does describe reality. Scientists do it every day.
-Because instead of being a big boy and having a big boy conversation, you blame me for your behavior and then bitch about me to other commenters. You can't, even for a second, understand why it might suck to try to make a valid point then be insulted because "boys clubs" are non-existent while the two of you hang out your "no gurlz aloud" sign. [SEP] Because instead of being a big boy and having a big boy conversation, you blame me for your behavior and then bitch about me to other commenters.
-Do you not read your bible? I'm a Buddhist but even I know that in the bible Jesus overcame death. Death was the punishment. And the penalty of sin is death. Jesus overcame death. Clear and simple unless you want to remove that from the equation too. What Universalists believe in is being redeemed. To lead a fruitful life in this life now. And love is the main factor there. What you don't notice is that it sounds more like love when god forgives everyone than oppose to only loving and forgiving those who do what he says. Love doesn't exist where a god would send billions to eternal punishment. A father would not do that to their child. [SEP] Do you not read your bible?
-International law specifically condemns occupation, as well as settlement building. Allow me to make the your argument for you. Instead of pushing the indefensible angle as you are doing, the correct angle to pursue in defending Israeli policies is to point out that Israel is in overwhelmingly difficult situation under constant existential threat, which allows it to ignore specific part of international law because survival comes first and following international law to the letter would inevitably cause the demise of the state at worst, and massive increase in fatalities on both sides at best. Essentially the argument for ethics of the issue, based on respective goals of the relevant parties in conflict. That argument is not easily winnable by either party, and is most certainly not as black and white as violations of international law by Israel as part of its occupation of West Bank. Essentially you are correct in your last sentence, but the preamble you go through destroys your point by providing easy vector for attack on your argument using simple established facts. [SEP] Essentially you are correct in your last sentence, but the preamble you go through destroys your point by providing easy vector for attack on your argument using simple established facts.
->Nerf 20 foot fagguard swords if your talking about zwei that weapon shouldn't be a problem to anyone who can fight well (it's just too slow) >Slow down stab ripostes on all 1h weapons Why? personally the sword of war and claymore are way worst for stab ripostes >giving people a reason to use more of the 1h arsenal instead of just broad or holy faggot sprinkler i use norse more than broad most of the time and the sprinkler takes a butt load of hits to kill anyone and no weapon is best weapon only best player, also flange mace and morning star are beast weapons too it's all on preference, the only sword you shouldn't use is falchion (i feel likes it still sucks) >Reduce arrow damage across the board Dos't though prague rouge? Learn 2 dodge m8 >Buff ls damage enough so that you don't need to get headshots to achieve the same htks you used to get definitely no, headshots still matter and make a huge difference >Nerf Brandi slash attack yea but IDK why all i know is it's broken >Keep the ability to 2 shot knights exclusive to knights seriously!? that would imbalance the game to a huge amount and no one would not be a knight anymore >Nerf fucking dodge eh, if you spam it you can't dodge or attack much but as entire British army said, the backward dodge needs nerf >Every other class' ability is situational so is maa? knights also have more health all around so does that count as OP class skill? also maa can't dodge all day they get like 4 if they won't attack IIRC [SEP] so is maa? knights also have more health all around so does that count as OP class skill? also maa can't dodge all day they get like 4 if they won't attack IIRC
-Jesus Christ, how can you possibly think telling 50% of your potential voters to shut up is a winning strategy. Look at her wrinkled leather mask: this bitch thinks this message is a slam dunk! Hey McCaskill, you're doing the exact same thing Hillary did during her last campaign, putting half the population into a 'basket of deplorables' and expecting that to get out the vote in your favor. You cannot GAIN votes with a message like this, you can only LOSE votes you might've otherwise had. I don't live in Missouri, so I couldn't vote for you even if I wanted to, but if you were in a state I lived in, you couldn't PAY me to vote for you if this is the tone and tenor you're going to take. When the fuck are Dems going to get it through their thick skulls that identity politics is a dead end that's going to end up hurting them a lot more than hurting their opponents? Honestly? Maybe YOU should STFU, because you don't really know what they hell you're saying. Get a better message, or hire a staffer who's more than a yes-man and will rubber stamp anything you want to put in a campaign ad. I mean, NOBODY told her "you know, maybe you might not want to make such a needlessly divisive message when you could just as easily go for a broadly appealing message"? Edit: and yes, I realize this is a satire piece, but that you would be selected to give it shows that her saying something like this wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility. There's already other female Congress members who've said similar things during the Kavanaugh nomination process, so it's well within the wheelhouse to treat this satire as legit. [SEP] I realize this is a satire piece, but that you would be selected to give it shows that her saying something like this wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility.
-You are literally talking in circles trying to defend a 2 point comment all while over analyzing a random internet persons post....You have not bought the game. End of story. Your over all lack of experience allows me to cast out your opinions. If you have any experience or premise as to why we should trust your opinion beyond the "seems legit" nature of your post let me know. Other than that I feeeeel like you just do not want to unlock characters, and struggle with a 60 dollar game tag. I am guessing you are a younger gamer and most likely not very well off. I cannot really put myself in your shoes because I always buy games I support and enjoy seeing them grow. I also enjoy progression. This could be my warcraft background. Other than that your posts are low tier and I suggest you just let it go. You aren't saying anything of value and making this subreddit a doomsayer reddit. There is a specific location for improvements. I suggest you post there if you have anything original to say. As of now you are essentially the Kotaku of this Reddit. Thank you for your patronage. [SEP] Other than that your posts are low tier and I suggest you just let it go.
-Police kill way more white people, and actually, if you look into it (which I'm sure no BLM supporters actually have) shoot unarmed white people at exactly the same rate. Come talk to me when someone dies in an ambulance stuck on a highway these yahoos have shut down. Let's see how you feel then. [SEP] which I'm sure no BLM supporters actually have
+1. Football is subjective. . As for the whole "flirting with PSG", we have no evidence other than alleged reports from journalists. And if I recall correctly, when all that came out, Mourinho was very quick to point out he plans to be here next season. 2. Martial started out very well but has suffered injuries. Rashford was our most started player. At what point do you blame the manager for the fact those players are 2 completely different individuals who control themselves? 3. No there isn't. Only the media and people who hate the club want this to happen. There's absolutely zero evidence there are any rifts or fractures within the United dressing room currently. 4. Does that mean that they could come and do it here successfully? Could Guardiola go to a league 2 side and do the same thing as at City? And are they even available? Stability is key to building something great and if you keep switching managers, you end up like Chelsea, whose board are scared of giving any particularly large amount of cash to improve the team because they know the manager could be gone by next season. >Now both sides of the argument have plenty of merit. Perhaps, but certainly none of your points do. >The thing is Mourinho has not done a bad job, but he has not done a great job either, and hence divides opinion. Subjective. >Yet the problem is that there are a lot of fans on this sub who refuse to admit that these are genuine grievances and get personal whenever anyone criticises Mourinho. That's because they're unsubstantiated claims about dressing room fractures, expectations that our manager should be SAF 2.0, should play like SAF, should somehow make every player world class and consequently win everything. When someone actually presents me an argument that isn't completely speculative in nature or ignores rather blatantly obvious factors, maybe I'll consider it. [SEP] If a fan is not looking at the bigger picture from what Mourinho is doing, they're not really worth knowing their opinion
+Japan doesn't have an army at all. If they can spend less because of our bases in their country then we have subsidized their defense. That's pretty straight forward. [SEP] Well, how you feel about it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Europe doesn't need a big military because we got their back.
+When you mock individual Mormons, how do you think that makes them feel about ex-Mormons? You've been hurt, and I'm sorry about that. You shouldn't have been. But when you hit back, it perpetuates the cycle. Think about the next teenager who decides he doesn't believe in the Church. If you've spent years mocking and deriding his parents for their beliefs, how easy is that transition going to be for him? Are they going to be kind, or are they going to say--as you are saying--that their pain entitles them to inflict pain on others? I can't force you to be kind. But I can promise you that it will make things better for both you and us. [SEP] The more you hate Mormons, the more they will hate the other ex-Mormons in their life.
+Yes, leo/draven can be really strong in lane, so can draven/anything else (thresh+blitz+draven>leona). Thing is, draven doesnt need a strong lane sup to pop off, he needs mid/lategame utility to not get dove 24/7 Tldr: its only good if you get to roam>win early, else, no ps: leo just works better with abilities- based -AD (casters) [SEP] Low elo mindsets..
+As for the points you raise, yes, they're good, but I feel you have kind of the wrong perspective on them. Reddit also has subreddits for a reason, and a mod-system. Furthermore, that there is no [dog stories from missouri] should tell you something. But even if it were hugely popular, and your submission the most interesting one ever, it still wouldn't belong into [worldnews]. Try finding a more appropriate subreddit, or create one or, if all else fails, submit it to the main reddit. Lastly, what you read in this thread is no circle jerk, it's a voluntary service offered to you and others directed here. The alternative'd be silently disappearing the spam. [SEP] First off, while I won't feel offended by mild abuse from some internet stranger, I still think it'd be nice if you were to tone down your language a wee bit.
+I agree with everything you say until you mentioned the last thing. You have no right to complain about not getting an EX pass if you don't want to put in commitments into the game. The issue with the EX raid system is primarily that people that DO make the sacrifices to try to obtain one don't, and then casuals that couldn't give a damn about the game get one and sometimes don't even bother to go to the raid at all. Someones gold is another mans trash apparently. What us "hardcore" players want is the opportunity to get a Mewtwo when we meet all the requirements and raid heavily at gyms our communities have agreed upon to raid at. No one that wants one badly enjoys seeing someone that is completely clueless about what an EX pass is getting one, and worst of all, seeing them say they aren't going to attend. To answer your question though - I sometimes get really invested into trying to get a pass. I'll raid like crazy at gyms I know can get one. I'll keep that gym blue as much as I can despite being Gold. I think it's come to the point where trying to get a pass does keep me interested and raises my competitiveness to keep gyms blue for my team, even though I'm already gold. When a wave gets sent out and I don't get one, it seriously does make me want to quit the game for awhile. I've already decided that I'm done spending money on this game until I get my EX pass. My overall point is I completely agree the EX system is shit, but some of the whining about it is just dumb. People ARE out there willing to make those sacrifices to get their Mewtwo, so seeing people get one and then complain about it is a bit discouraging to those that fund the game. [SEP] Tell me one multiplayer game that doesn't require you to make sacrifices or time investments.
+Why are we wasting time with Ghazi? Seriously, all they do is troll and be retarded on purpose. [SEP] Plus they always reek of this pathetic air of fedora-tier condescension as if they're above us somehow.
+> I was interested to see what that essay had to say, but opening up with an accusation of being "brainwashed" is a real turn-off. D'aww, feelings hurt, perfect reason to avoid reading arguments. edit: and bring on the downvotes. It's basically "no you're wrong!". I'm not saying the article is gospel, that every argument the article makes is valid, but dismissing it entirely just from the opening sentence is pretty easy. [SEP] All i'm pointing out that it's a bit easy to say "I didn't like the opening sentence, so I left".
+> Over nearly a decade participating here, I believe I've heard every possible argument and non-argument for theism. Ok, look, you don’t strike me as being unreasonable or hostile. Yet surely you see my point in this sentiment alone, right? [SEP] If you believe you’ve seen every argument theism has to offer, why are you here?
+What wars was she proposing? What about NAFTA specifically did people hate? Or was it just the name? Similar to TPP, because I see a lot of people claim how bad TPP is and very few of them can tell me anything about what it does, they just know they don't like it. She also wanted limited fracking done after strict safety regulations are in place, which most people also don't understand the details of fracking either. , even if the voter didn't know anything about most positions. You can't make everything black and white, Sanders has been wrong before and he will be wrong again. [SEP] I think a lot of those became buzz words, people who supported Sanders began to support everything that he did and that became the new standard that everyone had to meet
+There's a pretty good deal of this so full of condescension and derision that I'm not going to even bother to respond to it. As for the rest of it, I'll do it out of good faith in the hope you can find it within yourself to not vote like the asshole you are to strangers on the internet. I'm going to start with food stamps. they cannot afford food. You can't even buy enough to live with it, it's so little. I don't want to pull the "you hate poor people" card, because that's putting words in your mouth, but when you say you think that food stamps are bad that is... essentially what I'm hearing. Canadians. I think Canadians are pussies. Not enough of them shoot guns, they're a little too comfortable with their first-world amenities like socialized medicine, and they apologize for everything. What I really hate though, is a fucking Cuban-Canadian pretending to be part of the Latino community in Texas, which he isn't, and pretending to be Texan, which he isn't. Ted Cruz is a Canadian whitewashed opportunist, and has proven so many times over. As for the deficit, this becomes a neutral point if Beto increases government spending. Cruz voted for a tax bill that increases the deficit by cutting government revenue so he could give money to the wealthy (as Econ 101 will tell you, this doesn't fucking work) and if Beto is pro-spending he is also pro-taxes. Which I guess is a con. I don't know, I prefer a government with enough funds to offer a competitive wage in the labor market, so our bureaucrats aren't the dumbest slackjawed idiots they could find to take $8 an hour to desk jockey. With regards to your retirement plan, congratulations. You're wealthy enough to actually have one, which is usually a pretty good start on most people. And you also have the means to run it yourself, which is also pretty good. Again, congrats. While I will add that stock fraud and/or a market crash will do exactly the same thing to your retirement as everyone else's, that is, make it disappear, I'm just gonna let that lie. The trouble with your invincible retirement letting you say "fuck everyone else, I'm fine", is that it doesn't really work that way. See, all those idiots who can't plan are going to get old and run out of money. And then they're going to ask for entitlement spending from your government. And you know who votes? Old people. Which means legions of entitled old people will march to the polls to take your hard-earned money away from you in exponentially greater numbers if we don't figure out what the hell to do for them. Now, lets move on to Harvey. Most people can agree this was pretty bad. Most people can also agree it was pretty bad not to tell people in Katy whose houses flooded that their houses were build on a fucking flood plain. I don't live there, but for those who did that was pretty fucking dirty. To stop that from becoming a regular occurrence, we're going to need new infrastructure. Things like actually building emergency flood drainage, planning our city as we build it, and... maybe disclosing floodwater levels to property buyers. The whole of Houston is a fucking pancake, and this problem is only going to get worse. And frankly, most Republican representatives would rather sit on their own thumb than do anything about it. I'm not really in favor of regulation here, that just distorts markets, but I do think we need flood level disclosure, and no elected Republican will ever do that. Also, you seem like you're not from Houston so I'll explain. The people who got flooded during Harvey weren't required to get flood insurance by the government, because they don't live in a flood prone zone. They live in an area referred to as the "100-year flood plain", which is basically a giant rice paddy that the Addicks reservoir drains into. When Harvey happened, they opened the reservoir into the giant rice paddy - now filled with development - and all the people who hadn't been informed by their real estate agents or the government that they lived in an at-risk area got flooded. Frankly, you shouldn't want to just go and say "fuck poor people" by leaving people who get flooded without government assistance, but in this case it really just wasn't their fault. Now with regards to the Russia thing. The man literally stood up on international television and said, in a conference with a foreign leader, that he believed the Russians over US intelligence officials. He later 'corrected' his speech with a double negative, but it just... who the fuck makes that mistake? A double negative doesn't even make sense there. He constantly fucking talks about how the Russia investigation is a hoax. If the Russia investigation were a hoax, why the hell would he be talking about it? Did Obama ever talk about the Kenya thing? NO! He never even fucking mentioned it. There have been 32 indictments of Russian agents in that investigation, all of the US intelligence agencies have come forward to say the Russians interfered in the 2016 election, and the President is literally the only person in the room besides Sean Hannity saying otherwise. Hell, with the meeting that DJ Jr had with the Russian officials, he has even ADMITTED that he knew it was the Russians and that he knew it was about information on his opponent. We literally know everything except that he promised them something in exchange for that information. And frankly, when you look at the timing of the meeting and Trump's weird complete change of foreign policy to start praising Putin, it becomes obvious that he did. Either that or he just... organically kissed his ass. In evaluating any two conflicting stories you look at your sources. For Donald Trump to be up to something with the Russians, you need to have the CIA, FBI, NSA, a substantial portion of Congress, 4 major news networks, a ton of registered Republicans working in law enforcement, and Mark Zuckerberg all be wrong. At the same time. And they all have to be in on it together, because how the fuck would they coordinate that independent of one another. Or, the same guy who defrauded a bunch of people out of university diplomas, the same guy who did a ton of fucking racist apartment selling who HAS BEEN INDICTED AND FINED FOR DOING SO, who has filed for bankruptcy multiple times, who has cheated on all 3 of his wives, who has insulted decorated veterans for their disabilities, who has relentlessly made publicly inappropriate remarks no matter HOW MANY PEOPLE TELL HIM NOT TO, that guy, took some money from a person he already had tried to do business with when he was hard pressed for an out and wanted to win an election? Fuck it, look at the caliber of official he appoints. Scott Pruitt resigned this summer for ethics violations so heinous half the Republican leaders in Congress called for his indictment. It's not fucking hard to figure out man. I don't know where you're getting your information that you think it's a hoax, because honestly man, if somebody can fake all of that they're scary enough that they can fucking have my government. And just to be clear, I never said I was pro gun control. I think gun control is a big red herring. It does absolutely nothing. It serves no purpose. It is literally paperwork for hobbyists. It is a fucking waste of our collective time as a nation. Just like the "threat" of terrorism, and the "threat" of MS-13 and the scary Mexicans, there is no real consequence of the lack of gun control. Every now and then someone throws a walleyed balleyed fit and shoots some people. Alright. Last I checked drunk drivers killed a few ten thousand more per year. Am I going to take everyone's keys away? Can we get a show of hands to see who has been affected by any of those three things? Nobody? Who has KNOWN someone who was affected by one of those things? Still nobody? Exactly. So yes, I agree, gun control is a gigantic waste of fucking time spurred on by liberal hand-wringing over some mentally ill people. But food stamps, the nation's retirement, functioning healthcare, worker's rights, freedom of information for buyers in the housing market, sane trade policy, the negative impact of Citizens United, and the fucking Russians are all serious business. If someone were to pass legislation banning whatever the fuck 'assault weapon' (this term is meaningless, I agree) means, the gun market will make things to do the same function as 'assault weapons' in about a year. Or you could just mill it yourself. Hell, the milling machine is cheaper than your gun safe. But if all of those pillars of American democracy are eroded, we will essentially be living in the world's largest undeveloped shithole full of corruption. [SEP] They feed poor people. It is literally government money going to feed people so poor
+Do you actually not understand what I'm saying, or are you just trying to be funny? If you literally don't understand, let me explain. "Black issues" is almost exclusively an American issue, because America is pretty much the only place in the world where blacks are a significant minority. In Europe, nobody ever talks about "black issues". In Africa, blacks are obviously not a minority. In Asia, blacks are almost non-existent. So yes, it's very US-centric to talk about "black issues" only, and not about "minority issues" or whatever. [SEP] Also, again, if you literally were not able to decipher what I mean, I asked how is veganism related to feminism, and I never implied that feminism is a US-centric topic.
+That's exactly what I'm talking about. In a discussion about anything, lets just say feminism, It is most certainly an ad homiem attack, its an attack on your opponent's character and credibility, not one on the actual argument itself. There's literally nothing meaningful that would continue the dialogue if someone already decided that "you can't possibly understand something." [SEP] what would the purpose of saying "You can't understand that" be, if not an attempt to discredit the opposing side, and stifle the discussion?
+Communism will never work, because it's the antithesis of Capitalism, and Capitalism is the default state of humanity. See, there's one overarching problem that Communism cannot solve, and without solving this problem it cannot exist. Capitalism will always exist, unless you use force to forbid certain actions being consenting adults. Say you distribute resources like food equally among a given population. Everyone has enough to get by. Josh has a slow metabolism and can comfortably get by with less food than he is given. Today, Karen is feeling a bit more peckish than normal. Josh is horny. Josh goes up to Karen and says, 'I'll give you half my steak in exchange for a blowjob.' BOOM Capitalism. ...Furthermore, if Communism could work, it would have by now. You realize there are hundreds of online video games, with tens of thousands of servers between them, with player run economies? Not one of those is Communist, despite games not having any inherent limitation that prevents Communism from working. When given a choice anyone and everyone defaults to Capitalism and self interest whether they realize it or not." Was sent to me about a week ago lol I just replied with this [SEP] "I feel very sorry for you and anyone else that believes in this lie.
+Thank you for this comment. Something I've been trying to get through to people, on both sides, is to stop treating people as if they're not multidimensional characters. Typical guy who voted for Trump isn't just some stereotypically racist side-character; the majority of Trump supporters probably voted for him because he thought he'd be good for the economy because "he's a business man," or they took his promise at face value to bring jobs back, or some other innocuous reason. Likewise, the amount of people saying that any criticism of Trump is just "liberal tears" or some such nonsense is disgusting. Sure, some Trump supporters are racist and unreachable, just like some liberals really do want to take away all your guns that you use for hunting. There are a roughly equal amount of unreasonable people on both sides. Stop acting like the only unreasonable people are on the other side. Progress comes most easily from cooperation and understanding. From my perspective, the easiest way for me to lose respect for someone is if they're not willing to have a real, actual conversation with someone reasonable from the other side. [SEP] What the fuck happened to respecting your fellow countrymen?
+Actually you couldn't be more wrong lol. I've been the most woofed person on Scruff before, I keep a 10/10 response rating there as well as everywhere else I chat. When I get ignored, I just view it as someone else saving me the time of figuring out that they aren't the kind of person I care to associate with. I don't take the moral high ground in order to judge people, my way is simply better. All you've done here is show that you know you're wrong, and you know that I'm right. And now we both know it. Save your attempted character assassinations for people who are fooled by such desperate tactics. [SEP] You can tell when someone knows that they have lost an argument, because they start attacking the character of their opponent instead of attacking the message that's being sent. They do this because they realize that their opponent is right, and that they can't argue with what they're saying, so they seek to devalue what was said by devaluing who said it.
+Many young mothers have a super flat tummy no stretch marks and perfect tits... That kid is about 2 or 3. Plenty of time to have worked off any sign of having ever had a child. [SEP] You'll understand when you're older son...
+But it's one way to be ripped off. Be cheerful for what you got, or try to express your disappointment in a way that doesn't make you sound like an entitled, selfish brat. I didn't find this chapter very enjoyable either, but I didn't pay for it either, so I have little reason to complain. I can express my disappointment in other ways. [SEP] You have given them nothing, so they owe you nothing.
+Lol people think MOBAs are going to be as big as professional sports. I don't know why these kids are so short sighted and retarded. They think they're going to be cheering for a Jhin Curtain Call when they're in their 30s and 40s? It's almost obnoxious of them to try and [SEP] argue that video games and real sports are the same thing.
+Came here say this. That would be so fantastic for a time. I frequently turn my UI off, start in one location (say Shaemor), and set a goal to travel somewhere else (say, the Forsaken Halls in Dredgehaunt Cliffs) without using the map. Doing this really gives you a much more solid perspective of the world as a whole, and gets you to pay attention to and appreciate all the little detail that is bursting to life in every corner of Tyria. (Although I continue to despise portals between zones, and loading screens.) I can't help but feel most players would love to be able to appreciate and immerse themselves in the world the same way I do. It's just that they won't ever take the time to do something like this. As much as I didn't really enjoy the overall world of FFXI when I played that from 2003-2005, and as I hated some of the mechanisms of transportation in that game, I really did love the fact that when you set out to travel to a far away area, it really was an adventure. (Although it's my understanding that travel has been made significantly easier in that game now.) I would be away from my home city for literally real-life months at a time. Then, when I'd finally come home, it truly felt like I was coming home. It wasn't just "that place I teleport to before I log off every night." [SEP] Sometimes, as developers, you have to force (or, let's call it "guide") players to play a certain way in order to allow them to realize these benefits.
+give her the gift of a safety class. That way you both win. She gets to learn in another atmosphere I'll put it this way. My dad tried to teach me how to drive and failed miserably. He wanted me to learn but just kept getting frustrated at me. I learned in a class. I've also tried to teach various girlfriends things, things that I knew, and for whatever reason they just couldn't take 'their boyfriend' trying to teach them things. I guess they didn't want to appear dumb and I kept getting frustrated. [SEP] and you get a s/o who learns the important basics about firearms.
+A map doesn't need to be a 1:1 precise replica of whatever surface it is trying to represent to be useful. Models don't need to describe absolutely everything to be useful. Writing with intelligent sounding words doesn't make an intelligent sounding text. Substance is what matters. Define your terms. Can you really clearly explain what 'ideology' even means? And virtue? Don't present arguments that have to be taken at face value without evidence (e.g. Capitalism justifies greed, inequality and oppression, where Communism justifies resentment, reprisal and totalitarianism.) Avoid needless truisms (e.g. To enact change we must define specifically that which requires changing and the appropriate action to change it.) Think before writing. Develop your ideas. Prove your arguments. Bring out counterarguments and refute them. etc etc [SEP] Language can and does describe reality. Scientists do it every day.
+You can't, even for a second, understand why it might suck to try to make a valid point then be insulted because "boys clubs" are non-existent while the two of you hang out your "no gurlz aloud" sign. [SEP] Because instead of being a big boy and having a big boy conversation, you blame me for your behavior and then bitch about me to other commenters.
+I'm a Buddhist but even I know that in the bible Jesus overcame death. Death was the punishment. And the penalty of sin is death. Jesus overcame death. Clear and simple unless you want to remove that from the equation too. What Universalists believe in is being redeemed. To lead a fruitful life in this life now. And love is the main factor there. What you don't notice is that it sounds more like love when god forgives everyone than oppose to only loving and forgiving those who do what he says. Love doesn't exist where a god would send billions to eternal punishment. A father would not do that to their child. [SEP] Do you not read your bible?
+International law specifically condemns occupation, as well as settlement building. Allow me to make the your argument for you. Instead of pushing the indefensible angle as you are doing, the correct angle to pursue in defending Israeli policies is to point out that Israel is in overwhelmingly difficult situation under constant existential threat, which allows it to ignore specific part of international law because survival comes first and following international law to the letter would inevitably cause the demise of the state at worst, and massive increase in fatalities on both sides at best. Essentially the argument for ethics of the issue, based on respective goals of the relevant parties in conflict. That argument is not easily winnable by either party, and is most certainly not as black and white as violations of international law by Israel as part of its occupation of West Bank. [SEP] Essentially you are correct in your last sentence, but the preamble you go through destroys your point by providing easy vector for attack on your argument using simple established facts.
+>Nerf 20 foot fagguard swords if your talking about zwei that weapon shouldn't be a problem to anyone who can fight well (it's just too slow) >Slow down stab ripostes on all 1h weapons Why? personally the sword of war and claymore are way worst for stab ripostes >giving people a reason to use more of the 1h arsenal instead of just broad or holy faggot sprinkler i use norse more than broad most of the time and the sprinkler takes a butt load of hits to kill anyone and no weapon is best weapon only best player, also flange mace and morning star are beast weapons too it's all on preference, the only sword you shouldn't use is falchion (i feel likes it still sucks) >Reduce arrow damage across the board Dos't though prague rouge? Learn 2 dodge m8 >Buff ls damage enough so that you don't need to get headshots to achieve the same htks you used to get definitely no, headshots still matter and make a huge difference >Nerf Brandi slash attack yea but IDK why all i know is it's broken >Keep the ability to 2 shot knights exclusive to knights seriously!? that would imbalance the game to a huge amount and no one would not be a knight anymore >Nerf fucking dodge eh, if you spam it you can't dodge or attack much but as entire British army said, the backward dodge needs nerf >Every other class' ability is situational [SEP] so is maa? knights also have more health all around so does that count as OP class skill? also maa can't dodge all day they get like 4 if they won't attack IIRC
+Jesus Christ, how can you possibly think telling 50% of your potential voters to shut up is a winning strategy. Look at her wrinkled leather mask: this bitch thinks this message is a slam dunk! Hey McCaskill, you're doing the exact same thing Hillary did during her last campaign, putting half the population into a 'basket of deplorables' and expecting that to get out the vote in your favor. You cannot GAIN votes with a message like this, you can only LOSE votes you might've otherwise had. I don't live in Missouri, so I couldn't vote for you even if I wanted to, but if you were in a state I lived in, you couldn't PAY me to vote for you if this is the tone and tenor you're going to take. When the fuck are Dems going to get it through their thick skulls that identity politics is a dead end that's going to end up hurting them a lot more than hurting their opponents? Honestly? Maybe YOU should STFU, because you don't really know what they hell you're saying. Get a better message, or hire a staffer who's more than a yes-man and will rubber stamp anything you want to put in a campaign ad. I mean, NOBODY told her "you know, maybe you might not want to make such a needlessly divisive message when you could just as easily go for a broadly appealing message"? Edit: and yes, There's already other female Congress members who've said similar things during the Kavanaugh nomination process, so it's well within the wheelhouse to treat this satire as legit. [SEP] I realize this is a satire piece, but that you would be selected to give it shows that her saying something like this wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility.
+You are literally talking in circles trying to defend a 2 point comment all while over analyzing a random internet persons post....You have not bought the game. End of story. Your over all lack of experience allows me to cast out your opinions. If you have any experience or premise as to why we should trust your opinion beyond the "seems legit" nature of your post let me know. Other than that I feeeeel like you just do not want to unlock characters, and struggle with a 60 dollar game tag. I am guessing you are a younger gamer and most likely not very well off. I cannot really put myself in your shoes because I always buy games I support and enjoy seeing them grow. I also enjoy progression. This could be my warcraft background. You aren't saying anything of value and making this subreddit a doomsayer reddit. There is a specific location for improvements. I suggest you post there if you have anything original to say. As of now you are essentially the Kotaku of this Reddit. Thank you for your patronage. [SEP] Other than that your posts are low tier and I suggest you just let it go.
+Police kill way more white people, and actually, if you look into it () shoot unarmed white people at exactly the same rate. Come talk to me when someone dies in an ambulance stuck on a highway these yahoos have shut down. Let's see how you feel then. [SEP] which I'm sure no BLM supporters actually have
 Yes, because Russification, colonisation, prison labour or prison camps weren't a thing in Russian Empire, or again, Russian expensionism, Russification and stuff aren't things for Russia either. Again, I can see all the stuff you have suffered went away from Russia with communists losing the power, and they weren't a thing in Russian Empire either. /s I've heard in Kapital or What To Be Done, they argue about how to treat Estonians... [SEP] Yes, because Russification, colonisation, prison labour or prison camps weren't a thing in Russian Empire, or again, Russian expensionism, Russification and stuff aren't things for Russia either
->That's the thing. The GPS unit is a physical intrusion on your property. The Supreme Court has never granted broad protections to information, just to certain means to obtain that protection. That's not true. Read up on Katz V United States. A wiretap was placed on a line that connected to a phone booth. No physical intrusion happened at the phone booth, and the phone booth was not owned by the person using it. But SCOTUS ruled that when the user closed the door, he had an expectation of privacy that his conversation would not be heard by anyone but the intended recipient. I obviously have that same expectation of privacy when carrying a device that I own for my own purposes. All of the data coming from it, whether it's my conversation, my email, texts, or location data, all of it is personal information not to be shared unless I expressly allow such sharing by contract or EULA, or unless a warrant is issued. >The police can't put a GPS unit on your car, but could have an unmarked vehicle follow you everywhere. They obtain the same information, but one method is constitutionally okay without a warrant, the other isn't. That's because it's not illegal for anyone to follow you around as much as they want. The fact that this method is easily detectable makes the difference. You are not expecting privacy when you see someone following you, so you can decide if your actions are something you want to be seen. It's the same as if you have a conversation about something illegal right in front of a cop. That's not the same thing as them listening remotely without you having any way of knowing, or hiding a gps on your car. >Your argument would be like saying that because the police can't place a bug in my house, the police also can't ask my girlfriend to tell them about the time I told her I killed a man in Reno just to watch him die. No, that's not the same at all. You chose to share that information with someone. If they choose to share it with someone else, that's your fault, you trusted the wrong person. But if she is trustworthy, and the only reason they find out about it is that they first tracked you in Reno without a warrant and found you were there at the appropriate time, and then used that warrant less information to get a warrant to tap your cell and heard you talking to your girlfriend about it, that is a violation to your right to privacy. They shouldn't be able to track you with a cell phone if they can't do it with a GPS device. They have not changed the method as you previously stated, they just changed the device from one that they own to one that you own. The method is the same, I used to use them as a P.I. and they are just cell phones without voice. A gps connecting to a cellular network transmitting coordinates, and using tower triangulation when the GPS signal is too weak. Exactly the same as your cell. >And the court here is, at least under current Supreme Court precedent, probably wrong. United States v. Miller covers this situation pretty clearly: a customer has no fourth amendment rights in records of business transactions which are in the possession of the business. With a subpoena, which is has to be gotten from a judge the same as a warrant. Cops just can't walk in to a business and say "Give me all your records that have anything to do with John Doe". They need a search warrant if that business is the one they are investigating, and a subpoena for records at other businesses related to that crime. [SEP] That's not true. Read up on Katz V United States. A wiretap was placed on a line that connected to a phone booth. No physical intrusion happened at the phone booth, and the phone booth was not owned by the person using it. But SCOTUS ruled that when the user closed the door, he had an expectation of privacy that his conversation would not be heard by anyone but the intended recipient.
-I have, and there's one in particular that isn't judge-y but the other couple I've told just don't seem to believe me. It doesn't bother me that much really, not enough to stop getting it anyway. I know what my doctor said, the pharmacist doesn't have to believe me. It's OTC and I'm not breaking any laws so the judgmental looks don't really matter at the end of the day. [SEP] I know what my doctor said, the pharmacist doesn't have to believe me.
-Oh.. my.. I'm so confused. I was really rather certain the conversation was about the lasting, and perpetuated, benefits to white (or perceived as) people in this country and the intense bias to black (or perceived as) people because of that particular part of American history. Mercy me. I'm so happy you explained it. Now I don't have to be offended at the trope you just played out, oh savior. Edit: I honestly hate all of you fucking people. Refuse to acknowledge that there's a problem even if there's solid science on it. Cosigning bullshit. I legitimately see nothing to like about having to share a planet with you. I understand why people propose genocide. [SEP] benefits to white (or perceived as) people
-This is why I like Sanders. He listens. Just like he listened to the BLM protesters, he is listening to criticism of some of his supporters. It's funny how Berniebros have so little faith in their candidate though to assume he's being bullied and that he doesn't actually care about women or minorities. [SEP] It's funny how Berniebros have so little faith in their candidate though to assume he's being bullied and that he doesn't actually care about women or minorities.
-So, I personally am not outraged. I can't speak for anyone else in the thread with RadiumJuly. You do understand that one can disagree with another, even strongly, and not be outraged, right? Since your entire point is predicated on reading a person's intent carefully, do you not think it makes your position a little less trustworthy to ascribe outrage to those with whom you disagree? Anyhow... When I made my post, Eulenspiegel74's comment >"Gatekeeping in its finest form" was still toward the top, and therefore the connection was more obvious. It's now low enough down and nested deeply enough that I had to actually go and unnest comments to find it. That's life on reddit, I guess. Unlike you, RadiumJuly did not fight that assertion. His response was >"I guess you could view it like that, you are welcome to it." Gatekeeping, as I understand it, and as I use it here, is >When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity. To me, it seemed as though RadiumJuly was implying that those who do not play in a way he likes—with little regard for optimization—are, by definition, not a seasoned or veteran or, to use the OP's language, experienced player. I specifically contrasted my view with his, because my idea of an experienced/seasoned/veteran player does not need to play in a specific way or value a specific style, other than the enjoyment of those at the table. I put the bar at trying to make the game more fun—inherently subjective, I admit—for the people with whom you are playing. He places the bar with playing in a specific way, and does not mention anything about the subjective enjoyment of those you are with. He could very well have assumed the idea that one should also make the game "better" for those around you, but it wasn't anywhere in his list of requirements. Now, you could argue that my definition is also a form of gatekeeping, and I suppose you'd be right. If a player actively tries to make the game less enjoyable for others, I would not let them past the gate of experienced/seasoned/veteran. But I draw a fairly firm line between the pursuit of the enjoyment for your group (no matter how they play) and a specific "right" way to play. Finally, I concede that I may have read into RadiumJuly's comment more than he intended. If I did, mea culpa. I am clearly not the only one who misunderstood his intent if it was not as I interpreted it, but that is, again, one of the downsides to conversations on the internet. Have an upvote for insisting that I reassess. [SEP] You do understand that one can disagree with another, even strongly, and not be outraged, right?
-And? Tuomas Sandholm heads the group. You don't think I researched this matter and looked for the white paper for 'Libratus' before commenting? Also, I hope you understand that there are number of people who posses graduate degrees from top Universities who have published papers... This becomes less impressive and 'neat' to such people. But, lets run through the publications for shits and giggles.. Noam Brown, Christian Kroer, and Tuomas Sandholm. Dynamic Thresholding and Pruning for Regret Minimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2017. Essentially : http Been around for some time. Papers dating back to the 70's,80's ... http An essential component to most game bots .. Create problem space (decision tree).. search problem space, prune .. Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Reduced Space and Faster Convergence in Imperfect-Information Games via Regret-Based Pruning. arXiv, 2016. Fuzzy logic for back pruning a decision tree using statistics .. Been done before Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Strategy-Based Warm Starting for Regret Minimization in Games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2016. Extended Version. Dynamic Seeding/conditioning of decision tree based on more recent data. Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Regret-Based Pruning in Extensive-Form Games. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2015. Extended Version. Back pruning utilized by a neural net Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Simultaneous Abstraction and Equilibrium Finding in Games. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2015. Extended Version. Data fitting and encoding Noam Brown, Sam Ganzfried, and Tuomas Sandholm. Hierarchical Abstraction, Distributed Equilibrium Computation, and Post-Processing, with Application to a Champion No-Limit Texas Hold'em Agent. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2015. Using proven methods to build a statistical optimization and search engine for heads-up small search space no limit holdem poker. Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Regret Transfer and Parameter Optimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2014. Extended Version. Decision trees, convergence, search space, pruning, back pruning and parameter optimization .. been around since the 80s. You learn this stuff in your 2nd year in college in a data structures and algorithms course writing a game bot. The difference here is the distributed computing and scaling of it. “We don’t write the strategy. We write the algorithm that computes the strategy.” — Tuomas Sandholm Proves my point that this is nothing more than statistical optimization and search and even then the techniques used for achieving this mathematical approach are nothing new or earth shattering. All-in-all this is nothing ground breaking w.r.t to A.I as this is your standard game-bot approach. [SEP] Also, I hope you understand that there are number of people who posses graduate degrees from top Universities who have published papers... This becomes less impressive and 'neat' to such people.
-> So you figured it out & then left - disassociated - within 3 days? I was a believer, but I was never baptized, so I never had to disassociate. But yeah, I figured it out in the late afternoon, stayed up all night to think about it, spent a day staring at a wall trying to process it, another short night wondering what to do next and then I finally fell asleep because I was too tired. Then I decided to drop everything I believed right there and then, because even though it sucks, if what I believed was wrong, I could kick and scream, but it would not make it more true. I just never went back to the kingdom hall. I talked to an elder about it later, but he saw that he wasn't going to pull me back in and that I was happier outside, so he just let it go. And again, it's a non-sequitur - a logical fallacy. Just because someone is on here, doesn't mean they're not over it. I could just stop visiting this place, but I enjoy the crowd too much. Others like to be here for activism. Others have loved ones who are still in. People come here for many different reasons, not necessarily because they're not over their exit or its ramifications. [SEP] Just because someone is on here, doesn't mean they're not over it. I could just stop visiting this place, but I enjoy the crowd too much. Others like to be here for activism. Others have loved ones who are still in. People come here for many different reasons, not necessarily because they're not over their exit or its ramifications.
-> the President pretty much has to nominate a "compromise" choice As I've said a few times here, this place has more Republican talking points than CPAC. You're accepting the total breach of democratic norms by the GOP and normalizing it by saying things like that. The "compromise" between a milquetoast liberal and a proto-fascist is not something any progressive should accept. > And when I express it as a legitimate concern of mine, I get accused of fear mongering. Fuck that. I will not fucking apologize for having a strong opinion on this issue. This is almost humorous. "I will never apologize for repeating verbatim the most boring, centrist, establishment wisdom! Look how rebellious I am!" [SEP] This is almost humorous. "I will never apologize for repeating verbatim the most boring, centrist, establishment wisdom! Look how rebellious I am!"
-This advice is somewhat warranted though. My fiancé has depression, sometimes pretty bad (luckily a lot better lately). I've been depressed but never considered myself to have "depression" (in other words, I was in a shitty place in life, and didnt realize I needed to change it). When I start to get down, I realize I need to make a conscious effort to be happy. Don't get mad at things that don't matter, treat others nicely, that kind of crap. This is the small boost I need, and I feel people who give that advice think that's all you need. They don't realize there is a different level of depression, where your life is fine but you feel shitty. And that's why that advice pisses people off in my opinion. [SEP] They don't realize there is a different level of depression, where your life is fine but you feel shitty. And that's why that advice pisses people off in my opinion.
-That's not useless at all. I don't mind them knowing that I message my friends. I do mind them reading it with no warrant. [SEP] I don't mind them knowing that I message my friends.
-Few thoughts: Picture 1: Conduct doesn't mean what you think it means. Picture 2: Actually I have nothing bad to say about this. Picture 3: Guys can and have said things like this. Shit, I think shoulders are sexy. Picture 4: Normal t-shirts aren't the same as tight/revealing clothes. And aren't those men's running shorts? Do you not think a guy would get in trouble if he was wearing them? Picture 5: One of those pics is of a male. Edit: >Mabes. 14. Pansexual.Loves [...] dorks who drink at Mclaren's Pub. ~~What kind of 14 year old has a favorite pub? o.O~~ Nvm I don't watch enough TV apparently. [SEP] Normal t-shirts aren't the same as tight/revealing clothes.
-If your friend stopped wearing shirts, would you still hang out with them? Why or why not? It's ok to downvote and not answer. The journey to knowledge is a winding path. It takes time. [SEP] The journey to knowledge is a winding path. It takes time.
-I think you misunderstand the dynamic of those PMs. Trolls mean to troll, and they'll push people's buttons. Their being assholes in that regard doesn't make them necessarily anti-feminist; but they're still assholes and that aspect I do not condone. [SEP] Trolls mean to troll, and they'll push people's buttons.
-> Here are the google results from an idol anime I watched once, look at the girl. The skimpiest thing she has on is a tank top, definitely not just a bra (even her bikini outfit covers up more than Tsubasa's shirt). You don't need to dress skimpily to be an idol, that's a ridiculous idea. Here is the cover for the very first issue of this manga. This is supposed to be a 14 year old girl by the way, so not only is she being sexualized, it's also pedophilia! Sterling example. >Depends on the context. At a beach? Obviously no problem there. Chilling at home? People can wear what they want. In public where people are dressed normally? Hell no! Even so, the fact that you're insulting people who are bothered by it is unecessarily rude. You could have given your opinion without calling those who disagree "prudes". I'm not insulting you because you disagree. I don't mean any insult at all, actually. I'm calling you a prude because your arguments and opinions are literally that of a prude. You're pushing yourself further into that territory with each post you make. I'm stating a fact. If you think being a prude is a bad thing, then change your behavior. Don't try to deny it. Clothes don't even enter into it; Women should have the right to be topless in public, so your attempt to police what type of fucking clothing we should be allowed to wear is downright offensive. [SEP] Here is the cover for the very first issue of this manga.
-white privilege is not discussed as a pejorative. it is used to help white people see that racism exists and that just because they can't see it, doesn't mean its not there. the privilege aspect is used to show that racism isn't segregation of schools or straight up slavery but instead it is a subtle bias towards white people, e.g. being given the benefit of the doubt by a police officer. No-one's saying white people should be treated worse, its about looking past how you're treated to see how others may have differing experiences [SEP] white privilege is not discussed as a pejorative. it is used to help white people see that racism exists and that just because they can't see it, doesn't mean its not there.
-I don't know what the solution is to this. I like to imagine a Utopian world where everyone is cared for and we are truly a united species. But I don't see how that transition can take place. I don't see how the world can be expected to take in so many refugees. I can't judge the countries facing an impossible problem. I don't think there's a perfect answer to this. I really enjoyed the video, though. [SEP] I don't see how the world can be expected to take in so many refugees.
-Feminism and enjoying when someone pays on a date aren't really a contradiction. Feminism, like any activist group are about fighting societal oppression or inequality. I'm Black, I fight against racism, however, if I'm in an intimate relationship with a white woman who likes to yell something like "Give me that ngger dick" during sex, then I'd be fine with that. Just because I want me and my community to be treated a certain way by the government and society at large has little bearing on how I'd like to be treated in an intimate, private and personal relationship. And that preference doesn't undermine my activism because it's a private matter between two people that doesn't have any effect on my community's treatment, either negative or positive. Sure, you can not pay for a date, and she'll respect that...but there might not be a second date. I know quite a few Black activists who don't mind their white and latinx friends saying the N-word around them, because that is the level of intimacy they share with those friends. If you don't have that level of intimacy and trust with those Black people, then you'd get knocked out for saying that very same thing. Do you know how toxic Disney is? Especially older Disney movies, and they were mostly written and directed by dudes. Also, being nice is the bare minimum of human interaction and doesn't even guarantee platonic friendship, let alone a romantic relationship, the fact that so many dudes never got that is extremely baffling. I mean, do these dudes think that old ladies bust that pussy open for dudes who help them across the street or....what? That's like thinking Basic Combat Training is enough to get into a military career when, really, you'll also need to complete Advanced Infantry Training and then Military Occupation Specialty training, AT LEAST, before you get assigned to a military career and corresponding unit. Improvements beyond that bare minimum only help your chances to varying degrees, but doesn't guarantee you'll attract a particular woman or man you really want. Do you know what girls, not women, girls have to deal with growing up? Grown ass men staring you up and down, talking about how "fine" you're gonna be when you grow up... or how fine you already are. My sisters started growing breasts when they were eight or nine years old, and I had to cuss out a bunch of nasty old dudes for trying to hit on them or catcall them. And that's just girlhood. I totally understand women being rude to men they don't want to deal with, and a lot of dudes can't take a hint unless she damn near bites their head off. I don't know about any of you, but I grew up in the Black community, where neither men, nor women are coy or polite about what we want in a partner. I can listen to any female rapper or singer and know EXACTLY what type of men they want. Solé likes "pretty niggas with big dicks who do tongue tricks." Solé left no room for interpretation, and dudes with NONE of those qualities knew to step back and let her marry Ginuwine who did have those qualities. I mean, seriously, this confusion dudes have is so weird to me given my upbringing. Even as a teenager I knew that "nice guy" stuff wasn't nearly enough to attract a girl and that's perfectly fine. [SEP] Just because I want me and my community to be treated a certain way by the government and society at large has little bearing on how I'd like to be treated in an intimate, private and personal relationship.
-You're preaching to the choir, a.k.a. someone that lives below the poverty line. Some people make decisions early in life that they have to continue to live with well into their 30s and 40s. Some begin in stable relationships, decide to have kids, then they go through a divorce, or maybe even a partner walks out, leaving the child and single parent to fend for themselves. Some are college grads that can't get a job on account of the piss poor state of the still recovering economy and have to attempt to pay off student loans for fear of credit collapse and/or arrest. Every situation is different. Not everyone is immediately capable of advancing themselves. Many are just trying to make it by. It's a shame that honest people are often blamed for their situations. Yes, a cheap beater for a car helps in the short run, until it breaks down a few months later and you have to buy another one. Food stamps help, but it hardly make a dent. Especially for those with kids, or, rather, endless pits. Also, with gas prices going up, that is becoming more and more of a problem, as well. And I understand how the market works. I'm actually rather educated. Take your passive insults elsewhere. [SEP] And I understand how the market works. I'm actually rather educated. Take your passive insults elsewhere.
-I meant Scar, not so much Mustang. However, the Mustang scene was also handled poorly on the basis that Envy deserved every bit of what he got. >Also, I am very curious to see why you consider HxH to be less cliche than the average good shonen. That's such a stupid question that rather than answer it myself, I'm going to link you to a short video that just details a few reasons why it is decidedly less cliche than the average shounen: http I don't particularly agree with the assertion that HxH as a whole is a "deconstruction," but it does have many deconstructive aspects. [SEP] That's such a stupid question that rather than answer it myself, I'm going to link you to a short video that just details a few reasons why it is decidedly less cliche than the average shounen: http
-Nobody is arguing that people are anti-semitic because they belong to a specific group. You got this all backwards. The anti-semites are the ones arguing the Jews are evil because they belong to a specific group. There are jew haters of all races, sexes, economic backgrounds from around the world. My main criticism on "intersectional theory" is that it does not take into account these other, more adequate explanations for the data. It's focused on a few dimensions that are decided by the researcher's prejudice. The world is more complicated that simply categorizing people into groups exposes stark differences. All these traits that you can categorize people by have interdependencies. At the jewish example that one would be a dependency between being jewish and working in finance. This is a correlation but is it a causality? This is what science is about. The cause for jews to work in finance was not their inherent genetic makeup as the Nazis believed, it was the culture around them forbidding them from working for anything else and forbidding Christians from loaning money with interest. Intersectionality is the search for the confirmation of preexisting stereotypes. Once it's established that there are no black women in that company nobody cares why. [SEP] Intersectionality is the search for the confirmation of preexisting stereotypes.
-Well that's your right.....but I'm gonna guess this is your first election you really paid attention to? I wish the elections could be won ethically, but after watching the last 5 elections go down, I don't know if thats possible. And between the two major candidates, getting a heads up on a town hall question is a lot less unethical than telling all your supporters the democratic process is rigged without a shred of proof, believing you can sexually assault women because you are famous, saying we need to murder the families of terrorists, saying we need to just steal Iraqs oil, and so many other despicable things its hard to keep track. Hillary wasn't my first choice, but shes BY FAR the best choice available. [SEP] Well that's your right.....but I'm gonna guess this is your first election you really paid attention to?
+>That's the thing. The GPS unit is a physical intrusion on your property. The Supreme Court has never granted broad protections to information, just to certain means to obtain that protection. I obviously have that same expectation of privacy when carrying a device that I own for my own purposes. All of the data coming from it, whether it's my conversation, my email, texts, or location data, all of it is personal information not to be shared unless I expressly allow such sharing by contract or EULA, or unless a warrant is issued. >The police can't put a GPS unit on your car, but could have an unmarked vehicle follow you everywhere. They obtain the same information, but one method is constitutionally okay without a warrant, the other isn't. That's because it's not illegal for anyone to follow you around as much as they want. The fact that this method is easily detectable makes the difference. You are not expecting privacy when you see someone following you, so you can decide if your actions are something you want to be seen. It's the same as if you have a conversation about something illegal right in front of a cop. That's not the same thing as them listening remotely without you having any way of knowing, or hiding a gps on your car. >Your argument would be like saying that because the police can't place a bug in my house, the police also can't ask my girlfriend to tell them about the time I told her I killed a man in Reno just to watch him die. No, that's not the same at all. You chose to share that information with someone. If they choose to share it with someone else, that's your fault, you trusted the wrong person. But if she is trustworthy, and the only reason they find out about it is that they first tracked you in Reno without a warrant and found you were there at the appropriate time, and then used that warrant less information to get a warrant to tap your cell and heard you talking to your girlfriend about it, that is a violation to your right to privacy. They shouldn't be able to track you with a cell phone if they can't do it with a GPS device. They have not changed the method as you previously stated, they just changed the device from one that they own to one that you own. The method is the same, I used to use them as a P.I. and they are just cell phones without voice. A gps connecting to a cellular network transmitting coordinates, and using tower triangulation when the GPS signal is too weak. Exactly the same as your cell. >And the court here is, at least under current Supreme Court precedent, probably wrong. United States v. Miller covers this situation pretty clearly: a customer has no fourth amendment rights in records of business transactions which are in the possession of the business. With a subpoena, which is has to be gotten from a judge the same as a warrant. Cops just can't walk in to a business and say "Give me all your records that have anything to do with John Doe". They need a search warrant if that business is the one they are investigating, and a subpoena for records at other businesses related to that crime. [SEP] That's not true. Read up on Katz V United States. A wiretap was placed on a line that connected to a phone booth. No physical intrusion happened at the phone booth, and the phone booth was not owned by the person using it. But SCOTUS ruled that when the user closed the door, he had an expectation of privacy that his conversation would not be heard by anyone but the intended recipient.
+I have, and there's one in particular that isn't judge-y but the other couple I've told just don't seem to believe me. It doesn't bother me that much really, not enough to stop getting it anyway. It's OTC and I'm not breaking any laws so the judgmental looks don't really matter at the end of the day. [SEP] I know what my doctor said, the pharmacist doesn't have to believe me.
+Oh.. my.. I'm so confused. I was really rather certain the conversation was about the lasting, and perpetuated, in this country and the intense bias to black (or perceived as) people because of that particular part of American history. Mercy me. I'm so happy you explained it. Now I don't have to be offended at the trope you just played out, oh savior. Edit: I honestly hate all of you fucking people. Refuse to acknowledge that there's a problem even if there's solid science on it. Cosigning bullshit. I legitimately see nothing to like about having to share a planet with you. I understand why people propose genocide. [SEP] benefits to white (or perceived as) people
+This is why I like Sanders. He listens. Just like he listened to the BLM protesters, he is listening to criticism of some of his supporters. [SEP] It's funny how Berniebros have so little faith in their candidate though to assume he's being bullied and that he doesn't actually care about women or minorities.
+So, I personally am not outraged. I can't speak for anyone else in the thread with RadiumJuly. Since your entire point is predicated on reading a person's intent carefully, do you not think it makes your position a little less trustworthy to ascribe outrage to those with whom you disagree? Anyhow... When I made my post, Eulenspiegel74's comment >"Gatekeeping in its finest form" was still toward the top, and therefore the connection was more obvious. It's now low enough down and nested deeply enough that I had to actually go and unnest comments to find it. That's life on reddit, I guess. Unlike you, RadiumJuly did not fight that assertion. His response was >"I guess you could view it like that, you are welcome to it." Gatekeeping, as I understand it, and as I use it here, is >When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity. To me, it seemed as though RadiumJuly was implying that those who do not play in a way he likes—with little regard for optimization—are, by definition, not a seasoned or veteran or, to use the OP's language, experienced player. I specifically contrasted my view with his, because my idea of an experienced/seasoned/veteran player does not need to play in a specific way or value a specific style, other than the enjoyment of those at the table. I put the bar at trying to make the game more fun—inherently subjective, I admit—for the people with whom you are playing. He places the bar with playing in a specific way, and does not mention anything about the subjective enjoyment of those you are with. He could very well have assumed the idea that one should also make the game "better" for those around you, but it wasn't anywhere in his list of requirements. Now, you could argue that my definition is also a form of gatekeeping, and I suppose you'd be right. If a player actively tries to make the game less enjoyable for others, I would not let them past the gate of experienced/seasoned/veteran. But I draw a fairly firm line between the pursuit of the enjoyment for your group (no matter how they play) and a specific "right" way to play. Finally, I concede that I may have read into RadiumJuly's comment more than he intended. If I did, mea culpa. I am clearly not the only one who misunderstood his intent if it was not as I interpreted it, but that is, again, one of the downsides to conversations on the internet. Have an upvote for insisting that I reassess. [SEP] You do understand that one can disagree with another, even strongly, and not be outraged, right?
+And? Tuomas Sandholm heads the group. You don't think I researched this matter and looked for the white paper for 'Libratus' before commenting? But, lets run through the publications for shits and giggles.. Noam Brown, Christian Kroer, and Tuomas Sandholm. Dynamic Thresholding and Pruning for Regret Minimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2017. Essentially : http Been around for some time. Papers dating back to the 70's,80's ... http An essential component to most game bots .. Create problem space (decision tree).. search problem space, prune .. Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Reduced Space and Faster Convergence in Imperfect-Information Games via Regret-Based Pruning. arXiv, 2016. Fuzzy logic for back pruning a decision tree using statistics .. Been done before Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Strategy-Based Warm Starting for Regret Minimization in Games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2016. Extended Version. Dynamic Seeding/conditioning of decision tree based on more recent data. Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Regret-Based Pruning in Extensive-Form Games. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2015. Extended Version. Back pruning utilized by a neural net Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Simultaneous Abstraction and Equilibrium Finding in Games. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2015. Extended Version. Data fitting and encoding Noam Brown, Sam Ganzfried, and Tuomas Sandholm. Hierarchical Abstraction, Distributed Equilibrium Computation, and Post-Processing, with Application to a Champion No-Limit Texas Hold'em Agent. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2015. Using proven methods to build a statistical optimization and search engine for heads-up small search space no limit holdem poker. Noam Brown and Tuomas Sandholm. Regret Transfer and Parameter Optimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2014. Extended Version. Decision trees, convergence, search space, pruning, back pruning and parameter optimization .. been around since the 80s. You learn this stuff in your 2nd year in college in a data structures and algorithms course writing a game bot. The difference here is the distributed computing and scaling of it. “We don’t write the strategy. We write the algorithm that computes the strategy.” — Tuomas Sandholm Proves my point that this is nothing more than statistical optimization and search and even then the techniques used for achieving this mathematical approach are nothing new or earth shattering. All-in-all this is nothing ground breaking w.r.t to A.I as this is your standard game-bot approach. [SEP] Also, I hope you understand that there are number of people who posses graduate degrees from top Universities who have published papers... This becomes less impressive and 'neat' to such people.
+> So you figured it out & then left - disassociated - within 3 days? I was a believer, but I was never baptized, so I never had to disassociate. But yeah, I figured it out in the late afternoon, stayed up all night to think about it, spent a day staring at a wall trying to process it, another short night wondering what to do next and then I finally fell asleep because I was too tired. Then I decided to drop everything I believed right there and then, because even though it sucks, if what I believed was wrong, I could kick and scream, but it would not make it more true. I just never went back to the kingdom hall. I talked to an elder about it later, but he saw that he wasn't going to pull me back in and that I was happier outside, so he just let it go. And again, it's a non-sequitur - a logical fallacy. [SEP] Just because someone is on here, doesn't mean they're not over it. I could just stop visiting this place, but I enjoy the crowd too much. Others like to be here for activism. Others have loved ones who are still in. People come here for many different reasons, not necessarily because they're not over their exit or its ramifications.
+> the President pretty much has to nominate a "compromise" choice As I've said a few times here, this place has more Republican talking points than CPAC. You're accepting the total breach of democratic norms by the GOP and normalizing it by saying things like that. The "compromise" between a milquetoast liberal and a proto-fascist is not something any progressive should accept. > And when I express it as a legitimate concern of mine, I get accused of fear mongering. Fuck that. I will not fucking apologize for having a strong opinion on this issue. [SEP] This is almost humorous. "I will never apologize for repeating verbatim the most boring, centrist, establishment wisdom! Look how rebellious I am!"
+This advice is somewhat warranted though. My fiancé has depression, sometimes pretty bad (luckily a lot better lately). I've been depressed but never considered myself to have "depression" (in other words, I was in a shitty place in life, and didnt realize I needed to change it). When I start to get down, I realize I need to make a conscious effort to be happy. Don't get mad at things that don't matter, treat others nicely, that kind of crap. This is the small boost I need, and I feel people who give that advice think that's all you need. [SEP] They don't realize there is a different level of depression, where your life is fine but you feel shitty. And that's why that advice pisses people off in my opinion.
+That's not useless at all. I do mind them reading it with no warrant. [SEP] I don't mind them knowing that I message my friends.
+Few thoughts: Picture 1: Conduct doesn't mean what you think it means. Picture 2: Actually I have nothing bad to say about this. Picture 3: Guys can and have said things like this. Shit, I think shoulders are sexy. Picture 4: And aren't those men's running shorts? Do you not think a guy would get in trouble if he was wearing them? Picture 5: One of those pics is of a male. Edit: >Mabes. 14. Pansexual.Loves [...] dorks who drink at Mclaren's Pub. ~~What kind of 14 year old has a favorite pub? o.O~~ Nvm I don't watch enough TV apparently. [SEP] Normal t-shirts aren't the same as tight/revealing clothes.
+If your friend stopped wearing shirts, would you still hang out with them? Why or why not? It's ok to downvote and not answer. [SEP] The journey to knowledge is a winding path. It takes time.
+I think you misunderstand the dynamic of those PMs. Their being assholes in that regard doesn't make them necessarily anti-feminist; but they're still assholes and that aspect I do not condone. [SEP] Trolls mean to troll, and they'll push people's buttons.
+> Here are the google results from an idol anime I watched once, look at the girl. The skimpiest thing she has on is a tank top, definitely not just a bra (even her bikini outfit covers up more than Tsubasa's shirt). You don't need to dress skimpily to be an idol, that's a ridiculous idea. This is supposed to be a 14 year old girl by the way, so not only is she being sexualized, it's also pedophilia! Sterling example. >Depends on the context. At a beach? Obviously no problem there. Chilling at home? People can wear what they want. In public where people are dressed normally? Hell no! Even so, the fact that you're insulting people who are bothered by it is unecessarily rude. You could have given your opinion without calling those who disagree "prudes". I'm not insulting you because you disagree. I don't mean any insult at all, actually. I'm calling you a prude because your arguments and opinions are literally that of a prude. You're pushing yourself further into that territory with each post you make. I'm stating a fact. If you think being a prude is a bad thing, then change your behavior. Don't try to deny it. Clothes don't even enter into it; Women should have the right to be topless in public, so your attempt to police what type of fucking clothing we should be allowed to wear is downright offensive. [SEP] Here is the cover for the very first issue of this manga.
+the privilege aspect is used to show that racism isn't segregation of schools or straight up slavery but instead it is a subtle bias towards white people, e.g. being given the benefit of the doubt by a police officer. No-one's saying white people should be treated worse, its about looking past how you're treated to see how others may have differing experiences [SEP] white privilege is not discussed as a pejorative. it is used to help white people see that racism exists and that just because they can't see it, doesn't mean its not there.
+I don't know what the solution is to this. I like to imagine a Utopian world where everyone is cared for and we are truly a united species. But I don't see how that transition can take place. I can't judge the countries facing an impossible problem. I don't think there's a perfect answer to this. I really enjoyed the video, though. [SEP] I don't see how the world can be expected to take in so many refugees.
+Feminism and enjoying when someone pays on a date aren't really a contradiction. Feminism, like any activist group are about fighting societal oppression or inequality. I'm Black, I fight against racism, however, if I'm in an intimate relationship with a white woman who likes to yell something like "Give me that ngger dick" during sex, then I'd be fine with that. And that preference doesn't undermine my activism because it's a private matter between two people that doesn't have any effect on my community's treatment, either negative or positive. Sure, you can not pay for a date, and she'll respect that...but there might not be a second date. I know quite a few Black activists who don't mind their white and latinx friends saying the N-word around them, because that is the level of intimacy they share with those friends. If you don't have that level of intimacy and trust with those Black people, then you'd get knocked out for saying that very same thing. Do you know how toxic Disney is? Especially older Disney movies, and they were mostly written and directed by dudes. Also, being nice is the bare minimum of human interaction and doesn't even guarantee platonic friendship, let alone a romantic relationship, the fact that so many dudes never got that is extremely baffling. I mean, do these dudes think that old ladies bust that pussy open for dudes who help them across the street or....what? That's like thinking Basic Combat Training is enough to get into a military career when, really, you'll also need to complete Advanced Infantry Training and then Military Occupation Specialty training, AT LEAST, before you get assigned to a military career and corresponding unit. Improvements beyond that bare minimum only help your chances to varying degrees, but doesn't guarantee you'll attract a particular woman or man you really want. Do you know what girls, not women, girls have to deal with growing up? Grown ass men staring you up and down, talking about how "fine" you're gonna be when you grow up... or how fine you already are. My sisters started growing breasts when they were eight or nine years old, and I had to cuss out a bunch of nasty old dudes for trying to hit on them or catcall them. And that's just girlhood. I totally understand women being rude to men they don't want to deal with, and a lot of dudes can't take a hint unless she damn near bites their head off. I don't know about any of you, but I grew up in the Black community, where neither men, nor women are coy or polite about what we want in a partner. I can listen to any female rapper or singer and know EXACTLY what type of men they want. Solé likes "pretty niggas with big dicks who do tongue tricks." Sol�� left no room for interpretation, and dudes with NONE of those qualities knew to step back and let her marry Ginuwine who did have those qualities. I mean, seriously, this confusion dudes have is so weird to me given my upbringing. Even as a teenager I knew that "nice guy" stuff wasn't nearly enough to attract a girl and that's perfectly fine. [SEP] Just because I want me and my community to be treated a certain way by the government and society at large has little bearing on how I'd like to be treated in an intimate, private and personal relationship.
+You're preaching to the choir, a.k.a. someone that lives below the poverty line. Some people make decisions early in life that they have to continue to live with well into their 30s and 40s. Some begin in stable relationships, decide to have kids, then they go through a divorce, or maybe even a partner walks out, leaving the child and single parent to fend for themselves. Some are college grads that can't get a job on account of the piss poor state of the still recovering economy and have to attempt to pay off student loans for fear of credit collapse and/or arrest. Every situation is different. Not everyone is immediately capable of advancing themselves. Many are just trying to make it by. It's a shame that honest people are often blamed for their situations. Yes, a cheap beater for a car helps in the short run, until it breaks down a few months later and you have to buy another one. Food stamps help, but it hardly make a dent. Especially for those with kids, or, rather, endless pits. Also, with gas prices going up, that is becoming more and more of a problem, as well. [SEP] And I understand how the market works. I'm actually rather educated. Take your passive insults elsewhere.
+I meant Scar, not so much Mustang. However, the Mustang scene was also handled poorly on the basis that Envy deserved every bit of what he got. >Also, I am very curious to see why you consider HxH to be less cliche than the average good shonen. I don't particularly agree with the assertion that HxH as a whole is a "deconstruction," but it does have many deconstructive aspects. [SEP] That's such a stupid question that rather than answer it myself, I'm going to link you to a short video that just details a few reasons why it is decidedly less cliche than the average shounen: http
+Nobody is arguing that people are anti-semitic because they belong to a specific group. You got this all backwards. The anti-semites are the ones arguing the Jews are evil because they belong to a specific group. There are jew haters of all races, sexes, economic backgrounds from around the world. My main criticism on "intersectional theory" is that it does not take into account these other, more adequate explanations for the data. It's focused on a few dimensions that are decided by the researcher's prejudice. The world is more complicated that simply categorizing people into groups exposes stark differences. All these traits that you can categorize people by have interdependencies. At the jewish example that one would be a dependency between being jewish and working in finance. This is a correlation but is it a causality? This is what science is about. The cause for jews to work in finance was not their inherent genetic makeup as the Nazis believed, it was the culture around them forbidding them from working for anything else and forbidding Christians from loaning money with interest. Once it's established that there are no black women in that company nobody cares why. [SEP] Intersectionality is the search for the confirmation of preexisting stereotypes.
+I wish the elections could be won ethically, but after watching the last 5 elections go down, I don't know if thats possible. And between the two major candidates, getting a heads up on a town hall question is a lot less unethical than telling all your supporters the democratic process is rigged without a shred of proof, believing you can sexually assault women because you are famous, saying we need to murder the families of terrorists, saying we need to just steal Iraqs oil, and so many other despicable things its hard to keep track. Hillary wasn't my first choice, but shes BY FAR the best choice available. [SEP] Well that's your right.....but I'm gonna guess this is your first election you really paid attention to?
 Fuck it, ill call out both u/panopss and u/Karthikacmilan as well: A troll? Really? Thats what you think? Then both of you are fucking idiots. At least the moderator was nice enough to put up a proper reply.. Imagine loving a gamemode which the actual Dev's hate. Imagine being the only person in your friendship group who loves said gamemode. You finally find a community, a little slice of the world who also loves said gamemode. Low and behold, they have a forum on Reddit for it. So you check out the forum and... Adverts Everywhere. No actual discussion. No thoughts and feelings. The quite literal "Looking for X, must be Y". You could see that on the Xbox LFG Service, NOT on a forum. Am I blaming the mods? No. Hell no. They do what they do and thats it. The mod that replied told me whats going on. I blame the "community" if you can even call them that. Newsflash here boys, saying "Looking for a 90+ Striker, must have 5star weak foot" doesnt make you part of anything. Its ridiculous to think that THATS the way the Reddit should be run. This reddit, quite frankly, should be treated as an open communication between The Pro Clubs players, and EA. Thats literally what every other Video Game Subreddit does. Do you really think EA want to see "Must have Second Wind and 4 Star skill moves" when looking for feedback. Will they take it on board? Not the point. If this Sub succeeds and hits a good number, maybe theyll actually do something with Pro Clubs. Was I a bit too harsh? Yeah, probably. Thats on me. But calling me a troll for actually trying to improve what we have is wrong. Fundamentally, wrong. I'd rather be a troll in a good community, than a "normie" in an advertisers wet dream. To the mods (or mod, apparently) only thing I can say is bring aboard a few more decent mods, get all the advertising spam removed/put into a single megathread, and see where that gets us. Hopefully in a year when this place in thriving we might get a decent update to the gamemode we love! [SEP] To the mods (or mod, apparently) only thing I can say is bring aboard a few more decent mods
-You should just act normal around her. Find common interests talk about those. Like: '' oh, hi btw did you get the last thing the professor talked about, cause I dont really get it? You look like a bright one, could you help?'' or '' hey, have you seen that movie or series or whatever'' just find a common topic and make the conversation snowball up. And then at the end of the convo say something like '' nice to meet you. We should hang around sometime''. And then you wait maybe a week or two before taking the initiative ( if she doesnt do that) and approach her again. Treat her as a friend instead as something you want to get. Dont approach in a flirting manner cause most girls will get warning signs the moment you do. Hope it helps. [SEP] You look like a bright one, could you help?''
-OK, well here's the thing, if you are one of those Atheists who hear, "God Bless You" and you roll your eyes or pfft at them, or take any mention of any religious context to make a remark... you really are the problem to these people, you ARE the asshole. It only has to happen to a religious person a couple of times before it's too much for them. Remember they are accustomed to everything being at the status-quo setting of Christians just naturally being "a default for all in a western country". We all have that friend who turns two incidents of anything into "oh that happens to me all the time" type exaggerations. Christians are just having a that kind of bad reaction to suddenly having people not taking their bullshit and not saying anything. [SEP] "God Bless You" and you roll your eyes or pfft at them, or take any mention of any religious context to make a remark... you really are the problem to these people, you ARE the asshole.
-I am a Janeway fan as well, and I am a man. I think the majority of the hate for Janeway is sexism, whether the complainer is consciously sexist or not, with lots of confirmation bias using plot and character issues. Kirk (for example) was, on multiple occasions, an abysmal leader, and at times an unbelievably goofy caricature. Despite being one of the fan favorites, Kirk could be easily argued as the worst captain. No character is perfect, no writing is perfect, and no acting is perfect either. Even my favorite captain, Picard, had his moments. Yes, Janeway broke rules and was not always in the moral right. She, like any real person, made judgment calls, some of which were bad ones. Like every captain in Trek, she broke the prime directive or the temporal prime directive whenever she disagreed with it. At times, her reasoning and moral compass in one episode seems to be at odds with herself from another episode. These qualities are not unique to Janeway, and they are not unique to Voyager. When it comes down to it, Janeway managed to be a tough-as-nails leader who commanded with authority and strength, while still generally maintaining her humanity and emotion and morality. She is not perfect, but as human beings are not perfect, that is to be expected. Say what you will about Kate Mulgrew, but she managed (more often than not) to portray the character in a moving and convincing way, and I still consider Voyager a fantastic series. There's coffee in that nebula. [SEP] I think the majority of the hate for Janeway is sexism
-I don't think it's that they dislike us as a group, the problem is the ones they have met have treated them wrong (teasing, humiliation and general abuse) as such they're very apprehensive about our motives. To be honest i don't blame them, when they've gone through it multiple times it's almost easy to see and understand why it's come to be almost expected for any sign of kindness shown to them to just be a facade for incoming abuse. Edit I will admit that i have seen some posts from sdp that lean onto bdp basically being a bragging sub, while some people do brag, most posts like that are shot down for being just a humblebrag. I think for some they don't see a big dick owner as ever having a problem, which is sadly not true. [SEP] I don't think it's that they dislike us as a group
-I am a feminist (meaning I believe in equality of status and opportunity) and I care very much about this issue. Personally I wouldn't put increased male suicide down to 'toxic masculinity', I'd put it mostly down to poor funding and awareness of mental health services, and a lack of general understanding about mental health issues. That said, I do think there has been a culture of 'boys don't cry' that means men take in a message that not being able to cope is girly, i.e. negative. That needs to be challenged. My archetypal working class dad has had severe anxiety for most of his life. His preferred method of dealing with it was to tell himself to get a grip while drinking 4+ cans of super strength every night. Every time he had a panic attack family members and workmates would tell him to get a grip. He felt very stupid. Eventually, after much badgering, he went to the doctor and got citalopram and counselling. Boom. Life changed. He says the only thing that stopped him going to the doctor was 'feeling like a dickhead' for not being able to cope with it by himself. [SEP] I do think there has been a culture of 'boys don't cry'
-That's because you lack imagination. Some lots have rentable spaces that are also open for hourly parking. There was a front page post a few weeks ago of a guy with a sign on his car telling people to stop messing with his car because he rents two parking spots and he parks his car in the middle. Individuals like you who lack imagination will make premature judgments about that guy and revel in your ignorance to the reality of the situation. Assholes with similar lack of imagination will mess with the car due to their ignorance. My brother-in-law owns a chain of grocery stores in Western Virginia and he obviously owns the lots of those stores. He drives in a nice car and he can park however he wants to because it's his property. But again, self-righteous assholes will leave snarky notes and mess with his car by leaving trash on it. I should tell him to leave a note like the guy above telling people he owns ALL the spots in the parking lot and to tell assholes to fuck off. You don't like it, you don't have to shop there. Are there real assholes who park like idiots for no reason? Sure. That's why I said: >The complete fucking asshole is the guy keying cars, not necessarily the guy who owns the car. And you are making stupid assumptions: >How you could consider a guy who parks like this as not being an asshole is beyond me. What guy? Who are you calling an asshole? We were speaking in hypothetical generalities. [SEP] Individuals like you who lack imagination will make premature judgments about that guy and revel in your ignorance to the reality of the situation. Assholes with similar lack of imagination will mess with the car due to their ignorance.
-> Not just allowing but facilitating one Signal user to be able to view whether any of their contacts (which is to say, any phone number they feel like adding to their contacts list) are also Signal users presents a privacy and security risk. Signals goals aren't the same as your goals. You've read that Signal is a secure messenger and from that you've made certain assumptions that are wrong which is why you're having trouble understanding. To quote Moxie: > If we were going to rank our priorities, they would be in this order: > > 1) Make mass surveillance impossible. > > 2) Stop targeted attacks against crypto nerds. > > It's not that we don't find #2 laudable, but optimizing for #1 takes precedence when we're making decisions. > > If you don't want to use your phone number, don't use it. You can register with any GV, Twilio, Voicepulse, or other throwaway VoIP number. > > If you don't want to run Chrome, use Chromium instead. > > If you don't want to use Google Play Services, use GcmCore. > > The world you want this software for is not the world that everyone else lives in. You can certainly make it work in that world with a little effort, but because of how we've prioritized our objectives, that's not the default experience. [SEP] Signals goals aren't the same as your goals. You've read that Signal is a secure messenger and from that you've made certain assumptions that are wrong which is why you're having trouble understanding.
-In this track, Heems sometimes raps, sometimes leaves the beat and talks. His voice sounds mellow or sedated. That's the similarity I was referring to. I do agree that they're very different, though. Heems is for hip-hop heads, Drake is pop music for teeny boppers that want something that sounds "more urban" than One D or the biebs. [SEP] Heems is for hip-hop heads, Drake is pop music for teeny boppers that want something that sounds "more urban" than One D or the biebs.
-> I know. That's exactly what I said, back when you said that physical power isn't worth building into because it doesn't benefit you much. I pointed out that every Assassin build path leads to a lot of physical power, and so you will benefit from the scaling either way No. I didn't agree with you. Listen. Try to listen one time. If you have more power your scaling benefits you more....you with me so far? So if you have LESS power your scaling benefits you less and is not as meaningful. You got that? There is a difference between having higher power and lower power. Even though you will always have some power in your build, the MORE power you have will make your higher scaling more meaningful. This is important because NOT all assassins build the same way. If you are building for auto attacks like on kali you will have less power in your build because you need things like attack speed. What this means is that having higher scaling doesn't necessarily mean as much as you think it does. If your build doesn't prioritize power (and it shouldn't) then having high scaling isn't as strong as it would otherwise appear. When we look at mages and see a character with like 160% scaling on an ability it makes a huge difference because they will have the magic power to make that add like 800 damage to the ability. That's a huge deal. But we look at Susano's 1 with 180% scaling and since he doesn't build as much power it doesn't matter as much--it only provides like 400 damage. So when you compare Susano with lower overall base damage and higher scaling with other gods it doesn't matter as much as you would think. He doesn't build as much power or ability damage modifiers as other gods who might have lower scaling and even if his scaling can make up for that his base damage is still not high enough to make it OP like everyone seems to think. ---------------- Holy shit I just read the second argument you made here. It's just too much. You actually have some sort of disability. Your reading comprehension is so bad. I say something agreeing with you at first saying how "yes, everyone will have power in their build" and you think I am saying that as my own point to counter something you said. Like, you are seriously inept. > You've literally spent this entire conversation cherry-picking individual moves and characters that compare favourably due to having additional, specific modifiers that go beyond the base damage and make their damage output more impressive + > That's ironic, coming from you. You are still missing the point of me saying things like that. Holy shit. There is a difference between me pointing that out to illustrate something to you and you outright going "Well he has high base damage because these 2 abilities are higher than what others have". Me pointing out a single ability like Guan's ult is meant to demonstrate a point to you, not to say that Guan is better or something. You using two of his abilities to make a claim and disagree with my statement that his base damage is not high overall is something different. But I don't expect you to understand at this point and I know I am just wasting my time. It's just pointless to explain this to you. You're so clueless. You can't understand what you are reading and your reasoning ability is just flawed beyond what is required to salvage this conversation. [SEP] It's just pointless to explain this to you. You're so clueless. You can't understand what you are reading and your reasoning ability is just flawed beyond what is required to salvage this conversation.
-> Kyrie is much more consistent and clutch than Klay, Klay can explode and give you those crazy games but he went through a lot of cold stretches last season. Lol. I'm not even going to get into this other than to say clutch is little more than media narrative and confirmation bias. >It's not all about stats and efficiency So when I say Kyrie isn't a top-5 scorer, you try to back your opinion with stats. When I beat you at your own game, you decide to hide behind the "eye test". Whatever you say bro. >I go by the eye test a lot and in my eyes Kyrie is one of the best scorers in the league Just saying, I'm not going to put a whole lot of stock into any eye test that tells me Kyrie Irving is a better scorer than Lebron. >maybe not top 5 Glad I could change your mind [SEP] Lol. I'm not even going to get into this other than to say clutch is little more than media narrative and confirmation bias.
-> He made his intentions ~~in doing as such~~ for doing so clear when he threatened to publish the e-mails if the other person did not stop speaking about Sam. This is false. He did not say he would publish the emails if Klein "did not stop speaking about Sam"... there is no evidence that Klein had "spoken about Sam", only written about him, but even if we can guess that you mean written, I'm sure Sam would've loved if Klein had changed his tune and all of a sudden started speaking/writing about Sam in flattering terms... and had apologized. What Sam actually said was that he would publish the emails if Klein "continued in this way"... we don't know, by that statement alone, exactly what he meant by that. > He made it clear he was threatening to publish private correspondence without the consent of the other party if the person did not stop talking about him. He tried to exploit his following as a weapon to fight his personal battles. I'm definitely not saying Sam's actions were defensible but you're taking quite an uncharitable leap to assume that he was using his following as a weapon and not attempting to rectify what he saw as a character assassination. Again, one doesn't have to assume that's what he was doing to allow that that may have been within the realm of possibility. You are choosing to infer an uncharitable reading of the situation. > But how is it the case that you could still believe Sam Harris to be a trustworthy person? No one should be thought of as trustworthy/untrustworthy in a binary sense. People are trustworthy to varying degrees depending on the topic, context, etc. No one should take what Sam says on faith... but to assume that the Klein debacle should make everyone conclude that Sam is never to be trusted again, on any point he makes, 100% of the time is an overly-reductive way to look at the situation, IMO. > In the Chomsky e-mails for example, Sam came off as naively believing the US intentions were whatever the US says their intentions are I don't think the point Sam was making was that US intentions were whatever the US says they are but that the degree to which they actually do have good intentions should be taken into consideration. It wasn't a controversial place that he was trying to start from but Chomsky was getting hung up on specifics and making philosophical/moral misstatements and Sam vice versa. I'm trying to be specific in my responses to your critique but I have to say that you seem to be doing a lot of mind-reading here about Sam's intentions and what his base does or doesn't believe. It's hard to respond to generalizations like these when you're not being very specific about what exactly you're objecting to... but as for your other objection. > This transitions into Sam's defense of Damore when Christian accused him of being in the alt-right. First, I see nothing wrong with saying this. Plenty of people belong in the alt-right who do not openly admit it. I think this statement gets to the heart of your objection... you are completely comfortable labeling someone as "being in the alt-right" simply because "plenty of people belong in the alt-right who do not openly admit it." In other words, ‘since it's possible, why not go ahead and make the accusation?’ This is the height of intellectually dishonesty, IMO. It's not a matter of expecting Damore to "admit" being in the alt-right, before one should be willing to make the accusation, it's just that the accusation shouldn't be made on insufficient evidence. And some (shocker) may disagree that there is sufficient evidence to make such a damaging indictment. > Instead, much of the Sam fan base seems to naively and gullibly believe Sam's intentions to be what Sam states they are, disregarding any non-confirming evidence and almost deliberately refusing to infer normal inferences from communication. You might see some people's unwillingness to grant that it's ok to accuse Damore of being a member of the alt-right as "refusing to infer normal inferences" but has it ever occurred to you that "normal" might in fact be a subjective assessment and that others might simply have a difference of opinion? Not everyone has to come to the same conclusions as you and just because people come to different conclusions doesn't necessarily mean that they are unwilling to use critical thinking to evaluate someone's intentions beyond what they have stated. Yes, I'm sure you can find people that fit your description but it seems like you're trying to make definitive statements about "so many Sam fans" or "much of the Sam fan base" that are basically unfalsifiable if you don't point to anything beyond anecdotal evidence. [SEP] No one should be thought of as trustworthy/untrustworthy in a binary sense.
-Incorrect. You don't seem to understand how much more 1billion is over 10million, doesn't matter how many servers you're going, eventually your average user is going to be worth less and so is their experience. I'm sorry but I've put this down twice, you'll learn in time... I can't keep responding to you just because you have a "big corporation owns everything" belief. The 100-1 scale is probably more like 500-1 but I wasn't intending on people being blind enough to not understand. [SEP] eventually your average user is going to be worth less and so is their experience.
-> So Trump was at least addressing the economic realities people in the Midwest were facing, while Clinton ignored them. That's another way of saying Democrats lost credibility with the working class. She wasn't denying them though, it's just that her proposed solutions sounded less appealing to the uneducated than his did. >You can spout all the macro numbers you want. Go to Decatur, IL and tell them how great trade agreements are. They know exactly which countries are manufacturing what used to be made in Decatur. 1. Tariffs and renegotiating NAFTA won't restore cities like Decatur like he would want you to believe. Companies aren't going to make massive investments because of tariffs that could be gone in 2 years. 2. Other countries have developed a lot more over the past few decades. The US is no longer the majority of global imports. Even if the US imposes massive tariffs and tries to make everything themselves, they still won't be able to compete with China to export to other developed countries such as those in Europe. Much of America's prosperity that came from being a manufacturing powerhouse came from exports. Strong unions then made America less competitive due to rising costs, which made foreign nations more competitive. 3. The imports on Steel and Aluminum are putting millions of manufacturing jobs at risk because they make the US less competitive because of increased input costs. If steel is a major ingredient, why not move your factory to Mexico and avoid the tariff? Many plants have already closed because of his tariffs. Manufacturing would've left America in the absence of NAFTA anyways. America is not the only importer of goods. As other countries that globalized decide to buy from other countries like Mexico, US producers would've struggled anyways. I find it funny that he ran on saving rural areas, yet he's destroying them more while helping urban areas. The corporate tax cuts are helping large businesses in urban centers. But his tariffs have resulted in retaliatory tariffs that have caused immense harm to farmers in the midwest, manufacturing plants closing or layoffs due to rising steel/aluminium costs, and reduced investment due to trade uncertainty. He made unrealistic promises that uneducated voters felt were realistic. And this is exactly why macro should be a required course in high school. >Democrats need to learn that fast if they want to beat Trump in '20. He won't even win the primary in '20. He only won the 2016 primary by mistake because votes were too split. Many people in his own party walked away. With all of the scandals there's no way he'll win again. [SEP] She wasn't denying them though, it's just that her proposed solutions sounded less appealing to the uneducated than his did.
-> That shit will haunt you and your relationship will rot. I'd have to disagree with that. My SO and I had that discussion at the beginning of our relationship. We were in our mid 20s, recent college grads, and both knew that we "had a good time" in college. I think it was just better that we knew about each other's past (and heard it directly from the person) rather than just assume things. If you are a mature adult with a healthy outlook towards sex (i.e., you don't see it as dirty or wrong), you should be able to handle this type of information without letting it sour your relationship. Then again, I'm also the type of person who discusses getting tested for STIs (sexual health is important, y'all) and it'd be difficult to have this conversation if you can't handle the thought of your SO having sex with anyone other than you. FWIW, we had each been with over 20 people (admittedly, a little more than that for me), and have been together almost 5 years now. [SEP] If you are a mature adult with a healthy outlook towards sex
-The coaching and mediocre goaltending is definitely at fault as well, but Virtanen melted down in big ways at the worst possible times. Also, many of the downvotes are simply because of who I am. I've pissed off a great deal of this sub by not being blindly positive. [SEP] by not being blindly positive
-My apologies, I misread your Turkey statement as Turkey being directly involved in shipping jihadists. However, you seem to believe that this could have gone only one way based on evidence that Turkish jihadists were in possession of sarin. It's certainly circumstantial at best, but again I find it hard to believe these guys slap together homemade rockets full of Sarin. Again, it just doesn't work like that. You don't just duct tape a barrel full of gas to the top of a rocket and let them go. You seem to think this is like a high school rocketry project where you just build it and fly it. This is a tad more complicated than that. There were even unexploded shells, INTACT rockets (read: not barrels with boosters on them) around the Damascus area. I never said there were ever two sides in this conflict, either, so please don't twist my words. There are many rebel groups vying for control of what will inevitably be Assad's fall. Some of them (like you may see on that super super misleading Glenn Beck clip circulating the web right now) of just exactly what type of guys we probably shouldn't support. Never once did I say this is some 2 sided good guy bad guy war. I did, however, say that GAS WAS USED. It doesn't matter which side used gas, THAT side has to be accountable. If it so turns out rebels staged an attack to get intervention, then those are to be held responsible. If, however, it was Assad (and possessing the largest stockpile of Sarin and chemical weapons and having delivery systems readily available to them is somewhat more telling than having a couple of kilos of Sarin, which degrades fairly rapidly in its poisonous form), then it's on his ass. Al-Nusra, the Syrian Liberation Front. WHOEVER. Gas is not to be used ever. It's fine to have a reasonable level of skepticism about something. It's entirely something different to claim to know for a fact exactly what proof there is and that the President (who has more intelligence information at his fingertips than you or I could count) is straight up lying about something just because you don't think he's right. Don't waste either of our time by claiming you know the president and his administration are lying right off the bat because you saw a video with an inconsistency in it or something. [SEP] You seem to think this is like a high school rocketry project where you just build it and fly it. This is a tad more complicated than that.
+You should just act normal around her. Find common interests talk about those. Like: '' oh, hi btw did you get the last thing the professor talked about, cause I dont really get it? or '' hey, have you seen that movie or series or whatever'' just find a common topic and make the conversation snowball up. And then at the end of the convo say something like '' nice to meet you. We should hang around sometime''. And then you wait maybe a week or two before taking the initiative ( if she doesnt do that) and approach her again. Treat her as a friend instead as something you want to get. Dont approach in a flirting manner cause most girls will get warning signs the moment you do. Hope it helps. [SEP] You look like a bright one, could you help?''
+OK, well here's the thing, if you are one of those Atheists who hear, It only has to happen to a religious person a couple of times before it's too much for them. Remember they are accustomed to everything being at the status-quo setting of Christians just naturally being "a default for all in a western country". We all have that friend who turns two incidents of anything into "oh that happens to me all the time" type exaggerations. Christians are just having a that kind of bad reaction to suddenly having people not taking their bullshit and not saying anything. [SEP] "God Bless You" and you roll your eyes or pfft at them, or take any mention of any religious context to make a remark... you really are the problem to these people, you ARE the asshole.
+I am a Janeway fan as well, and I am a man. , whether the complainer is consciously sexist or not, with lots of confirmation bias using plot and character issues. Kirk (for example) was, on multiple occasions, an abysmal leader, and at times an unbelievably goofy caricature. Despite being one of the fan favorites, Kirk could be easily argued as the worst captain. No character is perfect, no writing is perfect, and no acting is perfect either. Even my favorite captain, Picard, had his moments. Yes, Janeway broke rules and was not always in the moral right. She, like any real person, made judgment calls, some of which were bad ones. Like every captain in Trek, she broke the prime directive or the temporal prime directive whenever she disagreed with it. At times, her reasoning and moral compass in one episode seems to be at odds with herself from another episode. These qualities are not unique to Janeway, and they are not unique to Voyager. When it comes down to it, Janeway managed to be a tough-as-nails leader who commanded with authority and strength, while still generally maintaining her humanity and emotion and morality. She is not perfect, but as human beings are not perfect, that is to be expected. Say what you will about Kate Mulgrew, but she managed (more often than not) to portray the character in a moving and convincing way, and I still consider Voyager a fantastic series. There's coffee in that nebula. [SEP] I think the majority of the hate for Janeway is sexism
+, the problem is the ones they have met have treated them wrong (teasing, humiliation and general abuse) as such they're very apprehensive about our motives. To be honest i don't blame them, when they've gone through it multiple times it's almost easy to see and understand why it's come to be almost expected for any sign of kindness shown to them to just be a facade for incoming abuse. Edit I will admit that i have seen some posts from sdp that lean onto bdp basically being a bragging sub, while some people do brag, most posts like that are shot down for being just a humblebrag. I think for some they don't see a big dick owner as ever having a problem, which is sadly not true. [SEP] I don't think it's that they dislike us as a group
+I am a feminist (meaning I believe in equality of status and opportunity) and I care very much about this issue. Personally I wouldn't put increased male suicide down to 'toxic masculinity', I'd put it mostly down to poor funding and awareness of mental health services, and a lack of general understanding about mental health issues. That said, that means men take in a message that not being able to cope is girly, i.e. negative. That needs to be challenged. My archetypal working class dad has had severe anxiety for most of his life. His preferred method of dealing with it was to tell himself to get a grip while drinking 4+ cans of super strength every night. Every time he had a panic attack family members and workmates would tell him to get a grip. He felt very stupid. Eventually, after much badgering, he went to the doctor and got citalopram and counselling. Boom. Life changed. He says the only thing that stopped him going to the doctor was 'feeling like a dickhead' for not being able to cope with it by himself. [SEP] I do think there has been a culture of 'boys don't cry'
+That's because you lack imagination. Some lots have rentable spaces that are also open for hourly parking. There was a front page post a few weeks ago of a guy with a sign on his car telling people to stop messing with his car because he rents two parking spots and he parks his car in the middle. My brother-in-law owns a chain of grocery stores in Western Virginia and he obviously owns the lots of those stores. He drives in a nice car and he can park however he wants to because it's his property. But again, self-righteous assholes will leave snarky notes and mess with his car by leaving trash on it. I should tell him to leave a note like the guy above telling people he owns ALL the spots in the parking lot and to tell assholes to fuck off. You don't like it, you don't have to shop there. Are there real assholes who park like idiots for no reason? Sure. That's why I said: >The complete fucking asshole is the guy keying cars, not necessarily the guy who owns the car. And you are making stupid assumptions: >How you could consider a guy who parks like this as not being an asshole is beyond me. What guy? Who are you calling an asshole? We were speaking in hypothetical generalities. [SEP] Individuals like you who lack imagination will make premature judgments about that guy and revel in your ignorance to the reality of the situation. Assholes with similar lack of imagination will mess with the car due to their ignorance.
+> Not just allowing but facilitating one Signal user to be able to view whether any of their contacts (which is to say, any phone number they feel like adding to their contacts list) are also Signal users presents a privacy and security risk. To quote Moxie: > If we were going to rank our priorities, they would be in this order: > > 1) Make mass surveillance impossible. > > 2) Stop targeted attacks against crypto nerds. > > It's not that we don't find #2 laudable, but optimizing for #1 takes precedence when we're making decisions. > > If you don't want to use your phone number, don't use it. You can register with any GV, Twilio, Voicepulse, or other throwaway VoIP number. > > If you don't want to run Chrome, use Chromium instead. > > If you don't want to use Google Play Services, use GcmCore. > > The world you want this software for is not the world that everyone else lives in. You can certainly make it work in that world with a little effort, but because of how we've prioritized our objectives, that's not the default experience. [SEP] Signals goals aren't the same as your goals. You've read that Signal is a secure messenger and from that you've made certain assumptions that are wrong which is why you're having trouble understanding.
+In this track, Heems sometimes raps, sometimes leaves the beat and talks. His voice sounds mellow or sedated. That's the similarity I was referring to. I do agree that they're very different, though. [SEP] Heems is for hip-hop heads, Drake is pop music for teeny boppers that want something that sounds "more urban" than One D or the biebs.
+> I know. That's exactly what I said, back when you said that physical power isn't worth building into because it doesn't benefit you much. I pointed out that every Assassin build path leads to a lot of physical power, and so you will benefit from the scaling either way No. I didn't agree with you. Listen. Try to listen one time. If you have more power your scaling benefits you more....you with me so far? So if you have LESS power your scaling benefits you less and is not as meaningful. You got that? There is a difference between having higher power and lower power. Even though you will always have some power in your build, the MORE power you have will make your higher scaling more meaningful. This is important because NOT all assassins build the same way. If you are building for auto attacks like on kali you will have less power in your build because you need things like attack speed. What this means is that having higher scaling doesn't necessarily mean as much as you think it does. If your build doesn't prioritize power (and it shouldn't) then having high scaling isn't as strong as it would otherwise appear. When we look at mages and see a character with like 160% scaling on an ability it makes a huge difference because they will have the magic power to make that add like 800 damage to the ability. That's a huge deal. But we look at Susano's 1 with 180% scaling and since he doesn't build as much power it doesn't matter as much--it only provides like 400 damage. So when you compare Susano with lower overall base damage and higher scaling with other gods it doesn't matter as much as you would think. He doesn't build as much power or ability damage modifiers as other gods who might have lower scaling and even if his scaling can make up for that his base damage is still not high enough to make it OP like everyone seems to think. ---------------- Holy shit I just read the second argument you made here. It's just too much. You actually have some sort of disability. Your reading comprehension is so bad. I say something agreeing with you at first saying how "yes, everyone will have power in their build" and you think I am saying that as my own point to counter something you said. Like, you are seriously inept. > You've literally spent this entire conversation cherry-picking individual moves and characters that compare favourably due to having additional, specific modifiers that go beyond the base damage and make their damage output more impressive + > That's ironic, coming from you. You are still missing the point of me saying things like that. Holy shit. There is a difference between me pointing that out to illustrate something to you and you outright going "Well he has high base damage because these 2 abilities are higher than what others have". Me pointing out a single ability like Guan's ult is meant to demonstrate a point to you, not to say that Guan is better or something. You using two of his abilities to make a claim and disagree with my statement that his base damage is not high overall is something different. But I don't expect you to understand at this point and I know I am just wasting my time. [SEP] It's just pointless to explain this to you. You're so clueless. You can't understand what you are reading and your reasoning ability is just flawed beyond what is required to salvage this conversation.
+> Kyrie is much more consistent and clutch than Klay, Klay can explode and give you those crazy games but he went through a lot of cold stretches last season. >It's not all about stats and efficiency So when I say Kyrie isn't a top-5 scorer, you try to back your opinion with stats. When I beat you at your own game, you decide to hide behind the "eye test". Whatever you say bro. >I go by the eye test a lot and in my eyes Kyrie is one of the best scorers in the league Just saying, I'm not going to put a whole lot of stock into any eye test that tells me Kyrie Irving is a better scorer than Lebron. >maybe not top 5 Glad I could change your mind [SEP] Lol. I'm not even going to get into this other than to say clutch is little more than media narrative and confirmation bias.
+> He made his intentions ~~in doing as such~~ for doing so clear when he threatened to publish the e-mails if the other person did not stop speaking about Sam. This is false. He did not say he would publish the emails if Klein "did not stop speaking about Sam"... there is no evidence that Klein had "spoken about Sam", only written about him, but even if we can guess that you mean written, I'm sure Sam would've loved if Klein had changed his tune and all of a sudden started speaking/writing about Sam in flattering terms... and had apologized. What Sam actually said was that he would publish the emails if Klein "continued in this way"... we don't know, by that statement alone, exactly what he meant by that. > He made it clear he was threatening to publish private correspondence without the consent of the other party if the person did not stop talking about him. He tried to exploit his following as a weapon to fight his personal battles. I'm definitely not saying Sam's actions were defensible but you're taking quite an uncharitable leap to assume that he was using his following as a weapon and not attempting to rectify what he saw as a character assassination. Again, one doesn't have to assume that's what he was doing to allow that that may have been within the realm of possibility. You are choosing to infer an uncharitable reading of the situation. > But how is it the case that you could still believe Sam Harris to be a trustworthy person? People are trustworthy to varying degrees depending on the topic, context, etc. No one should take what Sam says on faith... but to assume that the Klein debacle should make everyone conclude that Sam is never to be trusted again, on any point he makes, 100% of the time is an overly-reductive way to look at the situation, IMO. > In the Chomsky e-mails for example, Sam came off as naively believing the US intentions were whatever the US says their intentions are I don't think the point Sam was making was that US intentions were whatever the US says they are but that the degree to which they actually do have good intentions should be taken into consideration. It wasn't a controversial place that he was trying to start from but Chomsky was getting hung up on specifics and making philosophical/moral misstatements and Sam vice versa. I'm trying to be specific in my responses to your critique but I have to say that you seem to be doing a lot of mind-reading here about Sam's intentions and what his base does or doesn't believe. It's hard to respond to generalizations like these when you're not being very specific about what exactly you're objecting to... but as for your other objection. > This transitions into Sam's defense of Damore when Christian accused him of being in the alt-right. First, I see nothing wrong with saying this. Plenty of people belong in the alt-right who do not openly admit it. I think this statement gets to the heart of your objection... you are completely comfortable labeling someone as "being in the alt-right" simply because "plenty of people belong in the alt-right who do not openly admit it." In other words, ‘since it's possible, why not go ahead and make the accusation?’ This is the height of intellectually dishonesty, IMO. It's not a matter of expecting Damore to "admit" being in the alt-right, before one should be willing to make the accusation, it's just that the accusation shouldn't be made on insufficient evidence. And some (shocker) may disagree that there is sufficient evidence to make such a damaging indictment. > Instead, much of the Sam fan base seems to naively and gullibly believe Sam's intentions to be what Sam states they are, disregarding any non-confirming evidence and almost deliberately refusing to infer normal inferences from communication. You might see some people's unwillingness to grant that it's ok to accuse Damore of being a member of the alt-right as "refusing to infer normal inferences" but has it ever occurred to you that "normal" might in fact be a subjective assessment and that others might simply have a difference of opinion? Not everyone has to come to the same conclusions as you and just because people come to different conclusions doesn't necessarily mean that they are unwilling to use critical thinking to evaluate someone's intentions beyond what they have stated. Yes, I'm sure you can find people that fit your description but it seems like you're trying to make definitive statements about "so many Sam fans" or "much of the Sam fan base" that are basically unfalsifiable if you don't point to anything beyond anecdotal evidence. [SEP] No one should be thought of as trustworthy/untrustworthy in a binary sense.
+Incorrect. You don't seem to understand how much more 1billion is over 10million, doesn't matter how many servers you're going, I'm sorry but I've put this down twice, you'll learn in time... I can't keep responding to you just because you have a "big corporation owns everything" belief. The 100-1 scale is probably more like 500-1 but I wasn't intending on people being blind enough to not understand. [SEP] eventually your average user is going to be worth less and so is their experience.
+> So Trump was at least addressing the economic realities people in the Midwest were facing, while Clinton ignored them. That's another way of saying Democrats lost credibility with the working class. >You can spout all the macro numbers you want. Go to Decatur, IL and tell them how great trade agreements are. They know exactly which countries are manufacturing what used to be made in Decatur. 1. Tariffs and renegotiating NAFTA won't restore cities like Decatur like he would want you to believe. Companies aren't going to make massive investments because of tariffs that could be gone in 2 years. 2. Other countries have developed a lot more over the past few decades. The US is no longer the majority of global imports. Even if the US imposes massive tariffs and tries to make everything themselves, they still won't be able to compete with China to export to other developed countries such as those in Europe. Much of America's prosperity that came from being a manufacturing powerhouse came from exports. Strong unions then made America less competitive due to rising costs, which made foreign nations more competitive. 3. The imports on Steel and Aluminum are putting millions of manufacturing jobs at risk because they make the US less competitive because of increased input costs. If steel is a major ingredient, why not move your factory to Mexico and avoid the tariff? Many plants have already closed because of his tariffs. Manufacturing would've left America in the absence of NAFTA anyways. America is not the only importer of goods. As other countries that globalized decide to buy from other countries like Mexico, US producers would've struggled anyways. I find it funny that he ran on saving rural areas, yet he's destroying them more while helping urban areas. The corporate tax cuts are helping large businesses in urban centers. But his tariffs have resulted in retaliatory tariffs that have caused immense harm to farmers in the midwest, manufacturing plants closing or layoffs due to rising steel/aluminium costs, and reduced investment due to trade uncertainty. He made unrealistic promises that uneducated voters felt were realistic. And this is exactly why macro should be a required course in high school. >Democrats need to learn that fast if they want to beat Trump in '20. He won't even win the primary in '20. He only won the 2016 primary by mistake because votes were too split. Many people in his own party walked away. With all of the scandals there's no way he'll win again. [SEP] She wasn't denying them though, it's just that her proposed solutions sounded less appealing to the uneducated than his did.
+> That shit will haunt you and your relationship will rot. I'd have to disagree with that. My SO and I had that discussion at the beginning of our relationship. We were in our mid 20s, recent college grads, and both knew that we "had a good time" in college. I think it was just better that we knew about each other's past (and heard it directly from the person) rather than just assume things. (i.e., you don't see it as dirty or wrong), you should be able to handle this type of information without letting it sour your relationship. Then again, I'm also the type of person who discusses getting tested for STIs (sexual health is important, y'all) and it'd be difficult to have this conversation if you can't handle the thought of your SO having sex with anyone other than you. FWIW, we had each been with over 20 people (admittedly, a little more than that for me), and have been together almost 5 years now. [SEP] If you are a mature adult with a healthy outlook towards sex
+The coaching and mediocre goaltending is definitely at fault as well, but Virtanen melted down in big ways at the worst possible times. Also, many of the downvotes are simply because of who I am. I've pissed off a great deal of this sub . [SEP] by not being blindly positive
+My apologies, I misread your Turkey statement as Turkey being directly involved in shipping jihadists. However, you seem to believe that this could have gone only one way based on evidence that Turkish jihadists were in possession of sarin. It's certainly circumstantial at best, but again I find it hard to believe these guys slap together homemade rockets full of Sarin. Again, it just doesn't work like that. You don't just duct tape a barrel full of gas to the top of a rocket and let them go. There were even unexploded shells, INTACT rockets (read: not barrels with boosters on them) around the Damascus area. I never said there were ever two sides in this conflict, either, so please don't twist my words. There are many rebel groups vying for control of what will inevitably be Assad's fall. Some of them (like you may see on that super super misleading Glenn Beck clip circulating the web right now) of just exactly what type of guys we probably shouldn't support. Never once did I say this is some 2 sided good guy bad guy war. I did, however, say that GAS WAS USED. It doesn't matter which side used gas, THAT side has to be accountable. If it so turns out rebels staged an attack to get intervention, then those are to be held responsible. If, however, it was Assad (and possessing the largest stockpile of Sarin and chemical weapons and having delivery systems readily available to them is somewhat more telling than having a couple of kilos of Sarin, which degrades fairly rapidly in its poisonous form), then it's on his ass. Al-Nusra, the Syrian Liberation Front. WHOEVER. Gas is not to be used ever. It's fine to have a reasonable level of skepticism about something. It's entirely something different to claim to know for a fact exactly what proof there is and that the President (who has more intelligence information at his fingertips than you or I could count) is straight up lying about something just because you don't think he's right. Don't waste either of our time by claiming you know the president and his administration are lying right off the bat because you saw a video with an inconsistency in it or something. [SEP] You seem to think this is like a high school rocketry project where you just build it and fly it. This is a tad more complicated than that.
 If I need to meet with some people who represent local Bitcoin community, I expect more than a few people who undoubtedly have aggressive non-neutral vision regarding Bitcoin scaling. \>And you think it's absolutely fine to then turn around and say mean things about us behind our back? Yes, the only though I had after that meeting was something like "hell, how is that possible that representatives of such an important community are full of that blockstream shit. Something needs to be done with that". Thankfully, the business etiquette works, and we had a nice dinner. I am glad we now have the possibility to discuss that issue in open. I do not know whether you are that naive to believe that core's vision and censorship is a way to go -- I was on that side for quite some time, and I am fully aware of that narrative -- or you are a part of that mafia. But to me -- these days -- everything blockstream related is pure evil, and I truly hate that situation with Seoul Bitcoin. Considering the case with NO2X November letter, I have to believe it's more like you are fully aware of whats going on, and just work in accordance with a plan. P.S. Thanks for the coffee, that was very nice of you. But please, do not represent the situation like the dinner, the dedication to understand the technology etc. were some special acts of kindness from you. Wasn't that just a part of an usual Sunday meeting? Oh, wait a minute... A meeting that is not publicly listed on a meet up group, that is only attended by 5 people, who wear all that blockstream symbolics. Sounds like a conspiracy. Cause I really felt like in some evil's den. Do you pay for that meeting from your pocket, just as for our coffee, or maybe it is privately sponsored by blockstream? [SEP] I do not know whether you are that naive to believe that core's vision and censorship is a way to go -- I was on that side for quite some time
-This subreddit seems like an inappropriate place to see reasons why the person Bernie is running against would be good. Seriously if I saw someone make a post saying "here's why Clinton is great!" I would downvote and report despite being a Clinton supporter. This just isn't the appropriate forum for it. OTOH it's completely appropriate for someone to respond to "Clinton is the same as trump" by saying why they aren't the same. So you get a lot of anti Donald stuff because Bernie is very anti Donald. But you don't get a lot of pro Hillary stuff because that isn't appropriate here. Feel free to go to her subreddit to find out why people like her. [SEP] go to her subreddit
-There's a reason for that. People tend to talk about what's going on in their lives. When you're in the military, it IS your life. There's no time for much of anything else. What else do you have to talk about? [SEP] What else do you have to talk about?
-This is a complication question to answer, because you have to answer it based on a cross-section of opinion, and that raises a lot of questions. Mainly one question: if an American doesn't know that the USSR fought in World War II, does that count as undervaluing the USSR's contribution, or should we exclude them from the sample? If you answer that question, your question follow from it. Here's how: Most Americans learned what they know about World War II in high school. My high school world history textbook made the point about the eastern front very thoroughly, but nobody remembers the history they studied in high school. "You didn't know a sizable portion of the Native American population was wiped out by European diseases?" "Of course not, history class was just a bunch of patriotic propaganda, it's not like they taught us that in the fascist public school system." Yes they did, you dumb no attention paying fuck. People like that aren't even sure what century World War II happened in. But there are people who know more than that. Far and away the largest population of Americans who take any interest in WWII are the guys who like watching military history documentaries on the History Channel. These guys definitely know about the scale and importance of the eastern front, because they bring it up in every conversation about WWII as if nobody else does. "My dad used to call my grandmother every year on June 6th. She never completely got over my great-uncle dying at Omaha Bea..." "YOU KNOW WHAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IS THE EASTERN FRONT BLAH BLAH BLAH" Between people who think "WW2" is a boy band, or possibly a model of Audi, and people who see maps of the eastern front at least once a week on the History Channel, the number of Americans left in between is negligible. So, the answer to your question depends on whether you count the former group as undervaluing the contribution of the USSR or as "no answer." [SEP] Yes they did, you dumb no attention paying fuck.
-I don't think I missed the point. You kinda proven it by stating what you did. Times are changing, the majority of gamers today (incl. myself) dont want a "lifestyle". If I'm a PvP player I want to login and pvp. I dont care how I should approach my game when I'm on a pvp server. I want to PVP because that's what I am and what I care about. But open world pvp has never been my cup of tea. I just dont like how unbalanced it always has been. (Being outnumbered 5:1, getting corse camped whilst questing etc.). But I guess there is still a small minority who dont want to change and clinge onto the old systems because in their mind they are just better. Which is perfectly fine. If you guys find enjoyment there (and maybe with classic?) Please do so, because that's all what matters in the end, having fun with what you are doing. [SEP] But I guess there is still a small minority who dont want to change and clinge onto the old systems because in their mind they are just better.
-I actually don't have a Twitter account, and I'm not active on Facebook or really any form of social media other than Reddit. So I will freely admit that maybe I'm missing something. If people are literally saying Trump is Hitler and is going to round up the gays and Mexicans and put them in camps, then yeah that's stupid. [SEP] So I will freely admit that maybe I'm missing something.
-Spoken like a truly ignorant person. Not everyone in India who wants to stay in India is the rich. Stop trying to speak for "the vast majority of Indians" and just speak for yourself. Don't judge the OP for you have not been in his/her shoes. [SEP] Spoken like a truly ignorant person.
-Yeah, not saying this is a bad choice - it's a good one! I think Meodcham is good option in addition. [SEP] Meodcham is good option
-Why would you open up your response by calling me "salty" - about what, planes? I already made my argument about AA being adequate, what would I be salty about? Every gamer likes to say "salty" these days, lmao >Planes have the highest skill cap by far, so if you can dominate the map in an attack plane, you're a seriously good pilot. Trashing that skill by introducing a blatantly OP mechanic like the stationary AA ruins the fun of flying. "The fun of flying" isn't necessarily a strategic point in a match. You're not capturing flags in a plane, your only contribution is killing. You have planes to kill tanks that can't even hit you unless you're stupidly low or slow. You have planes to kill entire masses of infantry (that can't even fight you back to any notable degree without an AA gun). And you can do all this at speeds faster than any land vehicle, terrain is of no consequence to you, and you can travel higher and farther than literally anything else in the game. By all means, do what's fun for you, but it's not your opponents' responsibility to just let enemy pilots cruise around unmolested. A plane has freedom of interaction in a bubble vastly larger than infantry boundaries with which to conduct its attacks. If the threat you generate compells your enemy to mount one or several AA guns to fight you in its radius [that is still smaller than yours, as a pilot], I don't see how you find that to be out of line. We literally require at least two or three men to stand at an unprotected stationary gun that shoots giant tracers leading right back to our chests, ripe for snipers, vehicles, or any other infantry to easily pick us off just to help keep our team from getting attacked by one guy in a plane and maybe the one or two passengers he may have. You're in a plane specifically to attack them from crazy angles and speed off to distances and altitudes they can't respond to otherwise. They should be able to effectively shoot down your plane to prevent attacks. You drop giant tank-destroying bombs, and can carpet bomb multiple squads-worth of infantry with a barrel of grenades that you rain down upon them. Anyways, regarding the emplacements around a map - I played a match today in which two destroyed stationary AA emplacements never respawned once they got destroyed. I dunno what that's about, but it surely benefits the pilot/team that effectively maneuvered on it, you agree? Like literally every other aspect of Battlefield since the first of the series, if you're getting repeatedly shut down by something, it's time for you and your buddies to adapt your tactics to the immediate threat. DICE shouldn't have to nerf their map design because players fail to communicate with each other or take some squad initiative. Yesterday on Sinai Desert CQ, planes were wrecking my squad and team. So my squad started manning AA guns and spawning in the AA truck to counter the threat. We did! Blew every last plane out of the sky. Then guess what happened? Those same enemy pilots spawned in their own light tanks, and chased down our AA Trucks, destroying them. Two Cavalrymen rode out to our stationary AA and slew the men manning them. So then my squad went AT Assault+Support, and began tank hunting those Light Tanks at G Flag. We got strafed (in awesome cinematic form) by a very skilled attack plane at G, followed by a couple Infantry squads that managed to cap both C and G, pretty severely limiting our counter-AA, and my buddies on the G flaks actually got sniped from their stationary AA by two really good marksmen all the way from the cliffs at B Flag! It was one of the funnest matches I've had in BF1 because those pilots we were fighting just wouldn't take "No!" for an answer, and they met our initial counter with counters of their own, forcing us to get off our AA duties and adapt to them. This is exactly what BF1 is about! Don't get complacent in your pilot seat, because like all the rest of us with boots on the ground, or an armored shell surrounding us, we're all just one persistent enemy away from being dethroned. >Apparently your solution is to "take them out not in a plane", but a defense that can only be execute on a respawn is a shit defense. Yeah, tell that to the infantry that respawned to grab AA because the enemy planes are railing their team! Dying means you got bested. Respawning means you have a chance to counter. I completely disagree with your outlook on that because DICE (and many other FPS) specifically provide a KillCam for you to do exactly that - maneuver on and counter that which previously killed you. People should pride themselves at using intelligent strategy to win, not whine on the forums and beg the developers to nerf the thing that shuts them down in a game of assymetrical warfare just because they're a one trick pony. [SEP] Why would you open up your response by calling me "salty"
-Elitists believe that with evasion +2/3 you should be evading through roars, so HGE shouldn't be needed. But honestly, I'd rather not be bothered. HGE is so handy. It's on most of my sets (except for my evade lance set, in which case I do just backhop through roars haha). [SEP] Elitists believe
-The comments on this article make me very sad. I've known Alyssa (Biscuits! Or Dr. Biscuits!) since ...idk, late June. She started to come out to New Game Plus prior to EVO and made quick friendships with everyone in the Boston scene. (That's because we're awesome and you should all come to visit but I digress.) She joined our carpool from Boston to Vegas (with just a hint of spontaneity after we announced at a venue we need another person in the car) & from getting to know her more during that trip I can safely say that, yes, she is mad for Gravy but that's not at all the only reason she's stuck with the community. She fits into the community in a great way and I think her take on her relationship in the context of the scene is interesting. Mentioning it as a political sort of thing seems to be relatively on point. I think, for community members, this article is easy to understand as we share some perspective with the author. Sadly, many of the people who read this article seem to be interpreting it as her boasting, or describing herself as a groupie to her boyfriend. And on top of that, the "ick, gaming" comments are relatively toxic and remind me of the stereotypes and feedback I feared when I got into the community. (Subsequently, I did not tell people I was in the community for about 2 years after joining.) I think the article is great and displays a unique perspective of a community member. It's a shame the comments section is so disparaging. [SEP] The comments on this article make me very sad.
-The only good religion is the Catholic faith, established by Christ. The test of a good religion is veracity, not humor. Frivolity is not a virtue. Chesterton has many good works and contributions to Catholicism, this quote is not among them. The other 5% is masonic attitude. Sarcasm is beneath a Catholic. Have you prayed the Rosary today? [SEP] Have you prayed the Rosary today?
-It's only a 24-hour delay. I think you can still vote to your heart's content even if you can't see the current score. I get that in certain posts it can help to see the scores, but if you're looking for advice/opinions, then come back 24 hours later and you'll see which opinions were most agreed upon. Besides, it gives people a full 24 hours to put their two cents in before OP makes a decision. Honestly, a lot of subs hide the scores for a while, and I don't see any down side to it. Make your own opinion and upvote/downvote (according to reddiquette) without worrying whether or not it will be the popular decision. I believe in you - you can form your own opinion, you don't need instant comment scores! :) [SEP] I believe in you - you can form your own opinion
+This subreddit seems like an inappropriate place to see reasons why the person Bernie is running against would be good. Seriously if I saw someone make a post saying "here's why Clinton is great!" I would downvote and report despite being a Clinton supporter. This just isn't the appropriate forum for it. OTOH it's completely appropriate for someone to respond to "Clinton is the same as trump" by saying why they aren't the same. So you get a lot of anti Donald stuff because Bernie is very anti Donald. But you don't get a lot of pro Hillary stuff because that isn't appropriate here. Feel free to to find out why people like her. [SEP] go to her subreddit
+There's a reason for that. People tend to talk about what's going on in their lives. When you're in the military, it IS your life. There's no time for much of anything else. [SEP] What else do you have to talk about?
+This is a complication question to answer, because you have to answer it based on a cross-section of opinion, and that raises a lot of questions. Mainly one question: if an American doesn't know that the USSR fought in World War II, does that count as undervaluing the USSR's contribution, or should we exclude them from the sample? If you answer that question, your question follow from it. Here's how: Most Americans learned what they know about World War II in high school. My high school world history textbook made the point about the eastern front very thoroughly, but nobody remembers the history they studied in high school. "You didn't know a sizable portion of the Native American population was wiped out by European diseases?" "Of course not, history class was just a bunch of patriotic propaganda, it's not like they taught us that in the fascist public school system." People like that aren't even sure what century World War II happened in. But there are people who know more than that. Far and away the largest population of Americans who take any interest in WWII are the guys who like watching military history documentaries on the History Channel. These guys definitely know about the scale and importance of the eastern front, because they bring it up in every conversation about WWII as if nobody else does. "My dad used to call my grandmother every year on June 6th. She never completely got over my great-uncle dying at Omaha Bea..." "YOU KNOW WHAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IS THE EASTERN FRONT BLAH BLAH BLAH" Between people who think "WW2" is a boy band, or possibly a model of Audi, and people who see maps of the eastern front at least once a week on the History Channel, the number of Americans left in between is negligible. So, the answer to your question depends on whether you count the former group as undervaluing the contribution of the USSR or as "no answer." [SEP] Yes they did, you dumb no attention paying fuck.
+I don't think I missed the point. You kinda proven it by stating what you did. Times are changing, the majority of gamers today (incl. myself) dont want a "lifestyle". If I'm a PvP player I want to login and pvp. I dont care how I should approach my game when I'm on a pvp server. I want to PVP because that's what I am and what I care about. But open world pvp has never been my cup of tea. I just dont like how unbalanced it always has been. (Being outnumbered 5:1, getting corse camped whilst questing etc.). Which is perfectly fine. If you guys find enjoyment there (and maybe with classic?) Please do so, because that's all what matters in the end, having fun with what you are doing. [SEP] But I guess there is still a small minority who dont want to change and clinge onto the old systems because in their mind they are just better.
+I actually don't have a Twitter account, and I'm not active on Facebook or really any form of social media other than Reddit. If people are literally saying Trump is Hitler and is going to round up the gays and Mexicans and put them in camps, then yeah that's stupid. [SEP] So I will freely admit that maybe I'm missing something.
+Not everyone in India who wants to stay in India is the rich. Stop trying to speak for "the vast majority of Indians" and just speak for yourself. Don't judge the OP for you have not been in his/her shoes. [SEP] Spoken like a truly ignorant person.
+Yeah, not saying this is a bad choice - it's a good one! I think in addition. [SEP] Meodcham is good option
+- about what, planes? I already made my argument about AA being adequate, what would I be salty about? Every gamer likes to say "salty" these days, lmao >Planes have the highest skill cap by far, so if you can dominate the map in an attack plane, you're a seriously good pilot. Trashing that skill by introducing a blatantly OP mechanic like the stationary AA ruins the fun of flying. "The fun of flying" isn't necessarily a strategic point in a match. You're not capturing flags in a plane, your only contribution is killing. You have planes to kill tanks that can't even hit you unless you're stupidly low or slow. You have planes to kill entire masses of infantry (that can't even fight you back to any notable degree without an AA gun). And you can do all this at speeds faster than any land vehicle, terrain is of no consequence to you, and you can travel higher and farther than literally anything else in the game. By all means, do what's fun for you, but it's not your opponents' responsibility to just let enemy pilots cruise around unmolested. A plane has freedom of interaction in a bubble vastly larger than infantry boundaries with which to conduct its attacks. If the threat you generate compells your enemy to mount one or several AA guns to fight you in its radius [that is still smaller than yours, as a pilot], I don't see how you find that to be out of line. We literally require at least two or three men to stand at an unprotected stationary gun that shoots giant tracers leading right back to our chests, ripe for snipers, vehicles, or any other infantry to easily pick us off just to help keep our team from getting attacked by one guy in a plane and maybe the one or two passengers he may have. You're in a plane specifically to attack them from crazy angles and speed off to distances and altitudes they can't respond to otherwise. They should be able to effectively shoot down your plane to prevent attacks. You drop giant tank-destroying bombs, and can carpet bomb multiple squads-worth of infantry with a barrel of grenades that you rain down upon them. Anyways, regarding the emplacements around a map - I played a match today in which two destroyed stationary AA emplacements never respawned once they got destroyed. I dunno what that's about, but it surely benefits the pilot/team that effectively maneuvered on it, you agree? Like literally every other aspect of Battlefield since the first of the series, if you're getting repeatedly shut down by something, it's time for you and your buddies to adapt your tactics to the immediate threat. DICE shouldn't have to nerf their map design because players fail to communicate with each other or take some squad initiative. Yesterday on Sinai Desert CQ, planes were wrecking my squad and team. So my squad started manning AA guns and spawning in the AA truck to counter the threat. We did! Blew every last plane out of the sky. Then guess what happened? Those same enemy pilots spawned in their own light tanks, and chased down our AA Trucks, destroying them. Two Cavalrymen rode out to our stationary AA and slew the men manning them. So then my squad went AT Assault+Support, and began tank hunting those Light Tanks at G Flag. We got strafed (in awesome cinematic form) by a very skilled attack plane at G, followed by a couple Infantry squads that managed to cap both C and G, pretty severely limiting our counter-AA, and my buddies on the G flaks actually got sniped from their stationary AA by two really good marksmen all the way from the cliffs at B Flag! It was one of the funnest matches I've had in BF1 because those pilots we were fighting just wouldn't take "No!" for an answer, and they met our initial counter with counters of their own, forcing us to get off our AA duties and adapt to them. This is exactly what BF1 is about! Don't get complacent in your pilot seat, because like all the rest of us with boots on the ground, or an armored shell surrounding us, we're all just one persistent enemy away from being dethroned. >Apparently your solution is to "take them out not in a plane", but a defense that can only be execute on a respawn is a shit defense. Yeah, tell that to the infantry that respawned to grab AA because the enemy planes are railing their team! Dying means you got bested. Respawning means you have a chance to counter. I completely disagree with your outlook on that because DICE (and many other FPS) specifically provide a KillCam for you to do exactly that - maneuver on and counter that which previously killed you. People should pride themselves at using intelligent strategy to win, not whine on the forums and beg the developers to nerf the thing that shuts them down in a game of assymetrical warfare just because they're a one trick pony. [SEP] Why would you open up your response by calling me "salty"
+that with evasion +2/3 you should be evading through roars, so HGE shouldn't be needed. But honestly, I'd rather not be bothered. HGE is so handy. It's on most of my sets (except for my evade lance set, in which case I do just backhop through roars haha). [SEP] Elitists believe
+I've known Alyssa (Biscuits! Or Dr. Biscuits!) since ...idk, late June. She started to come out to New Game Plus prior to EVO and made quick friendships with everyone in the Boston scene. (That's because we're awesome and you should all come to visit but I digress.) She joined our carpool from Boston to Vegas (with just a hint of spontaneity after we announced at a venue we need another person in the car) & from getting to know her more during that trip I can safely say that, yes, she is mad for Gravy but that's not at all the only reason she's stuck with the community. She fits into the community in a great way and I think her take on her relationship in the context of the scene is interesting. Mentioning it as a political sort of thing seems to be relatively on point. I think, for community members, this article is easy to understand as we share some perspective with the author. Sadly, many of the people who read this article seem to be interpreting it as her boasting, or describing herself as a groupie to her boyfriend. And on top of that, the "ick, gaming" comments are relatively toxic and remind me of the stereotypes and feedback I feared when I got into the community. (Subsequently, I did not tell people I was in the community for about 2 years after joining.) I think the article is great and displays a unique perspective of a community member. It's a shame the comments section is so disparaging. [SEP] The comments on this article make me very sad.
+The only good religion is the Catholic faith, established by Christ. The test of a good religion is veracity, not humor. Frivolity is not a virtue. Chesterton has many good works and contributions to Catholicism, this quote is not among them. The other 5% is masonic attitude. Sarcasm is beneath a Catholic. [SEP] Have you prayed the Rosary today?
+It's only a 24-hour delay. I think you can still vote to your heart's content even if you can't see the current score. I get that in certain posts it can help to see the scores, but if you're looking for advice/opinions, then come back 24 hours later and you'll see which opinions were most agreed upon. Besides, it gives people a full 24 hours to put their two cents in before OP makes a decision. Honestly, a lot of subs hide the scores for a while, and I don't see any down side to it. Make your own opinion and upvote/downvote (according to reddiquette) without worrying whether or not it will be the popular decision. , you don't need instant comment scores! :) [SEP] I believe in you - you can form your own opinion
 Bahahahaha. What type of "philosophical" scrutiny has organized religion held up against to where you can conclude it exists? "I see no physical proof that a God exists, and all of the suffering in the world makes me think that a God that loves all of his children would let existence be so unjust shows that Biblical teachings do not manifest themselves in reality." "YOU HEATHEN! WE ARE PERSECUTED! WE ARE THE OPPRESSED!" And yet, somehow theses stories are used to push public policy. Is Watkins' "cult" insane? Probably. But at least it's not used to control the world. My point is that neither one of them should have any respect, because they're not real until proven otherwise. [SEP] "QUIT HATING! WE ARE PERSECUTED! WE ARE THE OPPRESSED!"
-You are really being unfair by implying that I am just showing off my intelligence rather than answering your question. The answer I gave really is the answer to your question about whether there would be a Law of Bounciness in a universe in which balls bounce off each other, or in a universe in which balls do not bounce off each other. I thought that you might find it interesting. If you would prefer a simplified answer, it is that no, there is no Law of Bounciness. However you did ask another question so I will answer that one too. Yes, you are using the word emergent incorrectly. It is often noted that intelligence is an emergent property of the brain. What is meant by this is that if you examine a single nerve cell, you cannot detect any intelligence. You cannot say that because one nerve cell has a certain amount of intelligence, you can therefore add up all the intelligence of all the nerve cells in order to arrive at human intelligence. It takes all the brain cells working together to produce the phenomenon of human intelligence. In comparison, mass is not an emergent property of the human brain (or of any object that has mass), it is a non-emergent property, or as we might call it, a normal property. The mass of the whole brain is the total of the mass of all the cells. So simply by knowing the average mass of a single cell, and the total number of cells, you can figure out the mass of the brain. For people who have difficulty understanding how this concept applies to the brain, I sometimes give an additional example of a book. The information content of a book is also an emergent property. You will find out what a book has to tell you only by reading the whole book. The smaller the pieces into which you break it down, the less information you get. Reading a book would still work one page at a time, especially if the pages are read in sequence; in fact, that's how books are normally read, one page at a time. You can also read them one sentence at a time, as long as you do so in sequence. But suppose I give you just one word from a book. The book, let us say, contains a hundred thousand words. Does one word therefore contain one hundred thousandth of the information of the book? Not really. One word tells you nothing, or virtually nothing (depending upon how unusual the word is; almost every book contains the word "the" but relatively few contain the word "endoplasmic" for example, so if you knew that a book contained that word you might reasonably infer that the book has something to do with cellular biology - although it might not, just as my comment contains that word but is not actually about cellular biology, and instead is about the meaning of the word emergent). If we take the next step, and look at a single letter taken from the book, it can tell you nothing about the book. At that point the useful information content becomes zero. The letters only have meaning when they are assembled into words which are assembled into sentences, and the full meaning of those sentences only emerges if those sentences are then read in their intended sequence. We can also take the disassembly of a book even further if we want to, because a letter printed in a book is composed of ink, and the ink is composed if ink molecules. If you examine an individual ink molecule, it can tell you absolutely nothing about the information content of a book. (And molecules are composed of atoms, and atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles, which is about as far as we can go in disassembling a book or any physical object.) I do not see, therefore, that the laws of nature would be an emergent property of existing objects, because all laws of nature operate in the same way on all parts of objects, large or small. You do not need an entire object, such as a brain or a book, before you can observe the operation of the laws of nature. As for the role of the laws of nature in the creation of the Big Bang from virtual particles, that is explained in detail in the book "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. I would recommend the book to you, but I am not sure that you would like it, since it contains even more complicated explanations than mine, and you already think that I am just trying to show off my intelligence. I have taken the time to answer your question in great detail but I am not sure that you will find it satisfying (although I hope that you do). At this point I am beginning to suspect that this discussion is not leading anywhere, so perhaps we should let it go. [SEP] You are really being unfair by implying that I am just showing off my intelligence rather than answering your question.
-I'm not sure I see the contradiction. Watson had an uncomfortable social interaction. It's too bad that that happened, but it's a strange thing to get worked up about. Watson did get worked up about it, and Dawkins mocked her by comparing her minor problem with the much larger problems facing women in much of the Muslim world. I'm not really concerned with correcting anyone, just with defending Dawkins, who generally seems like a good guy, from accusations of being some awful sexist troll based on the above. [SEP] It's too bad that that happened, but it's a strange thing to get worked up about.
-I'm not inordinately fixated on Islam, we are debating the role of religion in terrorism (in the context of a terror attack by Islamic militants), and I'm expressing my opinion. Just because someone doesn't agree with everything you say, doesn't mean they don't understand your argument; nothing like a little misplaced condescension to sour a perfectly good discussion. [SEP] nothing like a little misplaced condescension to sour a perfectly good discussion.
-I used to play tr4sh, but once I ascended to a higher level than casual-ness, I got really frustrated by the terrible balance and shitty slow-paced gameplay. AND THEN PM HAPPENED But you are only interested in being toxic as fuck and downvoting me. [SEP] but once I ascended to a higher level
-Your view on humanity is sad to say the least what do you think we’re capable of? You probably think humanity’s destined for death cause what would happen if humanity lived another 1000 years we’d probably be immortal able to withstand the universes harshest conditions to be able to change ourselves and the matter around ourselves anything’s possible with time why can’t gods be born out of species so ascended that they’ve lived millions if not billions of years old the universe is supposedly around 15 billion years old imagine beings that lived in the first billion years being alive today what would they be? They’d be gods each one of them possibly a civilization of gods as powerful or more powerful than the current idea of our lord above everything that’s 1000% possible your view points are so factual and robotic in logic your either atheist or agnostic you need to learn more about the world the more too it than call of duty, trump, war in the Middle East, and North Korea, there’s a lot more there’s a universe of goodness out there if your willing to except the grandness of the universe and reality let go of your ego and realize how infinitely small you and all of us are, you’re but a cell in the cosmos of gods body you live Day to Day doing your defined functions but you could be more than that you can evolve if that wasn’t true we’d be no more than bacteria on a uninhabitable earth [SEP] You probably think
-It might do you some good to read this. I'll just copy-paste some parts to form a take-away message, but I recommend the reading; As a guy, it's what made me get on board with ironic misandry: > NO, NONE OF US LITERALLY WANT TO KILL ALL MEN. (...) > Here’s what we do want to kill: the concept of masculinity. And you should want that, too. (...) > Here’s something you might not know, but I feel the rest of the coven won’t mind my spilling the beans: Every time, literally EVERY TIME we daydream privately about life after you leave for the Island, one of your girlfriends or wives or fiancées asks for a day pass or an exemption. I’d like one for my dad, too, and I bet I’m not the only one. Feminists love individual men ferociously. [SEP] Here’s what we do want to kill: the concept of masculinity. And you should want that, too.
-1. This logic is flawed and does not work. It's like asking yourself would you sell your car now, when it costs $48 thousand and you used it 1 year or would you sell your car for $32 thousand and you used it for 2 years. A very limited car. So don't use this one cause its a dumb argument that has absolutely no hold. The Brooklyn Nets were willing to take contract worth $48 million this year. The end. 2. Again, wrong. You took my argument and you turned it the way you wanted to hear it. This deal does make us better than it was a month ago and will make us better in the future. Cap wise. Player wise. Moral wise. Cultural wise. You name it. And yes, this absolutely means that the LA Lakers have more chance to acquire a superstar in 2018 than they had a month prior to this trade by simple math. But do use this one again to spin the argument in your favor. Peace. [SEP] And yes, this absolutely means that the LA Lakers have more chance to acquire a superstar in 2018
-It’s actually not hypocritical when you come off as an asshat that seems to not know much about the game, but okay, sure man. I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with you over accounts. You wouldn’t win and I would not look good. Nobody plays deadman, dude. Let’s be real, it’s dead content that 97% of us want completely gone. That has absolutely nothing to do with an increase in players and you know it. Sure, if you just looked at the numbers - you’d be correct. But I doubt the returning players posting on reddit excited for mobile are coming back for deadman - is that fair to say? People are excited for mobile, so people are returning to play beforehand. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp for you but mobile IS bringing players into the game as we speak. [SEP] when you come off as an asshat
-Yes, they are already making massive cuts to the EPA, proposed budget would gut funding for science. And yes, people are denouncing science. E.g. alternative facts. Science is not about nature, it's about careful observation that gets at facts, and the current US adminstration is against that. You didn't understand why women were marching after we elected a puusy-grabber for president? You haven't heard about all the attacks on women's health care, and Planned Parenthood specifically? Congratulations on waking from that coma, presumably. And yes, to religion is overtaking science, that's why Betsy Devos is head of the department of education. [SEP] You didn't understand why women were marching after we elected a puusy-grabber for president? You haven't heard about all the attacks on women's health care, and Planned Parenthood specifically?
-No study has been done proving this as far as im aware, i am relying on this little thing called logic, open borders leads to more travel which leads to people with diseases spreading those diseases everywhere they go [SEP] i am relying on this little thing called logic
-> What makes you think they have a hard time comparing products/services in those industries? An iPhone is far more complicated then a splint or a school lesson plan. Why are people able to make decisions on the former but not the latter two? An iPhone's quality is astronomically less important than healthcare or a the quality of a school. And you can purchase a phone, for example, anywhere and take it home. Schools and Medical Facilities would likely be chosen on location rather than quality, which I fail to understand how consumers can compare and contrast in a free market (assuming there was a true free market of those services). If you take your kid to School A for 1 year, it's not like a Netflix Subscription where you can cancel and try HBO or Amazon Prime next month. It's not even like apartment hunting where you rent at a place for a year and decide to look around for a new one and move down the street to a nicer complex. The quality of the school would be one of MANY factors. It won't be as easy as "Oh hey babe, this school is better 3 towns over so I am going to send you there instead next year." How is the child going to get to the school? Will you want to pull the child away from friends? Will you want to start new relationships with new teachers for a child with special needs? You can buy 1 of 1000 phones made in factories in any country on earth and, theoretically the quality of the phone itself is the #1 factor by far. There isn't anything nearly as important to consider. Same with almost any other consumer product. Public services like Education and Healthcare are not something you can take with you and just focus on the features or the reviews on Yelp/Amazon. >And why are they regional monopolies? Because governments grant those monopolies. You're not getting competition in telecommunications because governments won't allow competition. That's not an example of a monopoly forming out of a free unfettered market. You think an unfettered market is going to break those monopolies? The reason many of those companies exist is because AT&T controlled communications and had to be broken up to create a free market in that industry. They will do whatever it takes to keep control over the market and because it's so expensive to provide those services, no other company will be able to compete. That's not the governments fault. AT&T broke up into 8 companies and merged back into 3 since. That's how those industries are. Fox and Disney are merging. Not because of government. Because monopolies are natural but also hurt competition and thus quality. You think schools or healthcare is not going to turn into a monopoly without government regulation? Schools aren't going to be mom and pop operations. It would be big business. So teachers can jump from location to location, as needed, like bistros at Starbucks. Unprofitable schools will get shut down and kids will get split up into neighboring schools. Once 1-3 companies get control of the marketplace, nobody is going to be able to jump into a market with a new school. Schools aren't places people try out like a restaurant or a new clothing store and you'll know from 1 visit if it sucks. You could be sending your kid to a crap school for years and never know unless it was insanely worse than everything else. A good article: Popularity vs Quality Another good article: Perception Isn't Always Half the Battle; Sometimes It's the Entire Battle >Both of those are government granted monopolies. I disagree cause I think those monopolies are natural and are likely to happen anyways but with that being said, you want government created monopolies gone? Reverse Citizens United. But you won't because of "freedom". Even if that "freedom" for the rich and powerful is screwing with the free market that conservatives claim to care about. Sorry if I didn't address all your points but I ran out of time. [SEP] Another good article: Perception Isn't Always Half the Battle; Sometimes It's the Entire Battle
-Careful...resort to condescension is usually a telling sign that you've nothing else to argue with. As they say, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts aren't on your side, pound the table. > Why do you ignore the crucial fact that they reported things occurring during periods of time when we know that they were flat-lined, that's also been verified? I haven't ignored anything. As indicated, I grant you that it would be a strong piece of evidence in favor of your position if someone could actually produce reliable data indicating that a person was able to relate information they could only have acquired at a time when they had no brain activity. I'm disputing that the methodology employed by the studies you cite is capable of producing sufficiently reliable results to justify your quoted statement. You can repeat that such-and-so has been "verified" or "refuted" all you want. It won't make it true. I realize my criticisms aren't new, and I realize that you and other proponents of substance dualism disagree with me. But you seem to be confusing disagreement with refutation. You saying that I'm wrong isn't a refutation. I fully realize that the methodological flaws in NDE studies have been pointed out by others. I'll stop pointing them out as soon as you stop arguing that methodologically inadequate studies disprove materialism. > And yet you haven't read them. I readily admit that I haven't read every NDE study ever conducted, or even an appreciable portion of them. That's why I asked you for examples of studies that provide the data you would need to support your position. In response, you pointed to studies with systemic methodological flaws that invalidate the researchers' conclusions. Am I wrong to assume you led with your strongest evidence? > I'm not saying A or B when it comes to the physics part, as Carter argues extensively that nothing in the survivalist interpretation of the data clashes with anything in physics. Whether it does or doesn't depends on your position on substance dualism. If materialism is true, QFT conclusively rules out the persistence of consciousness beyond death. This cannot be disputed without concurrently disputing the truth of QFT itself, and QFT is the most well-confirmed theory in the history of science. That's why you need to start by refuting materialism. Last time I pointed this out, you went back to the NDE studies and we ended up returning full circle to the methodological problems that undermine the study findings. > numerous actual Quantum Physicists have gone on the record to state that nothing in QM forbids the survivalist interpretation I agree, it doesn't. QM doesn't strictly tell us anything about whether materialism is true or false. What it does tell us is that consciousness cannot persist beyond death unless materialism is false. > We're talking about the act of having a deep NDE and what that does to a person. And in THAT context, if you were to have a deep NDE yourself, you would change your mind. You wouldn't even care what the research said, you would know through personal experience that the afterlife was ultra-real. That, my friend, is a fact, a fact that is just not up for debate in light of the data. I got the distinction. The issue isn't that I don't understand what you're saying. The issue is that what you're saying is false. Think about Russell Crowe's portrayal of John Nash in A Beautiful Mind. He comes to know he's schizophrenic, and that he sees people who aren't actually there. He then bears this fact in mind whenever he meets a new person, and he makes efforts to verify whether or not they're likely to be real before he accepts that they are. In the exact same way, having an NDE myself would not dramatically change my position about the state of the evidence. It would certainly pique my interest in the subject, but that's about all it would immediately do. I know that my anecdotal data is not any more significant, in objective terms, than anyone else's anecdotal data. If anything, the person experiencing the NDE is in a worse position than the outside researchers to say what their physical brain was or wasn't doing at the time the experience occurred. I'm not going to suddenly forget all that just because it's me having the NDE. The only real significance that would attach to me having the experience myself, as opposed to hearing a description of someone else's experience, is that I would know I wasn't intentionally lying about the content of the experience. The actual evidentiary value of the experience would still be quite low. In much the same way, if a being matching the classical mythic description of Zeus were to suddenly appear before me and shoot lightning from his fingers, I'd weigh the probability that Zeus actually exists and has appeared before me against the probability that I'm hallucinating, and conclude that I'm most likely hallucinating. We are notoriously unreliable judges of what our own experiences mean, and you don't seem to be acknowledging the possibility that someone can have a powerful subjective experience without forgetting this fact. This is what I was getting at with my comment about Bayesian reasoning. If you aren't familiar with it, Thomas Bayes constructed a mathematical equation to describe how evidence affects the probability of propositions in light of other available information. All correct reasoning about probability proceeds along Bayesian lines. What I or anyone else should do, upon having an NDE, is apply his equation to determine what impact the fact of the experience has upon the consequent probability that consciousness persists beyond the cessation of brain activity. As it turns out, the impact is negligible. > It is possible that I'm convinced by the data, and not by my desire for it to be true. Ever entertained that possibility? I have. So far, the evidence doesn't support it. You're being overly charitable to the purported evidence that supports your position and ignoring alternate explanations of the data that jive much better with the totality of other information we have. > But you are not familiar with the evidence! So this statement is completely ridiculous and you are simply lying for the sake of trying to win the argument here, instead of actually pursuing the truth of the matter. It's quite embarrassing. You're taking an overly narrow view of what's at issue and it's causing you to miss my point. The relevant evidence isn't just what the NDE studies say. I'm looking at the totality of all scientific evidence ever acquired by anyone, and concluding that it militates strongly in favor of accepting materialism. Based on that, I conclude that materialism is most likely true. It then follows uneventfully that consciousness cannot persist beyond death, because QFT tells us that such a phenomenon would be impossible in a world where materialism is true. I readily admit to being ignorant to the majority of work that has been done in the field of NDE studies. That's why I asked you to point to a few. The examples you gave admit of methodological flaws that invalidate their results as support for any argument against the truth of materialism. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in relying on the person who contends I should change my mind about materialism to provide me with evidence that indicates I should change my mind about materialism. > If only it was a possible interpretation and not a forced one! Fundamentally, this is what the entire disagreement is about. You're arguing that there is no possible way to account for the reported results of NDE studies without rejecting materialism. I just don't think that's true. [SEP] resort to condescension is usually a telling sign that you've nothing else to argue with.
+The answer I gave really is the answer to your question about whether there would be a Law of Bounciness in a universe in which balls bounce off each other, or in a universe in which balls do not bounce off each other. I thought that you might find it interesting. If you would prefer a simplified answer, it is that no, there is no Law of Bounciness. However you did ask another question so I will answer that one too. Yes, you are using the word emergent incorrectly. It is often noted that intelligence is an emergent property of the brain. What is meant by this is that if you examine a single nerve cell, you cannot detect any intelligence. You cannot say that because one nerve cell has a certain amount of intelligence, you can therefore add up all the intelligence of all the nerve cells in order to arrive at human intelligence. It takes all the brain cells working together to produce the phenomenon of human intelligence. In comparison, mass is not an emergent property of the human brain (or of any object that has mass), it is a non-emergent property, or as we might call it, a normal property. The mass of the whole brain is the total of the mass of all the cells. So simply by knowing the average mass of a single cell, and the total number of cells, you can figure out the mass of the brain. For people who have difficulty understanding how this concept applies to the brain, I sometimes give an additional example of a book. The information content of a book is also an emergent property. You will find out what a book has to tell you only by reading the whole book. The smaller the pieces into which you break it down, the less information you get. Reading a book would still work one page at a time, especially if the pages are read in sequence; in fact, that's how books are normally read, one page at a time. You can also read them one sentence at a time, as long as you do so in sequence. But suppose I give you just one word from a book. The book, let us say, contains a hundred thousand words. Does one word therefore contain one hundred thousandth of the information of the book? Not really. One word tells you nothing, or virtually nothing (depending upon how unusual the word is; almost every book contains the word "the" but relatively few contain the word "endoplasmic" for example, so if you knew that a book contained that word you might reasonably infer that the book has something to do with cellular biology - although it might not, just as my comment contains that word but is not actually about cellular biology, and instead is about the meaning of the word emergent). If we take the next step, and look at a single letter taken from the book, it can tell you nothing about the book. At that point the useful information content becomes zero. The letters only have meaning when they are assembled into words which are assembled into sentences, and the full meaning of those sentences only emerges if those sentences are then read in their intended sequence. We can also take the disassembly of a book even further if we want to, because a letter printed in a book is composed of ink, and the ink is composed if ink molecules. If you examine an individual ink molecule, it can tell you absolutely nothing about the information content of a book. (And molecules are composed of atoms, and atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles, which is about as far as we can go in disassembling a book or any physical object.) I do not see, therefore, that the laws of nature would be an emergent property of existing objects, because all laws of nature operate in the same way on all parts of objects, large or small. You do not need an entire object, such as a brain or a book, before you can observe the operation of the laws of nature. As for the role of the laws of nature in the creation of the Big Bang from virtual particles, that is explained in detail in the book "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. I would recommend the book to you, but I am not sure that you would like it, since it contains even more complicated explanations than mine, and you already think that I am just trying to show off my intelligence. I have taken the time to answer your question in great detail but I am not sure that you will find it satisfying (although I hope that you do). At this point I am beginning to suspect that this discussion is not leading anywhere, so perhaps we should let it go. [SEP] You are really being unfair by implying that I am just showing off my intelligence rather than answering your question.
+I'm not sure I see the contradiction. Watson had an uncomfortable social interaction. Watson did get worked up about it, and Dawkins mocked her by comparing her minor problem with the much larger problems facing women in much of the Muslim world. I'm not really concerned with correcting anyone, just with defending Dawkins, who generally seems like a good guy, from accusations of being some awful sexist troll based on the above. [SEP] It's too bad that that happened, but it's a strange thing to get worked up about.
+I'm not inordinately fixated on Islam, we are debating the role of religion in terrorism (in the context of a terror attack by Islamic militants), and I'm expressing my opinion. Just because someone doesn't agree with everything you say, doesn't mean they don't understand your argument; [SEP] nothing like a little misplaced condescension to sour a perfectly good discussion.
+I used to play tr4sh, than casual-ness, I got really frustrated by the terrible balance and shitty slow-paced gameplay. AND THEN PM HAPPENED But you are only interested in being toxic as fuck and downvoting me. [SEP] but once I ascended to a higher level
+Your view on humanity is sad to say the least what do you think we’re capable of? humanity’s destined for death cause what would happen if humanity lived another 1000 years we’d probably be immortal able to withstand the universes harshest conditions to be able to change ourselves and the matter around ourselves anything’s possible with time why can’t gods be born out of species so ascended that they’ve lived millions if not billions of years old the universe is supposedly around 15 billion years old imagine beings that lived in the first billion years being alive today what would they be? They’d be gods each one of them possibly a civilization of gods as powerful or more powerful than the current idea of our lord above everything that’s 1000% possible your view points are so factual and robotic in logic your either atheist or agnostic you need to learn more about the world the more too it than call of duty, trump, war in the Middle East, and North Korea, there’s a lot more there’s a universe of goodness out there if your willing to except the grandness of the universe and reality let go of your ego and realize how infinitely small you and all of us are, you’re but a cell in the cosmos of gods body you live Day to Day doing your defined functions but you could be more than that you can evolve if that wasn’t true we’d be no more than bacteria on a uninhabitable earth [SEP] You probably think
+It might do you some good to read this. I'll just copy-paste some parts to form a take-away message, but I recommend the reading; As a guy, it's what made me get on board with ironic misandry: > NO, NONE OF US LITERALLY WANT TO KILL ALL MEN. (...) > (...) > Here’s something you might not know, but I feel the rest of the coven won’t mind my spilling the beans: Every time, literally EVERY TIME we daydream privately about life after you leave for the Island, one of your girlfriends or wives or fiancées asks for a day pass or an exemption. I’d like one for my dad, too, and I bet I’m not the only one. Feminists love individual men ferociously. [SEP] Here’s what we do want to kill: the concept of masculinity. And you should want that, too.
+1. This logic is flawed and does not work. It's like asking yourself would you sell your car now, when it costs $48 thousand and you used it 1 year or would you sell your car for $32 thousand and you used it for 2 years. A very limited car. So don't use this one cause its a dumb argument that has absolutely no hold. The Brooklyn Nets were willing to take contract worth $48 million this year. The end. 2. Again, wrong. You took my argument and you turned it the way you wanted to hear it. This deal does make us better than it was a month ago and will make us better in the future. Cap wise. Player wise. Moral wise. Cultural wise. You name it. than they had a month prior to this trade by simple math. But do use this one again to spin the argument in your favor. Peace. [SEP] And yes, this absolutely means that the LA Lakers have more chance to acquire a superstar in 2018
+It’s actually not hypocritical that seems to not know much about the game, but okay, sure man. I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with you over accounts. You wouldn’t win and I would not look good. Nobody plays deadman, dude. Let’s be real, it’s dead content that 97% of us want completely gone. That has absolutely nothing to do with an increase in players and you know it. Sure, if you just looked at the numbers - you’d be correct. But I doubt the returning players posting on reddit excited for mobile are coming back for deadman - is that fair to say? People are excited for mobile, so people are returning to play beforehand. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp for you but mobile IS bringing players into the game as we speak. [SEP] when you come off as an asshat
+Yes, they are already making massive cuts to the EPA, proposed budget would gut funding for science. And yes, people are denouncing science. E.g. alternative facts. Science is not about nature, it's about careful observation that gets at facts, and the current US adminstration is against that. Congratulations on waking from that coma, presumably. And yes, to religion is overtaking science, that's why Betsy Devos is head of the department of education. [SEP] You didn't understand why women were marching after we elected a puusy-grabber for president? You haven't heard about all the attacks on women's health care, and Planned Parenthood specifically?
+No study has been done proving this as far as im aware, , open borders leads to more travel which leads to people with diseases spreading those diseases everywhere they go [SEP] i am relying on this little thing called logic
+> What makes you think they have a hard time comparing products/services in those industries? An iPhone is far more complicated then a splint or a school lesson plan. Why are people able to make decisions on the former but not the latter two? An iPhone's quality is astronomically less important than healthcare or a the quality of a school. And you can purchase a phone, for example, anywhere and take it home. Schools and Medical Facilities would likely be chosen on location rather than quality, which I fail to understand how consumers can compare and contrast in a free market (assuming there was a true free market of those services). If you take your kid to School A for 1 year, it's not like a Netflix Subscription where you can cancel and try HBO or Amazon Prime next month. It's not even like apartment hunting where you rent at a place for a year and decide to look around for a new one and move down the street to a nicer complex. The quality of the school would be one of MANY factors. It won't be as easy as "Oh hey babe, this school is better 3 towns over so I am going to send you there instead next year." How is the child going to get to the school? Will you want to pull the child away from friends? Will you want to start new relationships with new teachers for a child with special needs? You can buy 1 of 1000 phones made in factories in any country on earth and, theoretically the quality of the phone itself is the #1 factor by far. There isn't anything nearly as important to consider. Same with almost any other consumer product. Public services like Education and Healthcare are not something you can take with you and just focus on the features or the reviews on Yelp/Amazon. >And why are they regional monopolies? Because governments grant those monopolies. You're not getting competition in telecommunications because governments won't allow competition. That's not an example of a monopoly forming out of a free unfettered market. You think an unfettered market is going to break those monopolies? The reason many of those companies exist is because AT&T controlled communications and had to be broken up to create a free market in that industry. They will do whatever it takes to keep control over the market and because it's so expensive to provide those services, no other company will be able to compete. That's not the governments fault. AT&T broke up into 8 companies and merged back into 3 since. That's how those industries are. Fox and Disney are merging. Not because of government. Because monopolies are natural but also hurt competition and thus quality. You think schools or healthcare is not going to turn into a monopoly without government regulation? Schools aren't going to be mom and pop operations. It would be big business. So teachers can jump from location to location, as needed, like bistros at Starbucks. Unprofitable schools will get shut down and kids will get split up into neighboring schools. Once 1-3 companies get control of the marketplace, nobody is going to be able to jump into a market with a new school. Schools aren't places people try out like a restaurant or a new clothing store and you'll know from 1 visit if it sucks. You could be sending your kid to a crap school for years and never know unless it was insanely worse than everything else. A good article: Popularity vs Quality >Both of those are government granted monopolies. I disagree cause I think those monopolies are natural and are likely to happen anyways but with that being said, you want government created monopolies gone? Reverse Citizens United. But you won't because of "freedom". Even if that "freedom" for the rich and powerful is screwing with the free market that conservatives claim to care about. Sorry if I didn't address all your points but I ran out of time. [SEP] Another good article: Perception Isn't Always Half the Battle; Sometimes It's the Entire Battle
+Careful... As they say, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts aren't on your side, pound the table. > Why do you ignore the crucial fact that they reported things occurring during periods of time when we know that they were flat-lined, that's also been verified? I haven't ignored anything. As indicated, I grant you that it would be a strong piece of evidence in favor of your position if someone could actually produce reliable data indicating that a person was able to relate information they could only have acquired at a time when they had no brain activity. I'm disputing that the methodology employed by the studies you cite is capable of producing sufficiently reliable results to justify your quoted statement. You can repeat that such-and-so has been "verified" or "refuted" all you want. It won't make it true. I realize my criticisms aren't new, and I realize that you and other proponents of substance dualism disagree with me. But you seem to be confusing disagreement with refutation. You saying that I'm wrong isn't a refutation. I fully realize that the methodological flaws in NDE studies have been pointed out by others. I'll stop pointing them out as soon as you stop arguing that methodologically inadequate studies disprove materialism. > And yet you haven't read them. I readily admit that I haven't read every NDE study ever conducted, or even an appreciable portion of them. That's why I asked you for examples of studies that provide the data you would need to support your position. In response, you pointed to studies with systemic methodological flaws that invalidate the researchers' conclusions. Am I wrong to assume you led with your strongest evidence? > I'm not saying A or B when it comes to the physics part, as Carter argues extensively that nothing in the survivalist interpretation of the data clashes with anything in physics. Whether it does or doesn't depends on your position on substance dualism. If materialism is true, QFT conclusively rules out the persistence of consciousness beyond death. This cannot be disputed without concurrently disputing the truth of QFT itself, and QFT is the most well-confirmed theory in the history of science. That's why you need to start by refuting materialism. Last time I pointed this out, you went back to the NDE studies and we ended up returning full circle to the methodological problems that undermine the study findings. > numerous actual Quantum Physicists have gone on the record to state that nothing in QM forbids the survivalist interpretation I agree, it doesn't. QM doesn't strictly tell us anything about whether materialism is true or false. What it does tell us is that consciousness cannot persist beyond death unless materialism is false. > We're talking about the act of having a deep NDE and what that does to a person. And in THAT context, if you were to have a deep NDE yourself, you would change your mind. You wouldn't even care what the research said, you would know through personal experience that the afterlife was ultra-real. That, my friend, is a fact, a fact that is just not up for debate in light of the data. I got the distinction. The issue isn't that I don't understand what you're saying. The issue is that what you're saying is false. Think about Russell Crowe's portrayal of John Nash in A Beautiful Mind. He comes to know he's schizophrenic, and that he sees people who aren't actually there. He then bears this fact in mind whenever he meets a new person, and he makes efforts to verify whether or not they're likely to be real before he accepts that they are. In the exact same way, having an NDE myself would not dramatically change my position about the state of the evidence. It would certainly pique my interest in the subject, but that's about all it would immediately do. I know that my anecdotal data is not any more significant, in objective terms, than anyone else's anecdotal data. If anything, the person experiencing the NDE is in a worse position than the outside researchers to say what their physical brain was or wasn't doing at the time the experience occurred. I'm not going to suddenly forget all that just because it's me having the NDE. The only real significance that would attach to me having the experience myself, as opposed to hearing a description of someone else's experience, is that I would know I wasn't intentionally lying about the content of the experience. The actual evidentiary value of the experience would still be quite low. In much the same way, if a being matching the classical mythic description of Zeus were to suddenly appear before me and shoot lightning from his fingers, I'd weigh the probability that Zeus actually exists and has appeared before me against the probability that I'm hallucinating, and conclude that I'm most likely hallucinating. We are notoriously unreliable judges of what our own experiences mean, and you don't seem to be acknowledging the possibility that someone can have a powerful subjective experience without forgetting this fact. This is what I was getting at with my comment about Bayesian reasoning. If you aren't familiar with it, Thomas Bayes constructed a mathematical equation to describe how evidence affects the probability of propositions in light of other available information. All correct reasoning about probability proceeds along Bayesian lines. What I or anyone else should do, upon having an NDE, is apply his equation to determine what impact the fact of the experience has upon the consequent probability that consciousness persists beyond the cessation of brain activity. As it turns out, the impact is negligible. > It is possible that I'm convinced by the data, and not by my desire for it to be true. Ever entertained that possibility? I have. So far, the evidence doesn't support it. You're being overly charitable to the purported evidence that supports your position and ignoring alternate explanations of the data that jive much better with the totality of other information we have. > But you are not familiar with the evidence! So this statement is completely ridiculous and you are simply lying for the sake of trying to win the argument here, instead of actually pursuing the truth of the matter. It's quite embarrassing. You're taking an overly narrow view of what's at issue and it's causing you to miss my point. The relevant evidence isn't just what the NDE studies say. I'm looking at the totality of all scientific evidence ever acquired by anyone, and concluding that it militates strongly in favor of accepting materialism. Based on that, I conclude that materialism is most likely true. It then follows uneventfully that consciousness cannot persist beyond death, because QFT tells us that such a phenomenon would be impossible in a world where materialism is true. I readily admit to being ignorant to the majority of work that has been done in the field of NDE studies. That's why I asked you to point to a few. The examples you gave admit of methodological flaws that invalidate their results as support for any argument against the truth of materialism. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in relying on the person who contends I should change my mind about materialism to provide me with evidence that indicates I should change my mind about materialism. > If only it was a possible interpretation and not a forced one! Fundamentally, this is what the entire disagreement is about. You're arguing that there is no possible way to account for the reported results of NDE studies without rejecting materialism. I just don't think that's true. [SEP] resort to condescension is usually a telling sign that you've nothing else to argue with.
 Yes. I completely respect if someone is swayed out of the church by the CES letter, but to then think that I must draw the same conclusion or I am an idiot, ignorant, [insert typical exmormon reason here] is pure hubris. [SEP] I completely respect if someone is swayed out of the church by the CES letter...
-Repeat after me: Anonymous is not a group, collective or anything of that sort. It is the antithesis of those things, why do people find that so hard to get? [SEP] why do people find that so hard to get?
-It wasn't like Darkscape ever had a huge player base. Obviously we expect release day (ish) to have the biggest counts for something which was mostly only knowledge privy to those already playing a Runescape game, and we also expect a good portion of them to not devote as much time to it in the future because they have progress on their other games which probably means more to them. I know you don't like Darkscape's 'purpose', and that doesn't matter, because there are a lot of people that did, and a lot of people that could; risky PvP MMOs aren't games which struggle for player-base particularly. What I'm saying is entirely wrong is your reasoning for the game's lack of success. We do not think Darkscape was perfect, but again, that is Jagex's fault for doing fuck all to fix it over quite a long period of time. What we are saying is that the potential, and the premise, of the game was very promising, and it was the little (and large) details which were royally screwed up which held the game back, because without guidance it could be very difficult for a new player to get to grips with things or have faith in the development of the game. It felt like a beta, or even an alpha game. Advertising SHOULD have happened because it should have been apparent Darkscape had potential to attract people who are no longer, or never have been, interested in investing time into the other Runescape games. There was a dedicated community, and many higher levels willing to help and protect the lower levels; the player base had everything it needed to make sure numbers didn't drop much further even if things continued to be horrendously run. And no, of course it isn't 'difficult to see why it is being closed down', the problem is that most of us believe that the negligence and half-arsed work ethic Jagex directed towards the game is what actually caused the game to get to a stage where closing it down seems like the best (easiest) idea. The changes needed to improve the game significantly, or at least make it look professional and stable, would have required so little work in the grand scheme of things, and it DOES show how stingy Jagex are with their resource management, and having experienced some Runescape private servers it really does make me angry how little they seem to care about a player base, and potential player base, of numbers not exactly totally insignificant to them (2k subs maybe, and this is even with them doing a piss-poor job of the game). Every problem with Darkscape has been caused by mismanagement on their behalf. Failing to reprimand bug abusers. Failing to set out clear long-term goals. Failing to engage with the player base when things got rough. Failing to fix simple things to tidy the game up a bit. And last, but not least, failing completely to show any genuine remorse or admittance to failure on their behalf, they have given us constrained apologies filled with exclamations of inadequate compensation which do little for me other than realise how much more they are worried about saving face rather than actually aiding their distressed customers. This has been incompetence from start to finish and the few positive points only managed to keep the game afloat for so long before the mismanagement caught up to it. Once again, the premise, the idea, is fantastic, and that is why the game was kept alive for a while. The execution was less than good enough, and that is why the game died. [SEP] Every problem with Darkscape has been caused by mismanagement on their behalf.
-I've always viewed it as more of a courtesy/respect thing now rather than permission if anyone does it. [SEP] I've always viewed it as more of a courtesy/respect thing now rather than permission if anyone does it.
-Hey, I'm sorry you feel this way. I completely understand and I am in the same boat as you as far as how our newsfeeds are inundated with people's political opinions. It drives me crazy that I have to watch some of my friends agree with the very things I hate and it makes me question my friendship with them. Which SUCKS! I'm happy to have quite a few people on my friends list who abide by the common public discussion etiquette- don't discuss politics, money, or religion. I've always been one of those people. I don't engage in public discussion about my politics because you can't change someone's mind. I would suggest staying away from Facebook for a while. It could be a few months before this election is officially going to be calmed down about, like I'm talking until after the inauguration. Then there will be a lot of hate and chatter for the next four years about how this next president is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. After 8 years, people still won't shut up about Obama, so no one will shut up about this election for years. Guaranteed. And as far as your mom goes, I'm sorry she jumped on the "everything is offensive" train. It's frustrating to say the very least. With her, you're going to have to calm her down one incident at a time. Make her see that she's overreacting. I have to do this a lot with my dad who gets heated about things more and more often in his old age. Almost every reply to one of these rants is "or maybe...." Your mom is the most important though, your newsfeed might calm down after the election. Hang in there. [SEP] With her, you're going to have to calm her down one incident at a time. Make her see that she's overreacting
-No, I meant that if you can't think of any reason why God might have picked Brigham Young then there is no hope of you being able to have a reasonable discussion. He was not a "normal human at the head of a religious movement." He was a powerful, dynamic figure who started out as a carpenter and accomplished the unthinkable in leading tens of thousands of political refugees out of the known United States across the frontier and colonized the entire American west. This is not a religious claim. It is the mainstream historical assessment. If you were to be like some exmo's whose bias is such that they can't even agree with mainstream historians on this much and would rather reduce him to a caricature to be dismissed without any further discussion, then I don't want to waste my time with you. That's all I was saying. [SEP] I don't want to waste my time with you.
+Repeat after me: Anonymous is not a group, collective or anything of that sort. It is the antithesis of those things, [SEP] why do people find that so hard to get?
+It wasn't like Darkscape ever had a huge player base. Obviously we expect release day (ish) to have the biggest counts for something which was mostly only knowledge privy to those already playing a Runescape game, and we also expect a good portion of them to not devote as much time to it in the future because they have progress on their other games which probably means more to them. I know you don't like Darkscape's 'purpose', and that doesn't matter, because there are a lot of people that did, and a lot of people that could; risky PvP MMOs aren't games which struggle for player-base particularly. What I'm saying is entirely wrong is your reasoning for the game's lack of success. We do not think Darkscape was perfect, but again, that is Jagex's fault for doing fuck all to fix it over quite a long period of time. What we are saying is that the potential, and the premise, of the game was very promising, and it was the little (and large) details which were royally screwed up which held the game back, because without guidance it could be very difficult for a new player to get to grips with things or have faith in the development of the game. It felt like a beta, or even an alpha game. Advertising SHOULD have happened because it should have been apparent Darkscape had potential to attract people who are no longer, or never have been, interested in investing time into the other Runescape games. There was a dedicated community, and many higher levels willing to help and protect the lower levels; the player base had everything it needed to make sure numbers didn't drop much further even if things continued to be horrendously run. And no, of course it isn't 'difficult to see why it is being closed down', the problem is that most of us believe that the negligence and half-arsed work ethic Jagex directed towards the game is what actually caused the game to get to a stage where closing it down seems like the best (easiest) idea. The changes needed to improve the game significantly, or at least make it look professional and stable, would have required so little work in the grand scheme of things, and it DOES show how stingy Jagex are with their resource management, and having experienced some Runescape private servers it really does make me angry how little they seem to care about a player base, and potential player base, of numbers not exactly totally insignificant to them (2k subs maybe, and this is even with them doing a piss-poor job of the game). Failing to reprimand bug abusers. Failing to set out clear long-term goals. Failing to engage with the player base when things got rough. Failing to fix simple things to tidy the game up a bit. And last, but not least, failing completely to show any genuine remorse or admittance to failure on their behalf, they have given us constrained apologies filled with exclamations of inadequate compensation which do little for me other than realise how much more they are worried about saving face rather than actually aiding their distressed customers. This has been incompetence from start to finish and the few positive points only managed to keep the game afloat for so long before the mismanagement caught up to it. Once again, the premise, the idea, is fantastic, and that is why the game was kept alive for a while. The execution was less than good enough, and that is why the game died. [SEP] Every problem with Darkscape has been caused by mismanagement on their behalf.
+ [SEP] I've always viewed it as more of a courtesy/respect thing now rather than permission if anyone does it.
+Hey, I'm sorry you feel this way. I completely understand and I am in the same boat as you as far as how our newsfeeds are inundated with people's political opinions. It drives me crazy that I have to watch some of my friends agree with the very things I hate and it makes me question my friendship with them. Which SUCKS! I'm happy to have quite a few people on my friends list who abide by the common public discussion etiquette- don't discuss politics, money, or religion. I've always been one of those people. I don't engage in public discussion about my politics because you can't change someone's mind. I would suggest staying away from Facebook for a while. It could be a few months before this election is officially going to be calmed down about, like I'm talking until after the inauguration. Then there will be a lot of hate and chatter for the next four years about how this next president is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. After 8 years, people still won't shut up about Obama, so no one will shut up about this election for years. Guaranteed. And as far as your mom goes, I'm sorry she jumped on the "everything is offensive" train. It's frustrating to say the very least. . I have to do this a lot with my dad who gets heated about things more and more often in his old age. Almost every reply to one of these rants is "or maybe...." Your mom is the most important though, your newsfeed might calm down after the election. Hang in there. [SEP] With her, you're going to have to calm her down one incident at a time. Make her see that she's overreacting
+No, I meant that if you can't think of any reason why God might have picked Brigham Young then there is no hope of you being able to have a reasonable discussion. He was not a "normal human at the head of a religious movement." He was a powerful, dynamic figure who started out as a carpenter and accomplished the unthinkable in leading tens of thousands of political refugees out of the known United States across the frontier and colonized the entire American west. This is not a religious claim. It is the mainstream historical assessment. If you were to be like some exmo's whose bias is such that they can't even agree with mainstream historians on this much and would rather reduce him to a caricature to be dismissed without any further discussion, then That's all I was saying. [SEP] I don't want to waste my time with you.
 >1) look at your life >look at your actions >2) look at your choices look at your choices >3) examine how those choices might be leading you to places you may not want to be Examine how everything you are saying, no one gives a fuck about. >4) look for ways, other perspectives, etc. that might help you make better ones Look for ways to find it within yourself to realize this, and shut the fuck up. [SEP] Look at your choices
-A bunch of man-hating horseshit which plays upon traditionalistic sexist stereotypes about aggression and violence between men/women which are to a huge extent not supported by the actual evidence. Domestic violence Verbal aggression and controlling behaviour Child abuse- Table 10 I can link more studies and meta analyses and go through the flaws of studies (for example using terms like "abuse" instead of asking about specific behaviour - given that people are more likely to consider a situation "abuse" when it's male on female than when it's female and male). Most of the most accurate studies show roughly equal rates of male and female aggression in relationships. Gay and lesbian relationships also have roughly equal rates of violence and aggression to heterosexual ones iirc. The evidence for an assumption that it's a gendered issue isn't there. But I sure am glad that some preachy white knight is defining for me what being a "real man" entails. [SEP] defining for me what being a "real man" entails.
-> You should really look at those charts again. That's exactly the case. no, its not. the chart only counts gun deaths, not simply "deaths". you maybe don't understand the difference? >This implied argument, that the Orlando shooter would have been able to kill nearly 50 people in a crowded club yes, with a bomb for example, if he really wanted to kill all those people. [SEP] no, its not. the chart only counts gun deaths, not simply "deaths". you maybe don't understand the difference?
+A bunch of man-hating horseshit which plays upon traditionalistic sexist stereotypes about aggression and violence between men/women which are to a huge extent not supported by the actual evidence. Domestic violence Verbal aggression and controlling behaviour Child abuse- Table 10 I can link more studies and meta analyses and go through the flaws of studies (for example using terms like "abuse" instead of asking about specific behaviour - given that people are more likely to consider a situation "abuse" when it's male on female than when it's female and male). Most of the most accurate studies show roughly equal rates of male and female aggression in relationships. Gay and lesbian relationships also have roughly equal rates of violence and aggression to heterosexual ones iirc. The evidence for an assumption that it's a gendered issue isn't there. But I sure am glad that some preachy white knight is [SEP] defining for me what being a "real man" entails.
+> You should really look at those charts again. That's exactly the case. >This implied argument, that the Orlando shooter would have been able to kill nearly 50 people in a crowded club yes, with a bomb for example, if he really wanted to kill all those people. [SEP] no, its not. the chart only counts gun deaths, not simply "deaths". you maybe don't understand the difference?
 That's the problem, you're a liberal in a subreddit for a self-admitted socialist. Personally I think Sanders is more a social democrat policy wise but it's still not liberal ideology, far from it. I'm not sure if you know this, but socialists are opposed to earning via owning, which is what renting is. So yes, it's obscene because of how it's earned. [SEP] I’m not sure if you know this
-Yes, I do. Without going into the evolutionary aspects of mimeme, meme is a communication symbol, or communication by symbol - such as when a redditor posts a photo of an actor in a well known expression and says "Losing to Auburn makes me feel like...." and the expression shown in the photo illustrates. It is really trite. Memes dominate the reddit front page and newcomers must burrow into reddit to get past that shit to find substance. That is why meme's were, for a time, banned at r/cfb. They could be used as a comment but not as a post. But our great leader gave up as moderator and with the expanding popularity of r/cfb, newcomers like to post memes. That really lowers the football intellect of r/cfb. Yes, I do know what a meme is. Do you know what the word trite means? This post is a meme and it is trite. [SEP] Do you know what the word trite means?
-If someone is so affected, wouldn't it be smarter jut to skip the series altogether? Personally, I avoid going to spacedicks, and after three disgusting penis pics mad the front page in one day last week, I just decided to unsubscribe from WTF. Seems to me a NSFW/L tag is ample. Hard to believe someone gets that traumatized by an internet story, yet returns to keep reading them, then asks OP to put up a 'Trigger Warning'. [SEP] Hard to believe someone gets that traumatized by an internet story, yet returns to keep reading them, then asks OP to put up a 'Trigger Warning'.
-My mistake. I though I made it over the top enough. On the other hand they are trying to make excuses for Milo, so Im getting downvotes for mocking their snowflake. They even defend Breitbart. That is some serious white nationalism shit. [SEP] On the other hand they are trying to make excuses for Milo, so Im getting downvotes for mocking their snowflake.
-How much energy can you generate this way? Of course, it makes you feel good, but what's the real impact? Do you have a study on this? (I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just sceptical. I expect solar & wind to take up huge amounts of land and ruin even more wildlife than we have till now, let alone the fact that they will lead to worldwide famines.) Nuclear is safe, cheap, and comparatively inexhaustible (if one recycles the fuel). The only trouble with it is uneducated middle-class hysteria. [SEP] I expect solar & wind to take up huge amounts of land
-People who respond to reasonable questions with "Fuck You" aren't in a position to lecture on why they shouldn't be treated like children. You've done nothing to counter any of my arguments, and frankly done a pretty good job of reinforcing them. If this was in fact about Sears wanting to cover up a story about the migrant workers they have in the basement performing repairs on Plasma TVs while not wearing static straps and only making 2$ a day, I'd agree (to a point) that this was censorship and wrong. But that's not remotely the case here. Just a note, I didn't down vote you, I just think your argument is stupid. [SEP] People who respond to reasonable questions with "Fuck You" aren't in a position to lecture on why they shouldn't be treated like children.
-There is more to communication than just the words you say. Tone and body language are important as well, as is the context of the words within the conversation. What you're trying to say is that people, not just women, who pay attention to those things and express themselves more through those things should tailor their communication for another person but not the other way around. [SEP] What you're trying to say is
-Here is UVic professor Lindsay Tedds' take on tampon exemptions. She argues that low income people would be better off with an increased GST/HST tax credit to make up for lost purchasing power. Has Irene Mathyssen clarified if she wants tampons zero rated or exempt? According to Tedds, the tax credit to low income earners would be larger if the tax was exempt. If if it was zero rated, the GST/HST tax credit would be lowered. I doubt that would be popular. What about other "gender based" taxes? Women pay taxes on bras, yeast infection medication, nipple cream, the morning after pill etc. Men also pay taxes on products exclusive to them. [SEP] Here is UVic professor Lindsay Tedds' take on tampon exemptions. She argues that low income people would be better off with an increased GST/HST tax credit to make up for lost purchasing power.
-The thing is, a ton of people try hard not to treat them like scum. People will go into these communities, or talk when these communities leak, and try to give real good advice. But I don't know if it's the people or the community, they're so shut off that any advice is taken as either an insult or "not understanding". I've tried myself. I've tried talking to people like this and explaining certain things(women are people not prizes, the friendzone doesn't exist how they think, women have agency of choice, women are people) and they don't get it. I had a coworker say he hates asian women because they only go for white men(he's asian). He had a cute tinder match who showed interest in him but he was too timid to set up a date. Like... dude, the problem isn't asian women. The problem is he was treating a relationship almost like if it were owed to him, and also saying he was too ugly or women were too far out of his league. A ton of people don't treat them like scum. But sadly, if a guy tries to help the guy is written of as insultive or a Chad, and if a girl tries to help, even in the slightest, it is seen as a romantic/sexual advance and the guys ruin a friendship and this woman's perspective of them because they can't distinguish between a woman being nice and advances, then they get so caught up in the rejection that any real advice gets lost. [SEP] women are people not prizes, the friendzone doesn't exist how they think, women have agency of choice, women are people
-I'm not gonna lie, I do feel defeated. That's why I've begun accepting the fact that this is life and some shit isn't for everyone. [SEP] I'm not gonna lie, I do feel defeated. That's why I've begun accepting the fact that this is life and some shit isn't for everyone.
+Yes, I do. Without going into the evolutionary aspects of mimeme, meme is a communication symbol, or communication by symbol - such as when a redditor posts a photo of an actor in a well known expression and says "Losing to Auburn makes me feel like...." and the expression shown in the photo illustrates. It is really trite. Memes dominate the reddit front page and newcomers must burrow into reddit to get past that shit to find substance. That is why meme's were, for a time, banned at r/cfb. They could be used as a comment but not as a post. But our great leader gave up as moderator and with the expanding popularity of r/cfb, newcomers like to post memes. That really lowers the football intellect of r/cfb. Yes, I do know what a meme is. This post is a meme and it is trite. [SEP] Do you know what the word trite means?
+If someone is so affected, wouldn't it be smarter jut to skip the series altogether? Personally, I avoid going to spacedicks, and after three disgusting penis pics mad the front page in one day last week, I just decided to unsubscribe from WTF. Seems to me a NSFW/L tag is ample. [SEP] Hard to believe someone gets that traumatized by an internet story, yet returns to keep reading them, then asks OP to put up a 'Trigger Warning'.
+My mistake. I though I made it over the top enough. They even defend Breitbart. That is some serious white nationalism shit. [SEP] On the other hand they are trying to make excuses for Milo, so Im getting downvotes for mocking their snowflake.
+How much energy can you generate this way? Of course, it makes you feel good, but what's the real impact? Do you have a study on this? (I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just sceptical. and ruin even more wildlife than we have till now, let alone the fact that they will lead to worldwide famines.) Nuclear is safe, cheap, and comparatively inexhaustible (if one recycles the fuel). The only trouble with it is uneducated middle-class hysteria. [SEP] I expect solar & wind to take up huge amounts of land
+You've done nothing to counter any of my arguments, and frankly done a pretty good job of reinforcing them. If this was in fact about Sears wanting to cover up a story about the migrant workers they have in the basement performing repairs on Plasma TVs while not wearing static straps and only making 2$ a day, I'd agree (to a point) that this was censorship and wrong. But that's not remotely the case here. Just a note, I didn't down vote you, I just think your argument is stupid. [SEP] People who respond to reasonable questions with "Fuck You" aren't in a position to lecture on why they shouldn't be treated like children.
+There is more to communication than just the words you say. Tone and body language are important as well, as is the context of the words within the conversation. that people, not just women, who pay attention to those things and express themselves more through those things should tailor their communication for another person but not the other way around. [SEP] What you're trying to say is
+Has Irene Mathyssen clarified if she wants tampons zero rated or exempt? According to Tedds, the tax credit to low income earners would be larger if the tax was exempt. If if it was zero rated, the GST/HST tax credit would be lowered. I doubt that would be popular. What about other "gender based" taxes? Women pay taxes on bras, yeast infection medication, nipple cream, the morning after pill etc. Men also pay taxes on products exclusive to them. [SEP] Here is UVic professor Lindsay Tedds' take on tampon exemptions. She argues that low income people would be better off with an increased GST/HST tax credit to make up for lost purchasing power.
+The thing is, a ton of people try hard not to treat them like scum. People will go into these communities, or talk when these communities leak, and try to give real good advice. But I don't know if it's the people or the community, they're so shut off that any advice is taken as either an insult or "not understanding". I've tried myself. I've tried talking to people like this and explaining certain things() and they don't get it. I had a coworker say he hates asian women because they only go for white men(he's asian). He had a cute tinder match who showed interest in him but he was too timid to set up a date. Like... dude, the problem isn't asian women. The problem is he was treating a relationship almost like if it were owed to him, and also saying he was too ugly or women were too far out of his league. A ton of people don't treat them like scum. But sadly, if a guy tries to help the guy is written of as insultive or a Chad, and if a girl tries to help, even in the slightest, it is seen as a romantic/sexual advance and the guys ruin a friendship and this woman's perspective of them because they can't distinguish between a woman being nice and advances, then they get so caught up in the rejection that any real advice gets lost. [SEP] women are people not prizes, the friendzone doesn't exist how they think, women have agency of choice, women are people
+ [SEP] I'm not gonna lie, I do feel defeated. That's why I've begun accepting the fact that this is life and some shit isn't for everyone.
 See while I'm actually kind of into the Yuri/Tomoko ship, I don't find Ucchi that compelling. Like it's been funny, and actually good character development for Ucchi, but Ucchi's crush on Tomoko is based around entirely misreading her entire personality. The things she's attracted to about Tomoko aren't actually real. Like, it still has value because it's self-discovery for Ucchi (remember back in the beginning when she was hella grossed out by some gay anime?), but the crush doesn't realllly need to be resolved for that self-discovery to still have value. [SEP] I don't find Ucchi that compelling...Ucchi's crush on Tomoko is based around entirely misreading her entire personality. The things she's attracted to about Tomoko aren't actually real.
->If you know with complete confidence, then you aren't using faith or belief. Otherwise, there has to be some doubt. No there doesn't. I have no doubts about the existence of my Creator, or the situation in general. Faith is simply belief in what cannot be proven, the word and the concept does not require continuous doubt across the board amongst all parties. I was unsure in the beginning, and most certainly made a leap of faith into belief in things unseen when I made the offer, but when that offer was accepted all doubt fell away along with a dark portion of my spirit. From that point on I've known my Creator in a way that dispells any doubts about His existence, the only doubts that remain are in my own ability to do the work before me, and those doubts are fleeting because I always remember that it all comes through Him anyway and whatever I need to accomplish His goals I'll have. >I still believe you have more potential. That potential was always there. Apparently you needed something to change your life in the right direction. I think that time spent on religion could be better spent on other things that are part of reality. There are a number of personal interests, academic pursuits, experiences, etc Thank you for thinking there's more, but of course the potential was there, I was built for this after all. Realizing that potential fully would be impossible without the support and guidance of He who created me for the work. I do pursue many interests in a variety of areas, they're part and parcel of my development and growth into the person I'm supposed to be. Advancing my Bash scripting and drawing and animating gif images in the GIMP are two bits of current fun. I'm always learning more and doing something new. >And what do you mean "we're"? Are you claiming to be Christian now? One of your earlier arguments was straight up refusing to be following a religion. I usually refrain from using the word. What you will likely define as a "Christian" and what I define as one are probably going to be verrry different things. The majority of those who follow the Christian religion simply aren't, for lack of a better word, Christians. Estimates vary, but most churches I've attended have between 10% and 20% of the people who go regularly that actually show the fruit of a life changed by the kind of interaction with their maker that results in integration of the Holy Spirit within them. The rest go for various reasons, some of them pretty good ones, but don't have the required personal relationship with their maker, misunderstanding or blatently ignoring the concept somehow along the way. I attend a church that is as close to what it should be as I could find, and go to fellowship and share resources and burdens with that percentage of them that are as I am and to help with the ones who attend that aren't. None of the ritualized activities are actually necessary, only that personal internal relationship with the Creator is. The rest is mostly either comfort for those who have none or ritualized extensions of things I do virtually every day anyway, things like the Lord's Supper for example, I remember Him every time I eat and especially when I eat with others who are as I am, why would I require a special snack for that? I participate if I'm there, if I miss it I miss it, it's of no concern. God, Christ, the Holy Spirit. They're facets of the same being, the Creator of this place, and they permeate this universe. Thanks to accepting and being accepted in turn, voluntarily giving up the independence granted me by my Creator in the first place, the Holy Spirit is within me and a part of my Spirit as well. I have been under construction ever since, being rebuilt from the inside out, and the result is someone new. I wasn't kidding when I said I once dismssed this as easily as you do now, but who I am today is incapable of denying or renouncing my Creator, it simply isn't within me to do so, I love my Lord too much and am enjoying the grand adventure of travelling this path too much for the possibility to ever be entertained. [SEP] why would I require a special snack for that?
-God you are as thick as you are uninspired with your insults. I already addressed the songbirds comment. If you can't understand my point then maybe you should go back to some middle-school english. All the 'songbirds would thank us' means is that the songbirds would benefit from the killing of cats. That is all it means. You taking any more meaning from it is on you and not him. He does not call for or explicitly approve of YOUR ridiculous notion of killing of cats. I understand burden of proof etc. etc., I don't care enough about educating you, or making you believe me to show you something so easily available. It's just funny to me that you are so adamant on a point that you are so clearly wrong about. It is not in debate that the songbirds would benefit/thank us from less cats. Another thing - you don't know that it is someone's pet, in fact it looks like a stray to me - scraggly and in the middle of what looks like a fucking jungle. And yeah, I would still save it despite that. The reason why I'm bothering with this is cuz you're acting like an ass, deconstructing his argument into - oh i guess we should just kill all cats - something he never said or suggested. And he was adding to the conversation - you just seem too slow to get it. You were arguing the pro's and cons of saving that cat's life vs. letting it get eaten - OP of comment chain suggesting it was saved due to cuteness to the detriment of the other animal and then you with sentimental value etc.,. And then him with the destructiveness of that cat. A very clear (to anyone else, apparently not you) chain of pros and cons that does add to the conversation. I'm a environmental conservation major so yeah it is something I actually care about - not overly but it is one thing among many I find interesting. So what WAS the actual subject at hand? Was it you ridiculing snakesandstuff for proposing killing of cats (fucking lol), or was it you ridiculing him for the notion that the songbirds would thank us. You're completely wrong either way, and if it was anyone arguing for the sake of arguing it was clearly you the way you so quickly jumped to a straw man argument and general douchiness. [SEP] and if it was anyone arguing for the sake of arguing it was clearly you the way you so quickly jumped to a straw man argument and general douchiness.
-You want to bet? People often uncritically evaluate statements like that which are backed up by an authoritative source (in this case CNN) without even reading the source article. And even more would make the same judgement after reading the news article. "Boy, those Apple users sure are insane!" And they indulge in this behavior much more frequently when whatever they're reading matches with their selection biases. Further, I'm betting that you know all of this really well. You're just picking nits here, because you don't like to admit you're wrong. Which is another very human thing to do. [SEP] You're just picking nits here, because you don't like to admit you're wrong. Which is another very human thing to do.
-So now your proving my point, ur trying to dismiss Joe censoring because of the other shit going on. I believe it's all valid to talk about. But i sort of agree on the morals point, its valid cuz i agree its valid. So let me rephrase. Some of these comments ive seen werent hostile in the slighest, only put forth their opinion. One good example is a yotuber by name Rags. A guy who was initially in favor of Joe, in fact trusted in him and went to him for reviews. I watch alot of Rags videos and have heard him reference Joe as a trustworthy critic several times. If u look up Rags twitter you will find his comment was pure criticism and not in any way hostile or mean. That Joe is deleting those sort of comments, is hypocritical as fuck. [SEP] So let me rephrase. Some of these comments ive seen werent hostile in the slighest, only put forth their opinion. One good example is a yotuber by name Rags. A guy who was initially in favor of Joe, in fact trusted in him and went to him for reviews. I watch alot of Rags videos and have heard him reference Joe as a trustworthy critic several times. If u look up Rags twitter you will find his comment was pure criticism and not in any way hostile or mean. That Joe is deleting those sort of comments, is hypocritical as fuck.
-Excuse me for doing so, but I assumed that when you said, > This one in particular is definitely worth reading "definitely worth reading" would indicate that you thought it was a good story. I asked you this question, and provided my thoughts on the topic, in order to foster conversation about it. Perhaps I realize that I could be wrong and wanted your input. But hey, if you just want to downvote and throw a fit for someone having a different opinion than you, we can play that game too. Your turn. [SEP] But hey, if you just want to downvote and throw a fit for someone having a different opinion than you, we can play that game too. Your turn.
-Got it on the out of state point. I'm not looking to date just yet because I have some serious edema at the moment and I look like a human blowfish. I also didn't state what ages I would accept, I asked what was normal these days. These aren't requirements or specific criteria I'm seeking. This was hypothetical to see if seeking someone who also has an illness was the best course of action, which it doesn't appear to be. It's "just dating" to you, but it's a big step for me. I didn't use any spreadsheets btw, lol. Thanks for your input, much appreciated. [SEP] It's "just dating" to you, but it's a big step for me
-So it's you who is childishly downvoting all of my comments, then. I literally said that I was just posting extra information for others reading a few posts ago, but whatever. Hope you can learn to take criticism better, especially on something you clearly have not "been extensively trained in." [SEP] Hope you can learn to take criticism better, especially on something you clearly have not "been extensively trained in."
+>If you know with complete confidence, then you aren't using faith or belief. Otherwise, there has to be some doubt. No there doesn't. I have no doubts about the existence of my Creator, or the situation in general. Faith is simply belief in what cannot be proven, the word and the concept does not require continuous doubt across the board amongst all parties. I was unsure in the beginning, and most certainly made a leap of faith into belief in things unseen when I made the offer, but when that offer was accepted all doubt fell away along with a dark portion of my spirit. From that point on I've known my Creator in a way that dispells any doubts about His existence, the only doubts that remain are in my own ability to do the work before me, and those doubts are fleeting because I always remember that it all comes through Him anyway and whatever I need to accomplish His goals I'll have. >I still believe you have more potential. That potential was always there. Apparently you needed something to change your life in the right direction. I think that time spent on religion could be better spent on other things that are part of reality. There are a number of personal interests, academic pursuits, experiences, etc Thank you for thinking there's more, but of course the potential was there, I was built for this after all. Realizing that potential fully would be impossible without the support and guidance of He who created me for the work. I do pursue many interests in a variety of areas, they're part and parcel of my development and growth into the person I'm supposed to be. Advancing my Bash scripting and drawing and animating gif images in the GIMP are two bits of current fun. I'm always learning more and doing something new. >And what do you mean "we're"? Are you claiming to be Christian now? One of your earlier arguments was straight up refusing to be following a religion. I usually refrain from using the word. What you will likely define as a "Christian" and what I define as one are probably going to be verrry different things. The majority of those who follow the Christian religion simply aren't, for lack of a better word, Christians. Estimates vary, but most churches I've attended have between 10% and 20% of the people who go regularly that actually show the fruit of a life changed by the kind of interaction with their maker that results in integration of the Holy Spirit within them. The rest go for various reasons, some of them pretty good ones, but don't have the required personal relationship with their maker, misunderstanding or blatently ignoring the concept somehow along the way. I attend a church that is as close to what it should be as I could find, and go to fellowship and share resources and burdens with that percentage of them that are as I am and to help with the ones who attend that aren't. None of the ritualized activities are actually necessary, only that personal internal relationship with the Creator is. The rest is mostly either comfort for those who have none or ritualized extensions of things I do virtually every day anyway, things like the Lord's Supper for example, I remember Him every time I eat and especially when I eat with others who are as I am, I participate if I'm there, if I miss it I miss it, it's of no concern. God, Christ, the Holy Spirit. They're facets of the same being, the Creator of this place, and they permeate this universe. Thanks to accepting and being accepted in turn, voluntarily giving up the independence granted me by my Creator in the first place, the Holy Spirit is within me and a part of my Spirit as well. I have been under construction ever since, being rebuilt from the inside out, and the result is someone new. I wasn't kidding when I said I once dismssed this as easily as you do now, but who I am today is incapable of denying or renouncing my Creator, it simply isn't within me to do so, I love my Lord too much and am enjoying the grand adventure of travelling this path too much for the possibility to ever be entertained. [SEP] why would I require a special snack for that?
+God you are as thick as you are uninspired with your insults. I already addressed the songbirds comment. If you can't understand my point then maybe you should go back to some middle-school english. All the 'songbirds would thank us' means is that the songbirds would benefit from the killing of cats. That is all it means. You taking any more meaning from it is on you and not him. He does not call for or explicitly approve of YOUR ridiculous notion of killing of cats. I understand burden of proof etc. etc., I don't care enough about educating you, or making you believe me to show you something so easily available. It's just funny to me that you are so adamant on a point that you are so clearly wrong about. It is not in debate that the songbirds would benefit/thank us from less cats. Another thing - you don't know that it is someone's pet, in fact it looks like a stray to me - scraggly and in the middle of what looks like a fucking jungle. And yeah, I would still save it despite that. The reason why I'm bothering with this is cuz you're acting like an ass, deconstructing his argument into - oh i guess we should just kill all cats - something he never said or suggested. And he was adding to the conversation - you just seem too slow to get it. You were arguing the pro's and cons of saving that cat's life vs. letting it get eaten - OP of comment chain suggesting it was saved due to cuteness to the detriment of the other animal and then you with sentimental value etc.,. And then him with the destructiveness of that cat. A very clear (to anyone else, apparently not you) chain of pros and cons that does add to the conversation. I'm a environmental conservation major so yeah it is something I actually care about - not overly but it is one thing among many I find interesting. So what WAS the actual subject at hand? Was it you ridiculing snakesandstuff for proposing killing of cats (fucking lol), or was it you ridiculing him for the notion that the songbirds would thank us. You're completely wrong either way, [SEP] and if it was anyone arguing for the sake of arguing it was clearly you the way you so quickly jumped to a straw man argument and general douchiness.
+You want to bet? People often uncritically evaluate statements like that which are backed up by an authoritative source (in this case CNN) without even reading the source article. And even more would make the same judgement after reading the news article. "Boy, those Apple users sure are insane!" And they indulge in this behavior much more frequently when whatever they're reading matches with their selection biases. Further, I'm betting that you know all of this really well. [SEP] You're just picking nits here, because you don't like to admit you're wrong. Which is another very human thing to do.
+So now your proving my point, ur trying to dismiss Joe censoring because of the other shit going on. I believe it's all valid to talk about. But i sort of agree on the morals point, its valid cuz i agree its valid. [SEP] So let me rephrase. Some of these comments ive seen werent hostile in the slighest, only put forth their opinion. One good example is a yotuber by name Rags. A guy who was initially in favor of Joe, in fact trusted in him and went to him for reviews. I watch alot of Rags videos and have heard him reference Joe as a trustworthy critic several times. If u look up Rags twitter you will find his comment was pure criticism and not in any way hostile or mean. That Joe is deleting those sort of comments, is hypocritical as fuck.
+Excuse me for doing so, but I assumed that when you said, > This one in particular is definitely worth reading "definitely worth reading" would indicate that you thought it was a good story. I asked you this question, and provided my thoughts on the topic, in order to foster conversation about it. Perhaps I realize that I could be wrong and wanted your input. [SEP] But hey, if you just want to downvote and throw a fit for someone having a different opinion than you, we can play that game too. Your turn.
+Got it on the out of state point. I'm not looking to date just yet because I have some serious edema at the moment and I look like a human blowfish. I also didn't state what ages I would accept, I asked what was normal these days. These aren't requirements or specific criteria I'm seeking. This was hypothetical to see if seeking someone who also has an illness was the best course of action, which it doesn't appear to be. . I didn't use any spreadsheets btw, lol. Thanks for your input, much appreciated. [SEP] It's "just dating" to you, but it's a big step for me
+So it's you who is childishly downvoting all of my comments, then. I literally said that I was just posting extra information for others reading a few posts ago, but whatever. [SEP] Hope you can learn to take criticism better, especially on something you clearly have not "been extensively trained in."
 Schools have a library. Seems like the right answer is to really push using the library. I mean it’s like Netflix except it’s free and for books. [SEP] schools have a library
-> So we're going completely ignore context? I'm ignoring context? The context is you getting butthurt over white people "culturally appropriating" something that "isn't theirs," or, in other words, you are getting frustrated over white people not segregating cultures. I'm not ignoring the context here. You are angered by individuals of a race refusing to segregate themselves, and you take this anger and make sweeping statements about said race. I'm sorry, but you're just flat out racist. >I never mentioned any of those. Now you're just being silly. You're part of the group here bringing up social justice. Look at your posts here. You get mad at white people because they refused to segregate cultures so you decide to make statements about their entire race. You are criticizing people for refusing to segregate. My point is that you need to get over yourself. Racism lost in the western world. We refused to segregate in the 50s, and we will refuse now. People concerned about "social justice" and "cultural appropriation" still use racist language to this day to demean people, which is why I brought up the fact that bigots use phrases like "people of color." No one likes racism, and no one likes segregation. Get the fuck off the internet if you're going to spend your time advocating segregation of cultures. [SEP] Now you're just being silly. You're part of the group here bringing up social justice. Look at your posts here. You get mad at white people because they refused to segregate cultures so you decide to make statements about their entire race. You are criticizing people for refusing to segregate.
-Wow. This gives an entirely new perspective of our planet. We're so used to thinking the earth is mostly land with some water in between. But really, it's all water with some land here and there. [SEP] We're so used to thinking the earth is mostly land with some water in between
-1.8 % of electors didn’t vote for who they were supposed to, and that’s only legal in 20 states. It had no effect on the election and hasn’t for some time. Why on earth should fewer people have a larger say in voting? Wouldn’t it be more fair to give the most people what they want? The larger states bring more money, they have more people, they should have a bigger say in everything. Also, isn’t representatives having the last say in everything literally the point of the electoral college? Furthermore, one of the jobs of those representatives was to choose a better candidate if the one the people chose failed, which A) clearly doesn’t happen anymore, and B) is not a fucking democracy. The whole point of the senate is so that big states can’t infringe on the rights of small states, there are 100 senators, 2 for each state, regardless of population. And to top this mess off, you expect me to believe that smaller states would... secede? The weakest, least important, and least populous & poorest parts of the US would secede from the good parts of the country because they didn’t have enough say? You realize that even when the incredibly rich part of the country seceded, it lost? The electoral college does nothing to protect smaller states, and it was never meant to. It was meant to keep the masses from electing someone terrible, which is ridiculous and has happened multiple times, and is made obsolete by a little metal and glass rectangle you keep in your pocket with access to all of the knowledge ever recorded. One more point, because I’m mad: the electors are no longer proportional to states populations, and big states have grown faster, meaning that more people are less represented. It’s the small states preventing constitutional reform that would bring a system in which everyone gets an equal vote: how can you say no to that? [SEP] Why on earth should fewer people have a larger say in voting? Wouldn’t it be more fair to give the most people what they want?
-I agree with the sentiment. But if you read the article it documents how the institutionalized cooperative movement has produced, and is producing, traditional corporate powerhouses. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions." Also, that piece had way too much circumstantial evidence pandering to the socialist mob mentality. [SEP] if you read the article
-When have they played better than us? They have lost to Newcastle, Watford, West Ham, drawn vs Exeter just in the past two weeks. And I just responded to your last post, so go read that to gain some knowledge. [SEP] And I just responded to your last post, so go read that to gain some knowledge.
-If being told in confidence that a friend of yours suffered from a sexual assault or was raped by someone you both know (or are part of a larger group, like in college or work): DO NOT RESPOND WITH THREATS OF VIOLENCE TO THE PERPETRATOR (I'll kill them, tell me who it is and I'll fuck them up etc) Your friend is probably racked with enough anxiety and is worried about social standing and violence will give them more stress. Rape claims are such a confusing, scary mess for the survivor to make, social groups do not handle them well at all and people end up vilifying the victim. You mightn't think it's that bad to be mad about someone hurting your friend but there's a better solution. Tell them that you believe them, you're sad to hear it and you're there for them. They're not broken, they're still your friend, they're just sensitive and confused. Believing them in confidence and supporting them is key. Right now their sense of trust is all kinds of fucked up. Help them see a doctor/counselor or talk it out. You still don't have to be nice to the perp, just don't make a scene on your friend's behalf unprompted, it'll cause them more stress. Source: Learned the hard way, added to a close friend's stress and social anxiety by getting mad. Save the anger for your own privacy. Edit: It's disappointing that people are saying "if you don't go to the police, you're endangering others!" What I mean is, that statement has an element of victim blaming in it. "Do this or you're doing a bad thing!" When someone is raped their sense of trust in other people and right and wrong is in tatters. Chances are they're blaming themselves for what happened; after all, it was likely a friend or family member that disregarded their consent, a person they (used to) trust. They're thinking "is what they did wrong? should i have been clearer? am i wrong for feeling like this? why would they do this? could i have been more responsible?" and many other questions that are easy for a third party to answer, but painfully difficult for a victim to answer themselves. So when they don't want to go to the police because who fucking cares what else they don't fucking want to go it's not anyone else's fucking decision (sorry, kinda mad but its a bottom line issue) and someone tells them the way they feel about the ongoing situation is dangerous and bad and irresponsible, it's very difficult to feel like they have any control over anything. And that's bad. Others have commented accurately that giving power and agency back to the survivor is the goal. Also to those posing questions about believing a survivor blindly, I was referring to someone close to you. Family issues are a mess, I'm sorry but I'm not sure how to handle it then. But you have no idea how terrifyingly common sexual assault is, particularly against women. I know there's an institutional problem regarding rape claims, but please, when it comes to those you care about, your trust in their word and their agency is immeasurably valuable. Edit 2 long post edition: Rape culture is a very real and very complex issue. Please research it, it will help you understand. Rape is less often an instance of some mysterious stranger jumping out of the bushes. In reality it's more often someone the survivor knows, through family or friends that disregards another person's verbal consent and agency in a situation in order to achieve the goal of sex. This ranges from the very blunt and very violent method as we all know of, to the very insidious and sneaky way of goading and pestering until one party gives up saying 'No' because the other isn't listening. I know people that blame themselves saying "I Should have been clearer that I didn't want to have sex". Utterly disgraceful that they are pushed by social pressure and self doubt into the position of thinking that. This is not bartering, this is not a negotiation; if someone does not want you to touch/use/do whatever to their body and you disregard that, it is rape. It's not exclusively violent but it is always traumatic to lose power and agency over your own body. Often times the victim is probably being polite and letting the friend/family member/authority figure that is bigger than them down easily so they don't get mad. Edit 3 my cock up edition: got a bit heated earlier and wrote something unclear and blame-y. Removed this line as it was pointed out that it's loaded and unhelpful: "Shifting blame away from the perpetrator (as usual) and putting pressure on the survivor, stigmatizing them (as usual)." [SEP] you're sad to hear it
-> I was entirely honest in saying I am not entirely sure if defect is the right word as I have little to know evolutionary biology Yeah, that's obvious. So maybe you should just shut the fuck up you shitstain. > I am just curious if you honestly feel my post was an attempt to insult gay people? No, I think calling groups of people inherently defective out of ignorance is jolly-good behavior! Whether you're intentionally insulting gay people, or whether you're just too stupid and lacking in empathy to avoiding insulting us, is a distinction without a difference. How about you fix those defects in yourself, asshole. [SEP] Whether you're intentionally insulting gay people, or whether you're just too stupid and lacking in empathy to avoiding insulting us, is a distinction without a difference.
-Well thanks for calling me smart. I'm an engineer: I understand science more than most people, but when I think about what I know, and that when I die, it might just disappear? And my parents and friends and family are just going to disappear? It seems like such a fucking waste. That's why religion is still in my life. Now you could argue "Well, why don't you believe in Christianity or Islam?" Well, I'd first say that I was born into Judaism, and then say I don't think eating crackers and drinking wine on Sunday is actually eating the blood and flesh of some guy who lived 2000 years ago. And also, virgin birth just makes no goddamn sense. And Mohammed didn't just fly to Jerusalem (I'm nitpicking here, but there are plenty of other things). But then again, in Judaism, I don't think God parted the seas for Moses or the world just started over again with Noah. I identify as Jewish, but I'm not deeply religious. For fuck's sake I'm eating bacon right now! But I am aware of my family's history and I respect it. History may not be important to you, but it is to me. Judaism has always part of my life, and while I don't believe in everything that is told in the Talmud, I identify with the religion. But I'm rambling. I don't know what "holocaust" me means...do you mean that I'm worried that someone wants to kill me? Pretty much true. Some fundamentalists want to see me dead because I was born a Jew. So I've got to stand up for what I am because if I don't then who will? And with regards to the video. Being Jewish adds a different perspective. If people want to represent that then that's fine. There have been instances on Reddit where I've identified as Jewish, but I've also identified as a student, a Canadian, a Quebecer, a Montrealer, an Anglophone, the list goes on. The whole point of most intelligent discussions is to provide different insight, recalling events from different perspectives to contribute to the overall picture. Jews do it a lot more than most, well, because we like to. There's a saying "You get 2 Jews in one room you'll get three opinions." We like to get our point of view across for a multitude of reasons, which I don't think need to be explained at this time. But I stand by what I said: We don't WANT to be in the news all the time. No news is good news, IMO. So fine, we're good at rallying support, okay? You win. But I'll fight you on the fact that someone else tells me who to vote for or how to contribute. I make my own decisions, thank you very much. I'm actually taking a media class right now which talked about today's generation being less responsive to ads and lobbys and such things, because we are so used to it. Just food for thought. [SEP] The whole point of most intelligent discussions is to provide different insight, recalling events from different perspectives to contribute to the overall picture. Jews do it a lot more than most, well, because we like to. There's a saying "You get 2 Jews in one room you'll get three opinions." We like to get our point of view across for a multitude of reasons, which I don't think need to be explained at this time. But I stand by what I said: We don't WANT to be in the news all the time. No news is good news, IMO.
-Downvoted? You hold a moderate and respectable position on this topic. From a Christian point of view, most of us aren't trying to shove religion down anyone's throats. It makes sense that a school with a presumably large Christian population would want a prayer during their graduation, and it hardly seems an injustice when (I'm assuming) no one is being forced to participate in the prayer. Most Christians, including myself, view this as an intolerance of our religion. I'm not up to snuff on government-institutionalized religion in the US, but certainly their are bigger battles to be fought. [SEP] Most Christians, including myself, view this as an intolerance of our religion.
-> We are talking about men in the middle of attempting to transform into women Every athletic organization I'm aware of requires a year or more on HRT, which isn't really "the middle". That's sort of the point. > There is no correlation to race, but points for effort. They weren't claiming otherwise - only that your (very weak) arguments have symmetric versions that would apply in those cases. [SEP] They weren't claiming otherwise - only that your (very weak) arguments have symmetric versions that would apply in those cases.
->The DNA belongs to the person whom it is inside of, what's your point? Its not relevant to the crime they are investigating i.e. having the boyfriends DNA brings them exactly zero inches closer to finding the perpetrator >Yes, but you gain evidence in the murder investigation of the fetus. Yea see, life legally starts at birth so how can you murder something that is not legally alive? Oh they're living cells?! Will I be charged with murder if I have my appendix removed? http [SEP] Yea see, life legally starts at birth
-Strawman wall of text? I could have just answered you quickly but you would you just attack my position. Scripture is all that matter as a Christian. Any other readings mean nothing if not backed by scripture. That wall of text had tons of scripture supporting it. To bad you don't want to expand you faith by hearing all sides not just the Catholic indoctrination. 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” [SEP] To bad you don't want to expand you faith by hearing all sides not just the Catholic indoctrination.
-I mean I could, but it's just so wrong, there are too many points to list. There are two things that make a fastball hard to hit. Speed, location, and movement. We're going to assume two, rather straight fastball pitchers, one that throw's lower 90's, and someone who throws like any pitcher in the Mets rotation. (upper 90s) The only thing separating the success of the two is location. Speeds are obviously different, and movement is the same. With your idea, the only thing that would change success of the two is speed. So, the slower guy would always have less success than the faster guy, because logically the slower pitcher is easier to hit than the faster pitcher. This isn't the case however, there are plenty of slower pitchers that have more success with their fastball, than some of the flame throwers in the league. That's where location comes in. Location can be the difference between a good fastball, and a bad one. Good location is tough as a pitcher, so not as many pitcher have it, that's why hardly any other 95+ pitchers have had success against their lineup. [SEP] I mean I could, but it's just so wrong, there are too many points to list.
-hE's sampling whole melodies... That ge did not create. You cant say he deserves as much credit as a musician who actually creates everything in their song from scratch. If an edm producer sampled a whole loop from Deadmau5 they'd ruin their career. I'm not saying what they make isn't enjoyable to listen too. Just that they aren't in the same caliber as other musicians. show me a lofi producer who writes their own melodies then chops them and I'll change my tune. [SEP] show me a lofi producer who writes their own melodies then chops them and I'll change my tune.
-Being that I'm late to the party this probably wont get noticed, but regardless, you're right. Sorry to the PS3 owners who don't get Dawnguard, but fact is that when you get it you'll enjoy it. I remember when Skyrim came out and all of the PS3 owners were complaining that it didn't work. As most people have mentioned the PS3 is hard to work with, and Bethesda wants to get it right for you guys. I'm sorry that you guys can't understand that. If you guys got Dawnguard when the PC players got it you'd be on here saying how bad Bethesda is that they released a broken game. You have put Bethesda in a terrible situation, either way they look bad. Bethesda isn't EA, yes they accepted money from Microsoft to make an early release for DLC, but fact is this is the Video game industry today. Right or wrong its going to happen. Stop bashing Bethesda. They're trying and Dawnguard will be released soon for you guys. To all of you PS3 owners that I saw in this thread that are being patient thank you. As a Xbox player it makes me proud to see that some of our Sony counterparts being gracious in this. To those that can't seem to understand that Bethesda is trying go look at games like Mass Effect 3 or Call of Duty and see what companies like EA and Activision are actually doing to proud franchises. Be proud that companies like Bethesda still exist, they may not always do what we want them too but they gave us great games like Skyrim we should give them time and let them do their work. [SEP] I'm sorry that you guys can't understand that.
-If that doesn't work, I hope you know how to telnet and rcon commands so you can recover the bootloader. [SEP] If that doesn't work, I hope you know how to telnet and rcon commands so you can recover the bootloader.
-Thats why you have different POV and different motivations. Most of the westeros are people who does not care about the fact Cersei killed her husband and seated her brother child on the throne. Show me justice in that. Kings landing views everyone as villain as long they are not with them - because Lannisters tricked the people there. Same goes for Rob and Tullys - if you consider Stannis villain they are also villains. All people that want justice for what happened. The only ones who see Stannis as villain are Lannisters supporters, who are basically villains too. Mar Miri or whatewer wasn't villain either. What she did was to save her people, exact vengeance on those who ransacked her village and killed her people. Its his nephew and Storm end belong to him. If it wasnt for him, Storm end would not even stand. Ser Cortnay Penrose denied him his own land. Yeah, really neat. That by everything is considered treason. And treason is punishable by dead - by every westeros law. Ask Tyrion and Jof who catapulted Stannis people out of the city. Ned is good, and thats what brought him down. He offered Cersei to pack her stuff and go. Yeah nice idea. Its like Batman and his constantly returning villains. I suppose you did not read the books. The most used adjective with Stannis is just. Stockholm syndrome. What a stupid thing. In that case every loyal servant has Stockholm syndrome. So Septa Morgane, Beric, Neds guard... How Dos was ever kept by him. He only brought him some onions and was impressed how Stannis handled the situation. He could have leaved. He chose to stay, because he liked what he saw there. Stannis did not force him to stay. So how can a man with such a great common sense and someone who is able to see things how they, are being brainwashed by someone. Yeah that makes sense. No, Davos choose to stay with him. Because he wanted. So if Stannis is so harsh, inflexible despot. He has the personality and social policy of a Taliban cleric. Then how he was able to get support of mountain clans. Why they are people who are not Rhollor followers in his army. And why they have such a high positions. I don't care about USA politics. Not interested in them. Dont compare westerosi medieval system inspired by European kingdoms to modern states. I fascinating how assuming you are about people who like Stannis. I work as PR and in festival organisation.. You definitely do not need social skills for that, I suppose. When did it even occurred to you to compare lack of social skills to Stannis supporter. Interesting theory. I would love to see some logical explanation for it. [SEP] I suppose you did not read the books. The most used adjective with Stannis is just.
+> So we're going completely ignore context? I'm ignoring context? The context is you getting butthurt over white people "culturally appropriating" something that "isn't theirs," or, in other words, you are getting frustrated over white people not segregating cultures. I'm not ignoring the context here. You are angered by individuals of a race refusing to segregate themselves, and you take this anger and make sweeping statements about said race. I'm sorry, but you're just flat out racist. >I never mentioned any of those. My point is that you need to get over yourself. Racism lost in the western world. We refused to segregate in the 50s, and we will refuse now. People concerned about "social justice" and "cultural appropriation" still use racist language to this day to demean people, which is why I brought up the fact that bigots use phrases like "people of color." No one likes racism, and no one likes segregation. Get the fuck off the internet if you're going to spend your time advocating segregation of cultures. [SEP] Now you're just being silly. You're part of the group here bringing up social justice. Look at your posts here. You get mad at white people because they refused to segregate cultures so you decide to make statements about their entire race. You are criticizing people for refusing to segregate.
+Wow. This gives an entirely new perspective of our planet. . But really, it's all water with some land here and there. [SEP] We're so used to thinking the earth is mostly land with some water in between
+1.8 % of electors didn’t vote for who they were supposed to, and that’s only legal in 20 states. It had no effect on the election and hasn’t for some time. The larger states bring more money, they have more people, they should have a bigger say in everything. Also, isn’t representatives having the last say in everything literally the point of the electoral college? Furthermore, one of the jobs of those representatives was to choose a better candidate if the one the people chose failed, which A) clearly doesn’t happen anymore, and B) is not a fucking democracy. The whole point of the senate is so that big states can’t infringe on the rights of small states, there are 100 senators, 2 for each state, regardless of population. And to top this mess off, you expect me to believe that smaller states would... secede? The weakest, least important, and least populous & poorest parts of the US would secede from the good parts of the country because they didn’t have enough say? You realize that even when the incredibly rich part of the country seceded, it lost? The electoral college does nothing to protect smaller states, and it was never meant to. It was meant to keep the masses from electing someone terrible, which is ridiculous and has happened multiple times, and is made obsolete by a little metal and glass rectangle you keep in your pocket with access to all of the knowledge ever recorded. One more point, because I’m mad: the electors are no longer proportional to states populations, and big states have grown faster, meaning that more people are less represented. It’s the small states preventing constitutional reform that would bring a system in which everyone gets an equal vote: how can you say no to that? [SEP] Why on earth should fewer people have a larger say in voting? Wouldn’t it be more fair to give the most people what they want?
+I agree with the sentiment. But it documents how the institutionalized cooperative movement has produced, and is producing, traditional corporate powerhouses. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions." Also, that piece had way too much circumstantial evidence pandering to the socialist mob mentality. [SEP] if you read the article
+When have they played better than us? They have lost to Newcastle, Watford, West Ham, drawn vs Exeter just in the past two weeks. [SEP] And I just responded to your last post, so go read that to gain some knowledge.
+If being told in confidence that a friend of yours suffered from a sexual assault or was raped by someone you both know (or are part of a larger group, like in college or work): DO NOT RESPOND WITH THREATS OF VIOLENCE TO THE PERPETRATOR (I'll kill them, tell me who it is and I'll fuck them up etc) Your friend is probably racked with enough anxiety and is worried about social standing and violence will give them more stress. Rape claims are such a confusing, scary mess for the survivor to make, social groups do not handle them well at all and people end up vilifying the victim. You mightn't think it's that bad to be mad about someone hurting your friend but there's a better solution. Tell them that you believe them, and you're there for them. They're not broken, they're still your friend, they're just sensitive and confused. Believing them in confidence and supporting them is key. Right now their sense of trust is all kinds of fucked up. Help them see a doctor/counselor or talk it out. You still don't have to be nice to the perp, just don't make a scene on your friend's behalf unprompted, it'll cause them more stress. Source: Learned the hard way, added to a close friend's stress and social anxiety by getting mad. Save the anger for your own privacy. Edit: It's disappointing that people are saying "if you don't go to the police, you're endangering others!" What I mean is, that statement has an element of victim blaming in it. "Do this or you're doing a bad thing!" When someone is raped their sense of trust in other people and right and wrong is in tatters. Chances are they're blaming themselves for what happened; after all, it was likely a friend or family member that disregarded their consent, a person they (used to) trust. They're thinking "is what they did wrong? should i have been clearer? am i wrong for feeling like this? why would they do this? could i have been more responsible?" and many other questions that are easy for a third party to answer, but painfully difficult for a victim to answer themselves. So when they don't want to go to the police because who fucking cares what else they don't fucking want to go it's not anyone else's fucking decision (sorry, kinda mad but its a bottom line issue) and someone tells them the way they feel about the ongoing situation is dangerous and bad and irresponsible, it's very difficult to feel like they have any control over anything. And that's bad. Others have commented accurately that giving power and agency back to the survivor is the goal. Also to those posing questions about believing a survivor blindly, I was referring to someone close to you. Family issues are a mess, I'm sorry but I'm not sure how to handle it then. But you have no idea how terrifyingly common sexual assault is, particularly against women. I know there's an institutional problem regarding rape claims, but please, when it comes to those you care about, your trust in their word and their agency is immeasurably valuable. Edit 2 long post edition: Rape culture is a very real and very complex issue. Please research it, it will help you understand. Rape is less often an instance of some mysterious stranger jumping out of the bushes. In reality it's more often someone the survivor knows, through family or friends that disregards another person's verbal consent and agency in a situation in order to achieve the goal of sex. This ranges from the very blunt and very violent method as we all know of, to the very insidious and sneaky way of goading and pestering until one party gives up saying 'No' because the other isn't listening. I know people that blame themselves saying "I Should have been clearer that I didn't want to have sex". Utterly disgraceful that they are pushed by social pressure and self doubt into the position of thinking that. This is not bartering, this is not a negotiation; if someone does not want you to touch/use/do whatever to their body and you disregard that, it is rape. It's not exclusively violent but it is always traumatic to lose power and agency over your own body. Often times the victim is probably being polite and letting the friend/family member/authority figure that is bigger than them down easily so they don't get mad. Edit 3 my cock up edition: got a bit heated earlier and wrote something unclear and blame-y. Removed this line as it was pointed out that it's loaded and unhelpful: "Shifting blame away from the perpetrator (as usual) and putting pressure on the survivor, stigmatizing them (as usual)." [SEP] you're sad to hear it
+> I was entirely honest in saying I am not entirely sure if defect is the right word as I have little to know evolutionary biology Yeah, that's obvious. So maybe you should just shut the fuck up you shitstain. > I am just curious if you honestly feel my post was an attempt to insult gay people? No, I think calling groups of people inherently defective out of ignorance is jolly-good behavior! How about you fix those defects in yourself, asshole. [SEP] Whether you're intentionally insulting gay people, or whether you're just too stupid and lacking in empathy to avoiding insulting us, is a distinction without a difference.
+Well thanks for calling me smart. I'm an engineer: I understand science more than most people, but when I think about what I know, and that when I die, it might just disappear? And my parents and friends and family are just going to disappear? It seems like such a fucking waste. That's why religion is still in my life. Now you could argue "Well, why don't you believe in Christianity or Islam?" Well, I'd first say that I was born into Judaism, and then say I don't think eating crackers and drinking wine on Sunday is actually eating the blood and flesh of some guy who lived 2000 years ago. And also, virgin birth just makes no goddamn sense. And Mohammed didn't just fly to Jerusalem (I'm nitpicking here, but there are plenty of other things). But then again, in Judaism, I don't think God parted the seas for Moses or the world just started over again with Noah. I identify as Jewish, but I'm not deeply religious. For fuck's sake I'm eating bacon right now! But I am aware of my family's history and I respect it. History may not be important to you, but it is to me. Judaism has always part of my life, and while I don't believe in everything that is told in the Talmud, I identify with the religion. But I'm rambling. I don't know what "holocaust" me means...do you mean that I'm worried that someone wants to kill me? Pretty much true. Some fundamentalists want to see me dead because I was born a Jew. So I've got to stand up for what I am because if I don't then who will? And with regards to the video. Being Jewish adds a different perspective. If people want to represent that then that's fine. There have been instances on Reddit where I've identified as Jewish, but I've also identified as a student, a Canadian, a Quebecer, a Montrealer, an Anglophone, the list goes on. So fine, we're good at rallying support, okay? You win. But I'll fight you on the fact that someone else tells me who to vote for or how to contribute. I make my own decisions, thank you very much. I'm actually taking a media class right now which talked about today's generation being less responsive to ads and lobbys and such things, because we are so used to it. Just food for thought. [SEP] The whole point of most intelligent discussions is to provide different insight, recalling events from different perspectives to contribute to the overall picture. Jews do it a lot more than most, well, because we like to. There's a saying "You get 2 Jews in one room you'll get three opinions." We like to get our point of view across for a multitude of reasons, which I don't think need to be explained at this time. But I stand by what I said: We don't WANT to be in the news all the time. No news is good news, IMO.
+Downvoted? You hold a moderate and respectable position on this topic. From a Christian point of view, most of us aren't trying to shove religion down anyone's throats. It makes sense that a school with a presumably large Christian population would want a prayer during their graduation, and it hardly seems an injustice when (I'm assuming) no one is being forced to participate in the prayer. I'm not up to snuff on government-institutionalized religion in the US, but certainly their are bigger battles to be fought. [SEP] Most Christians, including myself, view this as an intolerance of our religion.
+> We are talking about men in the middle of attempting to transform into women Every athletic organization I'm aware of requires a year or more on HRT, which isn't really "the middle". That's sort of the point. > There is no correlation to race, but points for effort. [SEP] They weren't claiming otherwise - only that your (very weak) arguments have symmetric versions that would apply in those cases.
+>The DNA belongs to the person whom it is inside of, what's your point? Its not relevant to the crime they are investigating i.e. having the boyfriends DNA brings them exactly zero inches closer to finding the perpetrator >Yes, but you gain evidence in the murder investigation of the fetus. so how can you murder something that is not legally alive? Oh they're living cells?! Will I be charged with murder if I have my appendix removed? http [SEP] Yea see, life legally starts at birth
+Strawman wall of text? I could have just answered you quickly but you would you just attack my position. Scripture is all that matter as a Christian. Any other readings mean nothing if not backed by scripture. That wall of text had tons of scripture supporting it. 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” [SEP] To bad you don't want to expand you faith by hearing all sides not just the Catholic indoctrination.
+There are two things that make a fastball hard to hit. Speed, location, and movement. We're going to assume two, rather straight fastball pitchers, one that throw's lower 90's, and someone who throws like any pitcher in the Mets rotation. (upper 90s) The only thing separating the success of the two is location. Speeds are obviously different, and movement is the same. With your idea, the only thing that would change success of the two is speed. So, the slower guy would always have less success than the faster guy, because logically the slower pitcher is easier to hit than the faster pitcher. This isn't the case however, there are plenty of slower pitchers that have more success with their fastball, than some of the flame throwers in the league. That's where location comes in. Location can be the difference between a good fastball, and a bad one. Good location is tough as a pitcher, so not as many pitcher have it, that's why hardly any other 95+ pitchers have had success against their lineup. [SEP] I mean I could, but it's just so wrong, there are too many points to list.
+hE's sampling whole melodies... That ge did not create. You cant say he deserves as much credit as a musician who actually creates everything in their song from scratch. If an edm producer sampled a whole loop from Deadmau5 they'd ruin their career. I'm not saying what they make isn't enjoyable to listen too. Just that they aren't in the same caliber as other musicians. [SEP] show me a lofi producer who writes their own melodies then chops them and I'll change my tune.
+Being that I'm late to the party this probably wont get noticed, but regardless, you're right. Sorry to the PS3 owners who don't get Dawnguard, but fact is that when you get it you'll enjoy it. I remember when Skyrim came out and all of the PS3 owners were complaining that it didn't work. As most people have mentioned the PS3 is hard to work with, and Bethesda wants to get it right for you guys. If you guys got Dawnguard when the PC players got it you'd be on here saying how bad Bethesda is that they released a broken game. You have put Bethesda in a terrible situation, either way they look bad. Bethesda isn't EA, yes they accepted money from Microsoft to make an early release for DLC, but fact is this is the Video game industry today. Right or wrong its going to happen. Stop bashing Bethesda. They're trying and Dawnguard will be released soon for you guys. To all of you PS3 owners that I saw in this thread that are being patient thank you. As a Xbox player it makes me proud to see that some of our Sony counterparts being gracious in this. To those that can't seem to understand that Bethesda is trying go look at games like Mass Effect 3 or Call of Duty and see what companies like EA and Activision are actually doing to proud franchises. Be proud that companies like Bethesda still exist, they may not always do what we want them too but they gave us great games like Skyrim we should give them time and let them do their work. [SEP] I'm sorry that you guys can't understand that.
+ [SEP] If that doesn't work, I hope you know how to telnet and rcon commands so you can recover the bootloader.
+Thats why you have different POV and different motivations. Most of the westeros are people who does not care about the fact Cersei killed her husband and seated her brother child on the throne. Show me justice in that. Kings landing views everyone as villain as long they are not with them - because Lannisters tricked the people there. Same goes for Rob and Tullys - if you consider Stannis villain they are also villains. All people that want justice for what happened. The only ones who see Stannis as villain are Lannisters supporters, who are basically villains too. Mar Miri or whatewer wasn't villain either. What she did was to save her people, exact vengeance on those who ransacked her village and killed her people. Its his nephew and Storm end belong to him. If it wasnt for him, Storm end would not even stand. Ser Cortnay Penrose denied him his own land. Yeah, really neat. That by everything is considered treason. And treason is punishable by dead - by every westeros law. Ask Tyrion and Jof who catapulted Stannis people out of the city. Ned is good, and thats what brought him down. He offered Cersei to pack her stuff and go. Yeah nice idea. Its like Batman and his constantly returning villains. Stockholm syndrome. What a stupid thing. In that case every loyal servant has Stockholm syndrome. So Septa Morgane, Beric, Neds guard... How Dos was ever kept by him. He only brought him some onions and was impressed how Stannis handled the situation. He could have leaved. He chose to stay, because he liked what he saw there. Stannis did not force him to stay. So how can a man with such a great common sense and someone who is able to see things how they, are being brainwashed by someone. Yeah that makes sense. No, Davos choose to stay with him. Because he wanted. So if Stannis is so harsh, inflexible despot. He has the personality and social policy of a Taliban cleric. Then how he was able to get support of mountain clans. Why they are people who are not Rhollor followers in his army. And why they have such a high positions. I don't care about USA politics. Not interested in them. Dont compare westerosi medieval system inspired by European kingdoms to modern states. I fascinating how assuming you are about people who like Stannis. I work as PR and in festival organisation.. You definitely do not need social skills for that, I suppose. When did it even occurred to you to compare lack of social skills to Stannis supporter. Interesting theory. I would love to see some logical explanation for it. [SEP] I suppose you did not read the books. The most used adjective with Stannis is just.
 I was being pretty lazy in my original response (oh, the irony). I do find it surprising that the NYPD doesn't have some ongoing weight/fitness monitoring for active officers. Presumably, cops get health insurance through their union, and could be subjected to early physical examinations. It would be possible, for example, to put cops on desk duty until they reach a healthy weight or pass some kind of yearly physical. It's pretty clear at this point that most Americans (scratch that - most of the world's adult population) does not have the intrinsic motivation to stay fit, so unfortunately, it may have to come down to the city having to force those requirements. [SEP] It's pretty clear at this point that most Americans (scratch that - most of the world's adult population) does not have the intrinsic motivation to stay fit
-It is open to adjusting and has adjusted slowly, sustainably, over time. It is literally the only successful league this country has ever had. I've been watching European football for nearly 20 years, I've watched plenty of "good football". You don't need to be an expert to know that the level of MLS is below top leagues, no one is pretending it is. Bottom line is the only way the league gets better and continues to grow is by bringing in more fans. Be a part of building it, or sit on the sidelines. Support local soccer, instead of turning your nose up to it. [SEP] Support local soccer, instead of turning your nose up to it.
->What does that make a 3 month old born baby? Can the three month old respire, and process nutrients without using someone else body? >How was my reason religious? I am Agnostic. It's more philosophical, as such many people use their religion as a starting point. You can act as if this isn't the case, but you won't be doing so in good faith. >Why do you think people that don't adopt automatically can't be Pro Life? People an hold any belief they want. When their stated belief is in contradiction to their observed behavior we tend to think of it as being hypocritical. >Where on earth did this come from? Why are you making these more or less Ad Hominem logically fallacious attacks on me? Again, pro-life beliefs tend to correlate with views against social safety nets. Maybe you are super duper special and believe in both but for the most part these tend to go hand in hand. [SEP] Again, pro-life beliefs tend to correlate with views against social safety nets. Maybe you are super duper special and believe in both but for the most part these tend to go hand in hand.
-Well, while you're pondering that answer, I can assuredly say that I'm sure that the vast majority of this sub is illiterate in every discipline they converse and veritably stupid. [SEP] Well, while you're pondering that answer, I can assuredly say that I'm sure that the vast majority of this sub is illiterate in every discipline they converse and veritably stupid.
-I get that you don't like arts criticism when applied to games, but loads of people do. It's also an important part of games maturing as an artform - no other form of arts/entertainment reviews/criticises things as some kind of objective consumerist buyers guide, as if you're buying a new car or refrigerator. Read a film or book review and you'll see. The reason games reviews were like this for a long time is that they (games) used to be a lot simpler, to the extent that if the gameplay made sense, was fun, and the thing ran well, that was an achievement in of itself. Games just have too much personality now, and reviewing them as if you're objectively assessing the success at which something operates mechanically doesn't really make sense. It's pretty telling when you build your argument around words like "product" or "consumer" - words that suggest the purpose of games is to jerk us off as opposed to their purpose being to entertain/surprise us. I've never read a book review, film or play review that refers to the thing as a "product". (Edit: some games, especially those with a multiplayer focus, are of course 'services', like a bowling alley or paintball range. But this doesn't mean writers cannot comment on the aesthetic of the services, and what that says about us. Again, this is completely natural and normal from an academic perspective for this kind of writing to happen, and to be popular and useful) But as you say, there are plenty of ways now to judge the content of a game without an editorial layer, like twitch streams. And I get that meaningful arts criticism is maybe a little too academic for you, and you're only in it for the endorphin burst when you land a headshot or pull off a combo. That's fine, but you must understand that there is in fact room on the internet for everything. Plenty of people want adult, sophisticated editorialising, and plenty of people don't! And the utility of the former is greater for me in deciding what I want to spend my time on because I care about narrative and ideas and concepts more than I care about the FPS at which something runs. Maybe the editorial is being displaces for YOU - and that's fine. But its arrogant to assume thats the case for everyone. If anything, editorial writing around games is getting more sophisticated, and more stimulating. I never thought Gillen was the best writer - too starry-eyed and superficial. There are much better writers working nowadays. Seems like progress to me. The tldr of this is that I find it really weird that you're so angry about voices existing which come at games from a more academic place of arts criticism, when you openly admit that there now exist ways for you to get what you want. Neither is in danger of killing off the other because that just isn't how the internet works- the internet isn't one big community. So why go so far as to call a guy writing his thoughts about games a "cancer"? [SEP] And I get that meaningful arts criticism is maybe a little too academic for you, and you're only in it for the endorphin burst when you land a headshot or pull off a combo.
+It is open to adjusting and has adjusted slowly, sustainably, over time. It is literally the only successful league this country has ever had. I've been watching European football for nearly 20 years, I've watched plenty of "good football". You don't need to be an expert to know that the level of MLS is below top leagues, no one is pretending it is. Bottom line is the only way the league gets better and continues to grow is by bringing in more fans. Be a part of building it, or sit on the sidelines. [SEP] Support local soccer, instead of turning your nose up to it.
+>What does that make a 3 month old born baby? Can the three month old respire, and process nutrients without using someone else body? >How was my reason religious? I am Agnostic. It's more philosophical, as such many people use their religion as a starting point. You can act as if this isn't the case, but you won't be doing so in good faith. >Why do you think people that don't adopt automatically can't be Pro Life? People an hold any belief they want. When their stated belief is in contradiction to their observed behavior we tend to think of it as being hypocritical. >Where on earth did this come from? Why are you making these more or less Ad Hominem logically fallacious attacks on me? [SEP] Again, pro-life beliefs tend to correlate with views against social safety nets. Maybe you are super duper special and believe in both but for the most part these tend to go hand in hand.
+ [SEP] Well, while you're pondering that answer, I can assuredly say that I'm sure that the vast majority of this sub is illiterate in every discipline they converse and veritably stupid.
+I get that you don't like arts criticism when applied to games, but loads of people do. It's also an important part of games maturing as an artform - no other form of arts/entertainment reviews/criticises things as some kind of objective consumerist buyers guide, as if you're buying a new car or refrigerator. Read a film or book review and you'll see. The reason games reviews were like this for a long time is that they (games) used to be a lot simpler, to the extent that if the gameplay made sense, was fun, and the thing ran well, that was an achievement in of itself. Games just have too much personality now, and reviewing them as if you're objectively assessing the success at which something operates mechanically doesn't really make sense. It's pretty telling when you build your argument around words like "product" or "consumer" - words that suggest the purpose of games is to jerk us off as opposed to their purpose being to entertain/surprise us. I've never read a book review, film or play review that refers to the thing as a "product". (Edit: some games, especially those with a multiplayer focus, are of course 'services', like a bowling alley or paintball range. But this doesn't mean writers cannot comment on the aesthetic of the services, and what that says about us. Again, this is completely natural and normal from an academic perspective for this kind of writing to happen, and to be popular and useful) But as you say, there are plenty of ways now to judge the content of a game without an editorial layer, like twitch streams. That's fine, but you must understand that there is in fact room on the internet for everything. Plenty of people want adult, sophisticated editorialising, and plenty of people don't! And the utility of the former is greater for me in deciding what I want to spend my time on because I care about narrative and ideas and concepts more than I care about the FPS at which something runs. Maybe the editorial is being displaces for YOU - and that's fine. But its arrogant to assume thats the case for everyone. If anything, editorial writing around games is getting more sophisticated, and more stimulating. I never thought Gillen was the best writer - too starry-eyed and superficial. There are much better writers working nowadays. Seems like progress to me. The tldr of this is that I find it really weird that you're so angry about voices existing which come at games from a more academic place of arts criticism, when you openly admit that there now exist ways for you to get what you want. Neither is in danger of killing off the other because that just isn't how the internet works- the internet isn't one big community. So why go so far as to call a guy writing his thoughts about games a "cancer"? [SEP] And I get that meaningful arts criticism is maybe a little too academic for you, and you're only in it for the endorphin burst when you land a headshot or pull off a combo.
 >Your being friends with a relatively high-profile engineer really does not make your plans more coherent. Oh my holy titty fucking christ. Continually harping on the "you have not explained this to my satisfaction" without specific questions is getting old. I am honestly not sure about what part of my plan is not coherent. Honestly. the inability to accurately describe what is inside my mind to others is my single greatest failing as a human being and I readily admit that. 1. Incorporate and prepare for resource allocation. 2. Begin online media campaign to raise awareness and accept resources. 3.Build first facility to demonstrate feasibility of tech and iron out design complications yet to be realized. (this includes the Hughes-001 a scout drone of my design) Which will serve a variety of functions including safety and scientific purposes. 4. Introduce long range drone designs and test feasibility at the now SLE-0001. 5. Optimize agriculture production. (I plan to fly in Ron finley and Carleen Madigan and compensate them for their time) Train the first OFH agriculture specialists and prepare them for exponential growth. 6. Begin deployment of decentralized manufacturing grid. Supporters will receive 3D printers in their home that they can use for free but we can also remotely command to print parts we need. This is crucially essential to building the sheer number of drone chassis that will be needed within a very short amount of time. 7. Strategically build out SLE-0002 SLE-0003 SLE-0004 etc... There is a reason why I have been going around for the past 2 years securing hundreds of acres of land. I plan to fucking use it. 8. Connect SLE's using the long range drones in a metropolitan area. (this may take several years to do the first time) 9. Begin Operation POLR (exponential growth through the path of least resistance) 10. Begin A.I. program. Do you want me to give you my business plan word for word so you steal it? No thanks. > Can you honestly look at what you've typed here about the deployment of the Macedonian army and not understand why someone would think you are delusional? Not if that person is smart enough to understand that historical reference and the significance of the acheivment. Unheard of at the time. > If your plans really made sense you would be able to convey the gist of them in a way that similarly made sense. Yet you haven't... or were you going to claim again that I'm too stupid to understand it? Help me to help you Let me just walk you through every single facet of my plan so that you can run to Oprah and declare it your idea. If you have specific questions just ask them and I will try to help you. >So here you are claiming and claiming again that you and whoever are working on something that will revolutionize everything! while simultaneously shitting all over anyone skeptical of your claims and anything that contradicts you. Please take another moment to think critically about why people have responded to you the way they have. I am not pitching perpetual motion. Just an overall societal vision of using soon to be common technologies to disrupt industries and establish a new parcel delivery system that generates excessive energy surplus as a by product using less than 10,000 supporters out of 7 billion potential supporters. Culminating in a connected one world automated drone grid. This is why I am waiting for you to have an aha! eureka! moment. The reason why you believe I am insulting your intelligence is because I have explained this plan countless times and (I would estimate) less than 5% of people get it. And these are really smart people I talk to. So I have developed a callousness to the nay sayers. I don't have time to explain to you the way I see the world. You are probably not capable of ever getting it. And that is ok. You would think a human being that have been alive for the rise of cell phones would be more receptive to the possibility of this. >Perhaps you should combine this thought: Oh are you a therapist now? [SEP] The reason why you believe I am insulting your intelligence is because I have explained this plan countless times and (I would estimate) less than 5% of people get it. And these are really smart people I talk to. So I have developed a callousness to the nay sayers. I don't have time to explain to you the way I see the world[3] . You are probably not capable of ever getting it. And that is ok.
-That's why I said, "If it really bothers you," because it's just the way we are. The people who find our rambling annoying aren't people we should care enough about to let it effect us. [SEP] The people who find our rambling annoying aren't people we should care enough about to let it effect us.
-But attractiveness DOES play a role in someone's force of personality, and a rather large one at that. Many qualities, like leadership and persuasiveness, stem from being pleasing to the eyes, at least at the time these traits were learned. Hell, just take a look at photos of most politicians when they were in their 20's. They're typically pretty damn attractive. The fact is, many people have a natural disposition against ugly people. And if people don't like you, you're going to have trouble leading them or persuading them. Now, this is obviously not a hard truth, but an ugly character with a high charisma needs something else besides "well they're an ugly dude but they exude leadership" because I and many other players are not going to buy that. Do they have a high intellect? They must be a wonderful speaker. Great wisdom? Their sense of balance and understanding attracts others looking to learn from them. High strength? They lead with their sword and expect others to follow. Any of these (and many others) are totally believable. However do NOT tell me that I find the NPC with 3 teeth and a face covered in warts to be strangely enticing just because his high Charisma means that he is. [SEP] However do NOT tell me that I find the NPC with 3 teeth and a face covered in warts to be strangely enticing just because his high Charisma means that he is.
-> I find a lot of these games like the Mass Effect series, the Call of Duty series, and other single player games much more simple than Star Citizen. Many of them bound the player in various ways. This is called having a game. What you're doing in Star Citizen making up stuff to do because it is a vast boring wasteland that you paid 155 million dollars for. It's like spending 2500 dollars on a wooden block and calling it a javelin and then spending your days pretending it's a horse or a rocket ship or a robot or your best friend. And you do this because you have to justify the cost somehow. > CIG, i think, is bold and imaginative. I still dont know a game where i can: And you just used a thousand bullet pointed words to describe getting a ship and a gun and shooting people, maybe forming a group if the game doesn't lag out. And ship damage states aren't in yet. Everything just explodes when you take enough damage. This just reeks of padding out the gameplay features. If this was an english paper, you'd be using 15 point font and extra wide margins. > And this isnt even 3.0 yet with item 2.0 and planets and more ships and cargo and....etc. Item 2.0 means you can have a powerplant go critical and you have a cascade of failures and you could destroy your ship from mismanagement of resources. Not to mention what CIG is aiming for ultimately with 4.0 and beyond. None of this is in the game. You can say they are planning all this stuff, but it's all dreams until people can play it. Actual people, not a fake sandworm video "played" by staff. > Lets not forget that you can actually look at and interact with the multi functional displays in each ship. Yay. Screens. So much fun there. > And 3.0 is on the horizon. Is it just me, or does the horizon move back 2 weeks every friday? > I just dont know any other game where you can do all of that All the fun stuff you're imagining you're doing? That all exists in other games that don't need to sell expensive pictures of space ships to actually make a game. And they do it way better than Star Citizen. What you're describing is a bunch of crappy modules that are somehow worse than older games that have been released that Chris Roberts has promised he could put together into a functioning game with no loading. He actually believes that he is the first person to think of the idea of making a game that has everything all at the same time. He's just too dumb to know it won't work. And I know you think that it is really brave of him to venture into territory that big publishers are to smart to go into, but how brave is he when he is risking other peoples money while cutting himself a 6 figure salary? [SEP] And I know you think that it is really brave of him to venture into territory that big publishers are to smart to go into, but how brave is he when he is risking other peoples money while cutting himself a 6 figure salary?
->Don't play dumb, you know very well that you said it in relation to my views. By my honor, trust me when I say that I didn't. No joke or anything. I don't accuse someone of racism as a trump card. (Again, being serious here) >along with the ability to spell Freundchen, wir können das hier auch gerne in meiner Sprache regeln. Mal sehen wie viele Tippfehler du dann machst. Wat' denkste, desch is ne fehre idä, gell? >Ah well, too late to cry over that. You know that the idea of making these rights universal was, in part, to prevent any cases of innovents being stripped of their rights, right? It's the same reasoning for why we don't have a death penalty anymore. >"refugees" Well, would you look at that. >I just ignored it Sure. Easy to say now, whether true or not. >But hey, if it makes you feel more clever, who am I to stop you from assuming it went over my head. Well, given that you seem to thunk that guilt is an intrinsic part of german culture (even as a joke, it's a pisspoor one) the same way overt patriotism is in the US, and in respect to your views on human rights being about as dated as your nations political system, i just can't assume that you would understand... anything really. [SEP] I don't accuse someone of racism as a trump card.
-lol greenhorn... you will learn one day that the shit she says and the shit she means are not always the same. all I was saying is that regardless of how pragmatic she is, society expects people to act a certain way. if she tells her friends/family/whoever that you asked her to marry her over gchat - people will think it's retarded. I mean think how fucking retarded your logic is... you are willing to do something (marriage) that is strictly a cultural thing, yet at the same time you find it horrible that someone would expect you to follow typical culture bias when doing said thing... think about that for a second... I mean even you yourself said, it was more of a convenience thing than a proposal. that's what I was saying...you are half assing...if you are gonna get married, do it right. If not, then why bother doing it at all? [SEP] you will learn one day that the shit she says and the shit she means are not always the same.
->Socrates taught about generic philosophy and ethics, and not specific a theology or world view. I do respect him for his understanding and teachings, but they are not specific about a world view. What is a worldview, and what is it about teaching a worldview that makes one superior? Also, out of curiosity, how much Socrates have you actually read? >Siddhartha's was also a respectable person. I would not discount Hinduism due to his character at all. However, I feel there are a lot of other reasons to discount Hinduism. And although I think he was respectable, I do not personally find his life astonishing. Let's get something straight: Siddhartha was born a Hindu, but is revered as the founder of Buddhism. So, to my original point, please explain why Jesus is more compelling than Siddhartha. Second, please explain what reasons there are to discount Hinduism that aren't also reasons to discount Christianity. You responded to /u/Dorago1991 on this point, bringing up three problems you have with Hinduism. I'll get to your first problem with it in a bit, but your second and third objections to Hinduism aren't fairly compelling. All you say is that you don't like the consequences of Hindu teachings. That's fine, I don't like the things you pointed out, either. But things that are true can have consequences we don't like. In other words, the fact that a religion leads to consequences we'd rather avoid isn't in and of itself evidence that the religion isn't true. >If God is real and wants to communicate with humanity, why would he start at an arbitrary time. This is a ridiculous argument. As /u/Dorago1991 already pointed out, how is 2,000 years ago less arbitrary than any other time? Your response to him was that it's possible that Judaism has always existed in some form or another. That's pure speculation on your part. There is no evidence of anything resembling Judaism before about three thousand years ago: http Besides, even if we agree that Judaism is the most ancient religion, that doesn't explain how it isn't arbitrary for god to decide to send Jesus down two thousand years ago rather than three or one thousand years ago, or last Tuesday, or at any other time. If god is real and wants to provide a mechanism for the forgiveness of our sins, why start at an arbitrary time? Hinduism, on the other hand, appears to have much older origins: http #History Zorastrianism also appears to predate Judaism: http #Origins And beyond that, we've unearthed evidence of any number of other ancient religions in various regions throughout the world, many of which predate Judaism. That's not surprising given that human history spans hundreds of thousands of years. And that just leads back to my last point: why wouldn't god care about forgiving the sins of the billions of people that lived before Jesus came to Earth? >You probably mean that certain beliefs that certain groups within Christianity hold are inconsistent with both logic and science (mostly to do with young earth creationism). These are not core beliefs of Christianity, and I do not hold to them. If there are other examples you mean, I would be happy to address them specifically. Would you agree that the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus as atonement for our sins is a core belief of Christianity? Because, even if we assume that god and resurrection are possible, the fundamental Christian story is absurd. It involves god sacrificing himself to himself in order to appease himself for our violations of rules he himself wrote and that he himself is solely responsible for enforcing. And let's not forget that the god in the story determined all the initial conditions and the rules by which they would play out. The entire story, at its very core, defies logic. >we never discuss moral law or God's passion for social justice, and its relationship to our present day. God's passion for social justice? Like all the times that he condemns slavery? Or all the times that he makes it clear that a person's ethnic or family heritage is of no consequence? Oh, wait. God doesn't do any of those things. In fact, he tacitly approves of slavery and directly orders genocide. Where in these stories do you see god's "passion for social justice"? [SEP] Oh, wait. God doesn't do any of those things. In fact, he tacitly approves of slavery and directly orders genocide.
-How is this needs an explanation? NT says he shouldn't be alienating people who disagree but find ways to persuade them, RD says that it's better not to bother, they can just fuck off [SEP] RD says that it's better not to bother, they can just fuck off
-Evolution is not intelligent! It is RANDOM! What is truly amazing is why an omnipotent super-ghost would make life so complex. If Mr. Ghost was so smart why wouldn't he make it simple? [SEP] If Mr. Ghost was so smart why wouldn't he make it simple?
-Let's pretend that there's a european country which murders white lgbts for being lgbt and they donate money to the clinton foundation. You'd be ok if hillary accepted money from them even if they were murdering lgbts who are white? Speaking of the corrupt clinton foundation: http Trump hijacked the republican machinery to get the nomination since the dnc was going to rig the primaries for hillary. Running not as a democrat and not as a 3rd party candidate were smart moves by Trump. The wikileaks email showed that the democratic primary was rigged for hillary which is why top level dnc people had to quit after the leaks and which is why debbie wasserman quit, only for her to join the clinton campaign right after. Here's debbie saying the dnc is not biased while here's corrupt debbie admitting to helping hillary win. http This is precisely why bernie voters are not going for hillary. At least the RNC didn't rig their primary unlike the dnc. Trump is only aligning himself with santorum and pence to help him get their voters to vote for him. Trump comes across as someone who doesn't care about lgbt marriage. He even stated caitlyn jenner kardashian can use trump tower toilets. Lgbt issues are pretty much irrelevant this election. This is the people vs. the establishment (democrat, republican, lying, mainstream media) election which explains why this is the trump election. >Awww I'd appreciate talking about things we disagree with politically minus any condescension. I share my opinions and I read other opinions without the need to attack people. [SEP] I'd appreciate talking about things we disagree with politically minus any condescension.
->You're pretty dead set on dismissing every potential bad thing about XV. No, just things I do not consider bad. I have plenty of gripes. Every game has problems. >We saw Iedolus constantly make his own decisions with zero manipulation. We honestly have no proof that he was being manipulated, other than that Ardyn said so. No, you saw him make decisions. Yeah, Ardyn just lied about doing that and rolled the dice to luckily pick the Empire apart and introduce them to the twisted magic and technology that tainted their Empire. It seems you're dead set on creating bad things out of thin fucking air about XV. >You never find out what Gladiolus did in his away time. Not an example of the game being unfinished. May want to flesh it out for the DLC or leave it ambiguous. Not proof of it being unfinished. A shit way to grab extra money? That can be argued. Does not equal the game being unfinished. >Outside of the mines in Niflheim you get to see a sprawling city with cars driving as well as the land covered in snow and desert mere miles apart, and yet you don't get to walk through it. They explain, quite clearly, why the seasons are so closely knit together. Not proof of an unfinished game, like, at all. "You don't get to walk through it." That means the game is unfinished? Hahahaha. You're killing me. >The general Ignis had in custody just miraculously escaped and you never heard from him again. This is flat-out wrong. He appears at one of the bases later and you can take him down. Grasping. At. Fucking. Straws. >You get to see the huge empire castle and when you get in it's about 2 hours of hallways. Not proof of an unfinished game, like any of this bullshit would be. They made the latter portion of the story linear to focus the story. >The daemon that Iedolus turned into isn't even unique. This... This is... You have to be trolling. You must be. >Why was Ravus killed? How did he die? Why was he at where he was at? We'll never know. Why did have letters he wrote to SOMEONE ELSE ages ago with him when he died? He was sentenced to be executed by the Empire for treason. Another thing the game tells you. He could have been gathering possessions to attempt an escape. Now you want locations of letters fleshed out? Ugly, ugly criticism. >What's the background between Ifrit and Ardyn? Ardyn summons daemons to take control over Eos and the one Astral that was left wandering when Noctis meditates in the crystal for years hates humanity and that goal aligns with Ardyn's distaste for humanity. Noctis showcased you must pass trials with the Astrals for their favor and, seeing as how Ardyn has similar abilities, perhaps passed that trial or didn't even have to because of Ifrit's disdain towards humans. >Multiple things from past trailers never made it in. This is also not evidence of an unfinished game. This game went through SOOOOOOOO many changes during it's development. They just changed their mind about including certain things. >What happened to protecting Leviathan from the empire? >How did Noctis get on Angel Rock Island? Why is the place he's in called a Stone Prison that he can just leave quite easily? Why was the boat there with him? Does that mean he went there on his own, and if so then why? Noctis was likely transported there by Bahamut as an isolated, safe location to require his bearings for the coming battles. These are beings that can appear when called anywhere on Eos and can fly. They're astrals. Godlike. Y'know? He can leave it easily because it is so clearly, clearly abandoned. The prison is no longer in use so he gets up and walks the fuck out. >I'm not trying to get a conclusion as to how he has any magic at all. I'm not looking for answers as to why he can put up a fight against Noctis. Bending time, however, is a heinously big deal. The problem with us thinking of it on our own, is then where does he get the power from? The gods have forsaken him, so he gets zero powers from them. Daemons explains things to an extent (however if he harnesses the power of Daemons then how can he be so close to the crystal like it's nothing, when regular Daemons don't even dare get close?), but what daemon demonstrating time freezing abilities and making someone look and sound like someone else? Ardyn isn't a Daemon, he is Accursed. He wasn't just cursed with immortality. You're taking everything way too literally, ffs. It obviously gave him a slew of abilities, plus he has the Armiger weapons, seeing as he was a King of Lucis. He has also had thousands of years to hone spells and magic. It's not rocket science. After discussing this with someone else in this thread, Ardyn doesn't stop time. He messes with Noctis' head. The whole time he is talking on the train, it is actually Prompto. He is calling him "dude" and doesn't know what he is talking about. He even says he is "causing a scene," which cannot happen if time is stopped. Even if you say, "Oh, it was just stopped for Noct" then how did he cause a scene? If just for Noct and Prompto, why did Prompto say a scene was happening? It's trickery. Noctis is emotional, confused, and upset. Ardyn takes advantage of this and plays a trick on Noctis utilizing magic. Also, he is not a regular guy. He's an immortal. >I keep hearing "created", but that's not how I understood it and I don't know how people leapt to this conclusion. Prompto was born in Niflheim, and merely has the same markings as the MT soldiers. That doesn't mean he was a test tube baby, it means the MT soldiers used to be people. He also didn't know any of this until after he was captured, and wouldn't have a further understanding of Magitek technology because of it. First off, it's a codeprint. Not a marking. Uh, found out after he was captured? Quoting Prompto, "It's not exactly something you tell people growing up in Lucis." You really didn't pay attention, did you? Also, who said test tube? Just "created." Verstael developed tech to make MTs. Whether it's out of humans already born or not, they were created to be MTs. They used to be people, as you said, but were changed into something else, creating something new. Something usually considered non-human. The MT codeprint is put on after the process of making Magitek soldiers/slaves/rabbits/whatever. >He doesn't have to know what he did. He just knows that Ardyn went from being just an evil Chancellor to magic time bender and illusion creator, and yet didn't manage to explain it to Noctis that he was seeing illusions. The greatest issue with Ardyn here isn't that he has powers, but that he literally didn't even demonstrate a single ounce of magic before this scene, and suddenly decided to go full force, EVEN THOUGH his goal was to deal with Noctis AFTER he got power. And why does he even want to do this? All we are told is that he just wants to give a giant "fuck you" to the gods. He went full force? I'd say that came closer to the end, when he starting flying around with Noctis as they dueled with their respective Armigers, not by fucking with him via illusions. Just illusion creator, at that point. Also, now he has to have a certain TIME to demonstrate what he is capable of? You want to dislike this game. Too much of this supposed "criticism" is either wrong, desperate, or just utterly lacking in any realistic commentary. No, we aren't just told he wants to say "fuck you" to the Gods. Dude... did you play this game? Good lord. I'm done. You'll weasel word your way out of anything and a discussion cannot be had that way. Say what you want. [SEP] Hahahaha. You're killing me.
-Why has no one learned from Apple and Google? The only two companies to be successful in both the mobile space and the desktop in the last few years. Both of them have two completely OS's for mobile and the desktop. They are updated on different schedules and are managed by different teams. This, despite the fact they both contain the same core components. Shuttleworth (and others in the Linux world) need to realize that different devices can have wildly different usage parameters. I don't want a mobile OS on my desktop nor a desktop OS on my phone. And if you try to do both you end up as a Jack of all trades and a master of none. The only DE that comes close to doing both is KDE and that's only because of the breadth of configuration options. Canonical has repeatedly resisted efforts at greater configuration. And despite KDE's superior configuration options, it still has no options for the 10 foot interface that works best with media center tv's. Shuttleworth and Canonical have repeatedly shown a desire to ignore what is already working and focus on flashy things (global search in the Dash) that don't really improve the user's experience or Unity's usability. The lack of configuration options for the Dash is just one glaring example of bad UI design. Canonical seems to be charging forward with ideas and ignoring even the non-crazy opinions (like mine are sometimes). It's worrisome. [SEP] The only two companies to be successful in both the mobile space and the desktop in the last few years.
-> you've been abrasive from the start By "abrasive", you mean I disagreed with you. Disagreement need not imply abrasiveness. > I notice you've not included any citations Perhaps this will help. Most of this will appear to confirm your beliefs, until you get to the last paragraph. That last paragraph is uber important for understanding why Salafism is simply wrong. http > Are you now implying that there is no reliance on scholarly interpretation among Sunnis? scholarly interpretation is optional in sunni [SEP] why Salafism is simply wrong
-We did. I never disagreed with that. You're indeed motivated by ethics. How many fencesitters do you represent when you say you're motivated by "ethics" though? "People laugh at you if you use the word ethics" and "Ethics is less juicy for MSM than corruption" are not mutually exclusive either. They laugh at you precisely because it's a less juicy topic. [SEP] "People laugh at you if you use the word ethics" and "Ethics is less juicy for MSM than corruption" are not mutually exclusive either. They laugh at you precisely because it's a less juicy topic.
-Yeah just straight up stupid to me. She obviously didn't know how to defend at that point and it's not really something you can tough out. Just suck it up and tap and come back better next time. How long will she be out? Really great fight though. [SEP] straight up stupid to me
+That's why I said, "If it really bothers you," because it's just the way we are. [SEP] The people who find our rambling annoying aren't people we should care enough about to let it effect us.
+But attractiveness DOES play a role in someone's force of personality, and a rather large one at that. Many qualities, like leadership and persuasiveness, stem from being pleasing to the eyes, at least at the time these traits were learned. Hell, just take a look at photos of most politicians when they were in their 20's. They're typically pretty damn attractive. The fact is, many people have a natural disposition against ugly people. And if people don't like you, you're going to have trouble leading them or persuading them. Now, this is obviously not a hard truth, but an ugly character with a high charisma needs something else besides "well they're an ugly dude but they exude leadership" because I and many other players are not going to buy that. Do they have a high intellect? They must be a wonderful speaker. Great wisdom? Their sense of balance and understanding attracts others looking to learn from them. High strength? They lead with their sword and expect others to follow. Any of these (and many others) are totally believable. [SEP] However do NOT tell me that I find the NPC with 3 teeth and a face covered in warts to be strangely enticing just because his high Charisma means that he is.
+> I find a lot of these games like the Mass Effect series, the Call of Duty series, and other single player games much more simple than Star Citizen. Many of them bound the player in various ways. This is called having a game. What you're doing in Star Citizen making up stuff to do because it is a vast boring wasteland that you paid 155 million dollars for. It's like spending 2500 dollars on a wooden block and calling it a javelin and then spending your days pretending it's a horse or a rocket ship or a robot or your best friend. And you do this because you have to justify the cost somehow. > CIG, i think, is bold and imaginative. I still dont know a game where i can: And you just used a thousand bullet pointed words to describe getting a ship and a gun and shooting people, maybe forming a group if the game doesn't lag out. And ship damage states aren't in yet. Everything just explodes when you take enough damage. This just reeks of padding out the gameplay features. If this was an english paper, you'd be using 15 point font and extra wide margins. > And this isnt even 3.0 yet with item 2.0 and planets and more ships and cargo and....etc. Item 2.0 means you can have a powerplant go critical and you have a cascade of failures and you could destroy your ship from mismanagement of resources. Not to mention what CIG is aiming for ultimately with 4.0 and beyond. None of this is in the game. You can say they are planning all this stuff, but it's all dreams until people can play it. Actual people, not a fake sandworm video "played" by staff. > Lets not forget that you can actually look at and interact with the multi functional displays in each ship. Yay. Screens. So much fun there. > And 3.0 is on the horizon. Is it just me, or does the horizon move back 2 weeks every friday? > I just dont know any other game where you can do all of that All the fun stuff you're imagining you're doing? That all exists in other games that don't need to sell expensive pictures of space ships to actually make a game. And they do it way better than Star Citizen. What you're describing is a bunch of crappy modules that are somehow worse than older games that have been released that Chris Roberts has promised he could put together into a functioning game with no loading. He actually believes that he is the first person to think of the idea of making a game that has everything all at the same time. He's just too dumb to know it won't work. [SEP] And I know you think that it is really brave of him to venture into territory that big publishers are to smart to go into, but how brave is he when he is risking other peoples money while cutting himself a 6 figure salary?
+>Don't play dumb, you know very well that you said it in relation to my views. By my honor, trust me when I say that I didn't. No joke or anything. (Again, being serious here) >along with the ability to spell Freundchen, wir können das hier auch gerne in meiner Sprache regeln. Mal sehen wie viele Tippfehler du dann machst. Wat' denkste, desch is ne fehre idä, gell? >Ah well, too late to cry over that. You know that the idea of making these rights universal was, in part, to prevent any cases of innovents being stripped of their rights, right? It's the same reasoning for why we don't have a death penalty anymore. >"refugees" Well, would you look at that. >I just ignored it Sure. Easy to say now, whether true or not. >But hey, if it makes you feel more clever, who am I to stop you from assuming it went over my head. Well, given that you seem to thunk that guilt is an intrinsic part of german culture (even as a joke, it's a pisspoor one) the same way overt patriotism is in the US, and in respect to your views on human rights being about as dated as your nations political system, i just can't assume that you would understand... anything really. [SEP] I don't accuse someone of racism as a trump card.
+lol greenhorn... all I was saying is that regardless of how pragmatic she is, society expects people to act a certain way. if she tells her friends/family/whoever that you asked her to marry her over gchat - people will think it's retarded. I mean think how fucking retarded your logic is... you are willing to do something (marriage) that is strictly a cultural thing, yet at the same time you find it horrible that someone would expect you to follow typical culture bias when doing said thing... think about that for a second... I mean even you yourself said, it was more of a convenience thing than a proposal. that's what I was saying...you are half assing...if you are gonna get married, do it right. If not, then why bother doing it at all? [SEP] you will learn one day that the shit she says and the shit she means are not always the same.
+>Socrates taught about generic philosophy and ethics, and not specific a theology or world view. I do respect him for his understanding and teachings, but they are not specific about a world view. What is a worldview, and what is it about teaching a worldview that makes one superior? Also, out of curiosity, how much Socrates have you actually read? >Siddhartha's was also a respectable person. I would not discount Hinduism due to his character at all. However, I feel there are a lot of other reasons to discount Hinduism. And although I think he was respectable, I do not personally find his life astonishing. Let's get something straight: Siddhartha was born a Hindu, but is revered as the founder of Buddhism. So, to my original point, please explain why Jesus is more compelling than Siddhartha. Second, please explain what reasons there are to discount Hinduism that aren't also reasons to discount Christianity. You responded to /u/Dorago1991 on this point, bringing up three problems you have with Hinduism. I'll get to your first problem with it in a bit, but your second and third objections to Hinduism aren't fairly compelling. All you say is that you don't like the consequences of Hindu teachings. That's fine, I don't like the things you pointed out, either. But things that are true can have consequences we don't like. In other words, the fact that a religion leads to consequences we'd rather avoid isn't in and of itself evidence that the religion isn't true. >If God is real and wants to communicate with humanity, why would he start at an arbitrary time. This is a ridiculous argument. As /u/Dorago1991 already pointed out, how is 2,000 years ago less arbitrary than any other time? Your response to him was that it's possible that Judaism has always existed in some form or another. That's pure speculation on your part. There is no evidence of anything resembling Judaism before about three thousand years ago: http Besides, even if we agree that Judaism is the most ancient religion, that doesn't explain how it isn't arbitrary for god to decide to send Jesus down two thousand years ago rather than three or one thousand years ago, or last Tuesday, or at any other time. If god is real and wants to provide a mechanism for the forgiveness of our sins, why start at an arbitrary time? Hinduism, on the other hand, appears to have much older origins: http #History Zorastrianism also appears to predate Judaism: http #Origins And beyond that, we've unearthed evidence of any number of other ancient religions in various regions throughout the world, many of which predate Judaism. That's not surprising given that human history spans hundreds of thousands of years. And that just leads back to my last point: why wouldn't god care about forgiving the sins of the billions of people that lived before Jesus came to Earth? >You probably mean that certain beliefs that certain groups within Christianity hold are inconsistent with both logic and science (mostly to do with young earth creationism). These are not core beliefs of Christianity, and I do not hold to them. If there are other examples you mean, I would be happy to address them specifically. Would you agree that the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus as atonement for our sins is a core belief of Christianity? Because, even if we assume that god and resurrection are possible, the fundamental Christian story is absurd. It involves god sacrificing himself to himself in order to appease himself for our violations of rules he himself wrote and that he himself is solely responsible for enforcing. And let's not forget that the god in the story determined all the initial conditions and the rules by which they would play out. The entire story, at its very core, defies logic. >we never discuss moral law or God's passion for social justice, and its relationship to our present day. God's passion for social justice? Like all the times that he condemns slavery? Or all the times that he makes it clear that a person's ethnic or family heritage is of no consequence? Where in these stories do you see god's "passion for social justice"? [SEP] Oh, wait. God doesn't do any of those things. In fact, he tacitly approves of slavery and directly orders genocide.
+How is this needs an explanation? NT says he shouldn't be alienating people who disagree but find ways to persuade them, [SEP] RD says that it's better not to bother, they can just fuck off
+Evolution is not intelligent! It is RANDOM! What is truly amazing is why an omnipotent super-ghost would make life so complex. [SEP] If Mr. Ghost was so smart why wouldn't he make it simple?
+Let's pretend that there's a european country which murders white lgbts for being lgbt and they donate money to the clinton foundation. You'd be ok if hillary accepted money from them even if they were murdering lgbts who are white? Speaking of the corrupt clinton foundation: http Trump hijacked the republican machinery to get the nomination since the dnc was going to rig the primaries for hillary. Running not as a democrat and not as a 3rd party candidate were smart moves by Trump. The wikileaks email showed that the democratic primary was rigged for hillary which is why top level dnc people had to quit after the leaks and which is why debbie wasserman quit, only for her to join the clinton campaign right after. Here's debbie saying the dnc is not biased while here's corrupt debbie admitting to helping hillary win. http This is precisely why bernie voters are not going for hillary. At least the RNC didn't rig their primary unlike the dnc. Trump is only aligning himself with santorum and pence to help him get their voters to vote for him. Trump comes across as someone who doesn't care about lgbt marriage. He even stated caitlyn jenner kardashian can use trump tower toilets. Lgbt issues are pretty much irrelevant this election. This is the people vs. the establishment (democrat, republican, lying, mainstream media) election which explains why this is the trump election. >Awww I share my opinions and I read other opinions without the need to attack people. [SEP] I'd appreciate talking about things we disagree with politically minus any condescension.
+>You're pretty dead set on dismissing every potential bad thing about XV. No, just things I do not consider bad. I have plenty of gripes. Every game has problems. >We saw Iedolus constantly make his own decisions with zero manipulation. We honestly have no proof that he was being manipulated, other than that Ardyn said so. No, you saw him make decisions. Yeah, Ardyn just lied about doing that and rolled the dice to luckily pick the Empire apart and introduce them to the twisted magic and technology that tainted their Empire. It seems you're dead set on creating bad things out of thin fucking air about XV. >You never find out what Gladiolus did in his away time. Not an example of the game being unfinished. May want to flesh it out for the DLC or leave it ambiguous. Not proof of it being unfinished. A shit way to grab extra money? That can be argued. Does not equal the game being unfinished. >Outside of the mines in Niflheim you get to see a sprawling city with cars driving as well as the land covered in snow and desert mere miles apart, and yet you don't get to walk through it. They explain, quite clearly, why the seasons are so closely knit together. Not proof of an unfinished game, like, at all. "You don't get to walk through it." That means the game is unfinished? >The general Ignis had in custody just miraculously escaped and you never heard from him again. This is flat-out wrong. He appears at one of the bases later and you can take him down. Grasping. At. Fucking. Straws. >You get to see the huge empire castle and when you get in it's about 2 hours of hallways. Not proof of an unfinished game, like any of this bullshit would be. They made the latter portion of the story linear to focus the story. >The daemon that Iedolus turned into isn't even unique. This... This is... You have to be trolling. You must be. >Why was Ravus killed? How did he die? Why was he at where he was at? We'll never know. Why did have letters he wrote to SOMEONE ELSE ages ago with him when he died? He was sentenced to be executed by the Empire for treason. Another thing the game tells you. He could have been gathering possessions to attempt an escape. Now you want locations of letters fleshed out? Ugly, ugly criticism. >What's the background between Ifrit and Ardyn? Ardyn summons daemons to take control over Eos and the one Astral that was left wandering when Noctis meditates in the crystal for years hates humanity and that goal aligns with Ardyn's distaste for humanity. Noctis showcased you must pass trials with the Astrals for their favor and, seeing as how Ardyn has similar abilities, perhaps passed that trial or didn't even have to because of Ifrit's disdain towards humans. >Multiple things from past trailers never made it in. This is also not evidence of an unfinished game. This game went through SOOOOOOOO many changes during it's development. They just changed their mind about including certain things. >What happened to protecting Leviathan from the empire? >How did Noctis get on Angel Rock Island? Why is the place he's in called a Stone Prison that he can just leave quite easily? Why was the boat there with him? Does that mean he went there on his own, and if so then why? Noctis was likely transported there by Bahamut as an isolated, safe location to require his bearings for the coming battles. These are beings that can appear when called anywhere on Eos and can fly. They're astrals. Godlike. Y'know? He can leave it easily because it is so clearly, clearly abandoned. The prison is no longer in use so he gets up and walks the fuck out. >I'm not trying to get a conclusion as to how he has any magic at all. I'm not looking for answers as to why he can put up a fight against Noctis. Bending time, however, is a heinously big deal. The problem with us thinking of it on our own, is then where does he get the power from? The gods have forsaken him, so he gets zero powers from them. Daemons explains things to an extent (however if he harnesses the power of Daemons then how can he be so close to the crystal like it's nothing, when regular Daemons don't even dare get close?), but what daemon demonstrating time freezing abilities and making someone look and sound like someone else? Ardyn isn't a Daemon, he is Accursed. He wasn't just cursed with immortality. You're taking everything way too literally, ffs. It obviously gave him a slew of abilities, plus he has the Armiger weapons, seeing as he was a King of Lucis. He has also had thousands of years to hone spells and magic. It's not rocket science. After discussing this with someone else in this thread, Ardyn doesn't stop time. He messes with Noctis' head. The whole time he is talking on the train, it is actually Prompto. He is calling him "dude" and doesn't know what he is talking about. He even says he is "causing a scene," which cannot happen if time is stopped. Even if you say, "Oh, it was just stopped for Noct" then how did he cause a scene? If just for Noct and Prompto, why did Prompto say a scene was happening? It's trickery. Noctis is emotional, confused, and upset. Ardyn takes advantage of this and plays a trick on Noctis utilizing magic. Also, he is not a regular guy. He's an immortal. >I keep hearing "created", but that's not how I understood it and I don't know how people leapt to this conclusion. Prompto was born in Niflheim, and merely has the same markings as the MT soldiers. That doesn't mean he was a test tube baby, it means the MT soldiers used to be people. He also didn't know any of this until after he was captured, and wouldn't have a further understanding of Magitek technology because of it. First off, it's a codeprint. Not a marking. Uh, found out after he was captured? Quoting Prompto, "It's not exactly something you tell people growing up in Lucis." You really didn't pay attention, did you? Also, who said test tube? Just "created." Verstael developed tech to make MTs. Whether it's out of humans already born or not, they were created to be MTs. They used to be people, as you said, but were changed into something else, creating something new. Something usually considered non-human. The MT codeprint is put on after the process of making Magitek soldiers/slaves/rabbits/whatever. >He doesn't have to know what he did. He just knows that Ardyn went from being just an evil Chancellor to magic time bender and illusion creator, and yet didn't manage to explain it to Noctis that he was seeing illusions. The greatest issue with Ardyn here isn't that he has powers, but that he literally didn't even demonstrate a single ounce of magic before this scene, and suddenly decided to go full force, EVEN THOUGH his goal was to deal with Noctis AFTER he got power. And why does he even want to do this? All we are told is that he just wants to give a giant "fuck you" to the gods. He went full force? I'd say that came closer to the end, when he starting flying around with Noctis as they dueled with their respective Armigers, not by fucking with him via illusions. Just illusion creator, at that point. Also, now he has to have a certain TIME to demonstrate what he is capable of? You want to dislike this game. Too much of this supposed "criticism" is either wrong, desperate, or just utterly lacking in any realistic commentary. No, we aren't just told he wants to say "fuck you" to the Gods. Dude... did you play this game? Good lord. I'm done. You'll weasel word your way out of anything and a discussion cannot be had that way. Say what you want. [SEP] Hahahaha. You're killing me.
+Why has no one learned from Apple and Google? Both of them have two completely OS's for mobile and the desktop. They are updated on different schedules and are managed by different teams. This, despite the fact they both contain the same core components. Shuttleworth (and others in the Linux world) need to realize that different devices can have wildly different usage parameters. I don't want a mobile OS on my desktop nor a desktop OS on my phone. And if you try to do both you end up as a Jack of all trades and a master of none. The only DE that comes close to doing both is KDE and that's only because of the breadth of configuration options. Canonical has repeatedly resisted efforts at greater configuration. And despite KDE's superior configuration options, it still has no options for the 10 foot interface that works best with media center tv's. Shuttleworth and Canonical have repeatedly shown a desire to ignore what is already working and focus on flashy things (global search in the Dash) that don't really improve the user's experience or Unity's usability. The lack of configuration options for the Dash is just one glaring example of bad UI design. Canonical seems to be charging forward with ideas and ignoring even the non-crazy opinions (like mine are sometimes). It's worrisome. [SEP] The only two companies to be successful in both the mobile space and the desktop in the last few years.
+> you've been abrasive from the start By "abrasive", you mean I disagreed with you. Disagreement need not imply abrasiveness. > I notice you've not included any citations Perhaps this will help. Most of this will appear to confirm your beliefs, until you get to the last paragraph. That last paragraph is uber important for understanding . http > Are you now implying that there is no reliance on scholarly interpretation among Sunnis? scholarly interpretation is optional in sunni [SEP] why Salafism is simply wrong
+We did. I never disagreed with that. You're indeed motivated by ethics. How many fencesitters do you represent when you say you're motivated by "ethics" though? [SEP] "People laugh at you if you use the word ethics" and "Ethics is less juicy for MSM than corruption" are not mutually exclusive either. They laugh at you precisely because it's a less juicy topic.
+Yeah just . She obviously didn't know how to defend at that point and it's not really something you can tough out. Just suck it up and tap and come back better next time. How long will she be out? Really great fight though. [SEP] straight up stupid to me
 It entirely depends on the quality of the individuals and the relationship. You seem like the kind of person who looks at cheating as a 'careless' mistake that requires a sorry and we should all move on. You've probably never been in a real relationship for any extended period of time (or at least I hope not). When you've been with someone for years things are different. They know everything about you. They know your family well. They've been to Christmas dinners and Easter egg hunts.You've been places together, shared amazing moments, and likely spent more time together than with anyone else. You may be splitting bills, your family may be helping pay for their college, you may share a car. You look each other in the eyes and say 'I love you' whenever you can. To betray this persons trust and blatantly show you don't care about them or their feelings is much more than 'careless'. It is one of the harshest things one can do to another human (barring physicality). This, like any other cruel and unusual act, should not go unpunished. OP did a great thing. He took someone that tried to hurt him as deeply as possible and hurt them back. Anyone who will cheat on someone in a long term relationship does not deserve respect, compassion, empathy, or anything else. They, male or female, are some of the lowest scum on the planet and deserve to be treated as such. So yeah, maybe in your three week Facebook relationships where you hang out at the mall two times and then break up, cheating is a 'careless' mistake. To adults who are in a committed relationship for years, things are a little different. [SEP] So yeah, maybe in your three week Facebook relationships where you hang out at the mall two times and then break up...
->Perhaps it depends whether you turn first to the crossword puzzle or the cartoons in the newspaper. Except Joyce is both of these. If people let go of their pretenses of having to immediately categorize and understand everything, they might find that they actually enjoy Wake a lot more. But as is, barely anyone is willing to give it try out of a defense for their identity ('I like this, I don't like that...'). The only people who are intimidated by Joyce are those who refuse to admit that they do not in fact understand most of their own experiences throughout their lives and so shun a book which affirms this fact. Joyce is a lot more than word games—his content is superlative—and you can see this most clearly in Dubliners where the word games are few and far between. The reason he's revered (for better or worse) is because he is one of the few writers to have unparalleled content and style (which reinforce eachother by shared themes): most writers have neither, some have either/or, and remote few have both. [SEP] If people let go of their pretenses of having to immediately categorize and understand everything, they might find that they actually enjoy Wake a lot more.
+>Perhaps it depends whether you turn first to the crossword puzzle or the cartoons in the newspaper. Except Joyce is both of these. But as is, barely anyone is willing to give it try out of a defense for their identity ('I like this, I don't like that...'). The only people who are intimidated by Joyce are those who refuse to admit that they do not in fact understand most of their own experiences throughout their lives and so shun a book which affirms this fact. Joyce is a lot more than word games—his content is superlative—and you can see this most clearly in Dubliners where the word games are few and far between. The reason he's revered (for better or worse) is because he is one of the few writers to have unparalleled content and style (which reinforce eachother by shared themes): most writers have neither, some have either/or, and remote few have both. [SEP] If people let go of their pretenses of having to immediately categorize and understand everything, they might find that they actually enjoy Wake a lot more.
 Jean Luc Picard is as much a scientist as a captain. Watch the show, and you'll see he has a good understanding of every system on his ship. In one episode he learned Bajoran irrigation systems so he can help out in some repairs. So he's a perfect example of a scientific leader. I'd rather have him as president anyday than another space-mining xenophobe time after time. [SEP] Watch the show, and you'll see...
-That's a big vibe I get from American culture. There's just seems to be an urge to be offended, either personally or on someone else's behalf. [SEP] There's just seems to be an urge to be offended, either personally or on someone else's behalf.
-Mainly because people tend to downvote when they disagree, yes. I'd say I've had neutral-to-positive interactions with the majority of those who've actually bothered to respond to what I say. [SEP] Mainly because people tend to downvote when they disagree, yes.
-The Gnosticism comment isn't laughable. Your premises reek of Gnosticism ("creation is evil") and Nestorianism ("Mary is not the Mother of God"). It's disturbing to see ancient heresies resurrected in modern times, but not surprising given the social climates they grew out of. "Reformed" movement, indeed. Adam and Eve shared one flesh; that is, Eve was formed from Adam's rib. Mary and Christ shared one flesh; that is, Christ was formed from Mary's egg. Scriptural exegesis being what it is, the parallel is quite clear. Frankly I'm not sure what to make of the conclusion you jumped to. That said, the flesh Christ inherited, He inherited through Adam. This is made clear in the genealogy narrative according to Luke. The necessary consequence from your interpretation would be that... Christ is corrupt. Fortunately, your interpretation is not the correct interpretation. Mark 10:18 makes one thing clear: that things good only inasmuch as they participate with God. Obviously, Christ is God: Christ is good. Creation, also, is good. Man, made in the image and likeness of God, is essentially good. The sins of mankind don't undo the Lord's creation. Reading Mark 10:18 in the manner you intend creates a whole host of issues. Baptism is completely without purpose. Colossians 1:24 makes exactly zero sense. Indeed, man would never enter heaven as "nothing unclean" shall enter the Kingdom of God. Mark 10:18 was never intended to be read this way; nor was it intended to be applied anachronistically as you have done. Interpreting Mark 10:18 correctly, the Scriptures now make sense. Baptism has meaning. Our participation in the suffering of Christ has merit. We have hope to enter the Kingdom and be restored to life with Christ. In regards to the rest of your post: The angel's address to Mary was unique for a reason: because Mary is unique. Mary spoke directly to God; she addressed her Son directly. Routinely, even. I'm not sure what your point regarding "Christ spoke directly to the Father, Mary did not" is. Mary most definitely prompted Christ to His first miracle. "My time has not yet come," "Do whatever He tells you," what about the miracle at Cana is unclear in regards to the roles played by Mary, Christ, and those present? Mary as the mother of all disciples is quite clear; who remained at the foot of the cross? Further, who took Mary into his house following the crucifixion? You pretend as if where Scripture ends, history ends. Mary lived past the crucifixion and resurrection; so did John. The ark as a "dirty, filthy human object?" I suggest you re-read the narrative concerning the ark's construction, the homage paid to the ark by the Israelites, and the manner it was regarded. This statement suggests a shallow reading of Scripture. The Church hasn't "insinuated" Mary into the Trinity (a blasphemous lie; who would prompt one to such speech?); Catholics don't confess to Mary; Catholics don't honor Mary with latria. Your knowledge of Catholic philosophy and theology is colored by your irrational hatred of the Church, necessary as it is to justify continued schism. Why must those outside the Catholic Church lie about her? That is not the work of God. [SEP] The ark as a "dirty, filthy human object?" I suggest you re-read the narrative concerning the ark's construction, the homage paid to the ark by the Israelites, and the manner it was regarded. This statement suggests a shallow reading of Scripture.
-Did I say anything about that? I'll address it anyway. It's two different things. Some people don't like being with inexperienced people because it's usually less enjoyable, people improve sports and music etc with practice. Why is sex different. People don't want to be with more experienced people usually because of some moral judgement, or insecurity and jealousy. I don't think those are the same as "well it was a one night thing and I knew they had no idea what to do so I turned them down". [SEP] It's two different things. Some people don't like being with inexperienced people because it's usually less enjoyable
-Actually, "it's just people having sex on camera for money," is a claim. You asked a question, I answered, in great detail. Now you're hostile and sarcastic. Whatever. [SEP] Now you're hostile and sarcastic.
-Wow. No need for your panties being as twisted as they are, this was obviously a question from a layman who has no background in psychology (in case you haven't picked that up yet, silly). Go ahead and google "no eye contact" and see what you come up with. It's normally referred to as a submissive act. Man, I sure hope you aren't planning to be a therapist of any sort... Unless of course you were being sincere! In which case, thankyou! I should submit my findings to Stanford or something. If what you say is true they'll be super impressed! [SEP] Unless of course you were being sincere! In which case, thankyou! I should submit my findings to Stanford or something. If what you say is true they'll be super impressed!
->How about being able to psychologically profile everyone using your posts, likes, and answers to all of the stupid quizzes you are bombarded with while browsing Facebook? How about the fact that you cannot delete your account once it is made, only deactivate it? I'd say the easy solution is to not use Facebook then, or do what I do and don't take any of the stupid quizzes or like anything. I basically use Facebook as an IM service or the occasional post about some news article I think is important. Unfortunately, most people that actually have something to say avoid Facebook like its the plague. Facebook using this psych profiling to personalize advertising/sell to corporations. Like I said, I'm not scared of the government. The people will win every time, especially since we're more closely connected than ever in history thanks to websites like Facebook. [SEP] The people will win every time, especially since we're more closely connected than ever in history thanks to websites like Facebook.
-It was just a guy wanting to know why women didn't call out men when they do stuff like this. He didn't ask his question in a disrespectful manner, so I'm not sure why he deleted it. shrug [SEP] He didn't ask his question in a disrespectful manner, so I'm not sure why he deleted it.
-Hearthstone made $400 million in revenue in 2016. I'm assuming their profits were pretty good as well. It also made 4x more their closest competitor. So yes there are numbers out there that show Hearthstone is still wildly successful and the competition isn't close to catching them yet. I choose to spend my money on Hearthstone instead of full AAA game, is because I enjoy playing Hearthstone. I understand that there has to be a financial investment to keep the game going. I see more potential value in paying for Hearthstone cards than buying a game. For myself, I will enjoy most games for maybe 10 hours more or less, with some rare exceptions. Hearthstone I've played almost everyday for the past year and a half. Hell, I'm still getting value from GvG and Naxx cards that I purchased so long ago. It's funny you say "why do you like spending so much for not that much in return?" because to me this just shows your lack of perspective and total ignorance of a different opinion. You assumed that because you felt bad about your return, it's factually not a good return for everyone. I feel I got way more than my money's worth and that it has been a great return so far. Finally, good. I have no reason to argue with someone over their opinion because you have different experiences and a different perspective than me. Just don't assume because you think a certain way, that it's the right way. [SEP] Just don't assume because you think a certain way, that it's the right way.
-Either you are seriously stupid, or you love to argue. For the last time, I tried to end this argument 3 times now, each time politely, each time you came back more upset. You are an asshole. No argument. You fuck off. [SEP] Either you are seriously stupid, or you love to argue. For the last time, I tried to end this argument 3 times now, each time politely, each time you came back more upset. You are an asshole. No argument. You fuck off.
-"I didn't see it. I'm not saying it wasn't linked, I'm asking where it was linked...unless you're asking me to scroll through the 700+ comments to find something that you're specifically referring to when you know right where it is...? I did see people mention some TED talk, but a TED talk isn't scientific research published in a scientific journal or other credible source...it's someone's second-hand interpretation of it." My bad. I was assuming you had actually read the dicussion of which you're partaking in. http there you have multiple links with the actual studies posted as references. TED talks are indeed not scientific research published in a scientific journal. I never claimed it was either. But it's quite common for researchers themselves to talk about their published work in such talks. It's NEVER someone's second hand interpretation of it. That's not allowed in TED talks. If your talk is about a study, it HAS to be your own. If you truly are genuinely interested, which I doubt, you can have a more in depth read at http as well for what it is I'm saying. (no I'm not claiming that article is science or in any way proves what I'm saying. It's just explaining my stance on it.) [SEP] If you truly are genuinely interested, which I doubt
-Some people do literally get in the way by using equipment incorrectly or for too long or whatever. Just because you paid for it doesn't give you that right. I'm a member at a golf course. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to take 6 hours to get round the course with people behind me just because I paid my fees. [SEP] Some people do literally get in the way by using equipment incorrectly or for too long or whatever.
-I don't think you understand how it works with animals. You can't pick a feature of a cat and say "well it looks like a tonk so it's a tonk". Especially when such breed is a specific hybrid. That's like looking at a horse and just because it looks like a mule, saying that it is one. Doesn't work that way. Tell these folks about their cats, if you're so confident. http [SEP] I don't think you understand how it works with animals.
-Word. He was very enjoyable to watch during his initial rise to fame ( winning NEL and shouted out by PPD). But shortly after, he entered this toxic period which made him really not enjoyable to watch. It's probably harder for him to realise because it wasn't really the typical flaming/destroy your items/vulgarities/chappie or other form of toxicities that are common. It's more of a holier than thou whining/deflecting blame. Kinda hard to describe actually but definitely unpleasant. It probably was one of the contributing reason why it seemed like he was singled out/ostracized/bullied by other high MMR na pubbers/ pros at that point ( probably not totally justifiable). Nowadays he is so much better imo. Props for him for maturing and setting an example because not everyone matures even with age and experience. [SEP] It's probably harder for him to realise because it wasn't really the typical flaming/destroy your items/vulgarities/chappie or other form of toxicities that are common. It's more of a holier than thou whining/deflecting blame. Kinda hard to describe actually but definitely unpleasant.
-If I may provide some science? I'm going to take you on a little detour. And the caveat is that I need you to believe in evolution. with me so far? So the thing is that microbes and bacteria are tough little buggers. Ever watch any discovery channel shows where some 3D animator consumed hallucinogenic substances and then dreamed up an alien world with funny species? No matter how big something gets, it always gets killed by some bacteria/virus. They adapt way before we do. because in 20 minutes they double. So... we could fuck up a lot of things... but bacteria will survive. Hell, there's already bacteria that lives at bottom of oceans, in vicinity of volcano, that survive radiation, etc... they're tough. And given time, and resources, they may evolve into something complex after we're gone. Man is replaceable. we haven't done anything to improve nature since we've emerged. In fact, if anything we've drastically reduced diversity of everything we come in contact with. Perhaps we'll leave our home planet... but we'll do the same thing to the next one. [SEP] I'm going to take you on a little detour. And the caveat is that I need you to believe in evolution. with me so far?
-Suuuuure, they'd have done something productive with the gold and agriculture, just like they have with their oil. >Your last point is true, because history shows that explicitly. A bunch of foreigners who are loyal to another country (US White settlers) were allowed to settle within Mexican borders and it resulted in almost half of Mexican territory being lost to the US in a later war. Congrats on finally getting it. I don't think we're obligated to replay #1 in reverse just because the French gave us a rusty statue. [SEP] Congrats on finally getting it. I don't think we're obligated to replay #1 in reverse just because the French gave us a rusty statue.
-They aren't degrading the English language, they're providing a service in a different language for those who need it. I think it's hilarious, but they aren't taking anything away from English in the process. [SEP] they're providing a service in a different language for those who need it
-So did I. You think it'd be easy to point out some positive executive order or some new legislation he's passed that has resulted in something good. I guess you can't come up with one either. Meanwhile... Nazis in the streets are also good people according to Trump. There you go. One bad thing. Not responding to Puerto Rico fast enough. There's two. Appointing a bunch of billionaires to his cabinet, one Devos, has no experience whatsoever in education. Three. Not being able to unite the country and get anything done. Four. Building a wall when most illegals come here on airplanes and drugs cross the border on trucks, flown by drones or brought through tunnels. Five. Dakota Access Pipeline, do we need to fuck over the Indians again and do we have to do it for a foreign oil company? Six. Having a bunch of crooks in his administration and his campaign staff who either get fired, resign, indicted by the FBI or have one pending in the coming weeks. Seven. [SEP] I guess you can't come up with one either.
-Are you a male? If so, then yes, males generally have more foolproof methods of killing themselves(and more violently at that). For example, guys are more physical with their methods, such as using a gun, hanging themselves, etc. whereas on average females would rather swallow a bunch of pills, suffocate themselves, etc. More indirect methods so to speak. I'd like to take the opportunity to say that if anyone reading this has been seriously thinking about suicide because they are depressed or whatnot, take a moment and think. Just because you're "only" killing yourself doesn't mean you're not hurting others. Your loved ones will wonder why they didn't see it coming/do more to help you. More often than not, your problems are temporary. They can be solved. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. If you ever need someone to talk to, let me know, be it through a PM or whatnot. Hell, I'd be willing to talk to you over the phone if you really just wanted someone to talk to. And if you can't get ahold of me, try /r/SuicideWatch or a suicide hotline. Please. Think before you act. [SEP] Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
-You fuckers won't stop bringing us into shit! I have never disliked Liverpool but you scouse fuckers are always bringing Dortmund into shit! "Liverpool have made an offer to sign Ousmane Dembele" later that day Dortmund announced the signing! "Klopp can just bring Gundogan from Dortmund" "REUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS" "Liverpool rival Dortmund for Guerreiro" and on top of that we have you guys constantly throwing your fluke win around as like a badge of honor just to specifically shit on Dortmund. Newsflash: Sometimes the worse team wins. Sometimes magic happens. Remember Palace 3-3? Yeah it happens. Parading it around to shit on Dortmund and the Bundesliga, and then on the same cheek saying "lets get Dahoud! Lets get Hector! Lets get REUS!!" is fucking ridiculous. And now to top it off you have wasted five minutes of my life to write out how the /r/soccer memes about you lads are true [SEP] and on top of that we have you guys constantly throwing your fluke win around as like a badge of honor just to specifically shit on Dortmund.
-"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you." That says better than I ever could why I refuse to be pleasant or complacent when it comes to opposing that which I find disagreeable. [SEP] Picture all experts as if they were mammals
+That's a big vibe I get from American culture. [SEP] There's just seems to be an urge to be offended, either personally or on someone else's behalf.
+I'd say I've had neutral-to-positive interactions with the majority of those who've actually bothered to respond to what I say. [SEP] Mainly because people tend to downvote when they disagree, yes.
+The Gnosticism comment isn't laughable. Your premises reek of Gnosticism ("creation is evil") and Nestorianism ("Mary is not the Mother of God"). It's disturbing to see ancient heresies resurrected in modern times, but not surprising given the social climates they grew out of. "Reformed" movement, indeed. Adam and Eve shared one flesh; that is, Eve was formed from Adam's rib. Mary and Christ shared one flesh; that is, Christ was formed from Mary's egg. Scriptural exegesis being what it is, the parallel is quite clear. Frankly I'm not sure what to make of the conclusion you jumped to. That said, the flesh Christ inherited, He inherited through Adam. This is made clear in the genealogy narrative according to Luke. The necessary consequence from your interpretation would be that... Christ is corrupt. Fortunately, your interpretation is not the correct interpretation. Mark 10:18 makes one thing clear: that things good only inasmuch as they participate with God. Obviously, Christ is God: Christ is good. Creation, also, is good. Man, made in the image and likeness of God, is essentially good. The sins of mankind don't undo the Lord's creation. Reading Mark 10:18 in the manner you intend creates a whole host of issues. Baptism is completely without purpose. Colossians 1:24 makes exactly zero sense. Indeed, man would never enter heaven as "nothing unclean" shall enter the Kingdom of God. Mark 10:18 was never intended to be read this way; nor was it intended to be applied anachronistically as you have done. Interpreting Mark 10:18 correctly, the Scriptures now make sense. Baptism has meaning. Our participation in the suffering of Christ has merit. We have hope to enter the Kingdom and be restored to life with Christ. In regards to the rest of your post: The angel's address to Mary was unique for a reason: because Mary is unique. Mary spoke directly to God; she addressed her Son directly. Routinely, even. I'm not sure what your point regarding "Christ spoke directly to the Father, Mary did not" is. Mary most definitely prompted Christ to His first miracle. "My time has not yet come," "Do whatever He tells you," what about the miracle at Cana is unclear in regards to the roles played by Mary, Christ, and those present? Mary as the mother of all disciples is quite clear; who remained at the foot of the cross? Further, who took Mary into his house following the crucifixion? You pretend as if where Scripture ends, history ends. Mary lived past the crucifixion and resurrection; so did John. The Church hasn't "insinuated" Mary into the Trinity (a blasphemous lie; who would prompt one to such speech?); Catholics don't confess to Mary; Catholics don't honor Mary with latria. Your knowledge of Catholic philosophy and theology is colored by your irrational hatred of the Church, necessary as it is to justify continued schism. Why must those outside the Catholic Church lie about her? That is not the work of God. [SEP] The ark as a "dirty, filthy human object?" I suggest you re-read the narrative concerning the ark's construction, the homage paid to the ark by the Israelites, and the manner it was regarded. This statement suggests a shallow reading of Scripture.
+Did I say anything about that? I'll address it anyway. , people improve sports and music etc with practice. Why is sex different. People don't want to be with more experienced people usually because of some moral judgement, or insecurity and jealousy. I don't think those are the same as "well it was a one night thing and I knew they had no idea what to do so I turned them down". [SEP] It's two different things. Some people don't like being with inexperienced people because it's usually less enjoyable
+Actually, "it's just people having sex on camera for money," is a claim. You asked a question, I answered, in great detail. Whatever. [SEP] Now you're hostile and sarcastic.
+Wow. No need for your panties being as twisted as they are, this was obviously a question from a layman who has no background in psychology (in case you haven't picked that up yet, silly). Go ahead and google "no eye contact" and see what you come up with. It's normally referred to as a submissive act. Man, I sure hope you aren't planning to be a therapist of any sort... [SEP] Unless of course you were being sincere! In which case, thankyou! I should submit my findings to Stanford or something. If what you say is true they'll be super impressed!
+>How about being able to psychologically profile everyone using your posts, likes, and answers to all of the stupid quizzes you are bombarded with while browsing Facebook? How about the fact that you cannot delete your account once it is made, only deactivate it? I'd say the easy solution is to not use Facebook then, or do what I do and don't take any of the stupid quizzes or like anything. I basically use Facebook as an IM service or the occasional post about some news article I think is important. Unfortunately, most people that actually have something to say avoid Facebook like its the plague. Facebook using this psych profiling to personalize advertising/sell to corporations. Like I said, I'm not scared of the government. [SEP] The people will win every time, especially since we're more closely connected than ever in history thanks to websites like Facebook.
+It was just a guy wanting to know why women didn't call out men when they do stuff like this. shrug [SEP] He didn't ask his question in a disrespectful manner, so I'm not sure why he deleted it.
+Hearthstone made $400 million in revenue in 2016. I'm assuming their profits were pretty good as well. It also made 4x more their closest competitor. So yes there are numbers out there that show Hearthstone is still wildly successful and the competition isn't close to catching them yet. I choose to spend my money on Hearthstone instead of full AAA game, is because I enjoy playing Hearthstone. I understand that there has to be a financial investment to keep the game going. I see more potential value in paying for Hearthstone cards than buying a game. For myself, I will enjoy most games for maybe 10 hours more or less, with some rare exceptions. Hearthstone I've played almost everyday for the past year and a half. Hell, I'm still getting value from GvG and Naxx cards that I purchased so long ago. It's funny you say "why do you like spending so much for not that much in return?" because to me this just shows your lack of perspective and total ignorance of a different opinion. You assumed that because you felt bad about your return, it's factually not a good return for everyone. I feel I got way more than my money's worth and that it has been a great return so far. Finally, good. I have no reason to argue with someone over their opinion because you have different experiences and a different perspective than me. [SEP] Just don't assume because you think a certain way, that it's the right way.
+ [SEP] Either you are seriously stupid, or you love to argue. For the last time, I tried to end this argument 3 times now, each time politely, each time you came back more upset. You are an asshole. No argument. You fuck off.
+"I didn't see it. I'm not saying it wasn't linked, I'm asking where it was linked...unless you're asking me to scroll through the 700+ comments to find something that you're specifically referring to when you know right where it is...? I did see people mention some TED talk, but a TED talk isn't scientific research published in a scientific journal or other credible source...it's someone's second-hand interpretation of it." My bad. I was assuming you had actually read the dicussion of which you're partaking in. http there you have multiple links with the actual studies posted as references. TED talks are indeed not scientific research published in a scientific journal. I never claimed it was either. But it's quite common for researchers themselves to talk about their published work in such talks. It's NEVER someone's second hand interpretation of it. That's not allowed in TED talks. If your talk is about a study, it HAS to be your own. , you can have a more in depth read at http as well for what it is I'm saying. (no I'm not claiming that article is science or in any way proves what I'm saying. It's just explaining my stance on it.) [SEP] If you truly are genuinely interested, which I doubt
+Just because you paid for it doesn't give you that right. I'm a member at a golf course. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to take 6 hours to get round the course with people behind me just because I paid my fees. [SEP] Some people do literally get in the way by using equipment incorrectly or for too long or whatever.
+You can't pick a feature of a cat and say "well it looks like a tonk so it's a tonk". Especially when such breed is a specific hybrid. That's like looking at a horse and just because it looks like a mule, saying that it is one. Doesn't work that way. Tell these folks about their cats, if you're so confident. http [SEP] I don't think you understand how it works with animals.
+Word. He was very enjoyable to watch during his initial rise to fame ( winning NEL and shouted out by PPD). But shortly after, he entered this toxic period which made him really not enjoyable to watch. It probably was one of the contributing reason why it seemed like he was singled out/ostracized/bullied by other high MMR na pubbers/ pros at that point ( probably not totally justifiable). Nowadays he is so much better imo. Props for him for maturing and setting an example because not everyone matures even with age and experience. [SEP] It's probably harder for him to realise because it wasn't really the typical flaming/destroy your items/vulgarities/chappie or other form of toxicities that are common. It's more of a holier than thou whining/deflecting blame. Kinda hard to describe actually but definitely unpleasant.
+If I may provide some science? So the thing is that microbes and bacteria are tough little buggers. Ever watch any discovery channel shows where some 3D animator consumed hallucinogenic substances and then dreamed up an alien world with funny species? No matter how big something gets, it always gets killed by some bacteria/virus. They adapt way before we do. because in 20 minutes they double. So... we could fuck up a lot of things... but bacteria will survive. Hell, there's already bacteria that lives at bottom of oceans, in vicinity of volcano, that survive radiation, etc... they're tough. And given time, and resources, they may evolve into something complex after we're gone. Man is replaceable. we haven't done anything to improve nature since we've emerged. In fact, if anything we've drastically reduced diversity of everything we come in contact with. Perhaps we'll leave our home planet... but we'll do the same thing to the next one. [SEP] I'm going to take you on a little detour. And the caveat is that I need you to believe in evolution. with me so far?
+Suuuuure, they'd have done something productive with the gold and agriculture, just like they have with their oil. >Your last point is true, because history shows that explicitly. A bunch of foreigners who are loyal to another country (US White settlers) were allowed to settle within Mexican borders and it resulted in almost half of Mexican territory being lost to the US in a later war. [SEP] Congrats on finally getting it. I don't think we're obligated to replay #1 in reverse just because the French gave us a rusty statue.
+They aren't degrading the English language, . I think it's hilarious, but they aren't taking anything away from English in the process. [SEP] they're providing a service in a different language for those who need it
+So did I. You think it'd be easy to point out some positive executive order or some new legislation he's passed that has resulted in something good. Meanwhile... Nazis in the streets are also good people according to Trump. There you go. One bad thing. Not responding to Puerto Rico fast enough. There's two. Appointing a bunch of billionaires to his cabinet, one Devos, has no experience whatsoever in education. Three. Not being able to unite the country and get anything done. Four. Building a wall when most illegals come here on airplanes and drugs cross the border on trucks, flown by drones or brought through tunnels. Five. Dakota Access Pipeline, do we need to fuck over the Indians again and do we have to do it for a foreign oil company? Six. Having a bunch of crooks in his administration and his campaign staff who either get fired, resign, indicted by the FBI or have one pending in the coming weeks. Seven. [SEP] I guess you can't come up with one either.
+Are you a male? If so, then yes, males generally have more foolproof methods of killing themselves(and more violently at that). For example, guys are more physical with their methods, such as using a gun, hanging themselves, etc. whereas on average females would rather swallow a bunch of pills, suffocate themselves, etc. More indirect methods so to speak. I'd like to take the opportunity to say that if anyone reading this has been seriously thinking about suicide because they are depressed or whatnot, take a moment and think. Just because you're "only" killing yourself doesn't mean you're not hurting others. Your loved ones will wonder why they didn't see it coming/do more to help you. More often than not, your problems are temporary. They can be solved. If you ever need someone to talk to, let me know, be it through a PM or whatnot. Hell, I'd be willing to talk to you over the phone if you really just wanted someone to talk to. And if you can't get ahold of me, try /r/SuicideWatch or a suicide hotline. Please. Think before you act. [SEP] Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
+You fuckers won't stop bringing us into shit! I have never disliked Liverpool but you scouse fuckers are always bringing Dortmund into shit! "Liverpool have made an offer to sign Ousmane Dembele" later that day Dortmund announced the signing! "Klopp can just bring Gundogan from Dortmund" "REUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS" "Liverpool rival Dortmund for Guerreiro" Newsflash: Sometimes the worse team wins. Sometimes magic happens. Remember Palace 3-3? Yeah it happens. Parading it around to shit on Dortmund and the Bundesliga, and then on the same cheek saying "lets get Dahoud! Lets get Hector! Lets get REUS!!" is fucking ridiculous. And now to top it off you have wasted five minutes of my life to write out how the /r/soccer memes about you lads are true [SEP] and on top of that we have you guys constantly throwing your fluke win around as like a badge of honor just to specifically shit on Dortmund.
+"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. . Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you." That says better than I ever could why I refuse to be pleasant or complacent when it comes to opposing that which I find disagreeable. [SEP] Picture all experts as if they were mammals
 > How often do you get physically assaulted in a relationship, compared to women? - "repeated studies consistently show that men are victims of domestic violence at least as often as are women, [and yet] both the lay public and many professionals regard a finding of no sex difference in rates of physical aggression among intimates as surprising."" -- "The Truth about Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue" McNeely, R.L.. and Robinson-Simpson, G (1987) - "Women are far more likely to use weapons, such as throwing a plate or firing a gun.[21]" -- wiki > have mentioned are major or vast problems. When was the last time you got catcalled on the street? Amazing. You're telling me: - getting violently attacked & unable to get state help isn't a serious problem. - But "catcalls" are. Stunning. Consider this: women sometimes take a knife/hammer/etc & attempt to kill us men. What can we men do? Unless we caught it on camera, or we're very wealthy, absolutely nothing. No one in government cares. We're assumed to be the bad guy. > How many countries can you travel to safely? I'm not talking about Saudi Arabia. Men in the West are often treated unjustly & people like you are not aware of the issues. > What I said is that the so-called "men's rights movement" does not have that as a goal. You're just showing what you want to believe. [SEP] Stunning. Consider this: women sometimes take a knife/hammer/etc & attempt to kill us men. What can we men do? Unless we caught in on camera, absolutely nothing. No one in government cares. We're assumed to be the bad guy.
-Ok, you seem to be stuggling with the concept of "burden of proof", so let me explain it slower. > You’re up there, you’ve got half the room going totally crazy wild, they loved everything, they want to do something great for our country," Trump said. "And you have the other side even on positive news, really positive news like that, they were like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said treasonous. I mean, yeah, I guess, why not. Can we call that treason? Why not. This is the quote in question, right? This is not proof of anything. This is a statement, made from a well known liar with a history of lying to trick stupid people into believing stupid things, such as the birther nonsense I showed you earlier. It is not true because Trump said it. It is not necessarily false because Trump said it, don't get me wrong, but it does not automatically start as true. Since this statement is not sourced, we are under no obligation to believe it. Since the statement is coming from someone who can most charitably be categorized as "master manipulator of the media", it doesn't even gain the benefit of the doubt of being possibly true, as it is, in best case scenarios, another example of "le trolling". Would you fall for "le trolls"? I certainly hope not. > If you were debating the President himself you could challenge his statement and the burden of proof would be on him because it is his statement. I am not the President so the burden of proof is yours. Oh no. You don't get to hide like that. Burden of proof doesn't somehow invert because you've passed the statement from your left hand to your right. Since you're out here defending it, then I expect you to be able to defend it. If you want me to believe it, you better prove it. Prove his statement true or have it dismissed as the utter nonsense we both know it is. [SEP] Ok, you seem to be stuggling with the concept of "burden of proof", so let me explain it slower.
-I mean, to be fair, it is kinda problematic to have a white dude wearing a sombrero, and those balloons with mustaches could be fairly viewed as racial caricatures. But I'm guessing most of the redditors here didn't bother actually reading through the article, and just took the title at face value because it reinforces the anti-PC circlejerk that you guys enjoy so much. [SEP] kinda problematic to have a white dude wearing a sombrero
-I didn't downvote you. I respect your opinion, but respectfully disagree. All I'm saying is what I've experienced in my travels in the deep countryside is that labels matter. Part of the reason why when in "liberal hunting permit" bumper sticker territory, I'd switch my label to progressive, at least for a while, until the locals understood that they are getting screwed over too. Then we can start to discuss labels better. But whatever works for you, that's fine. More power to you. [SEP] Part of the reason why when in "liberal hunting permit" bumper sticker territory, I'd switch my label to progressive, at least for a while, until the locals understood that they are getting screwed over too.
-I was trying to undermine your argument? News to me. If you are going to go on about how awesome your father is, how great he raised you, it may behoove you to act in a manner that demonstrates it. That's all, just something for you to think about. [SEP] I was trying to undermine your argument? News to me.
-Okay. Here is one single goddamn example. Tom Dashcle wrote a letter of apology to Max Baucus and Charles Grassley regarding the tax situation he got himself in to. Who are Max Baucus and Charles Grassley you ask? They are Senators and I don't see them wielding more power now than they did before because they were apologized to. Exactly how far do you want to take this twisted logic of yours? I'll say it again and try to let it sink in here; simply apologizing to someone does not automatically constitute political power. [SEP] Who are Max Baucus and Charles Grassley you ask?
->- Food deserts are places with few places where food is available. Many people live a great distance from the nearest supermarket and lack the means to get to those places. Thus, they rely on cheap, shitty food. Covered by my point, "access to produce" >- Prepared foods are quick and easy. Many of us have the time and energy to cook. Others work three jobs and have very little time or energy to do so. I'm painfully aware of this. However, with a refrigerator, this is easy to counter. Or, calories can be controlled with going out, which helps because food out costs money. >- Compulsive overeating is one of the most underdiagnosed disorders in the United States. Source? I'd believe it though, but I would like to see how much is treatable by will and how much is legitimate addiction. I compulsively overeat, but I control what I buy (buying foods that require cooking, and portioning out meals for a day), which controls my overeating. It would be a lot harder if it was the same as, say, alcoholism, for me. >- Others have physical disorders, such as glandular conditions. Less than 1% of the population has issues serious enough to cause obesity from that. This is covered by my disability point. >- Many poor people rely on school lunches. Don't get me started on the quality of those. These are children. Still, it is a very real factor for those kids. >- Some studies have suggested that fattie foods are literally addictive. Again, we come to having to determine how many people have a serious addiction. I do pick up oreos from time to time, but my cravings can be countered by conscious choices. We need to determine how bad it affects people, first. >- I don't think I have to prove the power that ~~brainwashing~~ advertising has on the human mind. How many billions does McDonald's alone spend on ~~brainwashing~~ advertising? The fact that those with a higher income don't eat all their meals there has implications for this. - People respond to stress in different ways. Many people need to eat when they're stressed. This is not the best way to deal with it, but it is the source for some people. I don't think I need to expound on the stresses of poverty. This probably falls somewhere within your previous two food addiction points. I also stress eat, but again, it's controllable. It's hard to determine how big of a factor this is. And yes, I do live close to poverty (in it, but my income could buy me more if I gave up school, so it's not exactlypiverty). Although my income is greater, I have a looming college expense that is actually greater than my income. >- Most jobs today require sitting for extended periods of time. If you work long hours, as the poor often have to do, a lack of exercise is a given. Obesity is caused by excess caloric nke. While exercise is needed for a healthy lifestyle, it is not needed to counter obesity (although it should be promoted!). In addition, many low wage jobs are somewhat active. It feels like you reached a little for many of those points, although many were good. [SEP] The fact that those with a higher income don't eat all their meals there has implications for this.
-His podcasts have been declining in quality for a while now. I’m amazed he sticks with guests like JVG instead of having a guy like Nate Duncan on. Lowe and Nate interact on twitter but Lowe doesn’t seem to want him on the pod. Lowe’s podcast guests leave so much to be desired. It’s generally the same people over and over and the same boring premise over and over. [SEP] Lowe and Nate interact on twitter but Lowe doesn’t seem to want him on the pod
-> Sure, being called brogressives doesn't mean that only men can be it, lesbians can be hypocritical too when it comes to social issues But it's given a disctintly male name, kinda like manspalining or manspreading. It's almost like they have a problem with men. or something [SEP] It's almost like they have a problem with men. or something
-> Shocking the public consciousness on such a matter is the best possible thing that could happen. People need profound statements- symbols- to drive home the severity of a given violation of law or the importance of an idea. The point is to drive home a message. Perhaps I used the wrong word. Sending the military to stop the CIA would be traumatizing to the public - eroding trust and causing widespread panic. I agree with you that "shocking" people to raise awareness and spur action is a good thing - unnecessarily disrupting society is not (especially when I would not make people more amenable to your cause). >A President could put the onus on Congress by saying "the Congress need only request my assistance and I will send in the US Military." This carries the same undertone, but without violating the Posse Comitatus Act. No offense, but I don't think you quite understand US law. Doing this is highly illegal. Posse Comitatus states: >>Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress That doesn't just mean Congress says "Ok, that fine", it means they have to pass an actual bill into law. That's not going to happen. They didn't do it during WWII, they didn't do it after 9/11 - they are not going to do it to arrest some CIA/NSA agents. Why? Because local and federal LEAs are perfectly capably of handling a situation like this (anything short of large scale natural disaster or armed insurrection) >The main point here is to create "shock and awe" in the public consciousness, generate massive headlines to apply social pressure on all parties involved, and demonstrate the urgency necessary in upholding the Rights of the People. I agree with your point, and sympathize on the principle, but you haven't really though this through. Using the military vs the police/FBI isn't just an unnecessary option, it's a worse one. If the point of this act (aside from the practicality of actually shutting down the spying apparatus) is to demonstrate the return of the rule of law, and signal that people's Constitutional rights will be much more closely guarded, the best thing the executor of this plan (i.e. Presiden/Congress in this example) could do is to follow the law as closely as possible. The worst thing they could do is appear to be outside it and just another power player - this would simply erode people's trust in them (You can legitimately claim to want to stop an unconstitutional action, buy committing an equally unconstitutional response; remember Rule of Law isn't about the specifics - e.g. spying, etc - but the principle). Also, this is not Ancient Rome - Americans don't like seeing soldiers in the streets, and shows of force in they're society (July 4th parades excepted). If you dont think that sending the FBI to raid and arrest member of the intelligence community, for breaking the law, would send "shock and awe" through the public mind, you dont know America very well. [SEP] That doesn't just mean Congress says "Ok, that fine", it means they have to pass an actual bill into law.
-This shit makes me so grumpy on this site. Just because crazy things haven't happened to the naysayer, doesn't mean crazy things don't happen. I've had many ludicrous experiences that I know would cause these people to reply ThatHappened. And I know for a fact they happened! I was there! Yes, in real life it is possible for people to applaud a random bonkers thing you did. Yes, in real life it is possible to evade the police, or have a fun experience with them Yes, in real life a kid can be elusive as all the other children are basically slow flashbangs that can overload your senses. [SEP] This shit makes me so grumpy on this site. Just because crazy things haven't happened to the naysayer, doesn't mean crazy things don't happen.
-I grew up on welfare. We literally had nothing but beans and rice for a week straight sometimes. That shame, stress and fear gets into your DNA. I get that people around here are very very aggressively scrutinizing of moms (lots of angry projection) but they are still human with their own past, failures, insecurities and flaws. I'm not saying that the mom is right or wrong here. But clearly this has hit on a very sensitive spit for her. Also, speaking as a parent, I would not appreciate my kids being given certain things without my OKing it first. [SEP] I get that people around here are very very aggressively scrutinizing of moms (lots of angry projection)
-At first, I was a bit iffy about how fair a Potara fusion would be in this tournament. And then I remembered that SSG and all of its derivative forms aren't actually Goku's power and that he, too, basically brought power over from outside the arena (as SSG wouldn't have been possible without Trunks, Goten and Pan, who aren't present). Also, more importantly, that Goku was allowed to use the Spirit Bomb with aid from KO'd fighters. So really, Potara is fair game compared to all of that. I don't even mind that much that Kale is now having a hard time against SSG when she was handling SSB earlier. Goku fought Jiren since then, while Kale barely got to practice her LSS form, so that's fine. But boy, I'm getting really sick of Goku's condescension towards Caulifla and Kale. He's only at strong as he is now because of that SSG ritual thing. Meanwhile, Kale and Caulifla have been Super Saiyans for barely any time at all, and they're already giving him a hard time. And yet he still thinks they "aren't ready" for God. News flash, douchebag: you SS2 (possibly even SS3) seems to have been way weaker than what these two can manage when you became SSG. I'm gonna be really sad when Kefla gets defeated eventually. Caulifla and Kale are really interesting. [SEP] I'm getting really sick of Goku's condescension towards Caulifla and Kale. He's only at strong as he is now because of that SSG ritual thing.
-Zero sum matters. Minimum mmr and is irrelevent to most player and doesnt affect mmr being zero sum for the vast majority of players. Mmr remains zero sum even with abandons (you gain/lose the same amount of mmr). I feel like it would not be much use to explain why the mmr system would fail if it was not zero sum, but here I go: Assumed facts: 1. The average winrate is 50%. (This is safe to assume, for obvious reasons, if you dont understand why, then there is no point reading on) Now, what if mmr was not zero sum: If people gained more mmr by winning than they lose for losing, (e.g. win = +30mmr, lose =-20 mmr), then an average player, who plays 10 games a day, winning 5 and losing 5, would have a net gain of +50mmr. Therefore everyone would eventually have an infinitely increasing mmr. Notes: So how would giving a penalty for randoming, affect mmr?. Assume that the chance for an average player to random is p, any form of penalty would be innapropriate, because the average global winrate of 50% already incorprates randomers. Therefore any penalty would result in a non zero sum game, and over a large amount of games players will slowly gain/lose mmr even if they stay the same skill level. [SEP] Mmr remains zero sum even with abandons (you gain/lose the same amount of mmr).
-I regret not having kids is a pitchy headline for clicks, I'm not saying no women without kids could have ever benefited from advice that usually would be from other women don't you think and not scared little boys on the internet who hate women because no women wants them. [SEP] not scared little boys on the internet who hate women because no women wants them.
-If you ever had a parent deny you food when you were hungry because you wouldn't perform for him or her, then you have my sympathies. Teaching my son how to identify and ask for the food he wants has resulted in him actually being able to identify and ask for the food he wants far, far more often, which is awesome for him and awesome for me and awesome for anybody else who deals with him during mealtimes. So many times he's screamed, not because he likes screaming or because it's any sort of stimming behavior, but out of pure frustration. Solve the frustration, and the screaming resolves itself; then you do not have to make the mistake of, say, punishing a kid for screaming or rewarding a kid for not screaming, whether with food or not. If you've been treated so badly that you see this approach as in any way abusive, then you deserve all the sympathies you can get... but you do have to understand what is being discussed and how it can actually result in a better outcome. [SEP] Teaching my son how to identify and ask for the food he wants has resulted in him actually being able to identify and ask for the food he wants far, far more often, which is awesome for him and awesome for me and awesome for anybody else who deals with him during mealtimes.
-I actually prefer smaller breasts. I see the stigma every day regarding dick size and really can't make sense of it. It would be like judging someone for their natural eye color. What I do criticize for SDP is the fact that any empathy is ignored, as are other views that don't support some of the defeatist attitudes. We can't pretend to change what others think if we think that ourselves. We have to be the first to make size a non issue and give an example that others can follow. As for the negative experiences, I had those too. Some people are asshole, period. We are all better off without them, especially the ones that judge your body parts. [SEP] What I do criticize for SDP is the fact that any empathy is ignored
-So glad you posted about this one. Really shits on all the people that believe the ONLY way to get in shape is to practice SS, worship Brodin, eat clean &/or IIFYM, or clen & tren (steroids). There are literally no exceptions. Crossfit is for idiots, bodyweight exercises won't get you anywhere, & if you're not doing squats you're wasting your time. I try and tell people this all the time. Getting fit is not a physics formula. There are tons of ways to get in shape. People in prison come out ripped eating gruel and lifting bricks. I go full time to ucla, have a job, workout every day, have a social life, & I still have a ton of screw around time which I use to binge watch Netflix/Amazon or play pickup sports with friends, etc. Ironically the people who complain they're not in shape because they lack the time since they have a real job, spend 2-3 hours a day on reddit. You can ALWAYS make time for what you truly want in life. If you use the excuse that you don't have time, the real reason is you just don't want it enough to do something about it. [SEP] I go full time to ucla, have a job, workout every day, have a social life, & I still have a ton of screw around time which I use to binge watch Netflix/Amazon or play pickup sports with friends, etc.
-The same bullshit about the US doing it's bit for the humanity was spouted about the US war on Iraq. The liberals who signed on for that war told us that it had nothing to do with oil, and everything to do with humanitarian concerns, democracy, and Saddam's [non-existant] nuclear weapons. A few months into the conflict, Bush declared mission accomplished. The criminal and predatory occupation has continued for almost a decade, and has resulted in over a million deaths. Complacent liberals and pseudo-lefts like yourself and Cole should have a think about this - whilst they "move on" in their middle-class comfort, the war they have been cheerleading for will be creating a nightmare and catastrophe for the Libyan people. I'm an opponent of Gaddafi and the bourgeois-nationalist perspective he represented, but the fact is that far more Libyan civilians have already been killed by NATO than by the Gaddafi regime. Liberals types such as Cole aren't left - but they sure are cynical, corrupt, and entirely reconciled to the status quo. [SEP] Complacent liberals and pseudo-lefts like yourself and Cole should have a think about this - whilst they "move on" in their middle-class comfort, the war they have been cheerleading for will be creating a nightmare and catastrophe for the Libyan people. I'm an opponent of Gaddafi and the bourgeois-nationalist perspective he represented, but the fact is that far more Libyan civilians have already been killed by NATO than by the Gaddafi regime.
-We can go point by point if you want. > FBI who knowingly used unverified data collected by a foreign agent Comey didn't claim that the entire dossier was "salacious and unverified," only that it contained salacious and unverified material (i.e. pee tapes). You can see an annotated record of claims on the dossier here. Also, if you're claiming that the FBI didn't disclose the dossier's funding source, you're flat out incorrect. If you're claiming that the FBI used the dossier to get their initial warrant, then there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim. The Nunes Memo is authored by a politician who hasn't seen the FISA application himself. His own memo admits that some claims in the dossier were corroborated and that Papadopoulos information was used to open a counterintelligence investigation in July 2016. The Democratic Memo paints an even more favorable view of the FBI, and it was authored by someone who saw the underlying FISA documents. The Democratic memo claims that Steele's raw intelligence did not inform the July 2016 counterintelligence investigation. > paid for by the DNC We know that the FBI disclosed the dossier's Anti-Trump leanings during the FISA application process. We also know that the information was originally commissioned by the Washinton Free Beacon — a publication run by former Wall Street Executives—before it was picked up by the DNC and Hillary Clinton. > Who were discernibly biased against trump even before the election It doesn't matter if the dossier and C. Steele have an Anti-Trump bias if the claims in the document are corroborated. Facts are facts. I find that people who make this statement often claim that Mueller isn't "objective" because of his "friendship with Comey." Unless you're willing to make the claim that Mueller's "bias" would propel him to falsify information during the special investigation, then any amount of alleged bias will not change the verifiable evidence he uncovers. Facts are facts. > You need to watch something over than CNN, it's propaganda It's funny that you say this seeing as your statement is so ill-informed. My post should be well-sourced to your liking. > The clinton campaign took donations from foreign entities- which is illegal- and the FBI just ignores it. I don't understand why you would even bring this up if you're trying to claim that Trump isn't corrupt. He solicited donations from foreign individuals including members of foreign governments at their official email addresses during his campaign. The facts contradict you heavily on this point. Edit: This link is formatting weird for some reason. Edit 2: Got it. I'm not even going to get into your subjective claims on good and bad policy because I don't think you're capable of a good-faith discussion. Now get your shitty politics off my Dolphins subreddit so I can go back to talking about fucking football. [SEP] If you're claiming that the FBI used the dossier to get their initial warrant, then there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim.
-Well, to pick a few of your more idiotic points: > There are more tools than only Microsoft's If you did actually read my posts here, you would know that I am very far from being a fan of MS's programming products. I generally recommend the use of GCC and Code::Blocks for C++ programming, and python for beginners. > The only exception is a small group of celebrity posters A celebrity poster??? Is that what I am? Wow, fame at last! But seriously, how the hell can someone posting advice on programming be a "celebrity"? > Discussion on submissions has delined sharply in the last year Quantitative evidence, or it didn't happen. > People who want to contribute are maliciously chased away There you go again. How can I (or anyone) "chase you away"? There certainly are a few people here I'd like to see disappear, but so far my "malicious" activities seem to have had little effect. [SEP] There you go again. How can I (or anyone) "chase you away"?
-It's a pretty safe bet you have lived a privileged, cozy life and have never been to a blue collar town if you think it's "pretty sad" that factories and manufacturers prioritize safety over your "right" - because whatever your opinion it's still illegal - to do drugs. In these jobs workplace injury is a fact of life even with sober, mindful employees. Throw in someone who likes to exercise his "right" to toke on lunches and suddenly the risk factor skyrockets. You're not even considering that meth and cocaine tend to be an enormous problem in small / labor towns. Sorry, but it is not your "own business" if you're a junkie and you come in to work in a dangerous environment with an addled mind. Employers NEED to know about your drug habits or they are inherently putting all of their other employees at risk. And honestly, I hate to break it to you, but getting high really isn't as important as you think it is. Some people just want to work, be safe, and come home. There are jobs outside of the professional industry for people who prioritize drugs in their life. [SEP] And honestly, I hate to break it to you, but getting high really isn't as important as you think it is. Some people just want to work, be safe, and come home. There are jobs outside of the professional industry for people who prioritize drugs in their life.
-Why are you making strawmen? Nobody is saying that Neeb is a worse player. But I have seen no-names take games from the likes of Nerchio or Snute with skytoss. Keep ignoring the problem, but shut the fuck up at least. People like you are the problem with this subreddit. You only know how to complain when your own race is weak. Carriers are a problem in PvZ in their current state, everybody knows this even if they deny for the sake of being an asshole. [SEP] But I have seen no-names take games from the likes of Nerchio or Snute with skytoss.
-Why did you reply to a post specifically about FFXI terminology then? Your comments about DPS meters and holy trinity and the like are not relevant to the discussion, that being the accepted terminology used by FFXI players. If you don't mind me saying, sorry, but I think you missed the point. Also, based on me actually playing the game for years and not relying on wikis for my information, I am telling you that XI was not a holy trinity game. Of course there are healers, tanks, and DDs. But there were also jobs that existed solely to buff or debuff, and so on. There were jobs that could be built to perform any of those roles. I'm guessing from the tone of your post we will have to agree to disagree, but I think of a holy trinity MMO as being much more rigid in class roles than XI was. [SEP] Also, based on me actually playing the game for years and not relying on wikis for my information, I am telling you that XI was not a holy trinity game.
-This is exactly what im talking about. I clearly state that im no longer a Trump supporter and try to offer some advice on how to get more people to see the light and get nothing but insulted and told off. I don't need a safe space but thank you so much for the suggestion, it really contributed a lot. Maybe you could explain where I tried to limit free speech or the republicans, I hadn't heard about that but I'm admittedly not 100% up to date on all of the scandals and bullshit going on. [SEP] and try to offer some advice
-There may well be multiple universes, which would form a context, but pretty much all current models indicate that there isn't anything space is expanding into, and there's no such thing as seeing out of the universe. It's not that we can't conprehend what it would be like to look outside; the universe is infinite. [SEP] It's not that we can't conprehend what it would be like to look outside; the universe is infinite.
-By 'something' I mean 'the system'. How? If we voice our opinions and tell the truth instead of ignoring the politicians maybe we can achieve something. [SEP] If we voice our opinions and tell the truth instead of ignoring the politicians maybe we can achieve something.
->By this logic it is impossible to create a game without OP weapons. It is impossible, because that's what OP means. Look it up please, rather than just inventing your own definition... And that's not at all what this is about. But yet again you're just trying to derail the discussion so you can say 'I'm right'. Because that is not at all what I'm trying to say and I don't care about the M16, I care about OP weapons being sold in the DLC. If the m16 is OP it might be annoying but it's not the worst since you could always just use it. Where as if the weapon is DLC you're forced to spend money in order to use it. You just bring up the m16 as an example and I decided to expand on that because you didn't really know what OP means. >If you want to start insulting I don't need to keep discussing. Did I actually insult you? I said you'd be a dumbass if you believed DLC does not affect those that didn't buy it, which was what I was originally saying by the way. Yet... >Never said you are not affected. Of course you are You don't seem to believe that. Or well... You kinda did. Because you said that if you didn't like the DLC you could just not buy it and forget about the whole thing, which is why I started to tell you why it's not that simple. And... Thanks for agreeing with me I guess? I don't even know what you're saying anymore... >If you cant stand hearing different opinions then fine let's leave it here. I can stand hearing other opinions fine, I just can't stand hearing nonsense and made up definitions... Anyway, if you want to leave it here, I'm fine with that. I doubt you're the kinda guy to admit he's wrong so if you're going to be that stubborn atleast don't waste time. [SEP] Did I actually insult you?
-No it is likability, authenticity and charisma. Like him or not, Trump is completely authentic and he has charisma. He's disgusting and unlikable but charisma and authenticity go a long way. Hillary is fake, arrogant, unlikable and has the charisma of a wet noodle. And Hillary avoided dealing with real voters like the plague whereas Trump thrived on meeting with real voters. People noticed that especially in states like Iowa where Hillary's standoffish behavior became a huge liability for her. [SEP] Hillary avoided dealing with real voters like the plague
->>Vote for my candidate or you're a moron who doesn't accept reality. that's not what i said, liar VOTE. for anyone, third party, write in, and you're fine in my book do you understand me? as for trump, he is a racist narcissistic shitbag and according to you, because i don't like trump... drum roll please... now i'm magically responsible for someone voting for trump? because of my "tone"? are you saying this country is populated by immature socially retarded teenagers? "daddy is mean and said don't smoke crack so i'm going to" how the fuck, in any universe, does my "tone" make me responsible for what someone else does? [SEP] how the fuck, in any universe, does my "tone" make me responsible for what someone else does?
-As a son of a quantum physicist who spent his whole life studying physics and how things work... Those buildings fell exactly how you would expect them to if.... The supports were in a high temperature fire for an extended period of time. There is even a fun little activity you can try at home. Get together a set of books you don't want anymore, something useless, maybe that 1980s encyclopedia britanica you got in the basement. Save toilet paper rolls for about 2 months, or 2 weeks if your wife is like mine. You'll about 24 of them. Go out in your drive way. If it isn't smooth and flat, put down a book, otherwise stack 4 rolls, one on each corner, then a book, then repeat until you are out of supplies. You should at least get 5-6 stories up. Now stand back and look at it, it is structurally sound. If you were an ant you could work in that thing for weeks and weeks and nothing would go wrong, you could even load up heavy equipment and do banking and such. Now take some lighter fluid, give it a squirt someplace 1-2 stories down from the top. If your is tall enough, 3 stories down. But at least >60% of the way up. Light the lighter fluid. Stand back and watch. This is what will happen. The fire will weaken the tubes on the floor its on, eventually to the point where the tubes will no longer be able to support the weight of the floors above. When they go they will buckle first, causing the tower to fall downward, instead of over. Once the weight of the upper floors hit the floor below the fire, the momentum of their falling will be greater than the strength of the tubes to support and one or more tubes will also buckle, causing that floor to fall also. That chain reaction will continue until maybe only the last floor will remain, it will also diverge from center as one side buckles more than the other. (this happens because the diameter of your tubes is large compared to the size of your books. If you could get 5 foot square books and half inch diameter tubes the divergence would be much less) It is the exact same process that happened to the trade centers on 9/11. [SEP] It is the exact same process that happened to the trade centers on 9/11.
+> You’re up there, you’ve got half the room going totally crazy wild, they loved everything, they want to do something great for our country," Trump said. "And you have the other side even on positive news, really positive news like that, they were like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said treasonous. I mean, yeah, I guess, why not. Can we call that treason? Why not. This is the quote in question, right? This is not proof of anything. This is a statement, made from a well known liar with a history of lying to trick stupid people into believing stupid things, such as the birther nonsense I showed you earlier. It is not true because Trump said it. It is not necessarily false because Trump said it, don't get me wrong, but it does not automatically start as true. Since this statement is not sourced, we are under no obligation to believe it. Since the statement is coming from someone who can most charitably be categorized as "master manipulator of the media", it doesn't even gain the benefit of the doubt of being possibly true, as it is, in best case scenarios, another example of "le trolling". Would you fall for "le trolls"? I certainly hope not. > If you were debating the President himself you could challenge his statement and the burden of proof would be on him because it is his statement. I am not the President so the burden of proof is yours. Oh no. You don't get to hide like that. Burden of proof doesn't somehow invert because you've passed the statement from your left hand to your right. Since you're out here defending it, then I expect you to be able to defend it. If you want me to believe it, you better prove it. Prove his statement true or have it dismissed as the utter nonsense we both know it is. [SEP] Ok, you seem to be stuggling with the concept of "burden of proof", so let me explain it slower.
+I mean, to be fair, it is , and those balloons with mustaches could be fairly viewed as racial caricatures. But I'm guessing most of the redditors here didn't bother actually reading through the article, and just took the title at face value because it reinforces the anti-PC circlejerk that you guys enjoy so much. [SEP] kinda problematic to have a white dude wearing a sombrero
+I didn't downvote you. I respect your opinion, but respectfully disagree. All I'm saying is what I've experienced in my travels in the deep countryside is that labels matter. Then we can start to discuss labels better. But whatever works for you, that's fine. More power to you. [SEP] Part of the reason why when in "liberal hunting permit" bumper sticker territory, I'd switch my label to progressive, at least for a while, until the locals understood that they are getting screwed over too.
+If you are going to go on about how awesome your father is, how great he raised you, it may behoove you to act in a manner that demonstrates it. That's all, just something for you to think about. [SEP] I was trying to undermine your argument? News to me.
+Okay. Here is one single goddamn example. Tom Dashcle wrote a letter of apology to Max Baucus and Charles Grassley regarding the tax situation he got himself in to. They are Senators and I don't see them wielding more power now than they did before because they were apologized to. Exactly how far do you want to take this twisted logic of yours? I'll say it again and try to let it sink in here; simply apologizing to someone does not automatically constitute political power. [SEP] Who are Max Baucus and Charles Grassley you ask?
+>- Food deserts are places with few places where food is available. Many people live a great distance from the nearest supermarket and lack the means to get to those places. Thus, they rely on cheap, shitty food. Covered by my point, "access to produce" >- Prepared foods are quick and easy. Many of us have the time and energy to cook. Others work three jobs and have very little time or energy to do so. I'm painfully aware of this. However, with a refrigerator, this is easy to counter. Or, calories can be controlled with going out, which helps because food out costs money. >- Compulsive overeating is one of the most underdiagnosed disorders in the United States. Source? I'd believe it though, but I would like to see how much is treatable by will and how much is legitimate addiction. I compulsively overeat, but I control what I buy (buying foods that require cooking, and portioning out meals for a day), which controls my overeating. It would be a lot harder if it was the same as, say, alcoholism, for me. >- Others have physical disorders, such as glandular conditions. Less than 1% of the population has issues serious enough to cause obesity from that. This is covered by my disability point. >- Many poor people rely on school lunches. Don't get me started on the quality of those. These are children. Still, it is a very real factor for those kids. >- Some studies have suggested that fattie foods are literally addictive. Again, we come to having to determine how many people have a serious addiction. I do pick up oreos from time to time, but my cravings can be countered by conscious choices. We need to determine how bad it affects people, first. >- I don't think I have to prove the power that ~~brainwashing~~ advertising has on the human mind. How many billions does McDonald's alone spend on ~~brainwashing~~ advertising? - People respond to stress in different ways. Many people need to eat when they're stressed. This is not the best way to deal with it, but it is the source for some people. I don't think I need to expound on the stresses of poverty. This probably falls somewhere within your previous two food addiction points. I also stress eat, but again, it's controllable. It's hard to determine how big of a factor this is. And yes, I do live close to poverty (in it, but my income could buy me more if I gave up school, so it's not exactlypiverty). Although my income is greater, I have a looming college expense that is actually greater than my income. >- Most jobs today require sitting for extended periods of time. If you work long hours, as the poor often have to do, a lack of exercise is a given. Obesity is caused by excess caloric nke. While exercise is needed for a healthy lifestyle, it is not needed to counter obesity (although it should be promoted!). In addition, many low wage jobs are somewhat active. It feels like you reached a little for many of those points, although many were good. [SEP] The fact that those with a higher income don't eat all their meals there has implications for this.
+His podcasts have been declining in quality for a while now. I’m amazed he sticks with guests like JVG instead of having a guy like Nate Duncan on. . Lowe’s podcast guests leave so much to be desired. It’s generally the same people over and over and the same boring premise over and over. [SEP] Lowe and Nate interact on twitter but Lowe doesn’t seem to want him on the pod
+> Sure, being called brogressives doesn't mean that only men can be it, lesbians can be hypocritical too when it comes to social issues But it's given a disctintly male name, kinda like manspalining or manspreading. [SEP] It's almost like they have a problem with men. or something
+> Shocking the public consciousness on such a matter is the best possible thing that could happen. People need profound statements- symbols- to drive home the severity of a given violation of law or the importance of an idea. The point is to drive home a message. Perhaps I used the wrong word. Sending the military to stop the CIA would be traumatizing to the public - eroding trust and causing widespread panic. I agree with you that "shocking" people to raise awareness and spur action is a good thing - unnecessarily disrupting society is not (especially when I would not make people more amenable to your cause). >A President could put the onus on Congress by saying "the Congress need only request my assistance and I will send in the US Military." This carries the same undertone, but without violating the Posse Comitatus Act. No offense, but I don't think you quite understand US law. Doing this is highly illegal. Posse Comitatus states: >>Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress That's not going to happen. They didn't do it during WWII, they didn't do it after 9/11 - they are not going to do it to arrest some CIA/NSA agents. Why? Because local and federal LEAs are perfectly capably of handling a situation like this (anything short of large scale natural disaster or armed insurrection) >The main point here is to create "shock and awe" in the public consciousness, generate massive headlines to apply social pressure on all parties involved, and demonstrate the urgency necessary in upholding the Rights of the People. I agree with your point, and sympathize on the principle, but you haven't really though this through. Using the military vs the police/FBI isn't just an unnecessary option, it's a worse one. If the point of this act (aside from the practicality of actually shutting down the spying apparatus) is to demonstrate the return of the rule of law, and signal that people's Constitutional rights will be much more closely guarded, the best thing the executor of this plan (i.e. Presiden/Congress in this example) could do is to follow the law as closely as possible. The worst thing they could do is appear to be outside it and just another power player - this would simply erode people's trust in them (You can legitimately claim to want to stop an unconstitutional action, buy committing an equally unconstitutional response; remember Rule of Law isn't about the specifics - e.g. spying, etc - but the principle). Also, this is not Ancient Rome - Americans don't like seeing soldiers in the streets, and shows of force in they're society (July 4th parades excepted). If you dont think that sending the FBI to raid and arrest member of the intelligence community, for breaking the law, would send "shock and awe" through the public mind, you dont know America very well. [SEP] That doesn't just mean Congress says "Ok, that fine", it means they have to pass an actual bill into law.
+I've had many ludicrous experiences that I know would cause these people to reply ThatHappened. And I know for a fact they happened! I was there! Yes, in real life it is possible for people to applaud a random bonkers thing you did. Yes, in real life it is possible to evade the police, or have a fun experience with them Yes, in real life a kid can be elusive as all the other children are basically slow flashbangs that can overload your senses. [SEP] This shit makes me so grumpy on this site. Just because crazy things haven't happened to the naysayer, doesn't mean crazy things don't happen.
+I grew up on welfare. We literally had nothing but beans and rice for a week straight sometimes. That shame, stress and fear gets into your DNA. but they are still human with their own past, failures, insecurities and flaws. I'm not saying that the mom is right or wrong here. But clearly this has hit on a very sensitive spit for her. Also, speaking as a parent, I would not appreciate my kids being given certain things without my OKing it first. [SEP] I get that people around here are very very aggressively scrutinizing of moms (lots of angry projection)
+At first, I was a bit iffy about how fair a Potara fusion would be in this tournament. And then I remembered that SSG and all of its derivative forms aren't actually Goku's power and that he, too, basically brought power over from outside the arena (as SSG wouldn't have been possible without Trunks, Goten and Pan, who aren't present). Also, more importantly, that Goku was allowed to use the Spirit Bomb with aid from KO'd fighters. So really, Potara is fair game compared to all of that. I don't even mind that much that Kale is now having a hard time against SSG when she was handling SSB earlier. Goku fought Jiren since then, while Kale barely got to practice her LSS form, so that's fine. But boy, Meanwhile, Kale and Caulifla have been Super Saiyans for barely any time at all, and they're already giving him a hard time. And yet he still thinks they "aren't ready" for God. News flash, douchebag: you SS2 (possibly even SS3) seems to have been way weaker than what these two can manage when you became SSG. I'm gonna be really sad when Kefla gets defeated eventually. Caulifla and Kale are really interesting. [SEP] I'm getting really sick of Goku's condescension towards Caulifla and Kale. He's only at strong as he is now because of that SSG ritual thing.
+Zero sum matters. Minimum mmr and is irrelevent to most player and doesnt affect mmr being zero sum for the vast majority of players. I feel like it would not be much use to explain why the mmr system would fail if it was not zero sum, but here I go: Assumed facts: 1. The average winrate is 50%. (This is safe to assume, for obvious reasons, if you dont understand why, then there is no point reading on) Now, what if mmr was not zero sum: If people gained more mmr by winning than they lose for losing, (e.g. win = +30mmr, lose =-20 mmr), then an average player, who plays 10 games a day, winning 5 and losing 5, would have a net gain of +50mmr. Therefore everyone would eventually have an infinitely increasing mmr. Notes: So how would giving a penalty for randoming, affect mmr?. Assume that the chance for an average player to random is p, any form of penalty would be innapropriate, because the average global winrate of 50% already incorprates randomers. Therefore any penalty would result in a non zero sum game, and over a large amount of games players will slowly gain/lose mmr even if they stay the same skill level. [SEP] Mmr remains zero sum even with abandons (you gain/lose the same amount of mmr).
+I regret not having kids is a pitchy headline for clicks, I'm not saying no women without kids could have ever benefited from advice that usually would be from other women don't you think and [SEP] not scared little boys on the internet who hate women because no women wants them.
+If you ever had a parent deny you food when you were hungry because you wouldn't perform for him or her, then you have my sympathies. So many times he's screamed, not because he likes screaming or because it's any sort of stimming behavior, but out of pure frustration. Solve the frustration, and the screaming resolves itself; then you do not have to make the mistake of, say, punishing a kid for screaming or rewarding a kid for not screaming, whether with food or not. If you've been treated so badly that you see this approach as in any way abusive, then you deserve all the sympathies you can get... but you do have to understand what is being discussed and how it can actually result in a better outcome. [SEP] Teaching my son how to identify and ask for the food he wants has resulted in him actually being able to identify and ask for the food he wants far, far more often, which is awesome for him and awesome for me and awesome for anybody else who deals with him during mealtimes.
+I actually prefer smaller breasts. I see the stigma every day regarding dick size and really can't make sense of it. It would be like judging someone for their natural eye color. , as are other views that don't support some of the defeatist attitudes. We can't pretend to change what others think if we think that ourselves. We have to be the first to make size a non issue and give an example that others can follow. As for the negative experiences, I had those too. Some people are asshole, period. We are all better off without them, especially the ones that judge your body parts. [SEP] What I do criticize for SDP is the fact that any empathy is ignored
+So glad you posted about this one. Really shits on all the people that believe the ONLY way to get in shape is to practice SS, worship Brodin, eat clean &/or IIFYM, or clen & tren (steroids). There are literally no exceptions. Crossfit is for idiots, bodyweight exercises won't get you anywhere, & if you're not doing squats you're wasting your time. I try and tell people this all the time. Getting fit is not a physics formula. There are tons of ways to get in shape. People in prison come out ripped eating gruel and lifting bricks. Ironically the people who complain they're not in shape because they lack the time since they have a real job, spend 2-3 hours a day on reddit. You can ALWAYS make time for what you truly want in life. If you use the excuse that you don't have time, the real reason is you just don't want it enough to do something about it. [SEP] I go full time to ucla, have a job, workout every day, have a social life, & I still have a ton of screw around time which I use to binge watch Netflix/Amazon or play pickup sports with friends, etc.
+The same bullshit about the US doing it's bit for the humanity was spouted about the US war on Iraq. The liberals who signed on for that war told us that it had nothing to do with oil, and everything to do with humanitarian concerns, democracy, and Saddam's [non-existant] nuclear weapons. A few months into the conflict, Bush declared mission accomplished. The criminal and predatory occupation has continued for almost a decade, and has resulted in over a million deaths. Liberals types such as Cole aren't left - but they sure are cynical, corrupt, and entirely reconciled to the status quo. [SEP] Complacent liberals and pseudo-lefts like yourself and Cole should have a think about this - whilst they "move on" in their middle-class comfort, the war they have been cheerleading for will be creating a nightmare and catastrophe for the Libyan people. I'm an opponent of Gaddafi and the bourgeois-nationalist perspective he represented, but the fact is that far more Libyan civilians have already been killed by NATO than by the Gaddafi regime.
+We can go point by point if you want. > FBI who knowingly used unverified data collected by a foreign agent Comey didn't claim that the entire dossier was "salacious and unverified," only that it contained salacious and unverified material (i.e. pee tapes). You can see an annotated record of claims on the dossier here. Also, if you're claiming that the FBI didn't disclose the dossier's funding source, you're flat out incorrect. The Nunes Memo is authored by a politician who hasn't seen the FISA application himself. His own memo admits that some claims in the dossier were corroborated and that Papadopoulos information was used to open a counterintelligence investigation in July 2016. The Democratic Memo paints an even more favorable view of the FBI, and it was authored by someone who saw the underlying FISA documents. The Democratic memo claims that Steele's raw intelligence did not inform the July 2016 counterintelligence investigation. > paid for by the DNC We know that the FBI disclosed the dossier's Anti-Trump leanings during the FISA application process. We also know that the information was originally commissioned by the Washinton Free Beacon — a publication run by former Wall Street Executives—before it was picked up by the DNC and Hillary Clinton. > Who were discernibly biased against trump even before the election It doesn't matter if the dossier and C. Steele have an Anti-Trump bias if the claims in the document are corroborated. Facts are facts. I find that people who make this statement often claim that Mueller isn't "objective" because of his "friendship with Comey." Unless you're willing to make the claim that Mueller's "bias" would propel him to falsify information during the special investigation, then any amount of alleged bias will not change the verifiable evidence he uncovers. Facts are facts. > You need to watch something over than CNN, it's propaganda It's funny that you say this seeing as your statement is so ill-informed. My post should be well-sourced to your liking. > The clinton campaign took donations from foreign entities- which is illegal- and the FBI just ignores it. I don't understand why you would even bring this up if you're trying to claim that Trump isn't corrupt. He solicited donations from foreign individuals including members of foreign governments at their official email addresses during his campaign. The facts contradict you heavily on this point. Edit: This link is formatting weird for some reason. Edit 2: Got it. I'm not even going to get into your subjective claims on good and bad policy because I don't think you're capable of a good-faith discussion. Now get your shitty politics off my Dolphins subreddit so I can go back to talking about fucking football. [SEP] If you're claiming that the FBI used the dossier to get their initial warrant, then there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim.
+Well, to pick a few of your more idiotic points: > There are more tools than only Microsoft's If you did actually read my posts here, you would know that I am very far from being a fan of MS's programming products. I generally recommend the use of GCC and Code::Blocks for C++ programming, and python for beginners. > The only exception is a small group of celebrity posters A celebrity poster??? Is that what I am? Wow, fame at last! But seriously, how the hell can someone posting advice on programming be a "celebrity"? > Discussion on submissions has delined sharply in the last year Quantitative evidence, or it didn't happen. > People who want to contribute are maliciously chased away There certainly are a few people here I'd like to see disappear, but so far my "malicious" activities seem to have had little effect. [SEP] There you go again. How can I (or anyone) "chase you away"?
+It's a pretty safe bet you have lived a privileged, cozy life and have never been to a blue collar town if you think it's "pretty sad" that factories and manufacturers prioritize safety over your "right" - because whatever your opinion it's still illegal - to do drugs. In these jobs workplace injury is a fact of life even with sober, mindful employees. Throw in someone who likes to exercise his "right" to toke on lunches and suddenly the risk factor skyrockets. You're not even considering that meth and cocaine tend to be an enormous problem in small / labor towns. Sorry, but it is not your "own business" if you're a junkie and you come in to work in a dangerous environment with an addled mind. Employers NEED to know about your drug habits or they are inherently putting all of their other employees at risk. [SEP] And honestly, I hate to break it to you, but getting high really isn't as important as you think it is. Some people just want to work, be safe, and come home. There are jobs outside of the professional industry for people who prioritize drugs in their life.
+Why are you making strawmen? Nobody is saying that Neeb is a worse player. Keep ignoring the problem, but shut the fuck up at least. People like you are the problem with this subreddit. You only know how to complain when your own race is weak. Carriers are a problem in PvZ in their current state, everybody knows this even if they deny for the sake of being an asshole. [SEP] But I have seen no-names take games from the likes of Nerchio or Snute with skytoss.
+Why did you reply to a post specifically about FFXI terminology then? Your comments about DPS meters and holy trinity and the like are not relevant to the discussion, that being the accepted terminology used by FFXI players. If you don't mind me saying, sorry, but I think you missed the point. Of course there are healers, tanks, and DDs. But there were also jobs that existed solely to buff or debuff, and so on. There were jobs that could be built to perform any of those roles. I'm guessing from the tone of your post we will have to agree to disagree, but I think of a holy trinity MMO as being much more rigid in class roles than XI was. [SEP] Also, based on me actually playing the game for years and not relying on wikis for my information, I am telling you that XI was not a holy trinity game.
+This is exactly what im talking about. I clearly state that im no longer a Trump supporter on how to get more people to see the light and get nothing but insulted and told off. I don't need a safe space but thank you so much for the suggestion, it really contributed a lot. Maybe you could explain where I tried to limit free speech or the republicans, I hadn't heard about that but I'm admittedly not 100% up to date on all of the scandals and bullshit going on. [SEP] and try to offer some advice
+There may well be multiple universes, which would form a context, but pretty much all current models indicate that there isn't anything space is expanding into, and there's no such thing as seeing out of the universe. [SEP] It's not that we can't conprehend what it would be like to look outside; the universe is infinite.
+By 'something' I mean 'the system'. How? [SEP] If we voice our opinions and tell the truth instead of ignoring the politicians maybe we can achieve something.
+>By this logic it is impossible to create a game without OP weapons. It is impossible, because that's what OP means. Look it up please, rather than just inventing your own definition... And that's not at all what this is about. But yet again you're just trying to derail the discussion so you can say 'I'm right'. Because that is not at all what I'm trying to say and I don't care about the M16, I care about OP weapons being sold in the DLC. If the m16 is OP it might be annoying but it's not the worst since you could always just use it. Where as if the weapon is DLC you're forced to spend money in order to use it. You just bring up the m16 as an example and I decided to expand on that because you didn't really know what OP means. >If you want to start insulting I don't need to keep discussing. I said you'd be a dumbass if you believed DLC does not affect those that didn't buy it, which was what I was originally saying by the way. Yet... >Never said you are not affected. Of course you are You don't seem to believe that. Or well... You kinda did. Because you said that if you didn't like the DLC you could just not buy it and forget about the whole thing, which is why I started to tell you why it's not that simple. And... Thanks for agreeing with me I guess? I don't even know what you're saying anymore... >If you cant stand hearing different opinions then fine let's leave it here. I can stand hearing other opinions fine, I just can't stand hearing nonsense and made up definitions... Anyway, if you want to leave it here, I'm fine with that. I doubt you're the kinda guy to admit he's wrong so if you're going to be that stubborn atleast don't waste time. [SEP] Did I actually insult you?
+No it is likability, authenticity and charisma. Like him or not, Trump is completely authentic and he has charisma. He's disgusting and unlikable but charisma and authenticity go a long way. Hillary is fake, arrogant, unlikable and has the charisma of a wet noodle. And whereas Trump thrived on meeting with real voters. People noticed that especially in states like Iowa where Hillary's standoffish behavior became a huge liability for her. [SEP] Hillary avoided dealing with real voters like the plague
+>>Vote for my candidate or you're a moron who doesn't accept reality. that's not what i said, liar VOTE. for anyone, third party, write in, and you're fine in my book do you understand me? as for trump, he is a racist narcissistic shitbag and according to you, because i don't like trump... drum roll please... now i'm magically responsible for someone voting for trump? because of my "tone"? are you saying this country is populated by immature socially retarded teenagers? "daddy is mean and said don't smoke crack so i'm going to" [SEP] how the fuck, in any universe, does my "tone" make me responsible for what someone else does?
+As a son of a quantum physicist who spent his whole life studying physics and how things work... Those buildings fell exactly how you would expect them to if.... The supports were in a high temperature fire for an extended period of time. There is even a fun little activity you can try at home. Get together a set of books you don't want anymore, something useless, maybe that 1980s encyclopedia britanica you got in the basement. Save toilet paper rolls for about 2 months, or 2 weeks if your wife is like mine. You'll about 24 of them. Go out in your drive way. If it isn't smooth and flat, put down a book, otherwise stack 4 rolls, one on each corner, then a book, then repeat until you are out of supplies. You should at least get 5-6 stories up. Now stand back and look at it, it is structurally sound. If you were an ant you could work in that thing for weeks and weeks and nothing would go wrong, you could even load up heavy equipment and do banking and such. Now take some lighter fluid, give it a squirt someplace 1-2 stories down from the top. If your is tall enough, 3 stories down. But at least >60% of the way up. Light the lighter fluid. Stand back and watch. This is what will happen. The fire will weaken the tubes on the floor its on, eventually to the point where the tubes will no longer be able to support the weight of the floors above. When they go they will buckle first, causing the tower to fall downward, instead of over. Once the weight of the upper floors hit the floor below the fire, the momentum of their falling will be greater than the strength of the tubes to support and one or more tubes will also buckle, causing that floor to fall also. That chain reaction will continue until maybe only the last floor will remain, it will also diverge from center as one side buckles more than the other. (this happens because the diameter of your tubes is large compared to the size of your books. If you could get 5 foot square books and half inch diameter tubes the divergence would be much less) [SEP] It is the exact same process that happened to the trade centers on 9/11.
 I read through a few of the links in there, none of them support your argument at all. In fact specifically the most recent one from NASA proposes a multi-decade timeline of testing various techniques and technologies. Have you actually read this stuff at all? [SEP] Have you actually read this stuff at all?
->At no point did you mention the hours being the calculation for Main+Extras. And at no point did I use different measure for Zelda and Witcher 3. I used the Main + Extras for both games and you felt the need to put the Completionist length for Zelda. >Since you said nothing about what calculation you were using I assumed you were going with completionist (aka 100%) because it makes more sense when comparing how much content a game offers. It makes no sense to compare how much time it takes to complete different arbitrary % of 2 games. I used Main + Extras because I felt like that would be the average experience a player might get (without collectibles and such). I used the same measure for both games. You "corrected" the Zelda length while leaving the Witcher 3 length as is for some reason. > You did say you couldn't buy them seperate but I was saying that if you can't buy them seperately it makes no sense to say DLC 2 costs the full 20€ in that comparison. But you can't buy them separately. There is no hypothetical here because we are comparing the amount of content per dollar. Imagining prices would make the whole calculation more arbitrary than it already is. Regardless, I already mentioned that the DLCs can't be bought separate, only a child would need a calculation of how much the DLC would cost separate (uhh what is 20 divided by 2???) >I do agree that Blood and Wine is a better bang for your buck, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Weren't even talking about Blood and Wine. I was saying that the amount of content (LENGTH) is higher in HoS than in BotW DLC 2. That's it. [SEP] Weren't even talking about Blood and Wine
-I dunno, I really liked it personally. It actually challenged my world view. I have always been atheist and at times have been a bit smug about it (not full /r/atheism smug, but still somewhat smug). That film made me appreciate the value in faith, and what it could do for people. It made me realise that while logic worked for me, it was okay if other people took a different approach. That I didn't need to force my beliefs on other people, or make them feel small for disagreeing. I'm exaggerating for effect - I was never as bad as a lot of atheists, but it did make me see the nuances between the two belief systems, and become more accepting of different world views. I think it was a little heavy handed and expositiony at the end, and could have done with expressing these themes in a more subtle way, but I did find the themes resonated with me. [SEP] That film made me appreciate the value in faith, and what it could do for people.
-I don't mean to be rude, but you've given one example, and a very small country at that. Remember that the original article and the comment to which we are all responding was about human rights. I find it very amusing that everyone here has automatically equated democracy with human rights, but countries like India are proving that it is just not that simple. India is a democracy with a capitalist market, and it still can't guarantee everyone's human rights, especially not those of women. Therefore, while I am certainly not offering a solution, I am saying that repeating "Hong Kong" over and over again certainly isn't either. [SEP] I find it very amusing that everyone here has automatically equated democracy with human rights, but countries like India are proving that it is just not that simple.
->> Well, there's pretty good evidence that they do own the copyright, and that any licenses have been terminated. > > Are the copyrights even being questioned? This whole issue arose from the use of trademarks. P&F's counterclaims are based on their copyright, and Stardock is questioning it. > And why would a license to sell games between P&F and "current trademark holder" be okay when it's Atari, but suddenly not okay when it's Stardock? Which license are you referring to: The original 1988 exclusive one with Accolade, or the 2011 non-exclusive one with GoG and Atari? The original 1988 license granted essentially total control over the Ur-Quan universe, and had several clauses that appear to have terminated it long ago. The 2011 one was much more limited, non-exclusive, and could be canceled on demand, and was cancelled by Paul once relations with Brad soured. (Note the difference between these licenses, because it'll be important later). >> If the emails Brad has shown us from October 2017 are the complete conversation, I do agree that they could have spelled out their legal basis more clearly. But I give them some leeway in their tone there, because the claim Brad made when they told him they were planning to do another game (that he had exclusive control over their copyright via the original 1988 agreement) really came out of the blue, and he kept doubling down on it, even after checking with his lawyers. > Sorry, I don't know if I'm parsing this second sentence correctly. I was referring there to the relatively curt tone in Fred's later emails. > And they didn't have any misgivings about Stardock working on their own game for the majority of the project's life. True, because Stardock was giving every impression that it was not going to use any elements from SC2, specifically committing to not using the aliens and lore. > To me, it looked like P&F kept underestimating what rights Stardock actually had, or what the actual restrictions would be. The final addendum to P&F's contract with Accolade had defined Paul's IP as "source code, names (of starships and alien races), characters, plot lines, setting, terminology unique to the Star Control products, and music", so from what I can tell, that's what they were expecting Stardock to honor. > So they kept replying with favorable and supportive emails. Up until the 11th hour of the anniversary, when Brad emailed them with "I think there is confusion on what rights Stardock has". And then the fight started... Right, because it was in that email that Brad first said anything to them that indicated that he was claiming the power to do more than sell the old games, and make a new "Star Control" game that wasn't connected in any way with SC1&2. Remember that there had been two different licenses. In that email, he said for the first time that he had the publishing rights from the original 1988 agreement, which was essentially an "I control everything" statement. So there are a few emails there where Brad keeps insisting that he has all these powers, and P&F are basically going "WTF? That license is 16 years dead!" >> Well, a lot of the ire directed at Stardock stem from Brad's tendency to get on forums and say bellicose things like "If any future games come out that continue the UQM story, it will happen under Stardock's supervision or not at all." . > > Did no one call him out on it there? Or ask him to explain what that meant? It looks like he's either angry or putting his foot down. Is he only referring to the trademark? His position is that the "Star Control" trademark also gives him control over all of the names used inside the game. I and others are skeptical that his claims on this will hold up, but if they do, he would have exclusive use of the names "Ur-Quan", "Arilou", etc. Since those are kind of essential to the setting, he would effectively have veto power over anyone continuing the story from SC2. > Paul and Fred, while they are attacking Stardock's trademark, aren't actually doing anything that would keep Stardock from making its game, even if they win. At most, it would have to keep elements from the earlier games out of SC:O. > > The game hasn't been stopped outright, but they have started making demands of things to be removed or changed ever since the hostility started. Things that would have been okay before the fighting started. How long would it have had to continue? There was no telling when they'd stop or be appeased. Well, if SC:O is clearly not using anything from SC2, it would be safe. Here, I think they could stand to show some flexibility. We know they asked Brad not to use "Super-Melee", and that doesn't seem important enough to fight over. And they don't own the copyright to the music, so they don't really have grounds to make an issue of it. I think the main thing they're concerned about is that they don't want someone building the SC2 ships (or the entire SC2 universe) in SC:O, and if Brad would commit to that, I hope P&F wouldn't sweat the smaller stuff. > It'd certainly help to humanize [P&F] through this process, if they talked. Everything from them seems so sterilized, pre-canned, and PR'fied, like they were running for office or something. Maybe it just rubs me differently, but I find their posts humorously snarky. As for talking, well, most lawyers would tell their clients that when they're in the middle of a lawsuit, they shouldn't be talking publicly. Paul is taking his lawyer's advice. Brad seems to have decided otherwise. Which is fine, but it's going to be a two-edged sword; having chosen to engage, Brad gets the benefits of being able to try to frame the narrative without P&F making much of a response. However, this also opens him to being fact-checked and criticized over any real or apparent discrepancies in his story. > And yeah, abusing the "ask for forgiveness, not permission" adage. I want to see all the forms that P&F submitted. I'm not sure what you mean here. > I'd basically ask them to explain their decisions to the things I wrote about here. Obviously, I can't answer for them, but I'll guess on a couple... > Why did they turn down the first offer of the trademark transfer? They were probably contractually tied to Activision making Skylanders, and couldn't have used the trademark if they bought it. Since trademarks die if not used, they passed. Plus, they were clearly under the impression (still to be tested in court), that the "Star Control" trademark had no power except over the title of a game. Since they didn't plan to call their new game "Star Control", they didn't really care about the trademark. > Why did they not ask for a concrete explanation of what rights Stardock had at that time? They thought they knew. Stardock had bought the 2011 license from GoG, which granted the right to distribute, market, and promote the old games, just as his email said. Brad gave them no sign that he was also claiming the far broader powers from the 1988 exclusive agreement until they told him of their plans to do a new game. I am currently still giving Brad the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that he sincerely thought he had the 1988 agreement's powers the whole time, and the 2013 email exchange was just an honest miscommunication. But the fact that he only started claiming these powers right after he learned that Paul and Fred would be making a competing game gives me cause to have some doubts, especially since he's never given any credible explanation as to why his lawyers said he could make those claims at all. [SEP] Maybe it just rubs me differently, but I find their posts humorously snarky.
-It's not impossible to rebuild an entire town that doesn't exist in the child timeline, but oh boy if you think that isn't a stretch. > If they're trying to make Hyrule look so similar to OoT/TP, why is there a coast? What when did I say this. I never said this. And again, the temple of time is THE temple of time. Oh and the great plateau is said to be "Where hyrule was founded a long long time ago". It's so obviously the same hyrule. Oh and there's death mountain. Oh and faron woods. Oh and lake hylia. Oh and they're all in the same locations relative to each other. [SEP] It's so obviously the same hyrule.
-Blizz does not care about competitive hearthstone at all... It's just advertising for their game on Twitch. Blizz's goal is to make the most money possible by appealing to the lowest common denominator. [SEP] lowest common denominator
-It's too much feminism actually. Like any idyllic movement, boogiemen and strawmen are created to push an agenda. Let's be perfectly clear here: >That in order to gain respect from men, I need to give AMAZING blowjobs. No man ever said this to you. Feminism said this to you. Think about that very carefully. [SEP] Think about that very carefully.
-You probably don't realize it but you are case in point of what I am talking about and why misleading information is a problem. Hamstrung the defense by using a law (that you probably don't understand), that simply requires some evidence to support the person they wish to implicate instead of the accused(amazing, defense investigators and all, not a damn thing was found). Right. Yeah, the defense was hamstrung. Do a little independent research and you'll see that things weren't nearly as 1 sided as MaM has the masses believing. Somehow, I don't expect you'll do it though. So much easier to just criticize, and bitch about things you only half understand. I'm simply laying facts out. Dispute what I said. I've got facts and evidence that lewd me to my position. You've got suspicion and speculation. And a film, you've got that too, whatever that's worth. [SEP] You've got suspicion and speculation. And a film, you've got that too, whatever that's worth.
-Sheeple? Really? [SEP] Sheeple? Really?
-Actually it's more like "you're a young kid with no life experience, no responsibilities and no fucking clue yet about how the world works...so quit acting like your opinion matters or that you are somehow on the same level because you aren't...yet". Punk kids raised by idiot parents think they ought to be treated like adults. Its pathetic. [SEP] "you're a young kid with no life experience, no responsibilities and no fucking clue yet about how the world works...so quit acting like your opinion matters or that you are somehow on the same level because you aren't...yet"
-The wealthy elite of America are the one's actually in charge - they won't let anything happen to them. The poor and minorities of America will be shot with no repercussions on the shooter, racist cops pardoned by the pres., the homeless die on the streets and if you want a home you've got to pony up more cash you're gonna make all year. But that's got nothing to do with Trump. It's been that way for decades - or worse. [SEP] The wealthy elite of America are the one's actually in charge - they won't let anything happen to them.
-I never said I find it beneath me. I even told Drummerboy that his compassion is in the right place. I was simply sharing something that happened to my partner and I. I didn't call anyone an idiot. My aunt was murdered on Christmas day of 2010, I don't call murder victims idiots. Take your melodramatic, half sissy ass the fuck out of here. Seriously. [SEP] I never said I find it beneath me.
-Adnan did have contact with Hae that day, so theoretically his DNA could show up regardless of his involvement. That being said, I highly doubt there is any DNA present, belonging to anyone. If I was Adnan, I would only test the kit as my final option. It’s a crapshoot. [SEP] Adnan did have contact with Hae that day, so theoretically his DNA could show up regardless of his involvement.
->It isn't an either or proposition And yet even though medical records are sealed, it's still perfectly legal and reasonable to issue a fitness test to qualify someone for a physical job? Why do you think that finances are a separate issue? You seem perfectly happy to use medical records as a rationale to restrict credit checks. >You didn't address my response. Does that mean you acknowledge the the stark differences between a medical evaluation (are you physically capable of performing this job now) vs. medical records. The primary difference between a financial record and a medical record is agency. You are in control of your financial records, as you choose to take on every debt...and you are most often not in control of your medical conditions. This is the same distinction why using your criminal record to deny you a job is reasonable, but using your race is not. You have a personal responsibility to your financial records,but that's often not the case medically. Now one issue that I will nip in the ass because I know you'll bring it up. Medical debt on credit reports. No, I do not think medical debt should appear on credit reports and I think our entire medical system and they way it sucks money out of private individuals sucks and is disgusting, but that's an entirely separate issue that needs its own resolution. >I don't know where you are getting this. First, the FTC mandated that consumers are allowed a free credit score because, while the scoring companies are legally responsible to fix errors, these errors are often not found until the consumer checks. You answered your own question. Yes, you have a personal responsibility to check for errors on your credit reports. I know there is a general trend for this generation to want to complain continuously about taking any personal responsibility for anything, but for fuck sake, handle your shit. >So back to the crux of the issue, regardless of the kind of record, how much information is enough? How much is enough to give that company reasonable assurances they are hiring a decent candidate vs. protecting individual privacy? More and more information is going to be available on us, and in more readily available forms, as time goes on. Companies are always going to want more. Slippery slope fallacy. Credit checks have been around for decades and they are nearly as rare now as they were 30 years ago for jobs. There is no indication that is changing. [SEP] Yes, you have a personal responsibility to check for errors on your credit reports. I know there is a general trend for this generation to want to complain continuously about taking any personal responsibility for anything, but for fuck sake, handle your shit.
-you just don't understand women as people, prefer them as props. most men do, some women are ok with it. at some point PR has a character explaining why, from Denna's point of view, or from ANY woman's point of view, it would be madness to start a relationship with Kvothe. no self respecting woman would start a relationship with Kvothe, he's not boyfriend material, but he's your hero and you want him to be a winner. I get that. [SEP] most men do, some women are ok with it.
->If you want to define "racism" as any kind of outward actualization of prejudice, then just about everyone is racist YAY, NOW WERE GETTING IT!!! >Can we have a civil discussion here So you (The one having the audacity to question the fact that racism played a role in this mess) wants to talk about civility? Let me guess, another white guy who wants to say for the millionth time (because you guys seem to love saying this shit).... That "Oh Noes Silly! Racism didn't play a factor!". Did You learn that from your grandparents? We know for you guys, owning other human-beings is just a past-time and the good ole' days. >Defining racism in such a way as to include these inevitable human feelings is not productive. FEELZ OVER REALZ! [SEP] YAY, NOW WERE GETTING IT!!!
->Those attempts have been deliberately sabotaged by the ANC in order to seize power. The ANC have always had power. They don’t have to ‘seize’ it and if they had conducted themselves properly, they wouldn’t be in danger of losing it. > It means you're putting too much faith on them. As opposed to putting faith in the ANC? I would rather put my faith in China. >Mining requires engineering and knowledge... Well of course. I assumed the reader would know I didn’t equate it with digging ditches. >Judging by your racist rant, The last refuge of a racist – accuse others of racism. What was ‘racist’ about my ‘rant’? [SEP] What was ‘racist’ about my ‘rant’?
-If you'll read my original comment it was specifically that it can be depleted, not that it is depleted. My point is that we shouldn't be making the same mistakes as the western part of the country. [SEP] If you'll read my original comment it was specifically that it can be depleted, not that it is depleted.
-Don't forget how people who have their hair styled differently, or even have tuned their car up... are all douchebags. Seriously it makes me wonder if most redditors are really sad, overweight & angry guys, who have bowl cuts & wear clothes their mom buys them. They also don't have cars or motorcycles.... In other words: One sad sad motherfucker, & I didn't even talk about their """"sex life"""". [SEP] sad, overweight & angry guys, who have bowl cuts & wear clothes their mom buys them. They also don't have cars or motorcycles.... In other words: One sad sad motherfucker, & I didn't even talk about their """"sex life"""".
+>At no point did you mention the hours being the calculation for Main+Extras. And at no point did I use different measure for Zelda and Witcher 3. I used the Main + Extras for both games and you felt the need to put the Completionist length for Zelda. >Since you said nothing about what calculation you were using I assumed you were going with completionist (aka 100%) because it makes more sense when comparing how much content a game offers. It makes no sense to compare how much time it takes to complete different arbitrary % of 2 games. I used Main + Extras because I felt like that would be the average experience a player might get (without collectibles and such). I used the same measure for both games. You "corrected" the Zelda length while leaving the Witcher 3 length as is for some reason. > You did say you couldn't buy them seperate but I was saying that if you can't buy them seperately it makes no sense to say DLC 2 costs the full 20€ in that comparison. But you can't buy them separately. There is no hypothetical here because we are comparing the amount of content per dollar. Imagining prices would make the whole calculation more arbitrary than it already is. Regardless, I already mentioned that the DLCs can't be bought separate, only a child would need a calculation of how much the DLC would cost separate (uhh what is 20 divided by 2???) >I do agree that Blood and Wine is a better bang for your buck, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. . I was saying that the amount of content (LENGTH) is higher in HoS than in BotW DLC 2. That's it. [SEP] Weren't even talking about Blood and Wine
+I dunno, I really liked it personally. It actually challenged my world view. I have always been atheist and at times have been a bit smug about it (not full /r/atheism smug, but still somewhat smug). It made me realise that while logic worked for me, it was okay if other people took a different approach. That I didn't need to force my beliefs on other people, or make them feel small for disagreeing. I'm exaggerating for effect - I was never as bad as a lot of atheists, but it did make me see the nuances between the two belief systems, and become more accepting of different world views. I think it was a little heavy handed and expositiony at the end, and could have done with expressing these themes in a more subtle way, but I did find the themes resonated with me. [SEP] That film made me appreciate the value in faith, and what it could do for people.
+I don't mean to be rude, but you've given one example, and a very small country at that. Remember that the original article and the comment to which we are all responding was about human rights. India is a democracy with a capitalist market, and it still can't guarantee everyone's human rights, especially not those of women. Therefore, while I am certainly not offering a solution, I am saying that repeating "Hong Kong" over and over again certainly isn't either. [SEP] I find it very amusing that everyone here has automatically equated democracy with human rights, but countries like India are proving that it is just not that simple.
+>> Well, there's pretty good evidence that they do own the copyright, and that any licenses have been terminated. > > Are the copyrights even being questioned? This whole issue arose from the use of trademarks. P&F's counterclaims are based on their copyright, and Stardock is questioning it. > And why would a license to sell games between P&F and "current trademark holder" be okay when it's Atari, but suddenly not okay when it's Stardock? Which license are you referring to: The original 1988 exclusive one with Accolade, or the 2011 non-exclusive one with GoG and Atari? The original 1988 license granted essentially total control over the Ur-Quan universe, and had several clauses that appear to have terminated it long ago. The 2011 one was much more limited, non-exclusive, and could be canceled on demand, and was cancelled by Paul once relations with Brad soured. (Note the difference between these licenses, because it'll be important later). >> If the emails Brad has shown us from October 2017 are the complete conversation, I do agree that they could have spelled out their legal basis more clearly. But I give them some leeway in their tone there, because the claim Brad made when they told him they were planning to do another game (that he had exclusive control over their copyright via the original 1988 agreement) really came out of the blue, and he kept doubling down on it, even after checking with his lawyers. > Sorry, I don't know if I'm parsing this second sentence correctly. I was referring there to the relatively curt tone in Fred's later emails. > And they didn't have any misgivings about Stardock working on their own game for the majority of the project's life. True, because Stardock was giving every impression that it was not going to use any elements from SC2, specifically committing to not using the aliens and lore. > To me, it looked like P&F kept underestimating what rights Stardock actually had, or what the actual restrictions would be. The final addendum to P&F's contract with Accolade had defined Paul's IP as "source code, names (of starships and alien races), characters, plot lines, setting, terminology unique to the Star Control products, and music", so from what I can tell, that's what they were expecting Stardock to honor. > So they kept replying with favorable and supportive emails. Up until the 11th hour of the anniversary, when Brad emailed them with "I think there is confusion on what rights Stardock has". And then the fight started... Right, because it was in that email that Brad first said anything to them that indicated that he was claiming the power to do more than sell the old games, and make a new "Star Control" game that wasn't connected in any way with SC1&2. Remember that there had been two different licenses. In that email, he said for the first time that he had the publishing rights from the original 1988 agreement, which was essentially an "I control everything" statement. So there are a few emails there where Brad keeps insisting that he has all these powers, and P&F are basically going "WTF? That license is 16 years dead!" >> Well, a lot of the ire directed at Stardock stem from Brad's tendency to get on forums and say bellicose things like "If any future games come out that continue the UQM story, it will happen under Stardock's supervision or not at all." . > > Did no one call him out on it there? Or ask him to explain what that meant? It looks like he's either angry or putting his foot down. Is he only referring to the trademark? His position is that the "Star Control" trademark also gives him control over all of the names used inside the game. I and others are skeptical that his claims on this will hold up, but if they do, he would have exclusive use of the names "Ur-Quan", "Arilou", etc. Since those are kind of essential to the setting, he would effectively have veto power over anyone continuing the story from SC2. > Paul and Fred, while they are attacking Stardock's trademark, aren't actually doing anything that would keep Stardock from making its game, even if they win. At most, it would have to keep elements from the earlier games out of SC:O. > > The game hasn't been stopped outright, but they have started making demands of things to be removed or changed ever since the hostility started. Things that would have been okay before the fighting started. How long would it have had to continue? There was no telling when they'd stop or be appeased. Well, if SC:O is clearly not using anything from SC2, it would be safe. Here, I think they could stand to show some flexibility. We know they asked Brad not to use "Super-Melee", and that doesn't seem important enough to fight over. And they don't own the copyright to the music, so they don't really have grounds to make an issue of it. I think the main thing they're concerned about is that they don't want someone building the SC2 ships (or the entire SC2 universe) in SC:O, and if Brad would commit to that, I hope P&F wouldn't sweat the smaller stuff. > It'd certainly help to humanize [P&F] through this process, if they talked. Everything from them seems so sterilized, pre-canned, and PR'fied, like they were running for office or something. As for talking, well, most lawyers would tell their clients that when they're in the middle of a lawsuit, they shouldn't be talking publicly. Paul is taking his lawyer's advice. Brad seems to have decided otherwise. Which is fine, but it's going to be a two-edged sword; having chosen to engage, Brad gets the benefits of being able to try to frame the narrative without P&F making much of a response. However, this also opens him to being fact-checked and criticized over any real or apparent discrepancies in his story. > And yeah, abusing the "ask for forgiveness, not permission" adage. I want to see all the forms that P&F submitted. I'm not sure what you mean here. > I'd basically ask them to explain their decisions to the things I wrote about here. Obviously, I can't answer for them, but I'll guess on a couple... > Why did they turn down the first offer of the trademark transfer? They were probably contractually tied to Activision making Skylanders, and couldn't have used the trademark if they bought it. Since trademarks die if not used, they passed. Plus, they were clearly under the impression (still to be tested in court), that the "Star Control" trademark had no power except over the title of a game. Since they didn't plan to call their new game "Star Control", they didn't really care about the trademark. > Why did they not ask for a concrete explanation of what rights Stardock had at that time? They thought they knew. Stardock had bought the 2011 license from GoG, which granted the right to distribute, market, and promote the old games, just as his email said. Brad gave them no sign that he was also claiming the far broader powers from the 1988 exclusive agreement until they told him of their plans to do a new game. I am currently still giving Brad the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that he sincerely thought he had the 1988 agreement's powers the whole time, and the 2013 email exchange was just an honest miscommunication. But the fact that he only started claiming these powers right after he learned that Paul and Fred would be making a competing game gives me cause to have some doubts, especially since he's never given any credible explanation as to why his lawyers said he could make those claims at all. [SEP] Maybe it just rubs me differently, but I find their posts humorously snarky.
+It's not impossible to rebuild an entire town that doesn't exist in the child timeline, but oh boy if you think that isn't a stretch. > If they're trying to make Hyrule look so similar to OoT/TP, why is there a coast? What when did I say this. I never said this. And again, the temple of time is THE temple of time. Oh and the great plateau is said to be "Where hyrule was founded a long long time ago". Oh and there's death mountain. Oh and faron woods. Oh and lake hylia. Oh and they're all in the same locations relative to each other. [SEP] It's so obviously the same hyrule.
+Blizz does not care about competitive hearthstone at all... It's just advertising for their game on Twitch. Blizz's goal is to make the most money possible by appealing to the . [SEP] lowest common denominator
+It's too much feminism actually. Like any idyllic movement, boogiemen and strawmen are created to push an agenda. Let's be perfectly clear here: >That in order to gain respect from men, I need to give AMAZING blowjobs. No man ever said this to you. Feminism said this to you. [SEP] Think about that very carefully.
+You probably don't realize it but you are case in point of what I am talking about and why misleading information is a problem. Hamstrung the defense by using a law (that you probably don't understand), that simply requires some evidence to support the person they wish to implicate instead of the accused(amazing, defense investigators and all, not a damn thing was found). Right. Yeah, the defense was hamstrung. Do a little independent research and you'll see that things weren't nearly as 1 sided as MaM has the masses believing. Somehow, I don't expect you'll do it though. So much easier to just criticize, and bitch about things you only half understand. I'm simply laying facts out. Dispute what I said. I've got facts and evidence that lewd me to my position. [SEP] You've got suspicion and speculation. And a film, you've got that too, whatever that's worth.
+ [SEP] Sheeple? Really?
+Actually it's more like . Punk kids raised by idiot parents think they ought to be treated like adults. Its pathetic. [SEP] "you're a young kid with no life experience, no responsibilities and no fucking clue yet about how the world works...so quit acting like your opinion matters or that you are somehow on the same level because you aren't...yet"
+The poor and minorities of America will be shot with no repercussions on the shooter, racist cops pardoned by the pres., the homeless die on the streets and if you want a home you've got to pony up more cash you're gonna make all year. But that's got nothing to do with Trump. It's been that way for decades - or worse. [SEP] The wealthy elite of America are the one's actually in charge - they won't let anything happen to them.
+I even told Drummerboy that his compassion is in the right place. I was simply sharing something that happened to my partner and I. I didn't call anyone an idiot. My aunt was murdered on Christmas day of 2010, I don't call murder victims idiots. Take your melodramatic, half sissy ass the fuck out of here. Seriously. [SEP] I never said I find it beneath me.
+That being said, I highly doubt there is any DNA present, belonging to anyone. If I was Adnan, I would only test the kit as my final option. It’s a crapshoot. [SEP] Adnan did have contact with Hae that day, so theoretically his DNA could show up regardless of his involvement.
+>It isn't an either or proposition And yet even though medical records are sealed, it's still perfectly legal and reasonable to issue a fitness test to qualify someone for a physical job? Why do you think that finances are a separate issue? You seem perfectly happy to use medical records as a rationale to restrict credit checks. >You didn't address my response. Does that mean you acknowledge the the stark differences between a medical evaluation (are you physically capable of performing this job now) vs. medical records. The primary difference between a financial record and a medical record is agency. You are in control of your financial records, as you choose to take on every debt...and you are most often not in control of your medical conditions. This is the same distinction why using your criminal record to deny you a job is reasonable, but using your race is not. You have a personal responsibility to your financial records,but that's often not the case medically. Now one issue that I will nip in the ass because I know you'll bring it up. Medical debt on credit reports. No, I do not think medical debt should appear on credit reports and I think our entire medical system and they way it sucks money out of private individuals sucks and is disgusting, but that's an entirely separate issue that needs its own resolution. >I don't know where you are getting this. First, the FTC mandated that consumers are allowed a free credit score because, while the scoring companies are legally responsible to fix errors, these errors are often not found until the consumer checks. You answered your own question. >So back to the crux of the issue, regardless of the kind of record, how much information is enough? How much is enough to give that company reasonable assurances they are hiring a decent candidate vs. protecting individual privacy? More and more information is going to be available on us, and in more readily available forms, as time goes on. Companies are always going to want more. Slippery slope fallacy. Credit checks have been around for decades and they are nearly as rare now as they were 30 years ago for jobs. There is no indication that is changing. [SEP] Yes, you have a personal responsibility to check for errors on your credit reports. I know there is a general trend for this generation to want to complain continuously about taking any personal responsibility for anything, but for fuck sake, handle your shit.
+you just don't understand women as people, prefer them as props. at some point PR has a character explaining why, from Denna's point of view, or from ANY woman's point of view, it would be madness to start a relationship with Kvothe. no self respecting woman would start a relationship with Kvothe, he's not boyfriend material, but he's your hero and you want him to be a winner. I get that. [SEP] most men do, some women are ok with it.
+>If you want to define "racism" as any kind of outward actualization of prejudice, then just about everyone is racist >Can we have a civil discussion here So you (The one having the audacity to question the fact that racism played a role in this mess) wants to talk about civility? Let me guess, another white guy who wants to say for the millionth time (because you guys seem to love saying this shit).... That "Oh Noes Silly! Racism didn't play a factor!". Did You learn that from your grandparents? We know for you guys, owning other human-beings is just a past-time and the good ole' days. >Defining racism in such a way as to include these inevitable human feelings is not productive. FEELZ OVER REALZ! [SEP] YAY, NOW WERE GETTING IT!!!
+>Those attempts have been deliberately sabotaged by the ANC in order to seize power. The ANC have always had power. They don’t have to ‘seize’ it and if they had conducted themselves properly, they wouldn’t be in danger of losing it. > It means you're putting too much faith on them. As opposed to putting faith in the ANC? I would rather put my faith in China. >Mining requires engineering and knowledge... Well of course. I assumed the reader would know I didn’t equate it with digging ditches. >Judging by your racist rant, The last refuge of a racist – accuse others of racism. [SEP] What was ‘racist’ about my ‘rant’?
+My point is that we shouldn't be making the same mistakes as the western part of the country. [SEP] If you'll read my original comment it was specifically that it can be depleted, not that it is depleted.
+Don't forget how people who have their hair styled differently, or even have tuned their car up... are all douchebags. Seriously it makes me wonder if most redditors are really [SEP] sad, overweight & angry guys, who have bowl cuts & wear clothes their mom buys them. They also don't have cars or motorcycles.... In other words: One sad sad motherfucker, & I didn't even talk about their """"sex life"""".
 Obviously I'm prepared to be downvoted for saying so, but I think a lot of the hatred for Catelyn is rooted in misogyny. It's the same reason everyone hates Skylar White and Lori Grimes. You're just not allowed to have complex female characters, especially not in television. [SEP] you're just now allowed to have complex female characters.
-Or the majority have been banned from every other political sub because they’re not liberals ready to slit their wrists over trump? [SEP] Or the majority have been banned from every other political sub
-Iceland is a separate governing entity that is free to make its own decision outside US law. It may seem like a small victory, but mountains are not moved in one day. Also, the day Iceland has the population of the US, you can claim that their number of votes is silly. I do believe that a little concept called PROPORTIONS gets put into play. In case you're not understanding, it was obviously enough votes to vote them into office. The people and interests the party represents are now OFFICIALLY REPRESENTED IN AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BODY OF GOVERNMENT. I know in 'murka, we are taught that if it isn't a Hail Mary pass or absolute decimation of the other side, it isn't a victory. In the real world, however, small victories are where it's at. The battle for civil rights wasn't won in one decisive victory, it was small victories and it was many if them. [SEP] OFFICIALLY REPRESENTED IN AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BODY OF GOVERNMENT.
-I know this will sound silly as well, but it always does to the uneducated. Here is the real fact, the only fact that matters. Some people will never treat others the way they legally should unless they're forced to. Period. I know libertarians hate that word, but that's the way it is. [SEP] the way they legally should
-You said asshole, not me. Let be more clear since clearly you seem to be too dense to understand what I was saying: You can make a perfectly valid criticism (which he did) without getting into details most people won't understand or care about (which he did). As for mixing versus recording, I do know the difference. Do you? She made a (multi-track) recording, and did not mix it. I have made plenty of recordings and not put them through a mixer just to get some shit down on tape. Once again, my take is that's all her goal was. Nothing more. Do you know what YMMV means? It means, this is how I see it, but you may see it differently. You seem to want to bicker about it, I definitely don't. I didn't disagree with him, but I did disagree with the depth of the criticism. I don't think that was necessary to make the point. So, whatever. [SEP] As for mixing versus recording, I do know the difference. Do you?
-Itt: op and millenials realizing companies try to make a profit. Holy fuck are you stupid enough to think blizzard should give more value than their cost? [SEP] Itt: op and millenials realizing companies try to make a profit. Holy fuck are you stupid enough to think blizzard should give more value than their cost?
-It took people years to understand that MoM is amazing item. This post would get downvoted if so called pros (who also took a really long time to get over MoM stigma) didn't used it. So, yeah, reddit is full of shitters who can't think my themselves, who knew? [SEP] reddit is full of shitters
-This sub loves callous derision when it’s directed at people or ideas they don’t agree with. I just happen to make snide remarks about folks they like. None of which is relevant to the issue, since I didn’t ask for help for me. Not that it should matter, but the person I was trying to help disagrees with me on most things. She’s not vegan, &c. Y’all talk a good game about civility, but you’re willing to punish an innocent stranger who was wronged simply because she happens to be friends with someone you don’t like. Please tell me more about your moral superiority. Your fake gravitas and out of context Shakespeare quote is a fucking joke. [SEP] This sub loves callous derision when it’s directed at people or ideas they don’t agree with.
->Please, prove to me that the unhealthy acceptance of obesity doesn't exist outside of tumblr and/or it isn't a problem. I never made that assertion... so no, I won't try to do that (lol) >How the hell is it nuanced? Well, it talks about mental health (which, despite your potential triggered ravings, is certainly a part of the obesity issue). >The article also talks about healthy and body image. Exactly. That's the nuance that you're missing and that the article addressed. See? That wasn't hard. >Don't try to cop out on it. What, exactly, am I copping out on? Do you need to Google that phrase? >I'm wasting your time with bullshit? Buddy, you're the one who's arguing about nothing. No, my argument is that the "fat acceptance" movement is a non-factor in the obesity epidemic. You've done absolutely nothing to refute that point adequately. [SEP] What, exactly, am I copping out on? Do you need to Google that phrase?
-This. I sell phones and while I know that in a head-to-head contest, Android blows the iPhone away in functionality and customization, I don't even bother trying to educate iPhone users. They are largely immune to reason. Let them get the phone they're happy with and think they're getting the best phone (poorly stifled laugh). [SEP] I know that in a head-to-head contest, Android blows the iPhone away in functionality and customization, I don't even bother trying to educate iPhone users. They are largely immune to reason. Let them get the phone they're happy with and think they're getting the best phone (poorly stifled laugh).
-This clickbait headline has no relevance in today tech landscape. Or as much relevance as John Maeda have in today design landscape. Or as much relate as your reply has to this thread. Or as much sense as your reply has to my comment: None. ps. do yourself a favour and demistify your holy cows before engage reddit. [SEP] This clickbait headline has no relevance in today tech landscape.
-Hmmm. While there arn't to my knowledge any statistics for student turnout specifically I'm sceptical of your claim that they tend to be active voters. The 18-24 age bracket consitently has by far the lowest turnout. Typically 10% lower than even the next lowest turnout age bracket - the 25-34 year olds. Indeed for the 2001 and 2005 elections there was a 30% tunout discrepency between 18-24 year olds those 65+. I'm sure there's some truth to the slightly condecending ascertion that voting still has some novelty but I'd bet this tends to be more than made up for by the voter registration confusion that comes with moving to a new place to study and the lack of long term connection with that polity. There may be some localised variation and Brighton may be an anomoly in this respect but if that's the case I don't think chalking it up to students in general being active voters is the answer. [SEP] I'd bet this tends to be more than made up for by the voter registration confusion that comes with moving to a new place to study
-Uh, no, you started it with your first comment to me. A for effort though. [SEP] A for effort though.
-I wrote this in another thread regarding these "gamers are dead" articles which talked a little about the Devin Wilson article mentioned here. There isn't a point in Wilson's article i don't agree with. Gaming needs to change, i know that's not a popular mindset around here and i expect to be downvoted accordingly. But as an aspiring developer and someone who has played games for 20 odd years. I want gaming culture to be better than it is. Devin Wilson's article brings up a great many points in regards to how we can be better. Most of these relating to the maturity of the consumer and the standards to which those consumers hold developers too. I wanna address one particular point brought up in the OP's link. >There’s plenty of overlap, for example, between my college’s anime club and videogame club. Can we please stop with the notion that "broader interests" is defined by watching a season or two of Attack on Titan/Evangelion/Full Metal Alchemist/Dragonball Z. Game developers shouldn't be afraid to take on significant cultural problems within today's society. There are a number of real world topics that could be explored in games but aren't because nobody wants to buy a "preachy" game when all they wanna do is kill more soldiers/aliens/demons. Wilson in his article is arguing for an effort to make games dealing with topics beyond who's killing who. > We put more effort into making games about things other than what we’ve already seen in games. Spec Ops: The Line and Papers Please are games that represent an effort to do that. They are narratively rich and genuinely thought provoking. But there success is limited because all anyone buys/talks about is BF/CoD/Destiny/whatever other flavour of the month crap is being churned out by EA/Activision. If arguing for a more mature gaming culture means we see more effort to make games like this then im all for it and will support anyone arguing for it. But it starts with the people buying games. If you demand a higher standard from developers then gaming will become more than it is now. Otherwise the industry will continue to wither on the vein of progress in order to cash in on the easy money that can be made by releasing more FPS nonsense. [SEP] There are a number of real world topics that could be explored in games but aren't because nobody wants to buy a "preachy" game when all they wanna do is kill more soldiers/aliens/demons.
-> To stop other countries from using nuclear weapons, which is what you said. The threat already exists at that point, genies don't go back in bottles. > Everything Un does is consistent with his goal of maintaining his regime. No it isn't. Building nuclear weapons itself isn't! He's attracting more ire than anything such a program possibly gains him when he already had China and Russia looking out for his regime. >In a standoff, every rational actor would withdraw because destruction is contrary to their goals Is that how standoffs always play out? I... wish it were. >Do you have anything to support you're claim that there's a coalition of anti-US nations who are scheming to destroy us? Why exactly do you think that Russia is funding and supplying North Korea and aiding the development of their weapons programs? >Then don't say that NK has a gun pointed straight at our head. Why? That's a great analogy. >That implies that we're in a survival situation Uhm, we are? A threat to attack our homeland is precisely an existential threat. >Cool. So we can't just stop that from happening in other countries? Why? Because to do so would disadvantage us by denying us an apparently quite effective strategy. Even if we denied it to ourselves, other world powers likely would not. [SEP] Uhm, we are? A threat to attack our homeland is precisely an existential threat.
-I couldnt agree more but lets be honest these movies have strayed far from the car scene and into over the top nonsense for the masses long ago. The first will forever be the best, each consecutive one has become farther from the atmosphere they started with/captured so well. [SEP] over the top nonsense for the masses
-I don't go through life attacking other people for mistakes. The opposite. I give people second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and even eighth chances. I give them as many chances as they want and try to be as considerate as possible. I myself have never done what OP described. It would make me personally uncomfortable. That being said, I would never question someones RIGHT to say that in that situation, because I grew up here in New England. That is how things are here, and what I did is I explained the attitude. Yes, New Englanders are puritanical perfectionists. More news at 11. It's not like we have a legacy of both Utopianism, "City on a Hill" ism, and Puritanism in general or anything. Around here, the mindest I described is the majority one, and imo, ethically, it's sound. I'm personally uncomfortable behaving that way because it is my culture but not my personal nature. I don't mind these things as much. But not because they aren't worth minding. I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt and be easygoing with them. But, and this is important, anyone who behaves the way I described is within their rights to do so. At least up here. There's nothing wrong with it ethically, and thus, it's righteous. Whether or not it's tactful is a different and frankly unimportant question. Do I like to be tactful? Sure. Is it necessary? Absolutely not. [SEP] That being said, I would never question someones RIGHT to say that in that situation, because I grew up here in New England. That is how things are here, and what I did is I explained the attitude. Yes, New Englanders are puritanical perfectionists.
-> Do you know how difficult it is to get 50% of the electorate to support you in an election and who is to say that a more moderate conservative party doesn't rise from the ashes and make inroads towards the centre. We've seen it in other countries. If a prime minister somehow becomes popular enough in a single election, should that be grounds for that prime minister to be able to install themselves for life? >The current polarity of the electorate exists because the state of the NDP and CPC is so off-putting. Canadians are moderate and I am more than confident that if presented with a socially progressive but fiscally conservative party were to form; Canadians would get behind it. This has nothing to do with whether or not substantive changes to elections should be held to a different standard, because of their power to effectively undo the primary check on the power of a majority. >Parliament is the sole body that has the constitutional authority to effect change. A referendum is pointless unless bound, which rarely happens and is often contested in the courts. The question is how should we reform the fundamental structure of our democracy. I do not think such fundamental reforms should become part of routine politicking where every single party who takes power then gets to set the terms of the next election to be the most favourable to themselves. I do not believe that is healthy. So if we're going to reform we should do so in a way that both follows a process to make sure that this change and establishes a reasonable process to make adjustments. [SEP] The question is how should we reform the fundamental structure of our democracy. I do not think such fundamental reforms should become part of routine politicking where every single party who takes power then gets to set the terms of the next election to be the most favourable to themselves.
-Uhm, well first of all while to you the definition of >whiner" = "complaining unreasonably" That doesn't mean that every time someones describes someone as "complaining unreasonably" that they intend to say "whiner". Otherwise your turning this into an argument of what you think Iamplasma is implying.... which is not a very strong argument. I don't think many people even interpretted this way. Even saying that it is "accepted slang" is not a very solid reason to for you to imply that Iamplasma meant to say whiner when he clearly didn't. People can say complaining unreasonably without saying meaning the term whiner whatsoever. Otherwise every time you said black person or african american, someone could easily "interpret" as saying nigger. The op however, was very blunt and chose to say Little Bitch, which is what Iamplasma, many other people, and including I have a distaste for. [SEP] The op however, was very blunt and chose to say Little Bitch, which is what Iamplasma, many other people, and including I have a distaste for.
-No. It's like you don't even SEE the middle ground. You vote your way, and you don't call people 'racist/misogynist scum' for voting the other way. You don't vilify people, in your outrage. You - without judgement - ask them why they voted that way, what their priorities were, because you don't understand why someone would vote for a racist. Because people DID, without being racist themselves. And they had reasons they felt were good. And instead of you saying, "No reason is good enough, you're the scum of the earth," and alienating them forever and cementing in their mind that 'liberal lefties are judgemental pricks', you either plant the seed of suggestion or at the very least you leave them thinking, "That feller's alright. Don't agree with 'em, but they're civil." Your outrage is misdirected, pointless, and utterly self-defeating if you're using it to criticize Trump voters. And it's the self-defeating part that proves that it's purely about ego. Do you want to actually accomplish something and affect positive change, or do you just want to feel better about yourself for being sooooo self-righteous while you sabotage the chances of those you're trying to help? [SEP] you either plant the seed of suggestion or at the very least you leave them thinking, "That feller's alright. Don't agree with 'em, but they're civil."
-> It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. ffs no. Why do you people think any kind of analysis of power structures is "Marxism"? I can't analyse power structures without being a "Marxist"? [SEP] I can't analyse power structures without being a "Marxist"?
-> That is, officials in the Soviet Union and in North Korea and in Maoist China did say that they were killing because of Atheism. I'll try and source the assertion, but that may take some time. Do you mind if we shelve that particular section of this discussion until/unless I can come back with a source? > How good of you, then, to step in and speak for what they "really mean." Ah, the arrogance of the psuedo-historian... Ah, no. This is pretty basic stuff, dealt with in sociology and anthropology as well as history. Yeah, 'natural philosophers' and 'philosophers' are completely different things, and yes science did replace 'natural philosophy'. But the differences in the scientific method over time have not been small; some of them have been at least as large as the differences between 'natural philosophy' and science. As for 'proof', that is not a word that any modern practising scientist should ever use, except for as an idiom or figure of speech, or when subtly misrepresenting the truth to a crowd of non-scientists (which I think of as evil, but a case can be made for eg speaking of evolution as absolutely proven, so that 'creation scientists' cannot lie by grossly misrepresenting what the actual scientists said as meaning). Falsifiability (which came from Popper in the 1930s) put paid to 'proof', and neither do ideas of probabilistic induction or traditional rationality support it, as you would know if you knew anything about the subject. a) I am not saying that every human conflict comes about for reasons other than an explicit clash of ideologies, just that most of them do. We humans have warred and had lesser conflicts a lot over our history. For example, it seems clear that the Catholic attacks on Catharism or Arianism were explicitly ideological, as was the Maoist attack on Capitalism (or the Capitalist attack on Maoism, depending on who you think struck first). But by most measures that I am aware of, religion has not been a prime or sufficient instigator in most cases of human strife, which is to say that if you magically removed religion from humanity, wars would happen about as often (there would be some wars that did not happen, but then there have also been occurrences where religion has stopped wars, so...) and in about the same ways. b) As for 'they did it in the name of no fairies', let us explore this thought experiment. Let us say that 'fairyists' have a number of strange practices that are justified solely on the basis of fairies, like that all men should turn their shirts inside out when walking through the countryside at night because otherwise they will be abducted by fairies. Furthermore, let us be generous and say that there are enough fairyists, that many of their practices have become social norms (to provide a reasonable reason for non-fairyists to exhibit the behaviour, because otherwise this is a slam dunk for me). So, if someone did not believe in fairies, that would remove the prime or motivating reason for following those strange practices. It may still not make a change in outcome, as they may just mindlessly go along with social norms, but in the same vein a fairyist may not follow the practices of fairyism for any number of reasons, like they may only wear shirts that cannot be turned inside out without being damaged. So, Being or not being a fairyist make the same kind of difference in probable observed behaviour. So, if being a fairyist van be a cause, not being a fairyist can be a cause. Being a fairyist can be a cause. So, being a non-fairyist can be a cause. I see Theism/Atheism similarly, and specific Theist belief systems/specific Atheist belief systems similarly. Does that make sense? [SEP] Ah, no. This is pretty basic stuff, dealt with in sociology and anthropology as well as history.
-It had to do with the overt condescension where you talked about your principles and "people like you [me]" and how you think you're highly principled compared to people who don't make a fuss over a simple question. I choose the easier path when there is no reason to be difficult. If a police officer is giving me a hard time, then it is time to flex my constitutional rights. If a Customs agent wants an answer about why I was on vacation, I'll probably just say "tourism" or "business" because being indignant and acting self-righteous is a waste of time. There positive end-game outweighs the negative. Best positive: She/He doesn't ask you again. Worst negative: Time wasted getting interrogated, your luggage torn apart, and you get charges for inane bullshit that will still cost you court fees. Custom agents aren't worth it. Overzealous police, security, etc... worth it. Also, I never set out to change your mind. I don't know why you thought I was trying to. I simply voiced an opinion. [SEP] a fuss over a simple question
->All matter is condensed energy. If it wasn't there probably wouldn't be a wave-particle duality. The mass-energy equivalence follows from definitions in special relativity, which is a purely classical theory. There was no appeal to the wave-particle duality in deriving this result. >I almost never listen to Deepak Chopra, unless he's been dragged into something else I'm watching, so I think your negative confirmation bias is probably just as prone to clouding your judgment as positive confirmation bias. This isn't confirmation bias. Deepak Chopra has no formal training in physics. He's made that abundantly clear. >Boltzmann brain.[1] Can you understand that? I'd be impressed if you actually understood what a Boltzmann brain is without quoting Wikipedia. [SEP] I'd be impressed if you actually understood what a Boltzmann brain is without quoting Wikipedia.
+because they’re not liberals ready to slit their wrists over trump? [SEP] Or the majority have been banned from every other political sub
+Iceland is a separate governing entity that is free to make its own decision outside US law. It may seem like a small victory, but mountains are not moved in one day. Also, the day Iceland has the population of the US, you can claim that their number of votes is silly. I do believe that a little concept called PROPORTIONS gets put into play. In case you're not understanding, it was obviously enough votes to vote them into office. The people and interests the party represents are now I know in 'murka, we are taught that if it isn't a Hail Mary pass or absolute decimation of the other side, it isn't a victory. In the real world, however, small victories are where it's at. The battle for civil rights wasn't won in one decisive victory, it was small victories and it was many if them. [SEP] OFFICIALLY REPRESENTED IN AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BODY OF GOVERNMENT.
+I know this will sound silly as well, but it always does to the uneducated. Here is the real fact, the only fact that matters. Some people will never treat others unless they're forced to. Period. I know libertarians hate that word, but that's the way it is. [SEP] the way they legally should
+You said asshole, not me. Let be more clear since clearly you seem to be too dense to understand what I was saying: You can make a perfectly valid criticism (which he did) without getting into details most people won't understand or care about (which he did). She made a (multi-track) recording, and did not mix it. I have made plenty of recordings and not put them through a mixer just to get some shit down on tape. Once again, my take is that's all her goal was. Nothing more. Do you know what YMMV means? It means, this is how I see it, but you may see it differently. You seem to want to bicker about it, I definitely don't. I didn't disagree with him, but I did disagree with the depth of the criticism. I don't think that was necessary to make the point. So, whatever. [SEP] As for mixing versus recording, I do know the difference. Do you?
+ [SEP] Itt: op and millenials realizing companies try to make a profit. Holy fuck are you stupid enough to think blizzard should give more value than their cost?
+It took people years to understand that MoM is amazing item. This post would get downvoted if so called pros (who also took a really long time to get over MoM stigma) didn't used it. So, yeah, who can't think my themselves, who knew? [SEP] reddit is full of shitters
+I just happen to make snide remarks about folks they like. None of which is relevant to the issue, since I didn’t ask for help for me. Not that it should matter, but the person I was trying to help disagrees with me on most things. She’s not vegan, &c. Y’all talk a good game about civility, but you’re willing to punish an innocent stranger who was wronged simply because she happens to be friends with someone you don’t like. Please tell me more about your moral superiority. Your fake gravitas and out of context Shakespeare quote is a fucking joke. [SEP] This sub loves callous derision when it’s directed at people or ideas they don’t agree with.
+>Please, prove to me that the unhealthy acceptance of obesity doesn't exist outside of tumblr and/or it isn't a problem. I never made that assertion... so no, I won't try to do that (lol) >How the hell is it nuanced? Well, it talks about mental health (which, despite your potential triggered ravings, is certainly a part of the obesity issue). >The article also talks about healthy and body image. Exactly. That's the nuance that you're missing and that the article addressed. See? That wasn't hard. >Don't try to cop out on it. >I'm wasting your time with bullshit? Buddy, you're the one who's arguing about nothing. No, my argument is that the "fat acceptance" movement is a non-factor in the obesity epidemic. You've done absolutely nothing to refute that point adequately. [SEP] What, exactly, am I copping out on? Do you need to Google that phrase?
+This. I sell phones and while [SEP] I know that in a head-to-head contest, Android blows the iPhone away in functionality and customization, I don't even bother trying to educate iPhone users. They are largely immune to reason. Let them get the phone they're happy with and think they're getting the best phone (poorly stifled laugh).
+Or as much relevance as John Maeda have in today design landscape. Or as much relate as your reply has to this thread. Or as much sense as your reply has to my comment: None. ps. do yourself a favour and demistify your holy cows before engage reddit. [SEP] This clickbait headline has no relevance in today tech landscape.
+Hmmm. While there arn't to my knowledge any statistics for student turnout specifically I'm sceptical of your claim that they tend to be active voters. The 18-24 age bracket consitently has by far the lowest turnout. Typically 10% lower than even the next lowest turnout age bracket - the 25-34 year olds. Indeed for the 2001 and 2005 elections there was a 30% tunout discrepency between 18-24 year olds those 65+. I'm sure there's some truth to the slightly condecending ascertion that voting still has some novelty but and the lack of long term connection with that polity. There may be some localised variation and Brighton may be an anomoly in this respect but if that's the case I don't think chalking it up to students in general being active voters is the answer. [SEP] I'd bet this tends to be more than made up for by the voter registration confusion that comes with moving to a new place to study
+Uh, no, you started it with your first comment to me. [SEP] A for effort though.
+I wrote this in another thread regarding these "gamers are dead" articles which talked a little about the Devin Wilson article mentioned here. There isn't a point in Wilson's article i don't agree with. Gaming needs to change, i know that's not a popular mindset around here and i expect to be downvoted accordingly. But as an aspiring developer and someone who has played games for 20 odd years. I want gaming culture to be better than it is. Devin Wilson's article brings up a great many points in regards to how we can be better. Most of these relating to the maturity of the consumer and the standards to which those consumers hold developers too. I wanna address one particular point brought up in the OP's link. >There’s plenty of overlap, for example, between my college’s anime club and videogame club. Can we please stop with the notion that "broader interests" is defined by watching a season or two of Attack on Titan/Evangelion/Full Metal Alchemist/Dragonball Z. Game developers shouldn't be afraid to take on significant cultural problems within today's society. Wilson in his article is arguing for an effort to make games dealing with topics beyond who's killing who. > We put more effort into making games about things other than what we’ve already seen in games. Spec Ops: The Line and Papers Please are games that represent an effort to do that. They are narratively rich and genuinely thought provoking. But there success is limited because all anyone buys/talks about is BF/CoD/Destiny/whatever other flavour of the month crap is being churned out by EA/Activision. If arguing for a more mature gaming culture means we see more effort to make games like this then im all for it and will support anyone arguing for it. But it starts with the people buying games. If you demand a higher standard from developers then gaming will become more than it is now. Otherwise the industry will continue to wither on the vein of progress in order to cash in on the easy money that can be made by releasing more FPS nonsense. [SEP] There are a number of real world topics that could be explored in games but aren't because nobody wants to buy a "preachy" game when all they wanna do is kill more soldiers/aliens/demons.
+> To stop other countries from using nuclear weapons, which is what you said. The threat already exists at that point, genies don't go back in bottles. > Everything Un does is consistent with his goal of maintaining his regime. No it isn't. Building nuclear weapons itself isn't! He's attracting more ire than anything such a program possibly gains him when he already had China and Russia looking out for his regime. >In a standoff, every rational actor would withdraw because destruction is contrary to their goals Is that how standoffs always play out? I... wish it were. >Do you have anything to support you're claim that there's a coalition of anti-US nations who are scheming to destroy us? Why exactly do you think that Russia is funding and supplying North Korea and aiding the development of their weapons programs? >Then don't say that NK has a gun pointed straight at our head. Why? That's a great analogy. >That implies that we're in a survival situation >Cool. So we can't just stop that from happening in other countries? Why? Because to do so would disadvantage us by denying us an apparently quite effective strategy. Even if we denied it to ourselves, other world powers likely would not. [SEP] Uhm, we are? A threat to attack our homeland is precisely an existential threat.
+I couldnt agree more but lets be honest these movies have strayed far from the car scene and into long ago. The first will forever be the best, each consecutive one has become farther from the atmosphere they started with/captured so well. [SEP] over the top nonsense for the masses
+I don't go through life attacking other people for mistakes. The opposite. I give people second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and even eighth chances. I give them as many chances as they want and try to be as considerate as possible. I myself have never done what OP described. It would make me personally uncomfortable. More news at 11. It's not like we have a legacy of both Utopianism, "City on a Hill" ism, and Puritanism in general or anything. Around here, the mindest I described is the majority one, and imo, ethically, it's sound. I'm personally uncomfortable behaving that way because it is my culture but not my personal nature. I don't mind these things as much. But not because they aren't worth minding. I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt and be easygoing with them. But, and this is important, anyone who behaves the way I described is within their rights to do so. At least up here. There's nothing wrong with it ethically, and thus, it's righteous. Whether or not it's tactful is a different and frankly unimportant question. Do I like to be tactful? Sure. Is it necessary? Absolutely not. [SEP] That being said, I would never question someones RIGHT to say that in that situation, because I grew up here in New England. That is how things are here, and what I did is I explained the attitude. Yes, New Englanders are puritanical perfectionists.
+> Do you know how difficult it is to get 50% of the electorate to support you in an election and who is to say that a more moderate conservative party doesn't rise from the ashes and make inroads towards the centre. We've seen it in other countries. If a prime minister somehow becomes popular enough in a single election, should that be grounds for that prime minister to be able to install themselves for life? >The current polarity of the electorate exists because the state of the NDP and CPC is so off-putting. Canadians are moderate and I am more than confident that if presented with a socially progressive but fiscally conservative party were to form; Canadians would get behind it. This has nothing to do with whether or not substantive changes to elections should be held to a different standard, because of their power to effectively undo the primary check on the power of a majority. >Parliament is the sole body that has the constitutional authority to effect change. A referendum is pointless unless bound, which rarely happens and is often contested in the courts. I do not believe that is healthy. So if we're going to reform we should do so in a way that both follows a process to make sure that this change and establishes a reasonable process to make adjustments. [SEP] The question is how should we reform the fundamental structure of our democracy. I do not think such fundamental reforms should become part of routine politicking where every single party who takes power then gets to set the terms of the next election to be the most favourable to themselves.
+Uhm, well first of all while to you the definition of >whiner" = "complaining unreasonably" That doesn't mean that every time someones describes someone as "complaining unreasonably" that they intend to say "whiner". Otherwise your turning this into an argument of what you think Iamplasma is implying.... which is not a very strong argument. I don't think many people even interpretted this way. Even saying that it is "accepted slang" is not a very solid reason to for you to imply that Iamplasma meant to say whiner when he clearly didn't. People can say complaining unreasonably without saying meaning the term whiner whatsoever. Otherwise every time you said black person or african american, someone could easily "interpret" as saying nigger. [SEP] The op however, was very blunt and chose to say Little Bitch, which is what Iamplasma, many other people, and including I have a distaste for.
+No. It's like you don't even SEE the middle ground. You vote your way, and you don't call people 'racist/misogynist scum' for voting the other way. You don't vilify people, in your outrage. You - without judgement - ask them why they voted that way, what their priorities were, because you don't understand why someone would vote for a racist. Because people DID, without being racist themselves. And they had reasons they felt were good. And instead of you saying, "No reason is good enough, you're the scum of the earth," and alienating them forever and cementing in their mind that 'liberal lefties are judgemental pricks', Your outrage is misdirected, pointless, and utterly self-defeating if you're using it to criticize Trump voters. And it's the self-defeating part that proves that it's purely about ego. Do you want to actually accomplish something and affect positive change, or do you just want to feel better about yourself for being sooooo self-righteous while you sabotage the chances of those you're trying to help? [SEP] you either plant the seed of suggestion or at the very least you leave them thinking, "That feller's alright. Don't agree with 'em, but they're civil."
+> It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. ffs no. Why do you people think any kind of analysis of power structures is "Marxism"? [SEP] I can't analyse power structures without being a "Marxist"?
+> That is, officials in the Soviet Union and in North Korea and in Maoist China did say that they were killing because of Atheism. I'll try and source the assertion, but that may take some time. Do you mind if we shelve that particular section of this discussion until/unless I can come back with a source? > How good of you, then, to step in and speak for what they "really mean." Ah, the arrogance of the psuedo-historian... Yeah, 'natural philosophers' and 'philosophers' are completely different things, and yes science did replace 'natural philosophy'. But the differences in the scientific method over time have not been small; some of them have been at least as large as the differences between 'natural philosophy' and science. As for 'proof', that is not a word that any modern practising scientist should ever use, except for as an idiom or figure of speech, or when subtly misrepresenting the truth to a crowd of non-scientists (which I think of as evil, but a case can be made for eg speaking of evolution as absolutely proven, so that 'creation scientists' cannot lie by grossly misrepresenting what the actual scientists said as meaning). Falsifiability (which came from Popper in the 1930s) put paid to 'proof', and neither do ideas of probabilistic induction or traditional rationality support it, as you would know if you knew anything about the subject. a) I am not saying that every human conflict comes about for reasons other than an explicit clash of ideologies, just that most of them do. We humans have warred and had lesser conflicts a lot over our history. For example, it seems clear that the Catholic attacks on Catharism or Arianism were explicitly ideological, as was the Maoist attack on Capitalism (or the Capitalist attack on Maoism, depending on who you think struck first). But by most measures that I am aware of, religion has not been a prime or sufficient instigator in most cases of human strife, which is to say that if you magically removed religion from humanity, wars would happen about as often (there would be some wars that did not happen, but then there have also been occurrences where religion has stopped wars, so...) and in about the same ways. b) As for 'they did it in the name of no fairies', let us explore this thought experiment. Let us say that 'fairyists' have a number of strange practices that are justified solely on the basis of fairies, like that all men should turn their shirts inside out when walking through the countryside at night because otherwise they will be abducted by fairies. Furthermore, let us be generous and say that there are enough fairyists, that many of their practices have become social norms (to provide a reasonable reason for non-fairyists to exhibit the behaviour, because otherwise this is a slam dunk for me). So, if someone did not believe in fairies, that would remove the prime or motivating reason for following those strange practices. It may still not make a change in outcome, as they may just mindlessly go along with social norms, but in the same vein a fairyist may not follow the practices of fairyism for any number of reasons, like they may only wear shirts that cannot be turned inside out without being damaged. So, Being or not being a fairyist make the same kind of difference in probable observed behaviour. So, if being a fairyist van be a cause, not being a fairyist can be a cause. Being a fairyist can be a cause. So, being a non-fairyist can be a cause. I see Theism/Atheism similarly, and specific Theist belief systems/specific Atheist belief systems similarly. Does that make sense? [SEP] Ah, no. This is pretty basic stuff, dealt with in sociology and anthropology as well as history.
+It had to do with the overt condescension where you talked about your principles and "people like you [me]" and how you think you're highly principled compared to people who don't make . I choose the easier path when there is no reason to be difficult. If a police officer is giving me a hard time, then it is time to flex my constitutional rights. If a Customs agent wants an answer about why I was on vacation, I'll probably just say "tourism" or "business" because being indignant and acting self-righteous is a waste of time. There positive end-game outweighs the negative. Best positive: She/He doesn't ask you again. Worst negative: Time wasted getting interrogated, your luggage torn apart, and you get charges for inane bullshit that will still cost you court fees. Custom agents aren't worth it. Overzealous police, security, etc... worth it. Also, I never set out to change your mind. I don't know why you thought I was trying to. I simply voiced an opinion. [SEP] a fuss over a simple question
+>All matter is condensed energy. If it wasn't there probably wouldn't be a wave-particle duality. The mass-energy equivalence follows from definitions in special relativity, which is a purely classical theory. There was no appeal to the wave-particle duality in deriving this result. >I almost never listen to Deepak Chopra, unless he's been dragged into something else I'm watching, so I think your negative confirmation bias is probably just as prone to clouding your judgment as positive confirmation bias. This isn't confirmation bias. Deepak Chopra has no formal training in physics. He's made that abundantly clear. >Boltzmann brain.[1] Can you understand that? [SEP] I'd be impressed if you actually understood what a Boltzmann brain is without quoting Wikipedia.
 Yes, the government can force you to take care of someone when you are a parent. Negligent parents are prosecuted all the time, and it always requires great personal sacrifice. Are you advocating that all parents should be able to kill their children because they are unwilling and it requires great sacrifice? I do agree that we shouldn't be forced to be alturists, we should do that because we are moral people. I agree that a person should not ever be forced to provide their body as a means for another person to survive, but doesn't the choice to procreate cause some kind of responsibility to ensure the survival of a child? Are parents completely free of responsibility because it is inconvinient? I think that if a woman keeps a child past the 18 week mark, it should no longer be an option to abort because the fetus has now become a person capable of sustaining itself outside of the womb. She has accepted the risks of pregnancy at this point. This is why the definition of a person creates a different meaning. Murder is wrong, abortion is a choice. [SEP] doesn't the choice to procreate cause some kind of responsibility to ensure the survival of a child? Are parents completely free of responsibility because it is inconvenient?
-Sure, yes, but the examples you gave were at best misguided advice and at worst thinly veiled insults. Like seriously, do you think that saying "you'd be better at your job if you knew more" is a nice thing to say and will illicit a positive response? If you want actual examples of positive reinforcement it would be something like "Hey, great job attacking the healer first, that really made the difference" or "I really enjoyed how you went deep on your analysis of that deck, it was clear you really know a lot about it" [SEP] Like seriously, do you think that saying "you'd be better at your job if you knew more" is a nice thing to say and will illicit a positive response?
-> Didn't make a great impression m8 yes. again, that's my point. many of them hated me for that. downvoted, called a "dog", and so on (btw somehow missing my primary use of reddit, which is datamining PS2 files)... and yet, others did create feedback that was very useful for SOE. do you find anything wrong about my posts? were they inappropriate? spamming? trolling? as I stated, my intention was only to understand, and to help. and yet, for that I was downvoted, called names, offended. "best community" indeed... [SEP] do you find anything wrong about my posts? were they inappropriate? spamming? trolling? as I stated, my intention was only to understand, and to help. and yet, for that I was downvoted, called names, offended. "best community" indeed...
-Hey, you have valid criticism, but for one thing, it's a little illogical that your opposition to my language is based on its impropriety in "work/school/out of the door from the D&D campaign" settings, when the event in question IS specifically for cutting loose and enjoying our madness. And regardless of that, I think your open hostility and snap judgment of my character is more of an obstacle in joining groups and meeting new people than my apparently misguided attempts at informality. Geekalicious is a community by and large of people with "immature" interests (including Dr. Who), and I use this tone of speech to be welcoming and enthusiastic. Perhaps my social skills are not as advanced as other members of society, and that's probably why I get along better in crowds of nerds and geeks, who tend to be much less judgmental. Hopefully this message is coherent enough for you to regain some faith in the mental capacity of humanity by at least one person. I agree, if I always spoke the way I did in my post, I'd be a pretty annoying human being. But I don't, and I see no true harm in making an event invitation err on the side of being too bubbly than being too dull. If it offends you this much, chances are good that you wouldn't enjoy geekalicious. Let's leave it at that and not get all personal about it, shall we? [SEP] Hopefully this message is coherent enough for you to regain some faith in the mental capacity of humanity by at least one person.
-It doesnt. Check the bill champ. I'll link since you cant scroll up. http You can just go ahead and read it... or you know... read the Q&A you posted which explicitly states >have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Comission. Sorry, quick question, do you not know what already means... or are you just unable to read? Oh... btw... you still don't have a legitimate crticism? Edit to your edit: NO IT DOESNT. You think that an ontario agency has jurisdiction over national law??? That's the claim in your edit lol [SEP] Sorry, quick question, do you not know what already means... or are you just unable to read?
-Because terrible is completely subjective. You take a thirteen year old to see Transformers and he's going to love it. You take a movie reviewer to see it and he's going to hate it. Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean it makes the people who do like it any worse or any more stupid. Some people like explosions and don't care about whether or not there's any character development. I for one just want to see huge robots fighting. And that's good enough for me. [SEP] You take a thirteen year old to see Transformers and he's going to love it.
-You're young boytjie & I admire that youthful idealism & naivete of yours. Stay in school, find a suitable profession & build your wealth. > "This post is ‘expertise and experience’? In your dreams." I never claimed to be a full blown expert on the topic of sailing on any of my posts or even in this post boytjie. Ever heard of something called 'sarcasm'? Learn to read between the lines and fine print. Nice internet trolling boytjie btw... > "At least you can move a boat away from theft, destruction or unfavourable legislation." That is why you never put what you value in one basket, you always diversify. The sea is not completely safe place either. Even your citizenship bounds you to your country's laws and accountable to the laws of the country that you are visiting. Your point is moot. > "If your home base is a particular country maybe it would work (I believe even Lloyds maritime insurance requires a land based domicile). If your home base is the world it becomes more problematic." Every vessel has a home port boytjie. Operating a boat without insurance in international waters & docking in foreign ports is asking for trouble. Just research what happens when you don't have insurance, especially if you get mired in collisions, awful weather & even vandalism. Certain marinas would even bar you from mooring if you don't have insurance. > "The whole point is not having to put up with bureaucratic shit. Airport indeed. You will need a passport only to get into other countries." Ah, to be young & naive. Youth really is wasted on the young. You haven't traveled much out of South Africa, have you boytjie? Maybe only coast sailing? If you plan on becoming a sea-fairing, offshore-dwelling individual you have to be familiar with the essentials laws & even bureaucracies of the particular country you want to visit. Anywhere in the world when you travel (both land & sea), you will have to deal with customs officials & bureaucrats; learn to deal with it. I suggest you travel to places by land first before dabbling into the ocean & familiarize yourself or better yet, read up. You will have to dock to replenish supplies & even for certain repairs/maintenance of your vessel as such you're going to need a Passport & some funds. Don't forget that countries have extradition treaties; be familiar with them & don't do anything stupid within territorial waters. Goodluck getting boarded upon by maritime security vessels and not having a proper form of identification while you're in their territorial waters. Bring plenty of K.Y. jelly while you're in a holding prison. Best of luck and enjoy plenty of butt-sex if you're into that... > "That’s the idea – not to be trapped in this rubbish. Isn’t this a non-sequitar? I don’t see any connection with my post (it supports it)." Read carefully my preceding post & your very own post boytjie. You claimed that owning a yacht is far cheaper than renting a house -- this notion of yours depends on the location of where you rent the house. In some cases, owning/operating a yacht is much more expensive than paying a mortage on a house. Learn to read the print boytjie before misquoting. > "Women suffer from a disadvantage (they have a reproductive time frame). The biological clock is always counting down and an ocean going yacht is not ideal to raise children." Exactly boytjie, exactly. That is why you won't see any attractive woman <30 y.o. willing to settle down to live in an offshore boat. Unless of course, they're idealist new-age hippy "chicks" that don't want kids. Offshore-living though is suitable for healthy retirees. So your assertion that yachting is a "babe" magnet is nonsense. > "The rest of your post...is nothing of value." Quite salty aren't we boytjie? Just re-read my previous post. Best of luck to you and your utopian dream boytjie, reality is grandmother Karma's unforgiving sister. [SEP] Ah, to be young & naive.
+Sure, yes, but the examples you gave were at best misguided advice and at worst thinly veiled insults. If you want actual examples of positive reinforcement it would be something like "Hey, great job attacking the healer first, that really made the difference" or "I really enjoyed how you went deep on your analysis of that deck, it was clear you really know a lot about it" [SEP] Like seriously, do you think that saying "you'd be better at your job if you knew more" is a nice thing to say and will illicit a positive response?
+> Didn't make a great impression m8 yes. again, that's my point. many of them hated me for that. downvoted, called a "dog", and so on (btw somehow missing my primary use of reddit, which is datamining PS2 files)... and yet, others did create feedback that was very useful for SOE. [SEP] do you find anything wrong about my posts? were they inappropriate? spamming? trolling? as I stated, my intention was only to understand, and to help. and yet, for that I was downvoted, called names, offended. "best community" indeed...
+Hey, you have valid criticism, but for one thing, it's a little illogical that your opposition to my language is based on its impropriety in "work/school/out of the door from the D&D campaign" settings, when the event in question IS specifically for cutting loose and enjoying our madness. And regardless of that, I think your open hostility and snap judgment of my character is more of an obstacle in joining groups and meeting new people than my apparently misguided attempts at informality. Geekalicious is a community by and large of people with "immature" interests (including Dr. Who), and I use this tone of speech to be welcoming and enthusiastic. Perhaps my social skills are not as advanced as other members of society, and that's probably why I get along better in crowds of nerds and geeks, who tend to be much less judgmental. I agree, if I always spoke the way I did in my post, I'd be a pretty annoying human being. But I don't, and I see no true harm in making an event invitation err on the side of being too bubbly than being too dull. If it offends you this much, chances are good that you wouldn't enjoy geekalicious. Let's leave it at that and not get all personal about it, shall we? [SEP] Hopefully this message is coherent enough for you to regain some faith in the mental capacity of humanity by at least one person.
+It doesnt. Check the bill champ. I'll link since you cant scroll up. http You can just go ahead and read it... or you know... read the Q&A you posted which explicitly states >have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Comission. Oh... btw... you still don't have a legitimate crticism? Edit to your edit: NO IT DOESNT. You think that an ontario agency has jurisdiction over national law??? That's the claim in your edit lol [SEP] Sorry, quick question, do you not know what already means... or are you just unable to read?
+Because terrible is completely subjective. You take a movie reviewer to see it and he's going to hate it. Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean it makes the people who do like it any worse or any more stupid. Some people like explosions and don't care about whether or not there's any character development. I for one just want to see huge robots fighting. And that's good enough for me. [SEP] You take a thirteen year old to see Transformers and he's going to love it.
+You're young boytjie & I admire that youthful idealism & naivete of yours. Stay in school, find a suitable profession & build your wealth. > "This post is ‘expertise and experience’? In your dreams." I never claimed to be a full blown expert on the topic of sailing on any of my posts or even in this post boytjie. Ever heard of something called 'sarcasm'? Learn to read between the lines and fine print. Nice internet trolling boytjie btw... > "At least you can move a boat away from theft, destruction or unfavourable legislation." That is why you never put what you value in one basket, you always diversify. The sea is not completely safe place either. Even your citizenship bounds you to your country's laws and accountable to the laws of the country that you are visiting. Your point is moot. > "If your home base is a particular country maybe it would work (I believe even Lloyds maritime insurance requires a land based domicile). If your home base is the world it becomes more problematic." Every vessel has a home port boytjie. Operating a boat without insurance in international waters & docking in foreign ports is asking for trouble. Just research what happens when you don't have insurance, especially if you get mired in collisions, awful weather & even vandalism. Certain marinas would even bar you from mooring if you don't have insurance. > "The whole point is not having to put up with bureaucratic shit. Airport indeed. You will need a passport only to get into other countries." Youth really is wasted on the young. You haven't traveled much out of South Africa, have you boytjie? Maybe only coast sailing? If you plan on becoming a sea-fairing, offshore-dwelling individual you have to be familiar with the essentials laws & even bureaucracies of the particular country you want to visit. Anywhere in the world when you travel (both land & sea), you will have to deal with customs officials & bureaucrats; learn to deal with it. I suggest you travel to places by land first before dabbling into the ocean & familiarize yourself or better yet, read up. You will have to dock to replenish supplies & even for certain repairs/maintenance of your vessel as such you're going to need a Passport & some funds. Don't forget that countries have extradition treaties; be familiar with them & don't do anything stupid within territorial waters. Goodluck getting boarded upon by maritime security vessels and not having a proper form of identification while you're in their territorial waters. Bring plenty of K.Y. jelly while you're in a holding prison. Best of luck and enjoy plenty of butt-sex if you're into that... > "That’s the idea – not to be trapped in this rubbish. Isn’t this a non-sequitar? I don’t see any connection with my post (it supports it)." Read carefully my preceding post & your very own post boytjie. You claimed that owning a yacht is far cheaper than renting a house -- this notion of yours depends on the location of where you rent the house. In some cases, owning/operating a yacht is much more expensive than paying a mortage on a house. Learn to read the print boytjie before misquoting. > "Women suffer from a disadvantage (they have a reproductive time frame). The biological clock is always counting down and an ocean going yacht is not ideal to raise children." Exactly boytjie, exactly. That is why you won't see any attractive woman <30 y.o. willing to settle down to live in an offshore boat. Unless of course, they're idealist new-age hippy "chicks" that don't want kids. Offshore-living though is suitable for healthy retirees. So your assertion that yachting is a "babe" magnet is nonsense. > "The rest of your post...is nothing of value." Quite salty aren't we boytjie? Just re-read my previous post. Best of luck to you and your utopian dream boytjie, reality is grandmother Karma's unforgiving sister. [SEP] Ah, to be young & naive.
 >You and Tuber occupy the two parts of the pie chart depicting who was responsible for assuring the removal from default. Emphasis mine. Perhaps you'd like to try to twist my words to mean something else now? >You're aware that jij and tuber pulled their crap, then /r/atheism[4] was removed, right? Emphasis mine. You're really bad at comprehending words on a page. >In context and read as is, it appears as if you are correcting /u/Feinberg[7] [-9] that /r/atheism[8] was removed as a default NOT because of people with your attitude, but because of /u/jij[9] [-38] and /u/tuber[10] . People with my attitude had nothing to do with it. While they may have been thinking of doing so - and that's all that was confirmed - what jij and tuber did assured the undefaulting, and was wholly responsible for the schism. >You did not correct /u/Feinberg[15] [-9] then, so you either didn't realize that /u/Feinberg[16] [-9] believed that you were claiming that /u/jij[17] [-38] and /u/tuber[18] were responsible for the removal of /r/atheism[19] as a default, or that was the stance you held. I'm leaning towards the latter, but if you'd like to correct yourself or clarify any further, you may. Or that I didn't care about his misconception, only that he was using the same kind of logic with this: >Oh, I see. After this, therefore because of this, right? That's sound reasoning. When he said this: >>It seems to me this very attitude shows why the admins removed /r/atheism[6] [1] when they did. . >If you're trying to say "I didn't say /u/jij[20] [-38] wasn't responsible for it, I said both /u/jij[21] [-38] and /u/tuber[22] are" then you are a prick who's just arguing for the sake of arguing. No. I'm saying that I was very specific in what I blamed on who. I did not specifically say that both of them were responsible for the defaulting, I said they were responsible for assuring the defaulting. I said specifically that jij was responsible for killing /r/atheism - though I would add tuber there as well. 'killing' not meaning the undefaulting, but assuring that the circlejerk idiots got what they wanted by splitting the community into tiny, insignificant ones. I said that they pulled their crap, THEN it was removed. That is NOT me saying 'because of this, therefore this', but pointing out the chronological order of events. By all means though, continue misreading my words. [SEP] I said specifically that jij was responsible for killing /r/atheism[15] - though I would add tuber there as well. 'killing' not meaning the undefaulting, but assuring that the circlejerk idiots got what they wanted by splitting the community into tiny, insignificant ones.
-u/Devineman was the only r/soccer user in recorded history who actually knew what they were talking about. He had a track record of making people who disagreed with him look like complete idiots. He rage quit the sub because trolls were so fed up with his reason and logic they brigaded him and made new accounts just to try and piss him off. [SEP] He had a track record of making people who disagreed with him look like complete idiots.
-> explain to me how flying the confederate flag is NOT anti-American, but taking a knee is. Please. Why are you painting me with that brush? Both flying the confederate flag and football players doing their knee thing seem American enough to me. > in the end, it was also a war between the US and a treasonous rebel state. That's factual. Sure, a lot of things are factual, but I believe you'll find that in a lot of southern homes few people would welcome their family members being called treasonous by you. It wouldn't make doing so to them just, either. You're just being flippant and shitty about something you almost certainly have no personal experience with. This is just something you talk about. [SEP] It wouldn't make doing so to them just, either. You're just being flippant and shitty about something you almost certainly have no personal experience with. This is just something you talk about.
-The damaged product can be priced at cost without losing money so long as the high-end product covers R&D by itself. In the absence of such an artificial split, the manufacturers must price the product to cover cost plus R&D. Therefore any newcomer trying to compete with a company that engages in artificial differentiation may be forced to put their cost-plus-R&D figure below the giant's cost alone. > Which implies that the lower quality product should not exist at all because the lower end could easily be the fully enable quad-core sold for the price of a single core. I agree that the crippled product should not exist, but so long as it's subsidized by overpriced and fully-functional products, it will effectively prevent most competition. Microchips in particular are not an easy business to get into under any circumstances. Disabled cores are a very real example, by the way. If you think theory disagrees with their existence then I have bad news for theory. > (I have never purchased DLC so the prospect of the "extras" just doesn't factor in for me) You realize most of those "extras" are just base content that's been denied to you, right? You're being screwed on value-for-money because millions of other people will readily buy this crap without a second thought. They're being screwed on value-for-money because they don't recognize a bad deal when they see it. Everyone overpays for games with on-disc DLC. [SEP] You realize most of those "extras" are just base content that's been denied to you, right? You're being screwed on value-for-money because millions of other people will readily buy this crap without a second thought. They're being screwed on value-for-money because they don't recognize a bad deal when they see it. Everyone overpays for games with on-disc DLC.
-What I take issue with is your fractured understanding of what permanent residency means, and the not so subtle difference between permanent and primary. Simply evoking the rent board doesn't validate your understanding. I have no idea what your question was, but you appear to be someone asking for info, you're arguing, and seem to think you know better. Your activism with SFBARF, is hard to look past in this topic. [SEP] and seem to think you know better
-So why mention a single decade old murder as evidence of the place being dangerous? If you can’t answer the question just admit it and we can move on. Tacoma WA has had two murders this year. You must be frightened to death of even walking out your door. [SEP] Tacoma WA has had two murders this year. You must be frightened to death of even walking out your door.
-Yeah, that's his trajectory. Stay in NJPW while he can work at that level, then move to WWE for the payday where he can take it easy, since WWE fans are easier to please and don't care about workrate or match auality (I.e. do what Nakamura is doing), then just become a pro gamer [SEP] since WWE fans are easier to please and don't care about workrate
-> maybe even made a 14-15 year old kid,who cares about the story enough to be excited and think up a silly name, cry This is the key point here. Words are without context on the internet, thus why such a strong putdown is a bad idea because he has no idea who is on the receiving end of it. It could be some troll yes but it's equally likely to be some (now) heartbroken kid. [SEP] such a strong putdown
-So it's not fun unless we choose Team Tyrion or Team Sansa? I guess for less sophisticated readers that need to hang their hat on something. I think the real pleasure in reading comes from appreciating the art of a master storyteller. For instance, having Dany getting mired in Mereen after being kick-ass for so long pissed off a lot of readers. They didn't want to see their favorite character making mistakes and otherwise being a complicated, flawed human. They just wanted fire and blood—they wanted a comic book plotline. Or take the people who hate Catelyn because she was so mean to Jon; they're all blind to the brilliant, mistake-prone, and complex character that Martin delivered. [SEP] I guess for less sophisticated readers that need to hang their hat on something.
-I have a theory for why you and others picked the girl on the right over the left: She's less intimidating. You are afraid of pretty girls and you gravitate towards the girl you feel less of a chance of being rejected by. It's a subconscious self-defense mechanism. And I'm not even trolling. I would really like to compare some pictures of all those guys here who picked the girl on the right to see if my hypothesis holds any weight, but there would be no way to know if the pictures are really them or not. This sort of study would need to be in person. Although I'd like to point out that self-esteem and confidence is a bigger factor here than looks alone. Also some quotes about the girl on the right from people who replied to you: >The one on the right looks more "real". -My hypothesis in action. I believe that here when given the choice between the two girls, the poster subconsciously weighed the chances of rejection and came to choose the girl on the right as the safer choice. After this bit of mental gymnastics, he then tries to reinforce his decision by assuming that the prettier girl is fake and shallow, and therefore would be a bad choice. >The one on the right is cuter :3 -Nothing much to say about this. But I think that emoticon speaks enough for itself. I seriously doubt an attractive male sits behind that username. But that's not the least bit scientific, just intuition. >The one on the right seems friendlier, and it seems that she has a little bit of a smile in her face. You can see it in her eyes. The one on the left didn't look so happy. -Conformation bias all over the place. I stared at these two faces for minutes, and since they are both morphs of multiple women, the expressions are largely the same. It seems that because the one on the right has thinner lips, it seems like more of a smile. But as for eyes, I really think you can see the 'smile' in the morphed face on the left due to the more femininity and symmetry of the eyes. >Me too, the left one looked a bit fatty to me. -Not sure if this is a troll or just some serious reassurance at play. [SEP] She's less intimidating. You are afraid of pretty girls and you gravitate towards the girl you feel less of a chance of being rejected by. It's a subconscious self-defense mechanism.
->Oh, so which worker decides who is on the schedule for Saturday? That's like saying 'Which of your friends arranges the party', it's not some insane wild impossible task talk amongst yourselves and choose. >Which worker decides to put their own money up to expand production into another area? This question is under the assumption that they're living under a market economy which very few socialists are a fan of, but again the point of socialism is that you decide for yourselves maybe one guy puts in the money or maybe you all put in a little amount, they can decide for themselves they're not stupid. >Yes, it is "special non-achievable" socialism. The overall condescension of your post isn't winning me over to your side, it's not like I spend ages reading about socialist economic systems and they go 'Oh shit, but if the workers have control who organises the schedule??? Socialism is unachievable' like cmon mate the questions you're asking are Socialism 101 stuff and you're acting like you've singlehandedly disproved an ideology. [SEP] This question is under the assumption that they're living under a market economy which very few socialists are a fan of
-> Why do you consider the voluntary transaction of selling drugs "exploiting" anyone? Wow, it is truly terrifying to me that you don't see that the same way as I do. When it comes to addictive drugs, the demand for the product is created chemically, by manufacturing a dependence on the drug in the consumer. You get them hooked, and even if they no longer want to buy the product anymore, their physical dependency on the product makes it difficult for them to stop buying the product. Because someone is physically dependent upon your product, that makes it unfair, in my eyes. This isn't a rational market actor; their dependency inflates their need for the product. Exploitation is defined as taking unfair advantage of someone, and so this seems like exploitation to me. [SEP] their physical dependency on the product makes it difficult for them to stop buying the product.
-What does there no longer being "jew or greek" mean to you? There is neither male nor female either. Answer both consistently and apply them, it would help me understand what you think that means and how it relates to this. Please exegete Ezekiel 37 for me, it would help me understand how you take Scripture. Do you think the NT conflicts with the OT? Do you just have a contradictory view of Scripture? How do you reconcile the two. Randomly spitting out verses as proof texts doesn't change other texts, that is not sound. It seems like you want to just brush off specific texts in favor of "general truths". This is the common theme of CT folks, but I am asking for SPECIFIC exegesis. Have a spurgeon quote and a bonnar quote... "Every word of prophecy is big with meaning. Hence it must be most carefully and exactly interpreted. To attach a general meaning to a whole chapter, as is frequently done, shows not only grievous irreverence for the Divine Word, but much misconception of the real nature of that language in which it is written. Yet such is often the practice of many expositors of prophecy. They will take up a chapter of Isaiah, and tell you that it refers to the future glory of the Christian Church; and that is the one idea which they gather from the whole chapter, or sometimes from a series of chapters. Their system does not admit of interpreting verse by verse and clause by clause, and affixing an exact and definite sense to each. Bring them to this test, and their system gives way. It looks fair and plausible enough, so long as they can persuade you that the whole chapter is one scene, out of which it is merely designed that one grand idea should be extracted; bur bring it to the best of minute and precise interpretation, and its nakedness is at once discovered. Many prophecies become in this way a mere waste of words. What might be expressed in one sentence, is beaten out over a whole chapter; nay, sometimes over a whole book. These expositors think that there is nothing in prophecy, except that Jew and Gentile are all to be gathered in, and made one in Christ. Prophet after prophet is raised up, vision after vision is given, and yet nothing is declared but this one idea! Every chapter almost of Isaiah foretells something about the future glory of the world; and every chapter presents it to us in some new aspect, opening up new scenes, and pointing out new objects; but, according to the scheme of some, every chapter sets forth the same idea, reiterates the same objects, and depicts the same scenes. Is not this handling of the Word of God deceitfully?" (Horatius Bonar quoted in "Future Israel" by Barry Horner, pg.166-167) Commenting on Ez.37:1-10 in 1864 "The meaning of the text, as opened up by the context, is most evidently, if words mean anything, first, that there shall be a political restoration of the Jews to their own land and to their own nationality; and then, secondly, there is in the text, and in the context, a most plain declaration, that there shall be a spiritual restoration, a conversion in fact, of the tribes of Israel...There shall not be two, nor ten, nor twelves, but one - one Israel praising one God, serving one king, and that one king the Son of David, the descended Messiah...If there be meaning in words this must be the meaning of this chapter. I wish to never learn the art of tearing God's meaning out of his own words. If there be anything clear and plain, the literal sense and meaning of this passage-a meaning not to be spirited or spiritualized away - must be evident that both the two and the ten tribes of Israel are to be restored to their own land, and that a king is to rule over them." (Spurgeon, from "Future Israel" by Barry Horner, pg.12) Please, respond to these two quotes and exegete Ezekiel 37. My view doesn't put alot on Ezekiel, it puts alot on taking EVERY PASSAGE OF THE BIBLE seriously and consistently. Ezekiel 37 is simply ONE PLACE of many. Thanks and look forward to a real response. [SEP] Randomly spitting out verses as proof texts doesn't change other texts, that is not sound. It seems like you want to just brush off specific texts in favor of "general truths". This is the common theme of CT folks, but I am asking for SPECIFIC exegesis.
-Except there are countries with healthcare systems which are remarkably similar to Obamacare. Germany for example is essentially a better implemented version of Obamacare with public options. You are required by law to purchase either private insurance or insurance from one of their numerous public nonprofits, and the penalties are far more strict than Obamacare's. You can, IIRC, be jailed for not purchasing health coverage in Germany. No, it's not exactly the same thing but saying "there are differences so they're really not at all similar" is a pretty disingenuous argument. Places like Germany and Switzerland have made it pretty clear that a system in the mold of the ACA can work quite well if properly implemented. [SEP] You can, IIRC, be jailed for not purchasing health coverage in Germany.
->Okay trolie, that's a lame analogy. The Austrian-Hungarian empire was a good time for Hungary but we were not colonised by them, we were a ruling partner of the empire so you just failed. LOL Did you think this was an insult? Everybody in Hungary thinks the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was a good thing, it is officially called the 'Happy Peace Times' in history books. Its actually kinda sad when you claim to be a patriot and don't even know your own country's history. Dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary didn't come to existence until 1867 as a result of a compromise. Before that Hungarians were full subjects of Austrians. Even after that Austrian emperor was the ruler of Hungary as well. So you claim that Hungary was equal is laughable. Also Czechs thrived within HRE which was a German lead project, and then under Austrian rule. Edit: And I bet it was called "Happy Peace Times" cause being subjects of superior culture and people must have been pretty peaceful, despite that small riot in 1848 but happy times. [SEP] Its actually kinda sad when you claim to be a patriot and don't even know your own country's history.
-It has nothing to do with being desperate. That's an assumption on your part and more often than not, assumptions end up making you look foolish. I was looking more for an open conversation about the subject not Passive aggressive insulting. Life tip, work on your people skills. Everytime I see you comment on a post, it's filled with snarky, passive aggressivity. It tells me alot about your character in real life. Now, moving forward, I know LR gohan is a beast, I'm fully aware of that. LR gohan hits hard, has a great leader skill for mono int and has good links. SS4 Vegeta has a better leader skill for his respective type, tanks, doesn't need any help from orbs to do damage consistently although LR gohan only needs 5 or 6 orbs to out damage the ss4's, also has great links, better team possibilities, chance to dodge super Atk and SS4 vegeta being far more obtainable has to count for something, even though how easy/hard a card is to get doesn't take away from the actual card itself being good or not. LR gohan has a higher ceiling when it comes to damage and damage alone. Since when has the best card in the game been decided solely on damage output? He doesn't counter anything, he doesn't tank, few people will have him(I do but I'm really desperate for some reason). If you're planning on running int gohan and bringing Nuke items to every battle, go for it. He needs items to be a truly, far and away better damage dealer, enough so to even be in the discussion for the best card in the game. That or he needs help from other cards that change orbs. SS4 Vegeta does what he does on any logically put together team without help from any other card. Now, without Passive aggressively insulting(I know it's hard for you) have a discussion with me, a human being, about how you feel about the analysis. I would enjoy that. No need to be an asshole. It's a discussion about cards on a mobile game. We're not saving lives here. It's a trivial matter. [SEP] Now, without Passive aggressively insulting(I know it's hard for you)
-I may be, I may not be. That wasn't really my point. I don't know if you can filter the thread to only see my responses, but I've tried to explain in other responses why I made this. But, to answer your question: I have a family that's very close and helps with our son. My son is a pretty good kid overall - he has tantrums and cries because I gave him the brown bear instead of the white bear to sleep, etc., my wife does not work, but is studying for her master's, so he goes to daycare 3 days a week. We're financially stable. Overall we have a much easier time of raising a child, circumstance-wise, than a lot of people. All of that goes into these feelings that I have about liking parenting, but for the first 5 months he was born, we did not have any of the stuff we have now, and things were really hard - and I still loved it. I think circumstances can definitely, DEFINITELY, color how you feel in a variety of situations, but I'd like to think that who I am as a person colors it more, and the only point of my post was to say that I've really enjoyed being a father so far. [SEP] I'd like to think that who I am as a person colors it more, and the only point of my post was to say that I've really enjoyed being a father so far.
-Actually, music artists generally make a bulk of their revenue through concerts. Pirating songs is denying money to the publishers more than the artists. Game developers, on the other hand, only have a single source of revenue for their work. Thousands and thousands of man-hours are poured into AAA games (and often indie games!). To act as if they deserve no compensation in exchange for the enjoyment their product provides is extremely selfish. If everyone collectively switched to Pirating music, the artists could still live comfortable lives, producing music and making money off of live performances. If everyone switched to Pirating games, there would be no more games. I believe piracy is stealing and wrong in both instances, but is arguably more harmful to game developers than music artists. [SEP] Actually, music artists generally make a bulk of their revenue through concerts. Pirating songs is denying money to the publishers more than the artists.
->Because without privatization, we'd have no idea that the river is worthless to begin with! And information like that is extremely valuable. It's not worthless when it's government controlled. Privatization makes it worthless. >Not an argument. Try again. How is that not an argument? You said a thing, I said you were wrong. If you're looking for sources, I would ask you to provide them first. >Unless you consider mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange to be theft, then Capitalism isn't theft. That was easy. Okay, your turn. Capitalism isn't based on mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange. It's based on exploitation. A worker makes a thing, and then a capitalist takes it. How is that not theft? >How is your inability to make a coherent argument my fault? My arguments are perfectly coherent. It's not my fault you can't understand them. Or even read them, apparently. [SEP] My arguments are perfectly coherent.
+u/Devineman was the only r/soccer user in recorded history who actually knew what they were talking about. He rage quit the sub because trolls were so fed up with his reason and logic they brigaded him and made new accounts just to try and piss him off. [SEP] He had a track record of making people who disagreed with him look like complete idiots.
+> explain to me how flying the confederate flag is NOT anti-American, but taking a knee is. Please. Why are you painting me with that brush? Both flying the confederate flag and football players doing their knee thing seem American enough to me. > in the end, it was also a war between the US and a treasonous rebel state. That's factual. Sure, a lot of things are factual, but I believe you'll find that in a lot of southern homes few people would welcome their family members being called treasonous by you. [SEP] It wouldn't make doing so to them just, either. You're just being flippant and shitty about something you almost certainly have no personal experience with. This is just something you talk about.
+The damaged product can be priced at cost without losing money so long as the high-end product covers R&D by itself. In the absence of such an artificial split, the manufacturers must price the product to cover cost plus R&D. Therefore any newcomer trying to compete with a company that engages in artificial differentiation may be forced to put their cost-plus-R&D figure below the giant's cost alone. > Which implies that the lower quality product should not exist at all because the lower end could easily be the fully enable quad-core sold for the price of a single core. I agree that the crippled product should not exist, but so long as it's subsidized by overpriced and fully-functional products, it will effectively prevent most competition. Microchips in particular are not an easy business to get into under any circumstances. Disabled cores are a very real example, by the way. If you think theory disagrees with their existence then I have bad news for theory. > (I have never purchased DLC so the prospect of the "extras" just doesn't factor in for me) [SEP] You realize most of those "extras" are just base content that's been denied to you, right? You're being screwed on value-for-money because millions of other people will readily buy this crap without a second thought. They're being screwed on value-for-money because they don't recognize a bad deal when they see it. Everyone overpays for games with on-disc DLC.
+What I take issue with is your fractured understanding of what permanent residency means, and the not so subtle difference between permanent and primary. Simply evoking the rent board doesn't validate your understanding. I have no idea what your question was, but you appear to be someone asking for info, you're arguing, . Your activism with SFBARF, is hard to look past in this topic. [SEP] and seem to think you know better
+So why mention a single decade old murder as evidence of the place being dangerous? If you can’t answer the question just admit it and we can move on. [SEP] Tacoma WA has had two murders this year. You must be frightened to death of even walking out your door.
+Yeah, that's his trajectory. Stay in NJPW while he can work at that level, then move to WWE for the payday where he can take it easy, or match auality (I.e. do what Nakamura is doing), then just become a pro gamer [SEP] since WWE fans are easier to please and don't care about workrate
+> maybe even made a 14-15 year old kid,who cares about the story enough to be excited and think up a silly name, cry This is the key point here. Words are without context on the internet, thus why is a bad idea because he has no idea who is on the receiving end of it. It could be some troll yes but it's equally likely to be some (now) heartbroken kid. [SEP] such a strong putdown
+So it's not fun unless we choose Team Tyrion or Team Sansa? I think the real pleasure in reading comes from appreciating the art of a master storyteller. For instance, having Dany getting mired in Mereen after being kick-ass for so long pissed off a lot of readers. They didn't want to see their favorite character making mistakes and otherwise being a complicated, flawed human. They just wanted fire and blood—they wanted a comic book plotline. Or take the people who hate Catelyn because she was so mean to Jon; they're all blind to the brilliant, mistake-prone, and complex character that Martin delivered. [SEP] I guess for less sophisticated readers that need to hang their hat on something.
+I have a theory for why you and others picked the girl on the right over the left: And I'm not even trolling. I would really like to compare some pictures of all those guys here who picked the girl on the right to see if my hypothesis holds any weight, but there would be no way to know if the pictures are really them or not. This sort of study would need to be in person. Although I'd like to point out that self-esteem and confidence is a bigger factor here than looks alone. Also some quotes about the girl on the right from people who replied to you: >The one on the right looks more "real". -My hypothesis in action. I believe that here when given the choice between the two girls, the poster subconsciously weighed the chances of rejection and came to choose the girl on the right as the safer choice. After this bit of mental gymnastics, he then tries to reinforce his decision by assuming that the prettier girl is fake and shallow, and therefore would be a bad choice. >The one on the right is cuter :3 -Nothing much to say about this. But I think that emoticon speaks enough for itself. I seriously doubt an attractive male sits behind that username. But that's not the least bit scientific, just intuition. >The one on the right seems friendlier, and it seems that she has a little bit of a smile in her face. You can see it in her eyes. The one on the left didn't look so happy. -Conformation bias all over the place. I stared at these two faces for minutes, and since they are both morphs of multiple women, the expressions are largely the same. It seems that because the one on the right has thinner lips, it seems like more of a smile. But as for eyes, I really think you can see the 'smile' in the morphed face on the left due to the more femininity and symmetry of the eyes. >Me too, the left one looked a bit fatty to me. -Not sure if this is a troll or just some serious reassurance at play. [SEP] She's less intimidating. You are afraid of pretty girls and you gravitate towards the girl you feel less of a chance of being rejected by. It's a subconscious self-defense mechanism.
+>Oh, so which worker decides who is on the schedule for Saturday? That's like saying 'Which of your friends arranges the party', it's not some insane wild impossible task talk amongst yourselves and choose. >Which worker decides to put their own money up to expand production into another area? , but again the point of socialism is that you decide for yourselves maybe one guy puts in the money or maybe you all put in a little amount, they can decide for themselves they're not stupid. >Yes, it is "special non-achievable" socialism. The overall condescension of your post isn't winning me over to your side, it's not like I spend ages reading about socialist economic systems and they go 'Oh shit, but if the workers have control who organises the schedule??? Socialism is unachievable' like cmon mate the questions you're asking are Socialism 101 stuff and you're acting like you've singlehandedly disproved an ideology. [SEP] This question is under the assumption that they're living under a market economy which very few socialists are a fan of
+> Why do you consider the voluntary transaction of selling drugs "exploiting" anyone? Wow, it is truly terrifying to me that you don't see that the same way as I do. When it comes to addictive drugs, the demand for the product is created chemically, by manufacturing a dependence on the drug in the consumer. You get them hooked, and even if they no longer want to buy the product anymore, Because someone is physically dependent upon your product, that makes it unfair, in my eyes. This isn't a rational market actor; their dependency inflates their need for the product. Exploitation is defined as taking unfair advantage of someone, and so this seems like exploitation to me. [SEP] their physical dependency on the product makes it difficult for them to stop buying the product.
+What does there no longer being "jew or greek" mean to you? There is neither male nor female either. Answer both consistently and apply them, it would help me understand what you think that means and how it relates to this. Please exegete Ezekiel 37 for me, it would help me understand how you take Scripture. Do you think the NT conflicts with the OT? Do you just have a contradictory view of Scripture? How do you reconcile the two. Have a spurgeon quote and a bonnar quote... "Every word of prophecy is big with meaning. Hence it must be most carefully and exactly interpreted. To attach a general meaning to a whole chapter, as is frequently done, shows not only grievous irreverence for the Divine Word, but much misconception of the real nature of that language in which it is written. Yet such is often the practice of many expositors of prophecy. They will take up a chapter of Isaiah, and tell you that it refers to the future glory of the Christian Church; and that is the one idea which they gather from the whole chapter, or sometimes from a series of chapters. Their system does not admit of interpreting verse by verse and clause by clause, and affixing an exact and definite sense to each. Bring them to this test, and their system gives way. It looks fair and plausible enough, so long as they can persuade you that the whole chapter is one scene, out of which it is merely designed that one grand idea should be extracted; bur bring it to the best of minute and precise interpretation, and its nakedness is at once discovered. Many prophecies become in this way a mere waste of words. What might be expressed in one sentence, is beaten out over a whole chapter; nay, sometimes over a whole book. These expositors think that there is nothing in prophecy, except that Jew and Gentile are all to be gathered in, and made one in Christ. Prophet after prophet is raised up, vision after vision is given, and yet nothing is declared but this one idea! Every chapter almost of Isaiah foretells something about the future glory of the world; and every chapter presents it to us in some new aspect, opening up new scenes, and pointing out new objects; but, according to the scheme of some, every chapter sets forth the same idea, reiterates the same objects, and depicts the same scenes. Is not this handling of the Word of God deceitfully?" (Horatius Bonar quoted in "Future Israel" by Barry Horner, pg.166-167) Commenting on Ez.37:1-10 in 1864 "The meaning of the text, as opened up by the context, is most evidently, if words mean anything, first, that there shall be a political restoration of the Jews to their own land and to their own nationality; and then, secondly, there is in the text, and in the context, a most plain declaration, that there shall be a spiritual restoration, a conversion in fact, of the tribes of Israel...There shall not be two, nor ten, nor twelves, but one - one Israel praising one God, serving one king, and that one king the Son of David, the descended Messiah...If there be meaning in words this must be the meaning of this chapter. I wish to never learn the art of tearing God's meaning out of his own words. If there be anything clear and plain, the literal sense and meaning of this passage-a meaning not to be spirited or spiritualized away - must be evident that both the two and the ten tribes of Israel are to be restored to their own land, and that a king is to rule over them." (Spurgeon, from "Future Israel" by Barry Horner, pg.12) Please, respond to these two quotes and exegete Ezekiel 37. My view doesn't put alot on Ezekiel, it puts alot on taking EVERY PASSAGE OF THE BIBLE seriously and consistently. Ezekiel 37 is simply ONE PLACE of many. Thanks and look forward to a real response. [SEP] Randomly spitting out verses as proof texts doesn't change other texts, that is not sound. It seems like you want to just brush off specific texts in favor of "general truths". This is the common theme of CT folks, but I am asking for SPECIFIC exegesis.
+Except there are countries with healthcare systems which are remarkably similar to Obamacare. Germany for example is essentially a better implemented version of Obamacare with public options. You are required by law to purchase either private insurance or insurance from one of their numerous public nonprofits, and the penalties are far more strict than Obamacare's. No, it's not exactly the same thing but saying "there are differences so they're really not at all similar" is a pretty disingenuous argument. Places like Germany and Switzerland have made it pretty clear that a system in the mold of the ACA can work quite well if properly implemented. [SEP] You can, IIRC, be jailed for not purchasing health coverage in Germany.
+>Okay trolie, that's a lame analogy. The Austrian-Hungarian empire was a good time for Hungary but we were not colonised by them, we were a ruling partner of the empire so you just failed. LOL Did you think this was an insult? Everybody in Hungary thinks the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was a good thing, it is officially called the 'Happy Peace Times' in history books. Dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary didn't come to existence until 1867 as a result of a compromise. Before that Hungarians were full subjects of Austrians. Even after that Austrian emperor was the ruler of Hungary as well. So you claim that Hungary was equal is laughable. Also Czechs thrived within HRE which was a German lead project, and then under Austrian rule. Edit: And I bet it was called "Happy Peace Times" cause being subjects of superior culture and people must have been pretty peaceful, despite that small riot in 1848 but happy times. [SEP] Its actually kinda sad when you claim to be a patriot and don't even know your own country's history.
+It has nothing to do with being desperate. That's an assumption on your part and more often than not, assumptions end up making you look foolish. I was looking more for an open conversation about the subject not Passive aggressive insulting. Life tip, work on your people skills. Everytime I see you comment on a post, it's filled with snarky, passive aggressivity. It tells me alot about your character in real life. Now, moving forward, I know LR gohan is a beast, I'm fully aware of that. LR gohan hits hard, has a great leader skill for mono int and has good links. SS4 Vegeta has a better leader skill for his respective type, tanks, doesn't need any help from orbs to do damage consistently although LR gohan only needs 5 or 6 orbs to out damage the ss4's, also has great links, better team possibilities, chance to dodge super Atk and SS4 vegeta being far more obtainable has to count for something, even though how easy/hard a card is to get doesn't take away from the actual card itself being good or not. LR gohan has a higher ceiling when it comes to damage and damage alone. Since when has the best card in the game been decided solely on damage output? He doesn't counter anything, he doesn't tank, few people will have him(I do but I'm really desperate for some reason). If you're planning on running int gohan and bringing Nuke items to every battle, go for it. He needs items to be a truly, far and away better damage dealer, enough so to even be in the discussion for the best card in the game. That or he needs help from other cards that change orbs. SS4 Vegeta does what he does on any logically put together team without help from any other card. have a discussion with me, a human being, about how you feel about the analysis. I would enjoy that. No need to be an asshole. It's a discussion about cards on a mobile game. We're not saving lives here. It's a trivial matter. [SEP] Now, without Passive aggressively insulting(I know it's hard for you)
+I may be, I may not be. That wasn't really my point. I don't know if you can filter the thread to only see my responses, but I've tried to explain in other responses why I made this. But, to answer your question: I have a family that's very close and helps with our son. My son is a pretty good kid overall - he has tantrums and cries because I gave him the brown bear instead of the white bear to sleep, etc., my wife does not work, but is studying for her master's, so he goes to daycare 3 days a week. We're financially stable. Overall we have a much easier time of raising a child, circumstance-wise, than a lot of people. All of that goes into these feelings that I have about liking parenting, but for the first 5 months he was born, we did not have any of the stuff we have now, and things were really hard - and I still loved it. I think circumstances can definitely, DEFINITELY, color how you feel in a variety of situations, but [SEP] I'd like to think that who I am as a person colors it more, and the only point of my post was to say that I've really enjoyed being a father so far.
+Game developers, on the other hand, only have a single source of revenue for their work. Thousands and thousands of man-hours are poured into AAA games (and often indie games!). To act as if they deserve no compensation in exchange for the enjoyment their product provides is extremely selfish. If everyone collectively switched to Pirating music, the artists could still live comfortable lives, producing music and making money off of live performances. If everyone switched to Pirating games, there would be no more games. I believe piracy is stealing and wrong in both instances, but is arguably more harmful to game developers than music artists. [SEP] Actually, music artists generally make a bulk of their revenue through concerts. Pirating songs is denying money to the publishers more than the artists.
+>Because without privatization, we'd have no idea that the river is worthless to begin with! And information like that is extremely valuable. It's not worthless when it's government controlled. Privatization makes it worthless. >Not an argument. Try again. How is that not an argument? You said a thing, I said you were wrong. If you're looking for sources, I would ask you to provide them first. >Unless you consider mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange to be theft, then Capitalism isn't theft. That was easy. Okay, your turn. Capitalism isn't based on mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange. It's based on exploitation. A worker makes a thing, and then a capitalist takes it. How is that not theft? >How is your inability to make a coherent argument my fault? It's not my fault you can't understand them. Or even read them, apparently. [SEP] My arguments are perfectly coherent.
 For those ents looking for a Mid-America, lesser costly, much more comfy festival there's always Wakarusa. I suppose the line-ups a little less mainstream but its cheaper and smaller, which I prefer to the huge mega-festie shit shows (like Rothbury, Chella and Roo, which all seem to get draining after enough years). edit: Though if you go to Coachella, I'll be jealous you get to see Gogol Bordello and Chemical Brothers. [SEP] I suppose the line-ups a little less mainstream (sorry, no Kanye)
-I get that there is a market and that some people really do buy every single one of the Fluxx variations, including yourself. I understand that there are subtle tweaks in the different versions. >even just having different Action cards with new wording, or different ways of Goal cards requiring you to combine Keepers (and Creepers) differently, will often change things up enough to stay fresh with each new variation deck. Fluxx follows an almost identical business model to Munchkin. There isn't enough game and flavor to it to keep people playing them for any substantial amount of time so they tailor the game to try to hit as many niches as possible with minimal tweaks. Instead of trying to design a great game that appeals to some, they throw out minimal effort to appeal to specific audiences. Out of curiosity, would you rather have these cheap reiterations in different themes or fully fleshed-out board games that really integrate the themes you love? Would you rather see a silly, grail-hunting quest game for Monty Python, or a scenario-based game set in the world of Oz based on the multitude of books in that universe? I get it, the themes bring people in, but it's thin at best. Why not make unique card games that really feel like those worlds rather than churn out the same game? [SEP] Out of curiosity, would you rather have these cheap reiterations in different themes or fully fleshed-out board games that really integrate the themes you love? Would you rather see a silly, grail-hunting quest game for Monty Python, or a scenario-based game set in the world of Oz based on the multitude of books in that universe? I get it, the themes bring people in, but it's thin at best. Why not make unique card games that really feel like those worlds rather than churn out the same game?
+I get that there is a market and that some people really do buy every single one of the Fluxx variations, including yourself. I understand that there are subtle tweaks in the different versions. >even just having different Action cards with new wording, or different ways of Goal cards requiring you to combine Keepers (and Creepers) differently, will often change things up enough to stay fresh with each new variation deck. Fluxx follows an almost identical business model to Munchkin. There isn't enough game and flavor to it to keep people playing them for any substantial amount of time so they tailor the game to try to hit as many niches as possible with minimal tweaks. Instead of trying to design a great game that appeals to some, they throw out minimal effort to appeal to specific audiences. [SEP] Out of curiosity, would you rather have these cheap reiterations in different themes or fully fleshed-out board games that really integrate the themes you love? Would you rather see a silly, grail-hunting quest game for Monty Python, or a scenario-based game set in the world of Oz based on the multitude of books in that universe? I get it, the themes bring people in, but it's thin at best. Why not make unique card games that really feel like those worlds rather than churn out the same game?
 Why not subscribe to both? You could come here when you want to engage only with those who share your beliefs, and visit r/Mormon to participate in constructive discussion and debate when you’re up for it. Believe it or not, many non-believers sincerely want to better understand the faithful perspective on some of the more controversial issues surrounding LDS. Limiting or cutting off communication serves no one. I was completely open-minded about LDS UNTIL I started coming to this sub, and that’s unfortunate given that the active members in my life are truly some of my favorite people. P.S. Full disclosure — I’m a nevermo. Just realized my nevermo flair doesn’t show up on this sub. Apologies if that wasn’t clear in any of my previous posts. [SEP] You could come here when you want to engage only with those who share your beliefs, and visit /rMormon to participate in constructive discussion and debate when you’re up for it.
-Better social game, she made no enemies and people respected her. Reynold and Eddie HATE Sherri and the other faves have no respect for her Kept her 2 person alliance a secret and overcame 4 others to prevail on Matsing Got Russell to vote for Malcolm to go instead of her, pretty underrated move on her part. Showed Russell had more faith and trust in her than the physically stronger Malcolm Awesome in challenges Dictated the Artis vote out, which was key to that alliance making the end game Actually had to avoid being voted out at 2 tribals on the merged Kalabaw tribe, she should have been first out but used her work ethic and social (promising to get Malcolm over) and physical prowess to stick around. If New Gota had lost twice I very much doubt Sherri survives the first one Was a good ally with Malcolm, He even said in an exit interview how someone had said that to him that he was spoiled by how good Denise was with him. Sherri voted out Laura to keep someone who hated her (Reynold) Was able to betray Malcolm to be able to win the game (maybe Sherri will too but at this point she is just a goat and would lose in any F3 combo) Good final tribal performance, had tonnes of respect from the jurors and deservedly won after playing a calm and calculating game which may have not had the bells and whistles of other games but was very effective Got Abi's vote... says it all I don't even dislike Sherri but I do really like Denise and comparing the two is harsh [SEP] Better social game, she made no enemies and people respected her. Reynold and Eddie HATE Sherri and the other faves have no respect for her
-How the fuck wasn't Diana in line to the throne? she was due to be Queen after Elizabeth. Elizabeth -> Diana -> Kate Middleton but if William and Harry had dies then it would have been her third son and his wife instead of Kate Middleton, so it would been Elizabeth -> Diana -> Kate Middleton -> Mofaita (or something) I think I have a good idea about royal sucession, considering I am British. [SEP] I think I have a good idea about royal sucession, considering I am British.
-There's lots of sand in your vagina. As a theist gasp, when I say I'll pray for you, I pray for you. I wait a minute am a person who means what he says. But wait.. What I'm doing is useless so I can fuck off right? No. I don't think its useless. And I like it when people say they'll pray for me, because I believe it actually does something. I also happen to know many atheists who can listen to someone say 'I'll pray for you' without getting a huge stick up their ass. Be that guy. [SEP] when I say I'll pray for you, I pray for you.
-WTF? I'm sure you read the first line of my comment right? This is to eliminate spam post which has been increasing as of lately who have been promoting self-blog and shitty MRR post. I don't know how often you visit r/Nepal but there is around 5-7 post that is being deleted weekly that most of you users don't know of. Ask the mods and you shall receive your answers. BTW what so old about engaging in 10 discussions? Me being here every day, I look at all users history that seems new. Those that post 95% of spam are from new users whose account are less than 30 days and have less than 10-20 discussion/comments in history. While 5 % are from new accounts from tourist wanting to know more about Nepal. Most new account don;t come to post shit, but rather engage in discussion. Those that come to post shit are usually looking to post shit at r/Nepal without any discussions! Btw what so hard to engage in a 10 discussion post? I won't be surprised if one of those advertisement post username is by you. And why do you have to keep switching accounts? Are you being banned in another sub because you broke the rules? So sad....that you have to make a new account. WTF? get back to earth Dude and follow the rules!! Edit : It been only 2 minutes and you have already downvoted my comment. Makes sense! No Wonder some here at r/nepal are wondering why we have spam frequently on Top, while original opinion views are getting downvoted below them. No wonder because we have people who kill messengers and opinions instead of spam. Thank god I only downvote those that spam rather than their opinions or views while upvoting those I agree with. Here see this example of spam post and look at the user history http This post won't be here in few hours at r/nepal but you will still be able to access it through the link. Edit 2: Btw your account is since 2015 and you have 310 post karma. But your history shows only 3 post with 52 Karma. Your account looks sketchy as shit! I won't be surprised if you are one of those spammy posters in other subreddits that was banned and had to create new account. [SEP] Btw what so hard to engage in a 10 discussion post?
-The entire 99%, according to the 1%. No joke. Used to work with/for a lot of wealthy twats. If they're not middle class, they're jealous of the poor for having it so easy. [SEP] If they're not middle class, they're jealous of the poor for having it so easy.
-Sigh... If you will feel better, substitute the word "HARPAZO" which means: Catch up or take by force. And yes it was taught in the same scripture it is mentioned... >1 Thess 4: 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Ignorance is bliss... The English word "Rapture" has come to mean something ADDITIONAL to some today. It was originally actually the English word-for word- translation of the Latin Vulgate word "rapturo" which is the transliteration of the Hebrew word "harpazo". So indeed, the word "RAPTURE" is in the bible. HOWEVER, today, many take the word "rapture" and assign the words "pre-trib" to the front of it... Unfortunately this is a lie according to 2 Thess 2:3-4... [SEP] Ignorance is bliss
-No, you have it backwards. The point is that childfree people don't and won't ever know. They're the ones who get pissy when people say that, and that's who we're talking about. The specifics of which groups of caregivers understand what it's like are irrelevant. We're talking about those who don't get it and despite there being scientific proof, they still get pissy when people tell them they don't get it. Parents just happen to be the biggest group of caregivers out there so of course you're going to hear it from them the most. [SEP] No, you have it backwards. The point is that childfree people don't and won't ever know. They're the ones who get pissy when people say that, and that's who we're talking about. The specifics of which groups of caregivers understand what it's like are irrelevant.
-Welcome the NG+ where most of the people that summons you are assholes that will gank your sorry ass or Tryhards that equip anti-backstab and multi-stack buffs and spam the banana dance to get a cheap win. And yes I still say NG PvP with the SM 3m of SL150 people are great. you get the excitement of fighting people who are in love with their fashion and actually has skill [SEP] you get the excitement of fighting people who are in love with their fashion and actually has skill
+Kept her 2 person alliance a secret and overcame 4 others to prevail on Matsing Got Russell to vote for Malcolm to go instead of her, pretty underrated move on her part. Showed Russell had more faith and trust in her than the physically stronger Malcolm Awesome in challenges Dictated the Artis vote out, which was key to that alliance making the end game Actually had to avoid being voted out at 2 tribals on the merged Kalabaw tribe, she should have been first out but used her work ethic and social (promising to get Malcolm over) and physical prowess to stick around. If New Gota had lost twice I very much doubt Sherri survives the first one Was a good ally with Malcolm, He even said in an exit interview how someone had said that to him that he was spoiled by how good Denise was with him. Sherri voted out Laura to keep someone who hated her (Reynold) Was able to betray Malcolm to be able to win the game (maybe Sherri will too but at this point she is just a goat and would lose in any F3 combo) Good final tribal performance, had tonnes of respect from the jurors and deservedly won after playing a calm and calculating game which may have not had the bells and whistles of other games but was very effective Got Abi's vote... says it all I don't even dislike Sherri but I do really like Denise and comparing the two is harsh [SEP] Better social game, she made no enemies and people respected her. Reynold and Eddie HATE Sherri and the other faves have no respect for her
+How the fuck wasn't Diana in line to the throne? she was due to be Queen after Elizabeth. Elizabeth -> Diana -> Kate Middleton but if William and Harry had dies then it would have been her third son and his wife instead of Kate Middleton, so it would been Elizabeth -> Diana -> Kate Middleton -> Mofaita (or something) [SEP] I think I have a good idea about royal sucession, considering I am British.
+There's lots of sand in your vagina. As a theist gasp, I wait a minute am a person who means what he says. But wait.. What I'm doing is useless so I can fuck off right? No. I don't think its useless. And I like it when people say they'll pray for me, because I believe it actually does something. I also happen to know many atheists who can listen to someone say 'I'll pray for you' without getting a huge stick up their ass. Be that guy. [SEP] when I say I'll pray for you, I pray for you.
+WTF? I'm sure you read the first line of my comment right? This is to eliminate spam post which has been increasing as of lately who have been promoting self-blog and shitty MRR post. I don't know how often you visit r/Nepal but there is around 5-7 post that is being deleted weekly that most of you users don't know of. Ask the mods and you shall receive your answers. BTW what so old about engaging in 10 discussions? Me being here every day, I look at all users history that seems new. Those that post 95% of spam are from new users whose account are less than 30 days and have less than 10-20 discussion/comments in history. While 5 % are from new accounts from tourist wanting to know more about Nepal. Most new account don;t come to post shit, but rather engage in discussion. Those that come to post shit are usually looking to post shit at r/Nepal without any discussions! I won't be surprised if one of those advertisement post username is by you. And why do you have to keep switching accounts? Are you being banned in another sub because you broke the rules? So sad....that you have to make a new account. WTF? get back to earth Dude and follow the rules!! Edit : It been only 2 minutes and you have already downvoted my comment. Makes sense! No Wonder some here at r/nepal are wondering why we have spam frequently on Top, while original opinion views are getting downvoted below them. No wonder because we have people who kill messengers and opinions instead of spam. Thank god I only downvote those that spam rather than their opinions or views while upvoting those I agree with. Here see this example of spam post and look at the user history http This post won't be here in few hours at r/nepal but you will still be able to access it through the link. Edit 2: Btw your account is since 2015 and you have 310 post karma. But your history shows only 3 post with 52 Karma. Your account looks sketchy as shit! I won't be surprised if you are one of those spammy posters in other subreddits that was banned and had to create new account. [SEP] Btw what so hard to engage in a 10 discussion post?
+The entire 99%, according to the 1%. No joke. Used to work with/for a lot of wealthy twats. [SEP] If they're not middle class, they're jealous of the poor for having it so easy.
+Sigh... If you will feel better, substitute the word "HARPAZO" which means: Catch up or take by force. And yes it was taught in the same scripture it is mentioned... >1 Thess 4: 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. ... The English word "Rapture" has come to mean something ADDITIONAL to some today. It was originally actually the English word-for word- translation of the Latin Vulgate word "rapturo" which is the transliteration of the Hebrew word "harpazo". So indeed, the word "RAPTURE" is in the bible. HOWEVER, today, many take the word "rapture" and assign the words "pre-trib" to the front of it... Unfortunately this is a lie according to 2 Thess 2:3-4... [SEP] Ignorance is bliss
+We're talking about those who don't get it and despite there being scientific proof, they still get pissy when people tell them they don't get it. Parents just happen to be the biggest group of caregivers out there so of course you're going to hear it from them the most. [SEP] No, you have it backwards. The point is that childfree people don't and won't ever know. They're the ones who get pissy when people say that, and that's who we're talking about. The specifics of which groups of caregivers understand what it's like are irrelevant.
+Welcome the NG+ where most of the people that summons you are assholes that will gank your sorry ass or Tryhards that equip anti-backstab and multi-stack buffs and spam the banana dance to get a cheap win. And yes I still say NG PvP with the SM 3m of SL150 people are great. [SEP] you get the excitement of fighting people who are in love with their fashion and actually has skill
 "Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to your level and beat you with experience." You have made an ass of yourself in this thread and apparently have quite a reputation besides. I really tried to be nice here, why won't you let me? Your vitriol, half assed "facts," completely biassed viewpoints, inability to see anything from any point of view but your own, poor manners, and general grumpiness makes it really hard to talk to you. You aren't going to change my opinion, you don't have the requisites to do so. I am not trying to change yours, though I doubt any evidence would come close to doing so. All I tried to was shed some light on a subject you have no interest in seeing. I see why /r/mensrights and /r/theredpill are so angry at feminists. If this is what arguing with you is like, I'd be pretty mad too. I have a rather dubious relationship with feminism anyway and automatically put my defenses up when someone proudly announces they are a feminist. It's not you, it's the label you proudly display. Others have been quite hurtful to me under that logo and frankly I'm sick of it. Your opinions don't make you a bad person, your actions do. So far, you have been extremely rude, mean, and confrontational to me, someone who approached you trying to be nice. What does that say about you? Trying to talk to you only leads to argument. When arguing with someone like you it is completely fruitless and therefore pointless and frustrating, like arguing with my children during the terrible twos. I don't have time or energy for pointless frustration. You are welcome to your opinions, and that's fine. But your opinions about me seem pretty far off base, as I tried explaining. You seem to have a hard time understanding the idea of live and let live, and are very adamant about trying to either destroy me or bully me into changing my opinion. Neither will work and both are tactics of the young and angry. Good luck, be sure to copypasta this all over tumblr and in whatever women's studies class you are taking. [SEP] besides. I'm really trying to be nice here, why won't you let me?
-Hmmm... idk but I feel like Bossip is being a bit messy with this headline. What he said was it's easy to blame colorism for not getting a role rather than working to improve, get better and eventually get to where Viola is. Granted I'm a Denzel Stan and may be making excuses but I didn't get "colorism does not exist" from his statements. [SEP] What he said was it's easy to blame colorism for not getting a role rather than working to improve, get better and eventually get to where Viola is.
-1. I'm not trying to convert everyone I meet. I'm also not angry. I'm concerned about her in the opposite way that she is concerned about me. It's not anger, in the slightest. Yes, it's difficult, but love demands persistence from me. Also, I don't want to change her to fit me as much as I want to dispel the notion that faith is important in her life. [SEP] I don't want to change her to fit me as much as I want to dispel the notion that faith is important in her life.
-man if that is what you qualify as someone being a dick to you, you're going to have a hard time going through life. all I said is it is a pretty common color and probably not a reference, which is pretty much just fact. [SEP] you're going to have a hard time going through life.
-The debunking videos are great because they are all based on fact. He is really good at breaking things down, and explaining the math behind them. All of those feminist sjw videos he does shed light on what kind of person he is off camera. They are honestly some of the cringiest videos I've ever seen on youtube. [SEP] All of those feminist sjw videos he does shed light on what kind of person he is off camera.
-But I can guarantee that rolling over will also be disastrous. What is there to do? Liberals being nice doesn't work. Being mean doesn't work and just 'makes the divide bigger'. It's almost like republicans are being children who demand their way, or scream, and it's only those two choices. How does one deal with this when it's adults doing it? How does someone be reasonable with unreasonable people? We seriously don't seem to have any good, honorable path to take here. [SEP] Liberals being nice doesn't work.
-> Feast and Dance are my favourite novels of the series due to the worldbuilding and character building involved. Good lord, you poor thing. Those novels are unfocused, meandering messes. They're fine on a narrative level, as in the individual chapters are passably interesting and competently written. But the plot, and overall story structure, is a complete editing disaster. Especially compared to the first three novels which are tight, concise, and engaging. Martin's lack of editorial direction is starkly (da dum chshh) apparent in Feast for Dancing Dragons. The narrative pays close attention to fairly meaningless events the previous novels would have summarized when a character said "Hey, did you hear about this thing that happened?" either in dialog or internal recollection. There are so many unnecessary POV characters (Hello Arianne Martell, especially, or anyone with the surname Greyjoy other than maybe Victarion), previously important POV characters who don't do anything of consequence (Hello Brienne, wandering in a big circle for 100-something pages asking everyone she meets if they have seen a girl with red-brown hair and never finding her, or Hello Daenerys, living out an Iraq/Afghanistan War allegory, or Hello Sansa, acting as a spoiler for Littlefinger and building snow castles or some shit). He'd have finished those novels ten years ago if a strong editor had said "Stop it, George, those chapters don't add anything to the story. I honestly think Martin just got overwhelmed by the scope of the project, tired of the slog of producing such a massive quantity of written words (writing one novel is a crucible. Writing seven? On a single topic?) and became more fascinated with the big HBO dolla bills rolling in. He's an old man enjoying his newfound wealth and fame. Those novels are never getting finished. [SEP] Good lord, you poor thing.
-Okay, I think you're right. I'm just not articulating myself very well because its early and I'm tired (I know that misandrists and man-haters are synonymous I didn't mean to put both), but I bet if we could have a verbal discussion we'd be in almost total agreement. I was speaking more from personal experiences of trying to explain my beliefs as a feminist which are very moderate, though I have not discussed them in the context of this thread, and still being called a man hater, or a number of other unflattering things when I have presented as nothing but reasonable, and I openly acknowledge that I do not agree with every feminist cause. I take that label mainly because I believe that gender roles in our society are a strict binary that prioritizes masculine over feminine within those definitions, and this causes problems for both genders but a little more so for women simply because part of being feminine is being submissive. Then again my perceptive is both biased and limited, as is everyones. I know that gender roles affect everyone, I only focused on the feminist side because that is what this thread was aimed at discussing but I'd probably have to write a whole book to accurately depict where I stand. [SEP] more so for women simply because part of being feminine is being submissive.
-I agree with what you are saying for the most part, but about the trip... my legs were twitching very hard. When I was laying in the grass, several times a leg would kick up several feet in the air. Is this something that happens on high doses of DXM? It sounded like serotonin syndrome based on what I read. I know the robo-walking happens. I hated not being able to walk properly. Geez, I can't imagine that anybody would prefer DXM to mushrooms or LSD. I was under the impression people did it when they could get access to nothing else. For me it was mainly curiosity. [SEP] I can't imagine that anybody would prefer DXM to mushrooms or LSD
+Hmmm... idk but I feel like Bossip is being a bit messy with this headline. Granted I'm a Denzel Stan and may be making excuses but I didn't get "colorism does not exist" from his statements. [SEP] What he said was it's easy to blame colorism for not getting a role rather than working to improve, get better and eventually get to where Viola is.
+1. I'm not trying to convert everyone I meet. I'm also not angry. I'm concerned about her in the opposite way that she is concerned about me. It's not anger, in the slightest. Yes, it's difficult, but love demands persistence from me. Also, [SEP] I don't want to change her to fit me as much as I want to dispel the notion that faith is important in her life.
+man if that is what you qualify as someone being a dick to you, all I said is it is a pretty common color and probably not a reference, which is pretty much just fact. [SEP] you're going to have a hard time going through life.
+The debunking videos are great because they are all based on fact. He is really good at breaking things down, and explaining the math behind them. They are honestly some of the cringiest videos I've ever seen on youtube. [SEP] All of those feminist sjw videos he does shed light on what kind of person he is off camera.
+But I can guarantee that rolling over will also be disastrous. What is there to do? Being mean doesn't work and just 'makes the divide bigger'. It's almost like republicans are being children who demand their way, or scream, and it's only those two choices. How does one deal with this when it's adults doing it? How does someone be reasonable with unreasonable people? We seriously don't seem to have any good, honorable path to take here. [SEP] Liberals being nice doesn't work.
+> Feast and Dance are my favourite novels of the series due to the worldbuilding and character building involved. Those novels are unfocused, meandering messes. They're fine on a narrative level, as in the individual chapters are passably interesting and competently written. But the plot, and overall story structure, is a complete editing disaster. Especially compared to the first three novels which are tight, concise, and engaging. Martin's lack of editorial direction is starkly (da dum chshh) apparent in Feast for Dancing Dragons. The narrative pays close attention to fairly meaningless events the previous novels would have summarized when a character said "Hey, did you hear about this thing that happened?" either in dialog or internal recollection. There are so many unnecessary POV characters (Hello Arianne Martell, especially, or anyone with the surname Greyjoy other than maybe Victarion), previously important POV characters who don't do anything of consequence (Hello Brienne, wandering in a big circle for 100-something pages asking everyone she meets if they have seen a girl with red-brown hair and never finding her, or Hello Daenerys, living out an Iraq/Afghanistan War allegory, or Hello Sansa, acting as a spoiler for Littlefinger and building snow castles or some shit). He'd have finished those novels ten years ago if a strong editor had said "Stop it, George, those chapters don't add anything to the story. I honestly think Martin just got overwhelmed by the scope of the project, tired of the slog of producing such a massive quantity of written words (writing one novel is a crucible. Writing seven? On a single topic?) and became more fascinated with the big HBO dolla bills rolling in. He's an old man enjoying his newfound wealth and fame. Those novels are never getting finished. [SEP] Good lord, you poor thing.
+Okay, I think you're right. I'm just not articulating myself very well because its early and I'm tired (I know that misandrists and man-haters are synonymous I didn't mean to put both), but I bet if we could have a verbal discussion we'd be in almost total agreement. I was speaking more from personal experiences of trying to explain my beliefs as a feminist which are very moderate, though I have not discussed them in the context of this thread, and still being called a man hater, or a number of other unflattering things when I have presented as nothing but reasonable, and I openly acknowledge that I do not agree with every feminist cause. I take that label mainly because I believe that gender roles in our society are a strict binary that prioritizes masculine over feminine within those definitions, and this causes problems for both genders but a little Then again my perceptive is both biased and limited, as is everyones. I know that gender roles affect everyone, I only focused on the feminist side because that is what this thread was aimed at discussing but I'd probably have to write a whole book to accurately depict where I stand. [SEP] more so for women simply because part of being feminine is being submissive.
+I agree with what you are saying for the most part, but about the trip... my legs were twitching very hard. When I was laying in the grass, several times a leg would kick up several feet in the air. Is this something that happens on high doses of DXM? It sounded like serotonin syndrome based on what I read. I know the robo-walking happens. I hated not being able to walk properly. Geez, . I was under the impression people did it when they could get access to nothing else. For me it was mainly curiosity. [SEP] I can't imagine that anybody would prefer DXM to mushrooms or LSD
 Why are all these Germans complaining about America having no history? If if that were the case, it's better to have no history than to have Germany's recent history. It's like they're setting themselves up for a joke or something. [SEP] All these Germans
-Then why should OP worry about any speed up from using Microsoft Open R? Lets say the speed increase is an order of magnitude (10X faster). Does it really matter that his code now runs in 0.1s instead of 1s? Probably not. [SEP] Then why should OP worry about any speed up from using Microsoft Open R?
-No they were not more powerful. I don't know what makes you think that. They were powerful enough to challenge the king of France, especially when said king is mad as hell or has half of his kingdom occupied by the English, but certainly not more powerful. As for the Burgundy war, it didn't involve the king of France. It was a war between the duke of Burgundy against the Swiss and the duke of lorraine. You shouldn't rely on the English version of Wikipedia on that point. [SEP] As for the Burgundy war, it didn't involve the king of France. It was a war between the duke of Burgundy against the Swiss and the duke of lorraine. You shouldn't rely on the English version of Wikipedia on that point.
-> please, don't let the childish, dimwitted, idiotic, hippy-boy (actual insults from your comments) redditors get you down. They never do. > Your insults and use of large words is evidence that you're attempting to simultaneously insult and intimidate those you disagree with. Nah, I'm just European... which puts my IQ a few dozen points above most American redditors. The funny thing is... my posts are upmodded during "the night" (when only Europeans are on Reddit), and modded back down to oblivion once the white trash wakes up. Anyways... I guess what I am saying is that if you start reading some books, you might one day come to assimilate long words into your vocabulary as well. [SEP] Nah, I'm just European... which puts my IQ a few dozen points above most American redditors.
+Lets say the speed increase is an order of magnitude (10X faster). Does it really matter that his code now runs in 0.1s instead of 1s? Probably not. [SEP] Then why should OP worry about any speed up from using Microsoft Open R?
+No they were not more powerful. I don't know what makes you think that. They were powerful enough to challenge the king of France, especially when said king is mad as hell or has half of his kingdom occupied by the English, but certainly not more powerful. [SEP] As for the Burgundy war, it didn't involve the king of France. It was a war between the duke of Burgundy against the Swiss and the duke of lorraine. You shouldn't rely on the English version of Wikipedia on that point.
+> please, don't let the childish, dimwitted, idiotic, hippy-boy (actual insults from your comments) redditors get you down. They never do. > Your insults and use of large words is evidence that you're attempting to simultaneously insult and intimidate those you disagree with. The funny thing is... my posts are upmodded during "the night" (when only Europeans are on Reddit), and modded back down to oblivion once the white trash wakes up. Anyways... I guess what I am saying is that if you start reading some books, you might one day come to assimilate long words into your vocabulary as well. [SEP] Nah, I'm just European... which puts my IQ a few dozen points above most American redditors.
 Most of your reply was talking about contraceptives but the focus of the original quote was on abortion and allowing women that choice. My point is that you're arguing the wrong point: contraceptives vs. the real focus, which is abortion rights. Hitchens' point about men vs. women is that these laws were passed by men and are still debated by men as to what women should do with their bodies. Women should be at least - at least - 50% of the participants. This may not apply so much in the US but in third world countries where men rule and women are denied abortion. As far as contraceptives, your choice to not be on birth control is fine but it's a question of having it be available vs. not being available. Speaking for this country, it annoys me that Viagra is covered under medical insurance but birth control is not (in many cases). Hitchens was talking about women being saddled with kids (unwanted pregnancies and rape) which hurts their chances of escaping poverty (rape in particular can make you an outcast). And again, his point was about third world countries where this is the case, Africa in particular. [SEP] Most of your reply was talking about contraceptives but the focus of >the original quote was on abortion and allowing women that choice.
-We had a garden growing up and even until my parents just moved last year they still did, because we were a poor family and there was 7 of us kids. We tilled it, planted it, and weeded it ourselves. We were extremely successful. It's important to learn about what grows best in your area. Something like zucchini gives fruit for the whole summer and is easy to grow. Some plants can be difficult to cultivate or have specific soil requirements and are best not to bother with. Neem oil should be your go to for pest and fungus control, nothing else should be used near plants you intend to consume. Just because one person had difficulties doesn't mean it's not possible. Just like everything in life it can take a lot of work at first. How do you think people survived 100 - 200 years ago? you think there was a super markets on every corner back then? [SEP] How do you think people survived 100 - 200 years ago? you think there was a super markets on every corner back then?
-They got a deluge of death threats when they delayed earlier this year, who knows what would've happened if they delayed again. I'm not saying don't criticize them, I'm saying that suing them for publishing a game before every feature was ready isn't enough reason to sue them when you can get a refund in most cases. I used the word exaggerating when talking about the alien factions, they "lied" about multiplayer working because they didn't want the game to crash more than I already does. Again, this will likely eventually get patched in or they will face some legal retribution Don't speak to me like I'm a child, I know exactly what those words mean and when to use them. Edit: Battlefield 4 promised you could destroy any building and a bunch of other features that still aren't in the game. It came out two years ago and I'm on readit so I don't want to take the time to look their promises and what wasn't in the game up. [SEP] Don't speak to me like I'm a child, I know exactly what those words mean and when to use them.
-I have had the tendency to do this sometimes to my old roomy who is a huge sports fan. But to be fair the amount of times I've had to sit there while our hangouts turn into a 3 hour discussion about a sport I don't give a fuck about is ridiculous. If I go to my room and fire up a game or just ignore the conversation and browse reddit or something, I'm an unsocial dick. I'm not, I just get extremely annoyed listening to sports banter, it just sounds like the exact same things every time. It reminds me of looking at the covers of celebrity magazines in the checkout line. Same titles and headlines, interchangeable people involved. X cheated on Y, X& Y's 500M divorce, forever and ever. When people talk about sports around me for more than a few minutes I feel like I'm being water boarded by irrelevancy [SEP] the amount of times I've had to sit there while our hangouts turn into a 3 hour discussion about a sport I don't give a fuck about is ridiculous
-Personally, I don't enjoy Assault at all, so I'm glad I don't have to play it. But, it's bullshit that game modes are removed from matchmaking FOR EVERYONE just because the MLG pro dewrito lords don't like playing it. [SEP] MLG pro dewrito lords
->I love it this, now I gotta be ashamed of how I make money because I don't do it in a way that satisfies your moral code? Because I don't create "value" Yes, you should feel bad. You're a bad person, since you're not creating wealth in a mutually beneficial way, you're just advocating extraction of wealth done via government, that benefits you at the expense of everyone else. You're no different than the telecoms that lobby and pay for competition to be kept out via laws, or defense co tractors lobbying for continued wars. >Let me worry about generating "value" towards society. You just stay in your lane and worry about yourself. Stay in my lane? You're acting like you're king shit because you own real estate in Toronto, but don't realize the wealth you've gained is the type that takes zero skill, intelligence, or foresight of any kind. Its the same reason you're still trying to break in to your industry - you have none of those things. My lane is literally building houses, anything from waterfront to affordable housing. And although housing isn't a costly issue for me, it is for a ton of people out there and it's not getting any easier because people like you care more about your paper gains growing while you sit comfortable, explicitly at their expense. There's a reason why lots of places ban foreign ownership - the locals have no choice to compete against nearly unlimited cash chasing scarce necessity. > dunno if your a libertarian or a conservative but you use language similar to them. Is that supposed to be an insult? I've read enough economics to know what makes a country a good and a bad one. Whether institutions are included or extractive is abig one. The extractive ones are generally only good for a select few at the extreme expense of everyone else... Guess which one you promote? >The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind HAHAHAHAHAHAH AH HA HA HA. You seriously just used a quote from a movie about trading in the stock market, a place where it's live or die by your skills, intelligence and ability. The trading world is the wild West compared to the housing market. It isn't a place where Gordon Gekko calls up the government and asks them to make everyone buy Apple stock immeadiately after he's already bought a million shares. Holy shit. Get over yourself. If I met you in person I would have no problem telling you about what a bad person you are. [SEP] I've read enough economics to know what makes a country a good and a bad one.
-Look I appreciate a good discussion, but there is no need to get personal and insulting. I didn't insult you and I appreciate the same courtesy. Many of us use phones to post on reddit so there is an understanding that grammatical mistakes happen, asking where I went to school is just plain rude. Now to answer your question, alert's for debugging is anti pattern. I'm not saying don't use print statements, sure by all means, but an alert is not a print statement. It actually changes the behavior of your code since alerts are blocking. console.log on the other hand is non-blocking and a better way to debug (if you want quick and dirty). As a software architect, I've seen alerts cause way more problems in the long run. With that said, quick & dirty often leads to bad habits. I've been in the industry a long time, I've worked on some very large code bases for some of the larger sites on the internet. As a result I've interacted with many developers who have internalized these bad habits early on and still continue to do them in their professional career. So yes, my comment was constructive in that I was providing advice that alerts cause problems (cause they blocking) and that a better alternative is to use the debugger found in most modern browsers. Here's some advice from someone in the industry (working for a large tech company in california) and who speaks at a lot of conferences and meetups. We're allowed to have different opinions and even disagree , but attacking someone for no reason is a horrible attitude and on that will limit your ability to get jobs and grow in the industry. I wish you all the best. [SEP] With that said, quick & dirty often leads to bad habits
-> You still have the option, and Thor is a bad example. Nemesis can build any boots and be okay, depending on her role. Many of the defenses I've seen thus far seem to take casuals into account waaay too much. You're hardly, if ever, gonna find nemesis outside of jungle. Therefore, the limits to her build is confined to warrior's, ninja's. and maybe talaria's but you'll pretty much miss out on a lot of power if you go talaria's. Despite those options, warrior's is always better early. You only go ninja's on nem if you're building aa. Warrior's is the primary choice then. > That's the point of the post; Rat is now locked into his sustain acorn, and doesn't have a single other acorn to change his playstyle. The post is asking for one more to at least create some diversity with the character as it was originally intended. It's literally only one item, you have five other item slots to dick around with if you like. AA builds don't exclusively need aa boots; tank boots don't exclusively need tank boots. His diversity is not gone because they limited his passive. And seeing as how one acorn was viable before pretty much shows that multiple acorns didn't even do its intended purpose. > They can still be played without fatalis, believe it or not. Yeah they're just gonna suck complete balls. > An item being good on a god and an item being locked on a god are two different things. And seeing as how you can still build aa rat or whatever the hell a pleb wants to build (along with their med neith) with the current acorn shows that having that one acorn makes no difference. [SEP] And seeing as how you can still build aa rat or whatever the hell a pleb wants to build (along with their med neith) with the current acorn shows that having that one acorn makes no difference.
-Oh I bet you enjoy it, but you kind of dont admit, that you overpay for what you enjoy. Somehow, this view is popular mostly about HS fans and fans of audiophile equipment. Fans of other stuff e.g. car modding at least admit that they pay a lot for their stuff (and as far as I know car modders dont overpay - they pay a lot, but not overpay). It's seriously fascinating: you are kind of happy with the fact that you overpay. This makes you happy and content - you even defend this when someone points out to you that this behavior is not logical. I dont know how to call it apart from just thinking that you enjoy being fucked by Blizzard. There is a group of goods where people overpay - but they overpay for a reason: mostly to show off that they can afford them, things like a fancy car, or designer clothes ( http ). But you cant really show off to anyone that you have spent 2000 dollars on a children's card game, because most people (even the the hardcore nerds) will think that you are an idiot. I guess you enjoy overpaying for the sake of overpaying, even without being able to show this off to anyone. Maybe it's some psychological thing as well. I can only congratulate Blizzard for finding such a brainwashed niche and being able to build a revenue of 500M dollars per year on people like you. After all - you even defend them! (I also kind of admire their skills, but at the end of the day I believe that what they do is a simply a predatory practice; or is it? After all you enjoy it. I bet the people in sects, or MLM companies also enjoy what they do... for some time). [SEP] But you cant really show off to anyone that you have spent 2000 dollars on a children's card game
-It's not a bad idea. However the subreddit doesn't support any given mod and Google has proven easy enough to use for the last few years. [SEP] Google has proven easy enough to use for the last few years.
-Point 1. I was not offering anything to the conversation except replying to people thoughts. Point 2. Another grand generalization on your part. Sometimes, somethings so absurd and completely stupid as religion deserves to be mocked, if only to highlight it's absurdity. Point 3. If you feel my title did suggest any point of view, then if you had read my post, you would see that I twice said I did not have an opinion on the matter. A point you have consistently overlooked. Point 4. I am not going to change my title, simply because I do not need to change it. I have no qualms about admitting I'm wrong, I don't see it as a bad thing to admit you're wrong. Point 5. I have not insulted you, whereas your comments are filled with wild generalizations, sweeping stereotyped and attempts by you to insult my education and overall intelligence. Conclusion: If you read my five points here, maybe you could reply to me with your response suitably formatted and also free from petty remarks. [SEP] If you read my five points here, maybe you could reply to me with your response suitably formatted and also free from petty remarks.
-ANCEDOTES BELOW I'm American and I live in the UK. I much prefer the US and will thankfully be moving back soon. For myself, I think it's a combination of the weather, culture, and honestly an outdoors thing. Culturally, people feel very outwardly cold here. They're incredibly friendly when you get to know them, but there just aren't as many smiles from strangers and small talk with people in a queue. The weather is obvious but the outdoors/population thing is a big one for me. Unless you have the luxury of owing a car (which are incredibly expensive to own/run/maintain here), you're completely at the mercy of wherever the public transit goes, which is almost always other cities. I long to just hop in my car and drive to where there aren't people like I could back home but I can't do that here. It's incredibly populated and it's time consuming to even get away. I understand that there are millions of people that live cities and European cities are much easier to get around and much nicer to look at IMO. It's very nice to have stuff like the NHS and public transit and mandated leave, but I'd trade it all to live in the US. These thoughts are 100% ancedotal, please don't hate me [SEP] Culturally, people feel very outwardly cold here. They're incredibly friendly when you get to know them, but there just aren't as many smiles from strangers and small talk with people in a queue.
+We had a garden growing up and even until my parents just moved last year they still did, because we were a poor family and there was 7 of us kids. We tilled it, planted it, and weeded it ourselves. We were extremely successful. It's important to learn about what grows best in your area. Something like zucchini gives fruit for the whole summer and is easy to grow. Some plants can be difficult to cultivate or have specific soil requirements and are best not to bother with. Neem oil should be your go to for pest and fungus control, nothing else should be used near plants you intend to consume. Just because one person had difficulties doesn't mean it's not possible. Just like everything in life it can take a lot of work at first. [SEP] How do you think people survived 100 - 200 years ago? you think there was a super markets on every corner back then?
+They got a deluge of death threats when they delayed earlier this year, who knows what would've happened if they delayed again. I'm not saying don't criticize them, I'm saying that suing them for publishing a game before every feature was ready isn't enough reason to sue them when you can get a refund in most cases. I used the word exaggerating when talking about the alien factions, they "lied" about multiplayer working because they didn't want the game to crash more than I already does. Again, this will likely eventually get patched in or they will face some legal retribution Edit: Battlefield 4 promised you could destroy any building and a bunch of other features that still aren't in the game. It came out two years ago and I'm on readit so I don't want to take the time to look their promises and what wasn't in the game up. [SEP] Don't speak to me like I'm a child, I know exactly what those words mean and when to use them.
+I have had the tendency to do this sometimes to my old roomy who is a huge sports fan. But to be fair . If I go to my room and fire up a game or just ignore the conversation and browse reddit or something, I'm an unsocial dick. I'm not, I just get extremely annoyed listening to sports banter, it just sounds like the exact same things every time. It reminds me of looking at the covers of celebrity magazines in the checkout line. Same titles and headlines, interchangeable people involved. X cheated on Y, X& Y's 500M divorce, forever and ever. When people talk about sports around me for more than a few minutes I feel like I'm being water boarded by irrelevancy [SEP] the amount of times I've had to sit there while our hangouts turn into a 3 hour discussion about a sport I don't give a fuck about is ridiculous
+Personally, I don't enjoy Assault at all, so I'm glad I don't have to play it. But, it's bullshit that game modes are removed from matchmaking FOR EVERYONE just because the don't like playing it. [SEP] MLG pro dewrito lords
+>I love it this, now I gotta be ashamed of how I make money because I don't do it in a way that satisfies your moral code? Because I don't create "value" Yes, you should feel bad. You're a bad person, since you're not creating wealth in a mutually beneficial way, you're just advocating extraction of wealth done via government, that benefits you at the expense of everyone else. You're no different than the telecoms that lobby and pay for competition to be kept out via laws, or defense co tractors lobbying for continued wars. >Let me worry about generating "value" towards society. You just stay in your lane and worry about yourself. Stay in my lane? You're acting like you're king shit because you own real estate in Toronto, but don't realize the wealth you've gained is the type that takes zero skill, intelligence, or foresight of any kind. Its the same reason you're still trying to break in to your industry - you have none of those things. My lane is literally building houses, anything from waterfront to affordable housing. And although housing isn't a costly issue for me, it is for a ton of people out there and it's not getting any easier because people like you care more about your paper gains growing while you sit comfortable, explicitly at their expense. There's a reason why lots of places ban foreign ownership - the locals have no choice to compete against nearly unlimited cash chasing scarce necessity. > dunno if your a libertarian or a conservative but you use language similar to them. Is that supposed to be an insult? Whether institutions are included or extractive is abig one. The extractive ones are generally only good for a select few at the extreme expense of everyone else... Guess which one you promote? >The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind HAHAHAHAHAHAH AH HA HA HA. You seriously just used a quote from a movie about trading in the stock market, a place where it's live or die by your skills, intelligence and ability. The trading world is the wild West compared to the housing market. It isn't a place where Gordon Gekko calls up the government and asks them to make everyone buy Apple stock immeadiately after he's already bought a million shares. Holy shit. Get over yourself. If I met you in person I would have no problem telling you about what a bad person you are. [SEP] I've read enough economics to know what makes a country a good and a bad one.
+Look I appreciate a good discussion, but there is no need to get personal and insulting. I didn't insult you and I appreciate the same courtesy. Many of us use phones to post on reddit so there is an understanding that grammatical mistakes happen, asking where I went to school is just plain rude. Now to answer your question, alert's for debugging is anti pattern. I'm not saying don't use print statements, sure by all means, but an alert is not a print statement. It actually changes the behavior of your code since alerts are blocking. console.log on the other hand is non-blocking and a better way to debug (if you want quick and dirty). As a software architect, I've seen alerts cause way more problems in the long run. . I've been in the industry a long time, I've worked on some very large code bases for some of the larger sites on the internet. As a result I've interacted with many developers who have internalized these bad habits early on and still continue to do them in their professional career. So yes, my comment was constructive in that I was providing advice that alerts cause problems (cause they blocking) and that a better alternative is to use the debugger found in most modern browsers. Here's some advice from someone in the industry (working for a large tech company in california) and who speaks at a lot of conferences and meetups. We're allowed to have different opinions and even disagree , but attacking someone for no reason is a horrible attitude and on that will limit your ability to get jobs and grow in the industry. I wish you all the best. [SEP] With that said, quick & dirty often leads to bad habits
+> You still have the option, and Thor is a bad example. Nemesis can build any boots and be okay, depending on her role. Many of the defenses I've seen thus far seem to take casuals into account waaay too much. You're hardly, if ever, gonna find nemesis outside of jungle. Therefore, the limits to her build is confined to warrior's, ninja's. and maybe talaria's but you'll pretty much miss out on a lot of power if you go talaria's. Despite those options, warrior's is always better early. You only go ninja's on nem if you're building aa. Warrior's is the primary choice then. > That's the point of the post; Rat is now locked into his sustain acorn, and doesn't have a single other acorn to change his playstyle. The post is asking for one more to at least create some diversity with the character as it was originally intended. It's literally only one item, you have five other item slots to dick around with if you like. AA builds don't exclusively need aa boots; tank boots don't exclusively need tank boots. His diversity is not gone because they limited his passive. And seeing as how one acorn was viable before pretty much shows that multiple acorns didn't even do its intended purpose. > They can still be played without fatalis, believe it or not. Yeah they're just gonna suck complete balls. > An item being good on a god and an item being locked on a god are two different things. [SEP] And seeing as how you can still build aa rat or whatever the hell a pleb wants to build (along with their med neith) with the current acorn shows that having that one acorn makes no difference.
+Oh I bet you enjoy it, but you kind of dont admit, that you overpay for what you enjoy. Somehow, this view is popular mostly about HS fans and fans of audiophile equipment. Fans of other stuff e.g. car modding at least admit that they pay a lot for their stuff (and as far as I know car modders dont overpay - they pay a lot, but not overpay). It's seriously fascinating: you are kind of happy with the fact that you overpay. This makes you happy and content - you even defend this when someone points out to you that this behavior is not logical. I dont know how to call it apart from just thinking that you enjoy being fucked by Blizzard. There is a group of goods where people overpay - but they overpay for a reason: mostly to show off that they can afford them, things like a fancy car, or designer clothes ( http ). , because most people (even the the hardcore nerds) will think that you are an idiot. I guess you enjoy overpaying for the sake of overpaying, even without being able to show this off to anyone. Maybe it's some psychological thing as well. I can only congratulate Blizzard for finding such a brainwashed niche and being able to build a revenue of 500M dollars per year on people like you. After all - you even defend them! (I also kind of admire their skills, but at the end of the day I believe that what they do is a simply a predatory practice; or is it? After all you enjoy it. I bet the people in sects, or MLM companies also enjoy what they do... for some time). [SEP] But you cant really show off to anyone that you have spent 2000 dollars on a children's card game
+It's not a bad idea. However the subreddit doesn't support any given mod and [SEP] Google has proven easy enough to use for the last few years.
+Point 1. I was not offering anything to the conversation except replying to people thoughts. Point 2. Another grand generalization on your part. Sometimes, somethings so absurd and completely stupid as religion deserves to be mocked, if only to highlight it's absurdity. Point 3. If you feel my title did suggest any point of view, then if you had read my post, you would see that I twice said I did not have an opinion on the matter. A point you have consistently overlooked. Point 4. I am not going to change my title, simply because I do not need to change it. I have no qualms about admitting I'm wrong, I don't see it as a bad thing to admit you're wrong. Point 5. I have not insulted you, whereas your comments are filled with wild generalizations, sweeping stereotyped and attempts by you to insult my education and overall intelligence. Conclusion: [SEP] If you read my five points here, maybe you could reply to me with your response suitably formatted and also free from petty remarks.
+ANCEDOTES BELOW I'm American and I live in the UK. I much prefer the US and will thankfully be moving back soon. For myself, I think it's a combination of the weather, culture, and honestly an outdoors thing. The weather is obvious but the outdoors/population thing is a big one for me. Unless you have the luxury of owing a car (which are incredibly expensive to own/run/maintain here), you're completely at the mercy of wherever the public transit goes, which is almost always other cities. I long to just hop in my car and drive to where there aren't people like I could back home but I can't do that here. It's incredibly populated and it's time consuming to even get away. I understand that there are millions of people that live cities and European cities are much easier to get around and much nicer to look at IMO. It's very nice to have stuff like the NHS and public transit and mandated leave, but I'd trade it all to live in the US. These thoughts are 100% ancedotal, please don't hate me [SEP] Culturally, people feel very outwardly cold here. They're incredibly friendly when you get to know them, but there just aren't as many smiles from strangers and small talk with people in a queue.
 >I repeatedly asked specifically which point I referenced you thought was false. And like a person who doesn't have evidence or is unable to back up his own points, you said, "all of it" I keep saying "all of it" because you have never said anything that wasn't propagandized. If you want to give me evidence, I'm not stopping you. The fact that you haven't, is because there isn't any. > The goal isn't always to defund but often times to reduce. then why are they only trying to reduce things that obama has passed? >>"Wouldn't they focus on the major causes of increased debt" >Obama care is indeed one of them that's weird, it is "one of" the things that has caused an increase in debt, but it is the ONLY THING the "fiscal conservatives" are trying to defund. . . . . strange. >Military is expensive but worth spending money on. This is where the "fiscal conservative" argument shows itself for what it is. "we can't stop giving money to the corporations that put on war (and also pay us), but there is not enough money to make sure our own citizens are healthy, not starving to death, or freezing death" This is hands down the craziest part of your argument. "military is worth it, but healthcare isn't". >>"corporate tax loop holes" >This is not an expense. yes. it is. The fact that you don't understand that tax breaks are government expenditures is proof that you have absolutely no idea how government works. You just listen to whatever tea party evangelist you subscribe to and assume that everything else is a lie. Any time a corporation owes money, and the "fiscal conservatives" say "no, you don't need to pay that money", then the rest of the tax payers have to pay for it. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. STOP LISTENING TO THE TALKING HEADS THAT TELL YOU THAT CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE. This is something you're going to have to do for yourself. I can show you the door, but you have to walk through it. Start questioning the things you're told, figure out why they're saying it, if it's true, and if it will stay true in the future. think for yourself. [SEP] "Start questioning the things you're told, figure out why they're saying it, if it's true, and if it will stay true in the future.
 Then you can’t find the ft% anchors or the threes you need. Low tier pg’s usually gain value from assists. You’ll end up punting those two cats as well. Punting isn’t just sorting bbm by each punt category and trading up. [SEP] Punting isn't just sorting bbm by each punt category and trading up
-I feel ya. Again at work so my books are out of reach. I'm an older person and not super adroit at online interneting. I'll save this thread and jump back when I remember/find something/etc. To address the second half of your post: If you're gonna be a NWO apologist, we're never gonna agree on Pike's legacy. People are the institutions they voluntarily belong to. Spez: If somebody is chatting with you in some detail on Pike's legacy, you can prolly skip language like "I think you'll find..." I've prolly "found" more than, for example, you... especially if you think the 33rd degree is a thing one pays for. [SEP] I've prolly "found" more than, for example, you
-All of your points are valid, fair enough. But all of them miss the point that college is a choice. I know people that have gone and are better for it and some worse. I know people that have not gone and are doing great, there's a flipside to that too. College or the institutions themselves aren't a problem (quality education is provided in exchange for $), so US govt regulation should not be an issue. Financing college education via govt loans is already capped, what a student chooses to do with private lenders is up to them and the risk each party is willing to take. It sounds like the issue you're voicing has to do with the high cost of college and the uncertainty of a job market upon graduation. Welcome to the real world, there are no guarantees and globalization has opened a floodgate of talent. Youths in Kentucky are going up against the sons and daughters of factory owners in Mumbai, both smart, talented and desiring to go to prestigious universities. There is no simple solution, and the ones you propose are myopic. [SEP] Welcome to the real world
-Indigenous tribes aren't allowed to be independent? Then that is not full self-determination, I'll give you that much. I fully support their self-determination since that is something all people should have. As far as I'm aware though, there are no major movements among their nations for full independence. Assuming there was though, I would support it if the super-majority vote yes. > your definition merely means having the right and perhaps the opportunity of self-determination, rather than actually exercising it. The key point here is determination. If the people determine that they prefer to be part of a greater nation, then their self-determination was observed, not trampled upon. From the looks of it, what I consider self-determination, you simply consider to be the right to self-determination and not self-determination itself. It seems like we're mostly on the same page when it comes to self-determination, we just use slightly different terminology. Both of us agree that self-determination is the people controlling their state. > is there a citizen of those countries who isn't part of the nation? For me, that wold be people who got citizenship only for the benefits but do not consider themselves a part of the state and have not integrated into the society (my dad has Canadian citizenship but he is neither integrated into Canadian society nor does he identify as a Canadian, for him it is just a passport). In casual conversations though, and even in many legal contexts, nationality and citizenship are synonymous (though I do not personally consider them to be exactly the same, they just overlap for the most part). In fact, all Western nations basically use nationality as a synonym for citizenship. It is largely, as you said, Eastern European ethnic nation states that call ethnic minorities nationalities (Hungary is one example). Not surprisingly, Zionism originated in this part of Europe. > If not, how is the "nation" in the "Canadian or American nation-state" meaningful in any way? Direct quote from my textbook, which is more more less how I see nations: > A nation is a community that controls or seeks to control it's own state. Nations and states are inherently linked. The people of Canada and the people of the United States control a state, and the vast majority of the population supports and is loyal to this state, thus, we are nations. When it comes to Quebec, things get a bit murky since a significant portion of the population (but not everyone) wishes to control their own state. In the parliament, a motion passed that stated, "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." The PM said he meant nationhood in a "cultural-sociological" rather than in a legal sense. Chong, someone (of immigrant background) who opposed the motion, said "I believe in this great country of ours and I believe in one nation, undivided, called Canada, based on civic and not ethnic nationalism." Note: though there is some debate on whether Quebec is a nation embedded within the Canadian nation, basically everyone recognizes that Canadians are a nation and Canada is a nation-state. The parliament of Quebec currently has the title "National Assembly." In the US, a similar concept exists for Indigenous people who are given the title "domestic dependent nations." Another excerpt from my book I wanna highlight: > nations are in many ways like ethnic groups, except for the crucial difference that nations seek their own state while ethnicities are content to live under the existing state This isn't exactly what I consider to be an ethnicity, but it does highlight that most Westerners, including myself, do not see ethnicities and nationalities as synonyms (whereas some other cultures do). For example, I consider myself Hispanic by ethnicity, but not as a nationality since no Hispanics see themselves as a nation. Instead, we view ourselves as a group of people who inhabit many nations who share a common language and some shared culture & traditions. > If so, are the US and Canada officially built for that nation, but not for American and Canadian citizens of other nations, even on a purely symbolic level? This is a particularly Zionist POV, since the Zionists view Israel as a nation-state built for Jews all over the world, not just those who live in Israel, much less visited it. Legally, Canadian and American citizenship is inherited in case that's what you're asking. Immigration is a major part of our nations' histories, and even our national identity, but it is commonly perceived that they become Americans and Canadians after they live here for most of their lives, not before they come here. > And finally, as I pointed out, your definitions are not just unusual in general, but completely irrelevant to this particular conflict, where both sides have a more traditional definition. If we go by the Zionist and Palestinian concepts of self-determination, the conflict will never end, so we can't really go by that. [SEP] If we go by the Zionist and Palestinian concepts of self-determination, the conflict will never end, so we can't really go by that.
-He's not using diminished as meaning flatted. A diminished triad is called that because of its diminished fifth. A fully diminished seventh chord has also a diminished seventh, while a half diminished chord has a minor seventh, so compared to a fully diminished one it has half the diminished intervals. He's not going by the quality of the third, which in diminished triads is always minor. These are all conventional names for intervals, and you should probably learn them :) [SEP] These are all conventional names for intervals, and you should probably learn them :)
-Hey - go and actually read Psychological Types and Jungs work post-Psychological Types that's relevant here, and before that - reread my post because you didn't catch what I was talking about with regards to organize. Before accusing people of lying or attempt to insult them, it might be wise to actually understand their position lest you look, well - as you do right now. Nobody is saying Si or Ni literally organizes things. It is a subjective disposition towards sensory information that piques the interest of the person. This acts as an organization towards that information. This is due to introversion. It is on account of the person placing a higher value on themselves and their own sensory perception as opposed to objective reality - and so, Si is distinct from Se as Si is oriented towards sensory information that piques the persons interest and excludes most else - and Se is oriented towards taking in as much objective sensory data as it can. Now, before wasting my time and that of our fellow readers with a response such as you've just provided which is nothing but a Feeling response with absolutely no reasoning or data behind it - make sure you understand this time. [SEP] Hey - go and actually read Psychological Types and Jungs work post-Psychological Types that's relevant here
-1st: Why would he be talking about countries and their economies when that wasn't even part of the conversation? 2nd: the comment above mine was a joke from an /r/askreddit thread [SEP] 1st: Why would he be talking about countries and their economies when that wasn't even part of the conversation?
-Capitalism is not totalitarian. True capitalism does not have rules, institutions or governance the only governance is money which comes from the financial vote of the people. There does not need to be any type of control structure for capitalism to work. However there must be a control structure for socialist or communist economical systems to work. This is why they are not truly anarchist. When you loop in political and economic systems together you lose all sense of anarchy in the first place. You speak of capitalism in a political sense which is not what I am speaking of. Socialism spreads the wealth how? What if I don’t want to pay for other people? How is it fair for me to be forced to pay for others shortcomings if I do not want to? What if I want to be an individual? IMO taxation is theft and spreading the wealth is a tax. [SEP] Socialism spreads the wealth how? What if I don’t want to pay for other people? How is it fair for me to be forced to pay for others shortcomings if I do not want to? What if I want to be an individual? IMO taxation is theft and spreading the wealth is a tax.
-It's going to be difficult to explain because although I get that you think the program works and, as a programmer I would probably look at the code and agree in that context, you're clearly not up to speed on what mathematical rigour is. Like I said, it's not a new idea. Google will tell you the difficulty and difference between computer software and the idea of a trivial program vs using computer software as part of a mathematical proof. Maths is a very pedantic, nit-picky and rigorous subject, especially when it comes to accepting a proof as valid. [SEP] Maths is a very pedantic, nit-picky and rigorous subject, especially when it comes to accepting a proof as valid.
-I haven't been upset by any comment here. On the contrary the poly folks do seem quite riled. I have also already expressed an opinion followed by a desire to not have to defend my opinion in this space since it was not the purpose of this thread. I am sorry that you feel that your lifestyle is so subjugated and marginalized that merely stating an opposing opinion while expressing tolerance makes you and your friends see red while slinging both insults and accusations of bigotry, neither are called for. As stated the very idea that a simple sentence can shake such beliefs and cause such a reaction betrays a lack of faith in them. [SEP] As stated the very idea that a simple sentence can shake such beliefs and cause such a reaction betrays a lack of faith in them.
-~~millionaire makers is nothing to do with /r/bitcoin~~ EDIT: to keep pedantic /u/MrZigler happy. /r/millionairemakers where the donation thread takes place is a different subreddit. Research is still underway to determine any users that frequent /r/bitcoin that may also have had involvement in /r/millionairemakers . Please check back in about a week when a full report will be published. [SEP] to keep pedantic /u/MrZigler happy
-That was my feeling exactly. I am not at all looking to get married myself, but I am not against it for others if that is what they choose. However, I got the sense that it was the marriage she was looking for, not the partner. I understand that marriage has been a kind of marker for commitment traditionally, but I feel that the union has out lived its usefulness. If a modern guy is buying a house with you and planning on children, I think he is in with both feet. Marriage is not a guarantee of the longevity of a union, but it may play into long held childhood fantasies or check off an item on a family expectations checklist. [SEP] play into long held childhood fantasies or check off an item on a family expectations checklist.
-Layne is a knowledgeable guy but always seems like an arrogant dick. Some of his replies in the comments just make himself look bad he comes across like he has a superiority complex [SEP] comes across like he has a superiority complex
->Nothing about that definition said "changing" ones views... it's said expressing ones views in a way that it matches with what people want to hear. He sells single payer as a system that will cost the public less, cover everything, and never have any copays. It's being dishonest to promote a system that is so unrealistic but literally a checklist of everything Americans want "more things for less money!" First, I said "changing what he says" not "changing his views." The act of expressing your views in a way that appeals to the public is pandering. If he's always said the same things, it's not pandering, it's his policy. Second, I have no idea where you people get this idea that anyone thinks his healthcare plan is going to give us "more things for less money." We know exactly where the money will come from, and that will be from the exorbitant profits that the rich withhold from the rest of the public so they can line their pockets. Some of the money to pay for it will come from our own pockets, in terms of a federal tax that will be less than the vast majority of people's current insurance premiums. >The fact that he criticized Clinton's plan tells you this isn't just about where he wants to start negotiations. This is what he wants. And no debate in congress is going to have him compromise on this issue when he thinks he's defending human rights. It's an idealistic position that gets us nowhere in actually figuring out how to get things done. He's standing his ground, as he should on this. What gets us nowhere is constantly negotiating to the right of what we want. No debate in a republican congress will end well for us, but if we slack off and don't vote people into congress that will help us in the fight, then that's our own fault. It's a constant battle, not just some quick "vote for Bernie and forget it" thing. >What?!? Context does not change the fact that he was not in solidarity with the effort because it would be politically unpopular. Civil unions was not a civil rights win for the LGBT community. It was a sell out. And Sanders advocated for that and then didn't fight to go further. Suggesting that he was actually supporting the LGBT community this whole time is just entirely dishonest. If he didn't have the integrity to stand up and fight when it was politically unpopular then he wasn't supporting them. If you even bothered to look into why he didn't push for full marriage equality then, you'd see how ridiculous the idea was to fight for it. If anything, it was a smart political move to let the issue sit at the time and be brought up later, because there was zero chance of passing anything else about it when they just finished an insanely difficult battle just to get civil unions recognized. Civil unions weren't a sell out, they were the closest things to marriage equality that would make it in their state at the time. One second you argue about how Bernie needs to come down from holding his views on health care, and the next you criticize him for coming to a compromise on marriage equality. Make up your mind, should he stand his ground or compromise? >The point is that Clinton isn't selling herself as someone that has been consistent over her whole career. Bernie has. In fact Clinton on many issues has come out with honest explanations of how and why she changed positions. Bernie instead doesn't provide an honest explanation, he just denies. No, Clinton just makes up excuses as to why she changed her position on things. Why would she suddenly change her own stance on gay rights after her long-held stance being that they don't deserve the same rights, other than to garner votes? She's a corporate shill who'll say or do anything to get into office. [SEP] If anything, it was a smart political move to let the issue sit at the time and be brought up later
-Let's count the ways you are just not good at this. 1. I wasn't talking about the commenter, I was talking about the high number of dimwits who downvoted his benign statement. Reread and see if you can actually follow along. 2. What does 18% of social scientists being Marxist have to do with anything? I was responding to YOU and your dumb comment about anti-communidt sentiment in the 80s and claiming there is no justifiable way to call people commies in the current day. 3. Thinking that wanting to make money is inherently greedy is straight up Marxist retardation, and you are just standing your ground to keep from losing face at this point. Plot twist: you lost even more face by demonstrating the reading comprehension of a 4th grader. [SEP] What does 18% of social scientists being Marxist have to do with anything? I was responding to YOU and your dumb comment about anti-communidt sentiment in the 80s and claiming there is no justifiable way to call people commies in the current day
-I did not say the reason there are no peer reviewed articles refuting the claims by those warmists who edit the journals is because of the corporate media. I stated those as separate points. I believe Climategate proved how scientists who wish to protect their income collude to exclude any evidence that refutes or even casts doubt on the notion that a trace rise in a trace gas drives the warming of this planet. They even go so far as to omit data and make it up to keep the lie alive. If human induced global warming is real, why do scientists who try to support the theory have to fucking lie and commit fraud to prove it? Why won't they debate or allow debate - you know, like how actual science is supposed to proceed? Why review the number of sites where readings are taken and omit those that record no temperature rise or cooling as anomalies while retaining those that have been surrounded by urbanization over time and show a predictable rise in temperature? Why omit ice core samples that show no high temps despite atmospheric CO2 levels being several times higher than now? Why omit results that showed CO2 rising AFTER warming, and thus placing doubt on the claim that CO2 is the driver of warming? Your little presentation on the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was cute in its attempt at condescension. You neglected to add that the warming effect of CO2 does not increase at the rate of the volume of CO2 increase, and it certainly isn't exponential as your "scientists" pretend it is. The correlation is not sound, which is why details such as the cooling in the 40s and 70s is omitted from graphs, and readings are presented from after the start of the industrial revolution - intentionally omitting the fact that Earth was already warming as it emerged from the Little Ice Age before fossil fuel use began. You need to get some information from sources other than your corrupted and political peer censored material. [SEP] Why omit results that showed CO2 rising AFTER warming, and thus placing doubt on the claim that CO2 is the driver of warming?
-Sometimes I love arguing with trumpets because I know they'll never change their views on him but they'll keep trying to debate you like a cat chasing a laser pointer [SEP] they'll keep trying to debate you like a cat chasing a laser pointer
+I feel ya. Again at work so my books are out of reach. I'm an older person and not super adroit at online interneting. I'll save this thread and jump back when I remember/find something/etc. To address the second half of your post: If you're gonna be a NWO apologist, we're never gonna agree on Pike's legacy. People are the institutions they voluntarily belong to. Spez: If somebody is chatting with you in some detail on Pike's legacy, you can prolly skip language like "I think you'll find..." ... especially if you think the 33rd degree is a thing one pays for. [SEP] I've prolly "found" more than, for example, you
+All of your points are valid, fair enough. But all of them miss the point that college is a choice. I know people that have gone and are better for it and some worse. I know people that have not gone and are doing great, there's a flipside to that too. College or the institutions themselves aren't a problem (quality education is provided in exchange for $), so US govt regulation should not be an issue. Financing college education via govt loans is already capped, what a student chooses to do with private lenders is up to them and the risk each party is willing to take. It sounds like the issue you're voicing has to do with the high cost of college and the uncertainty of a job market upon graduation. , there are no guarantees and globalization has opened a floodgate of talent. Youths in Kentucky are going up against the sons and daughters of factory owners in Mumbai, both smart, talented and desiring to go to prestigious universities. There is no simple solution, and the ones you propose are myopic. [SEP] Welcome to the real world
+Indigenous tribes aren't allowed to be independent? Then that is not full self-determination, I'll give you that much. I fully support their self-determination since that is something all people should have. As far as I'm aware though, there are no major movements among their nations for full independence. Assuming there was though, I would support it if the super-majority vote yes. > your definition merely means having the right and perhaps the opportunity of self-determination, rather than actually exercising it. The key point here is determination. If the people determine that they prefer to be part of a greater nation, then their self-determination was observed, not trampled upon. From the looks of it, what I consider self-determination, you simply consider to be the right to self-determination and not self-determination itself. It seems like we're mostly on the same page when it comes to self-determination, we just use slightly different terminology. Both of us agree that self-determination is the people controlling their state. > is there a citizen of those countries who isn't part of the nation? For me, that wold be people who got citizenship only for the benefits but do not consider themselves a part of the state and have not integrated into the society (my dad has Canadian citizenship but he is neither integrated into Canadian society nor does he identify as a Canadian, for him it is just a passport). In casual conversations though, and even in many legal contexts, nationality and citizenship are synonymous (though I do not personally consider them to be exactly the same, they just overlap for the most part). In fact, all Western nations basically use nationality as a synonym for citizenship. It is largely, as you said, Eastern European ethnic nation states that call ethnic minorities nationalities (Hungary is one example). Not surprisingly, Zionism originated in this part of Europe. > If not, how is the "nation" in the "Canadian or American nation-state" meaningful in any way? Direct quote from my textbook, which is more more less how I see nations: > A nation is a community that controls or seeks to control it's own state. Nations and states are inherently linked. The people of Canada and the people of the United States control a state, and the vast majority of the population supports and is loyal to this state, thus, we are nations. When it comes to Quebec, things get a bit murky since a significant portion of the population (but not everyone) wishes to control their own state. In the parliament, a motion passed that stated, "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." The PM said he meant nationhood in a "cultural-sociological" rather than in a legal sense. Chong, someone (of immigrant background) who opposed the motion, said "I believe in this great country of ours and I believe in one nation, undivided, called Canada, based on civic and not ethnic nationalism." Note: though there is some debate on whether Quebec is a nation embedded within the Canadian nation, basically everyone recognizes that Canadians are a nation and Canada is a nation-state. The parliament of Quebec currently has the title "National Assembly." In the US, a similar concept exists for Indigenous people who are given the title "domestic dependent nations." Another excerpt from my book I wanna highlight: > nations are in many ways like ethnic groups, except for the crucial difference that nations seek their own state while ethnicities are content to live under the existing state This isn't exactly what I consider to be an ethnicity, but it does highlight that most Westerners, including myself, do not see ethnicities and nationalities as synonyms (whereas some other cultures do). For example, I consider myself Hispanic by ethnicity, but not as a nationality since no Hispanics see themselves as a nation. Instead, we view ourselves as a group of people who inhabit many nations who share a common language and some shared culture & traditions. > If so, are the US and Canada officially built for that nation, but not for American and Canadian citizens of other nations, even on a purely symbolic level? This is a particularly Zionist POV, since the Zionists view Israel as a nation-state built for Jews all over the world, not just those who live in Israel, much less visited it. Legally, Canadian and American citizenship is inherited in case that's what you're asking. Immigration is a major part of our nations' histories, and even our national identity, but it is commonly perceived that they become Americans and Canadians after they live here for most of their lives, not before they come here. > And finally, as I pointed out, your definitions are not just unusual in general, but completely irrelevant to this particular conflict, where both sides have a more traditional definition. [SEP] If we go by the Zionist and Palestinian concepts of self-determination, the conflict will never end, so we can't really go by that.
+He's not using diminished as meaning flatted. A diminished triad is called that because of its diminished fifth. A fully diminished seventh chord has also a diminished seventh, while a half diminished chord has a minor seventh, so compared to a fully diminished one it has half the diminished intervals. He's not going by the quality of the third, which in diminished triads is always minor. [SEP] These are all conventional names for intervals, and you should probably learn them :)
+, and before that - reread my post because you didn't catch what I was talking about with regards to organize. Before accusing people of lying or attempt to insult them, it might be wise to actually understand their position lest you look, well - as you do right now. Nobody is saying Si or Ni literally organizes things. It is a subjective disposition towards sensory information that piques the interest of the person. This acts as an organization towards that information. This is due to introversion. It is on account of the person placing a higher value on themselves and their own sensory perception as opposed to objective reality - and so, Si is distinct from Se as Si is oriented towards sensory information that piques the persons interest and excludes most else - and Se is oriented towards taking in as much objective sensory data as it can. Now, before wasting my time and that of our fellow readers with a response such as you've just provided which is nothing but a Feeling response with absolutely no reasoning or data behind it - make sure you understand this time. [SEP] Hey - go and actually read Psychological Types and Jungs work post-Psychological Types that's relevant here
+2nd: the comment above mine was a joke from an /r/askreddit thread [SEP] 1st: Why would he be talking about countries and their economies when that wasn't even part of the conversation?
+Capitalism is not totalitarian. True capitalism does not have rules, institutions or governance the only governance is money which comes from the financial vote of the people. There does not need to be any type of control structure for capitalism to work. However there must be a control structure for socialist or communist economical systems to work. This is why they are not truly anarchist. When you loop in political and economic systems together you lose all sense of anarchy in the first place. You speak of capitalism in a political sense which is not what I am speaking of. [SEP] Socialism spreads the wealth how? What if I don’t want to pay for other people? How is it fair for me to be forced to pay for others shortcomings if I do not want to? What if I want to be an individual? IMO taxation is theft and spreading the wealth is a tax.
+It's going to be difficult to explain because although I get that you think the program works and, as a programmer I would probably look at the code and agree in that context, you're clearly not up to speed on what mathematical rigour is. Like I said, it's not a new idea. Google will tell you the difficulty and difference between computer software and the idea of a trivial program vs using computer software as part of a mathematical proof. [SEP] Maths is a very pedantic, nit-picky and rigorous subject, especially when it comes to accepting a proof as valid.
+I haven't been upset by any comment here. On the contrary the poly folks do seem quite riled. I have also already expressed an opinion followed by a desire to not have to defend my opinion in this space since it was not the purpose of this thread. I am sorry that you feel that your lifestyle is so subjugated and marginalized that merely stating an opposing opinion while expressing tolerance makes you and your friends see red while slinging both insults and accusations of bigotry, neither are called for. [SEP] As stated the very idea that a simple sentence can shake such beliefs and cause such a reaction betrays a lack of faith in them.
+~~millionaire makers is nothing to do with /r/bitcoin~~ EDIT: . /r/millionairemakers where the donation thread takes place is a different subreddit. Research is still underway to determine any users that frequent /r/bitcoin that may also have had involvement in /r/millionairemakers . Please check back in about a week when a full report will be published. [SEP] to keep pedantic /u/MrZigler happy
+That was my feeling exactly. I am not at all looking to get married myself, but I am not against it for others if that is what they choose. However, I got the sense that it was the marriage she was looking for, not the partner. I understand that marriage has been a kind of marker for commitment traditionally, but I feel that the union has out lived its usefulness. If a modern guy is buying a house with you and planning on children, I think he is in with both feet. Marriage is not a guarantee of the longevity of a union, but it may [SEP] play into long held childhood fantasies or check off an item on a family expectations checklist.
+Layne is a knowledgeable guy but always seems like an arrogant dick. Some of his replies in the comments just make himself look bad he [SEP] comes across like he has a superiority complex
+>Nothing about that definition said "changing" ones views... it's said expressing ones views in a way that it matches with what people want to hear. He sells single payer as a system that will cost the public less, cover everything, and never have any copays. It's being dishonest to promote a system that is so unrealistic but literally a checklist of everything Americans want "more things for less money!" First, I said "changing what he says" not "changing his views." The act of expressing your views in a way that appeals to the public is pandering. If he's always said the same things, it's not pandering, it's his policy. Second, I have no idea where you people get this idea that anyone thinks his healthcare plan is going to give us "more things for less money." We know exactly where the money will come from, and that will be from the exorbitant profits that the rich withhold from the rest of the public so they can line their pockets. Some of the money to pay for it will come from our own pockets, in terms of a federal tax that will be less than the vast majority of people's current insurance premiums. >The fact that he criticized Clinton's plan tells you this isn't just about where he wants to start negotiations. This is what he wants. And no debate in congress is going to have him compromise on this issue when he thinks he's defending human rights. It's an idealistic position that gets us nowhere in actually figuring out how to get things done. He's standing his ground, as he should on this. What gets us nowhere is constantly negotiating to the right of what we want. No debate in a republican congress will end well for us, but if we slack off and don't vote people into congress that will help us in the fight, then that's our own fault. It's a constant battle, not just some quick "vote for Bernie and forget it" thing. >What?!? Context does not change the fact that he was not in solidarity with the effort because it would be politically unpopular. Civil unions was not a civil rights win for the LGBT community. It was a sell out. And Sanders advocated for that and then didn't fight to go further. Suggesting that he was actually supporting the LGBT community this whole time is just entirely dishonest. If he didn't have the integrity to stand up and fight when it was politically unpopular then he wasn't supporting them. If you even bothered to look into why he didn't push for full marriage equality then, you'd see how ridiculous the idea was to fight for it. , because there was zero chance of passing anything else about it when they just finished an insanely difficult battle just to get civil unions recognized. Civil unions weren't a sell out, they were the closest things to marriage equality that would make it in their state at the time. One second you argue about how Bernie needs to come down from holding his views on health care, and the next you criticize him for coming to a compromise on marriage equality. Make up your mind, should he stand his ground or compromise? >The point is that Clinton isn't selling herself as someone that has been consistent over her whole career. Bernie has. In fact Clinton on many issues has come out with honest explanations of how and why she changed positions. Bernie instead doesn't provide an honest explanation, he just denies. No, Clinton just makes up excuses as to why she changed her position on things. Why would she suddenly change her own stance on gay rights after her long-held stance being that they don't deserve the same rights, other than to garner votes? She's a corporate shill who'll say or do anything to get into office. [SEP] If anything, it was a smart political move to let the issue sit at the time and be brought up later
+Let's count the ways you are just not good at this. 1. I wasn't talking about the commenter, I was talking about the high number of dimwits who downvoted his benign statement. Reread and see if you can actually follow along. 2. . 3. Thinking that wanting to make money is inherently greedy is straight up Marxist retardation, and you are just standing your ground to keep from losing face at this point. Plot twist: you lost even more face by demonstrating the reading comprehension of a 4th grader. [SEP] What does 18% of social scientists being Marxist have to do with anything? I was responding to YOU and your dumb comment about anti-communidt sentiment in the 80s and claiming there is no justifiable way to call people commies in the current day
+I did not say the reason there are no peer reviewed articles refuting the claims by those warmists who edit the journals is because of the corporate media. I stated those as separate points. I believe Climategate proved how scientists who wish to protect their income collude to exclude any evidence that refutes or even casts doubt on the notion that a trace rise in a trace gas drives the warming of this planet. They even go so far as to omit data and make it up to keep the lie alive. If human induced global warming is real, why do scientists who try to support the theory have to fucking lie and commit fraud to prove it? Why won't they debate or allow debate - you know, like how actual science is supposed to proceed? Why review the number of sites where readings are taken and omit those that record no temperature rise or cooling as anomalies while retaining those that have been surrounded by urbanization over time and show a predictable rise in temperature? Why omit ice core samples that show no high temps despite atmospheric CO2 levels being several times higher than now? Your little presentation on the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was cute in its attempt at condescension. You neglected to add that the warming effect of CO2 does not increase at the rate of the volume of CO2 increase, and it certainly isn't exponential as your "scientists" pretend it is. The correlation is not sound, which is why details such as the cooling in the 40s and 70s is omitted from graphs, and readings are presented from after the start of the industrial revolution - intentionally omitting the fact that Earth was already warming as it emerged from the Little Ice Age before fossil fuel use began. You need to get some information from sources other than your corrupted and political peer censored material. [SEP] Why omit results that showed CO2 rising AFTER warming, and thus placing doubt on the claim that CO2 is the driver of warming?
+Sometimes I love arguing with trumpets because I know they'll never change their views on him but [SEP] they'll keep trying to debate you like a cat chasing a laser pointer
 > I am not deriding a coaching and mentoring approach to management, but rather pointing out that it is better suited to certain functions and grades than it is for others. At middle management level, it's very effective for running small teams of up to say 12 employees. But for running a huge transnational corporation of many thousands of employees? It's almost totally irrelevant, isn't it? I mean for a start, just who is this board member going to be coaching and mentoring in the first place? And to what end? Is it even a good use of their time for someone in a strategic role? I mostly agree. Although I think that even when there is no direct contact, management style could have an effect, by the person preferring some policies over others. There is another [angle] to it. I could argue that a lot of corporate decisions have to do with the ability to predict how people will react to a product/advertising campaign/pricing strategy. Something that would be best severed by empathy. And just like there is usually a dedicated marketing/market research team that helps the senior management evaluate options, there could be (and probably sometimes is) a dedicated strategy team. > For every successful company out there, there are scores of defunct ones. That may seem obvious, but the point is that the ones that do make it big, make it as much by sheer luck and being in the right place at the right time as anything to do with talent on their part. I think there is a tendency for the process of a) New market emerges b) Companies fight for a share c) Some companies win d) They leave the market only when an alternative business model/product becomes dominant (ex. Kodak). The extent is debatable, but it would only weaken my point, not make it invalid. > Wasn't me - I may disagree with your position and the underlying assumptions that support it, but I'm quite happy to discuss it with you. That was my best guess. --- ^^Disclaimer: ^^Unless ^^specified ^^otherwise, ^^my ^^opinions ^^about ^^groups ^^of ^^people ^^apply ^^to ^^the ^^majority, ^^or ^^the ^^average ^^member ^^of ^^that ^^group. [SEP] I could argue that a lot of corporate decisions have to do with the ability to predict how people will react to a product/advertising campaign/pricing strategy. Something that would be best [served] by empathy.
-Moderators work for free. There's much more polite ways to present your otherwise good idea without attacking them. If it's that easy, write the code and send it to them. Catch more flies with honey, right? Personally, I think /r/Patriots is a relatively well-moderated subreddit. The one time I had a complaint about that annoying "a lot" bot, it was responded to and addressed within 10 minutes. Just talk to them like people. That's what they are. [SEP] Catch more flies with honey, right?
->WTF? >No. >You don't change the rules of Football, or Chess, or CS:GO to suit your playstyle, or how you think "the game should be played". >The game is designed with a set of rules. >Imposing your own rules, over the top of those, is the definition of scrub. >Which part of this makes me an idiot? Your ignorance makes you an idiot. Archangel Gabriel didn't reveal the rules of modern chess to Muhammad, that's not how it works. No game was created perfect, every game is subject to change and improvements. Arguably it is more difficult to improve millenia-old games like chess than to improve PS2, but even that happens quite often. The last significant changes in tournament chess happened in the 19th century after a rich history of continuous changes and local versions. The rules were only formally standardized during the early 20th, while smaller details still evolved less than 30 years ago. No rule is inherently more legitimate than another. If banning tomcats makes the game better (and by 99% of pilots it does), then it makes no sense to keep them. Case in point, this is exactly why air forces often bilaterally agree to bushido rules for server smashes. [SEP] Case in point, this is exactly why air forces often bilaterally agree to bushido rules for server smashes.
-The only rule I broke was challenging you on your misunderstanding of fallacies. You're claiming that I had done something to warrant being muted, yet it is obvious you did it for personal reasons. You're also lying, I did not receive 3 warnings before you muted me. You muted me then started telling me I was being warned as I challenged you further. You were simply annoyed, and then you abused mod powers. The funny thing is that I was playing devil's advocate to help you find something to write about since you we're lamenting that you had nothing. I was simply being friendly by giving you a writing prompt. After that you said the topic was boring and anyone who would make such an argument had nothing to offer. I challenged you and asked questions. You responded telling me what I was thinking, but you got it wrong. Since I was playing Devil's Advocate, you were unaware of my mind moreover, you intentionally and unintentionally restated arguments that I did not make. You attempted to straw man the arguments I gave. I called you out on that. I also told you that it was okay because you were tired. I was forgiving you for your mistake. If you weren't tired, then I urge you to keep researching logical fallacies and watch them in yourself. Lastly, you kept demanding that I respond to some ridiculous argument you made. I have no obligation to answer to irrelevant nonsense. If you're going to purposely distort my arguments, why would I honor them with a response? If you're ever wondering why you have trouble keeping people in your room, this is one of those reasons. You need objective moderation. Not moderation used when you can't win without words. [SEP] The only rule I broke was challenging you on your misunderstanding of fallacies. You're claiming that I had done something to warrant being muted, yet it is obvious you did it for personal reasons. You're also lying, I did not receive 3 warnings before you muted me. You muted me then started telling me I was being warned as I challenged you further. You were simply annoyed, and then you abused mod powers.
-You supported Paul and Kucinich? The two polar opposites in ideology? That makes sense. And what's wrong with doing what he needs to win? He does. He may not be perfect, but he's certainly the lesser of two evils when it is a toss-up between McCain and Obama. [SEP] You supported Paul and Kucinich?
-Well, right now he's been unable to sleep due to all the pollen setting off his allergies. So I'm a little understanding that he's a bit under the weather due to lack of sleep. He wasn't like this at all before he took this last job two years ago. He'd been deteriorating in the last year in terms of patience and it's only increased since we bought the house. The changes correlated with work stresses. We'd both hoped things would even out a bit, but I guess house and money stresses took over from work stresses. [SEP] Well, right now he's been unable to sleep due to all the pollen setting off his allergies.
-No, I don't think you have understand or have actually thought this true. Which is hardly surprising. On one hand, you are demanding that another group should consider themselves to be a third category because that's "better" for women. On the other, you're insisting that they belong to one of the original two categories yourself. If this is a compromise you actually want, then stick with it and stop calling transwomen men. They're either a distinct category or they're not. Meanwhile, there is literally no reason for transwomen to take such a compromise because you will still call them men. Which is all this is. Just another way for GCers to try to move transwomen away from the category of women so it's easier for them to call them men. If you're going to do that, just skip the extra steps and go back to what you were doing in the first place. [SEP] On one hand, you are demanding that another group should consider themselves to be a third category because that's "better" for women.
-I had written a longer reply to this but hit the back button on my mouse when I was almost finished. Not doing that again. There's no point anyhow, you're set to argue - not debate. You have nothing constructive to add. I said multiple times trump hadn't given ANY specifics about this - so this was more a conversation between two people about philosophical ideals, you're just here trying to troll rather than coming up with anything constructive to solve the problem. MSM stands for MainStream Media. There's not "plenty" of MSM sources. http 6 companies control it all. Even reddit. You argue against governmental involvement - because politicians can have agendas. I see no difference here - because these people with agendas now have control of politicians. I think there needs to be a solution - I have offered suggestions - none of which I think are complete - however you have chosen to tear apart ideas in their infancy for the sake of feeling somehow superior - while actually doing and contributing nothing. Man up, or we have nothing to talk about. Actually - ya know what - I'm done. You're just here to argue - not debate issues. It doesn't matter what I say - you're going to try to argue with it. [SEP] There's no point anyhow, you're set to argue - not debate. You have nothing constructive to add.
->The public already does that; it is just distributed. It wouldn't work in a centralized way, it would just be sold as google & facebook do now. How you can think that this many people would only be good hearted is baffling to me. You know that's not how buying works. "Facebook: Can we buy you Buisness: No" They can say no. >Providing an even better way to blackmail, arrest, and assassinate freedom fighters and those who stand up to anybody. There of course could be a reason for abuse, HOWEVER, by allowing it to be open, after a trial all information is to be disclosed for public review and the ability to hold a trial. >How would they receive this money from this group apparently run by the public, yet it receives massive amounts of money to throw around? Taxation? You've just created an international government with access to everyone's personal information. It is a goddamn terrible idea. Hence pipe dream, I am being idealistic, but government funded. What do you believe in a completely anonymous internet? [SEP] Hence pipe dream, I am being idealistic, but government funded.
-You're completely right on the first point, workers need to have inherit leverage in negotiations. But there will always be the rich, the middle class, and the poor in a free market system. I don't understand why you, or anyone else, care how rich people get? I applaud success and hope to emulate it someday, and I hope that if I do end up having the skills and intellect to one day outdo my parents current status that you or nor anyone else tries to take what I had worked hard for because there are people who don't have as much as I have. It's abhorrent for people to focus their energy on attacking those who are successful for having "too much money" when there are more pressing problems, like how to pump up the lower and middle classes by giving them more quality education and working experience, and working experience usually comes through minimum wage jobs. It's false to say many are stuck working close to it, when again, about 99% of people who work full time aren't working minimum wage. Health insurance is a different issue, and you are completely correct it is shameful. More competition in the free market brings down prices in services and goods, like healthcare. More competition in the labor market drives up labor price for companies, so giving people the OPPORTUNITY for experience and education is how you increase the competition in the labor market, which would drive up wages. And how do you get more experience? Working more. And how do you expect young people to get ahead, get experience, and to work more when 600,000 teen jobs were cut last time we raised the minimum wage. [SEP] so giving people the OPPORTUNITY for experience and education
-Dude I tried conceding and admitted my mistakes. You just wouldn't let anything go. That is why I was so frustrated. [SEP] You just wouldn't let anything go. That is why I was so frustrated.
-Well, I thought maybe being a bit shocking would help people with some sense see that right-wing libertarianism is absolute nonsense. That said, it's not an easy position I'm in: how exactly should I pull someone's head out of his ass without it hurting a bit? [SEP] how exactly should I pull someone's head out of his ass without it hurting a bit?
-> The average cyclist who buys a combination lock does so because they don't know any better Sheesh, a moment ago you were saying they were all experts and self selecting specialists. Don't join a debating society. As I say, I'm not sure why you're waffling about day zero exploits and security by obscurity - no doubt terms you've read on the internet without really understanding what they mean or where they should be used. > I was curious about your stance towards security and information in general. Odd, because you haven't asked what my stance on these things is. [SEP] As I say, I'm not sure why you're waffling about day zero exploits and security by obscurity - no doubt terms you've read on the internet without really understanding what they mean or where they should be used.
+Moderators work for free. There's much more polite ways to present your otherwise good idea without attacking them. If it's that easy, write the code and send it to them. Personally, I think /r/Patriots is a relatively well-moderated subreddit. The one time I had a complaint about that annoying "a lot" bot, it was responded to and addressed within 10 minutes. Just talk to them like people. That's what they are. [SEP] Catch more flies with honey, right?
+>WTF? >No. >You don't change the rules of Football, or Chess, or CS:GO to suit your playstyle, or how you think "the game should be played". >The game is designed with a set of rules. >Imposing your own rules, over the top of those, is the definition of scrub. >Which part of this makes me an idiot? Your ignorance makes you an idiot. Archangel Gabriel didn't reveal the rules of modern chess to Muhammad, that's not how it works. No game was created perfect, every game is subject to change and improvements. Arguably it is more difficult to improve millenia-old games like chess than to improve PS2, but even that happens quite often. The last significant changes in tournament chess happened in the 19th century after a rich history of continuous changes and local versions. The rules were only formally standardized during the early 20th, while smaller details still evolved less than 30 years ago. No rule is inherently more legitimate than another. If banning tomcats makes the game better (and by 99% of pilots it does), then it makes no sense to keep them. [SEP] Case in point, this is exactly why air forces often bilaterally agree to bushido rules for server smashes.
+The funny thing is that I was playing devil's advocate to help you find something to write about since you we're lamenting that you had nothing. I was simply being friendly by giving you a writing prompt. After that you said the topic was boring and anyone who would make such an argument had nothing to offer. I challenged you and asked questions. You responded telling me what I was thinking, but you got it wrong. Since I was playing Devil's Advocate, you were unaware of my mind moreover, you intentionally and unintentionally restated arguments that I did not make. You attempted to straw man the arguments I gave. I called you out on that. I also told you that it was okay because you were tired. I was forgiving you for your mistake. If you weren't tired, then I urge you to keep researching logical fallacies and watch them in yourself. Lastly, you kept demanding that I respond to some ridiculous argument you made. I have no obligation to answer to irrelevant nonsense. If you're going to purposely distort my arguments, why would I honor them with a response? If you're ever wondering why you have trouble keeping people in your room, this is one of those reasons. You need objective moderation. Not moderation used when you can't win without words. [SEP] The only rule I broke was challenging you on your misunderstanding of fallacies. You're claiming that I had done something to warrant being muted, yet it is obvious you did it for personal reasons. You're also lying, I did not receive 3 warnings before you muted me. You muted me then started telling me I was being warned as I challenged you further. You were simply annoyed, and then you abused mod powers.
+The two polar opposites in ideology? That makes sense. And what's wrong with doing what he needs to win? He does. He may not be perfect, but he's certainly the lesser of two evils when it is a toss-up between McCain and Obama. [SEP] You supported Paul and Kucinich?
+So I'm a little understanding that he's a bit under the weather due to lack of sleep. He wasn't like this at all before he took this last job two years ago. He'd been deteriorating in the last year in terms of patience and it's only increased since we bought the house. The changes correlated with work stresses. We'd both hoped things would even out a bit, but I guess house and money stresses took over from work stresses. [SEP] Well, right now he's been unable to sleep due to all the pollen setting off his allergies.
+No, I don't think you have understand or have actually thought this true. Which is hardly surprising. On the other, you're insisting that they belong to one of the original two categories yourself. If this is a compromise you actually want, then stick with it and stop calling transwomen men. They're either a distinct category or they're not. Meanwhile, there is literally no reason for transwomen to take such a compromise because you will still call them men. Which is all this is. Just another way for GCers to try to move transwomen away from the category of women so it's easier for them to call them men. If you're going to do that, just skip the extra steps and go back to what you were doing in the first place. [SEP] On one hand, you are demanding that another group should consider themselves to be a third category because that's "better" for women.
+I had written a longer reply to this but hit the back button on my mouse when I was almost finished. Not doing that again. I said multiple times trump hadn't given ANY specifics about this - so this was more a conversation between two people about philosophical ideals, you're just here trying to troll rather than coming up with anything constructive to solve the problem. MSM stands for MainStream Media. There's not "plenty" of MSM sources. http 6 companies control it all. Even reddit. You argue against governmental involvement - because politicians can have agendas. I see no difference here - because these people with agendas now have control of politicians. I think there needs to be a solution - I have offered suggestions - none of which I think are complete - however you have chosen to tear apart ideas in their infancy for the sake of feeling somehow superior - while actually doing and contributing nothing. Man up, or we have nothing to talk about. Actually - ya know what - I'm done. You're just here to argue - not debate issues. It doesn't matter what I say - you're going to try to argue with it. [SEP] There's no point anyhow, you're set to argue - not debate. You have nothing constructive to add.
+>The public already does that; it is just distributed. It wouldn't work in a centralized way, it would just be sold as google & facebook do now. How you can think that this many people would only be good hearted is baffling to me. You know that's not how buying works. "Facebook: Can we buy you Buisness: No" They can say no. >Providing an even better way to blackmail, arrest, and assassinate freedom fighters and those who stand up to anybody. There of course could be a reason for abuse, HOWEVER, by allowing it to be open, after a trial all information is to be disclosed for public review and the ability to hold a trial. >How would they receive this money from this group apparently run by the public, yet it receives massive amounts of money to throw around? Taxation? You've just created an international government with access to everyone's personal information. It is a goddamn terrible idea. What do you believe in a completely anonymous internet? [SEP] Hence pipe dream, I am being idealistic, but government funded.
+You're completely right on the first point, workers need to have inherit leverage in negotiations. But there will always be the rich, the middle class, and the poor in a free market system. I don't understand why you, or anyone else, care how rich people get? I applaud success and hope to emulate it someday, and I hope that if I do end up having the skills and intellect to one day outdo my parents current status that you or nor anyone else tries to take what I had worked hard for because there are people who don't have as much as I have. It's abhorrent for people to focus their energy on attacking those who are successful for having "too much money" when there are more pressing problems, like how to pump up the lower and middle classes by giving them more quality education and working experience, and working experience usually comes through minimum wage jobs. It's false to say many are stuck working close to it, when again, about 99% of people who work full time aren't working minimum wage. Health insurance is a different issue, and you are completely correct it is shameful. More competition in the free market brings down prices in services and goods, like healthcare. More competition in the labor market drives up labor price for companies, is how you increase the competition in the labor market, which would drive up wages. And how do you get more experience? Working more. And how do you expect young people to get ahead, get experience, and to work more when 600,000 teen jobs were cut last time we raised the minimum wage. [SEP] so giving people the OPPORTUNITY for experience and education
+Dude I tried conceding and admitted my mistakes. [SEP] You just wouldn't let anything go. That is why I was so frustrated.
+Well, I thought maybe being a bit shocking would help people with some sense see that right-wing libertarianism is absolute nonsense. That said, it's not an easy position I'm in: [SEP] how exactly should I pull someone's head out of his ass without it hurting a bit?
+> The average cyclist who buys a combination lock does so because they don't know any better Sheesh, a moment ago you were saying they were all experts and self selecting specialists. Don't join a debating society. > I was curious about your stance towards security and information in general. Odd, because you haven't asked what my stance on these things is. [SEP] As I say, I'm not sure why you're waffling about day zero exploits and security by obscurity - no doubt terms you've read on the internet without really understanding what they mean or where they should be used.
 The first URL there is related to refractory periods in neurons and cardiology, the second is chiefly related to refractory periods in cardiology. None of these have to do specifically with post-orgasmic refractory periods. It'd be a real stretch to argue that those links were even remotely relevant. Like I wrote here: We can all google as well as the next person. I'm looking for specific expert knowledge. So, people: Forget refractory periods. I don't want to hear you saying that term again. Your knowledge of that term doesn't impress me, and without trying to be unkind: Your links show that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm extremely confident that someone with real expert knowledge of what I'm actually asking about could explain it without using that term. ^(^)^(subreddit title possibly relevant) [SEP] \^subreddit title possibly relevant
 Yes, I know all these things. In fact some people really close to me have been addicted to heroin, and I'm white and they were white. I'm just pointing out that drug epidemics have been around for decades now but we only started approaching it with sympathy as a country when it reached a certain demographic, and that just bugs me. As a smoker and a heavy drinker I even understand addiction. Maybe that's why I know better than to start an addiction 50 times as powerful as what I already have. If I get prescribed any opiates, I'm flushing them down the toilet. People can be a little smarter, I think. [SEP] People can be a little smarter
-Loool really? You'd call this a masterpiece of a campaign? I could go on all day why this campaign and story blows. I'm on mobile right now but I will gladly spell out the reasons why this story is god awful later Edit: Taking what I posted from a Youtube comment and slightly modifying it. First, the stories within the games should be self contained. One should not have to read extended media to know what happened to other plot points started in Halo 4 or were introduced outside the games like fighting/sealing the Ur-Didact, the Janus Key, and Chief reuniting with Blue Team. Especially not from some backwater comic that a lot of lore fans didn't even read. Halsey, Palmer, Cortana and even Chief had sudden personality shifts. What happened to Palmer disliking Halsey? They had moments of interaction, but Palmer didn't say anything to her. Halsey had a sudden change of mind from the end of Spartan Ops when she stated 'I want revenge on the UNSC'. Yes you can say she just said that to Jul to gain his trust, but something like that should be clarified rather than leaving the player guessing. When has Cortana disliked Halsey? Chief mentioned to Cortana something along the lines of "You mean like what Halsey did to me", with an undertone of resentment. Except in Fall of Reach, it was explicitly stated he was grateful he became a Spartan, as he was allowed to become the full potential a human could be and he wouldn't even know what he would be doing had they not taken him. Speaking of Jul, way to kill him off at the end of the first mission. It felt rushed and was an incredibly disappointing conclusion to an interesting character since the Kilo 5 trilogy. And the Prometheans turned on the Covenant? When was this? I'm assuming Escalation, but not everyone read Escalation. If the Ur-Didact was sealed in Escalation, then what are the Prometheans doing? Who is leading them, what is their goal? Blue team served no actual story purpose and it felt like they were just tacked on because 343 is advertising this new fireteam co-op thing and you will need a team for the Chief missions. Locke and Tanaka had no personality, Vale had a bit, and Buck did, but it's different than the Buck from ODST who was more serious and butted heads with the wise cracking Romeo. "Miss Naval Intelligence. Our new boss. So check your mouths, find your chairs, and get set for a combat drop." Instead he turned into the wise cracker now. I had expected Buck to go against Locke a bit, as Buck used to be a team leader and there are some decisions he would have made differently than Locke. I expected Osiris to have a skirmish with Blue team and lose horribly due to their own lack of teamwork and Blue team's superior teamwork, which then spurs Osiris to talk to each other and get to know each other. This would lead to character background and development, and after trusting and opening up to each other, they begin to work better as a team and later have a rematch with Blue Team where they are more evenly matched. Cortana living was incredibly glossed over. Everyone was either casual about it or already knew, except for Roland. Even Chief, when he first sees Cortana and she tells him to go to Meridian, he completely accepts it. Despite the next line he said, in response to someone from Blue Team (I forgot who asked) asking isn't Cortana dead and he responds with "I saw her die with my own eyes". So why tf was he so casual in accepting she's still alive? This casual glossing over Cortana's survival greatly cheapens the ending scene of Halo 4. We were told that Halo 5 was about Chief dealing with his personal loss, yet we got none of that. The advertisements were blatant lies. Yes, other Halo games had trailers that didn't show up like Halo 3's Believe, ODST live action, etc. But they were just hype trailers. Halo 5 had trailers explicitly telling us to be excited about this stuff that would be in the game that was not in the game. "Greatest hunt in gaming history"? That could barely quality as a hunt, Locke and Chief met literally one time as adversaries and the whole "hunt" lasted only like 3 missions. We had expected a more morally gray story, questioning whether Chief was in the right or not, with Locke and Osiris tracking him down from world to world and finding out clues that either starts to clear up the true story or add even more confusion. "Hunt the truth"? What truth? They knew from the get-go where Chief was going and why, they just wanted him to come back. The ads sold us a completely different game that no other Halo game did before. Just a few other notes. It completely contradicts Silentium that the Domain is still active, as the Domain being Precursor technology and therefore would be destroyed by the Halo array was a huge plot twist at the end of the book. It makes no sense that only connection was cut off and it could be reactivated from a Forerunner installation. This completely contradicts what was told to us in the novel. The only possible explanation there could be is that the Domain chose to show itself at this time, but it still does not explain how it survived. I am pretty sure the Halo array affects even slipspace. And the first cutscene with Roland, it implied there would be a subplot of Roland agreeing with Cortana, as he got angry that Lasky, Halsey and Palmer were blaming Cortana. In his own words "Why is she at fault? For living when she wasn't supposed to?" Yet this subplot gets resolved offscreen and Roland wants to help stop Cortana again. Not to mention fighting the same boss like 10 different times. That's pure laziness and uncreative. How did Halsey know all this stuff was going on with Cortana while she was in Jul's captivity? Who knows. This story makes no sense and is all over the place. False advertising, missing information, bad characters and no characterizations, all in all this is probably the worst story I've seen from any Halo campaign. Bar none [SEP] When has Cortana disliked Halsey?
-First let me say that I'm not trying to gaslight you. I understand that the Gaming Pop Quiz is a real thing. But, I do wonder if it's a black and white phenomenon. The reason that I ask is because I usually ask a bunch of questions when I meet a gamer of either gender. I don't do it to check the other person's legitimacy but just to identify common interests and get a feel for what type of gamer they are. Can you easily tell the difference between that type of questioning and the Gaming Pop Quiz? I would hate to think that I am making anyone uncomfortable. [SEP] Can you easily tell the difference between that type of questioning and the Gaming Pop Quiz? I would hate to think that I am making anyone uncomfortable.
-Atheism is too simple. And I will tell you another view that is also too simple. It is the view I call Christianity-and-water, the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right -- leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption. Both these are boys ' philosophies. It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are not simple. They look simple, but they are not. The table I am sitting at looks simple: but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of--all about the atoms and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and what they do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain--and, of course, you find that what we call 'seeing a table' lands you in mysteries and complications which you can hardly get to the end of. A child saying a child's prayer looks simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not and the modern world usually is not -- if you want to go on and ask what is really happening -- then you must be prepared for something difficult. If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the something more is not simple. Very often, however, this silly procedure is adopted by people who are not silly, but who, consciously or unconsciously, want to destroy Christianity. Such people put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack. When you try to explain the Christian doctrine as it is really held by an instructed adult, they then complain that you are making their heads turn round and that it is all too complicated and that if there really were a God they are sure He would have made 'religion' simple, because simplicity is so beautiful, etc. You must be on your guard against these people for they will change their ground every minute and only waste your time. Notice, too, their idea of God 'making religion simple'; as if 'religion' were something God invented, and not His statement to us of certain quite unalterable facts about His own nature. – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity [SEP] When you try to explain the Christian doctrine as it is really held by an instructed adult, they then complain that you are making their heads turn round and that it is all too complicated and that if there really were a God they are sure He would have made 'religion' simple, because simplicity is so beautiful, etc.
-> There's also the fact that most Republicans are voting for Trump and Trump is currently at the top of almost every poll. You don't have to be omniscient to be aware of this simple fact. You do if you're going to quote favorability to support your point in one breath and then denounce favorability in the next when it's convenient. > You're being redundant. "Quote-unquote" is something you use in spoken language to delimit a quotation. Using it prior to actual quotation marks in written language is just tedious and repetitive. Just thought you should be aware of that. And you're being pedantic. You're transparently reaching to make yourself sound smart. Just thought you should be aware of that. [SEP] And you're being pedantic.
-Don't you see the disconnect, you rightly mention how gender roles and masculinity harm men, but you're putting forth a rather patriarchal concept which is that your worth is dependent on if you've had sex and how much of it you have. Just be happy, live your life, masturbate a lot (and learn to enjoy masturbating and not fixate on sex so much) and things will go your way in the future. Get involved in your local radical scene, maybe you'll find someone. Experiment with homosexuality, maybe you'll really enjoy it? Dwelling on your status as an incel is incredibly unhealthy. All you have to do is go on an incel sub and see the misery. Focus on making yourself a cool and interesting person, learn to be relatable and talk to people. There's a lot of other lonely people out there, you'll find someone. [SEP] putting forth a rather patriarchal concept which is that your worth is dependent on if you've had sex and how much of it you have.
-BS on your part. Businesses are the biggest investors in what direction a city goes. Cops are not charged with keeping average citizens safe. Who told you that? Warren v. DC: The police have no duty of care to citizens, and I quote: "District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine." ^1 1. http Read up a bit, my man. I think you could benefit. [SEP] Read up a bit, my man. I think you could benefit.
-It was disappointing in the sense that I didn't feel anything. Normally I'd go to these things and at the very least be happy to see my friends. But this last conference was...kind of disorganized and mediocre. I connected with no one. The presentations were trite. I needed more than some 'stay strong!' 'chant more!' platitudes and I didn't get that. Maybe I felt that way because I was about 90 percent mentally out and I saw it for what it was. Or maybe I wanted there to be some magic experience that renewed my faith. When that didn't happen, I knew it was a matter of time before I left completely. It felt like dressing up nice and putting on makeup, traveling to a fancy restaurant, and when you look at the menu there ain't shit on it but Kraft mac-n-cheese and chicken fingers. And you reallyyy had your mouth tuned up for some cacciatore. So you go home disappointed that you got served toddler food when it was advertised as a high end establishment. I threw away my program booklets, but I don't even need to go into detail about what was said because it's the exact same stuff you hear at district meeting and SWS. [SEP] you got served toddler food
-I appreciate the sentiment, alas, I'm not a caveman. I'll not eat something I don't need to. PS: Ew. [SEP] I'm not a caveman
-Those ships look pretty similar. When you take a comic or book adaptation almost 100% of the time there are aesthetic changes made to some things. When everything is speculation you can make little jumps of faith like this to help lend credence to your argument, its what makes it fun! Also you know what that guy meant relax a bit. [SEP] Also you know what that guy meant relax a bit.
->>I have never met a single Asian person who feels racially superior to whites, Lol. How many Asians have you met? A dozen? >>There is no racism towards westerners in Asia. Double Lol. When have you been to Asia? [SEP] Double Lol. When have you been to Asia?
-Then pack your shit and go. We don't need you. This is how I see "Bernie or Bust' You're the people that walks into a grocery store after moving into a new neighborhood. It has everything that was in your old grocery store except this certain brand of bread that says 'organic' on the label. You go up front to see if they can get it. They can get it but it will have to be put on order. They can't deliver it to you right on the spot due to a system, that's been in place since the grocery store was built. You throw a tantrum and say "fuck it. Bern the store down. Fuck everyone else that shops here. People in the neighborhood have no meaning to me if I can't get exactly what I want. They can get my 'organic' bread, but don't have it right at this moment and that's not acceptable. I've never been a customer here, but they should have my particular brand and type of bread. Yes, they have other organic bread, but it doesn't come from the same farm that the cool old guy I know told me about. Fuck it. Bern down the store!" This is what you Bernie or Bust people are. Just a bunch either whiny brats, or Republican plants. [SEP] Then pack your shit and go. We don't need you.
-For those who want to see it in action here's a Leopard vs Porcupine. WARNING: There's a decent amount of blood and this is nature so it may not end how you want. EDIT:Since you guys are into nature here's a Impala tree takedown Last Edit: Puma vs Sloth (5 min) [SEP] nature so it may not end how you want.
-> But some people say "lets wait for the facts" and that is not the fucking same as saying "the accuser does not matter"! it depends on what "wait for the facts" means for you. For some, it's a honest statement they'd say about anything. For others, its a dodge to avoid confronting the idea that their idol might be a rapist. it's different for everyone. But, on it's own merits..."wait for the facts" essentially means "I don't believe you until more information is provided". This is the very essense of the words. Its up to you if you feel that what Kane provides for you is worth it. Many people have decided that scoring goals in hockey does not warrant this. [SEP] on it's own merits..."wait for the facts" essentially means "I don't believe you until more information is provided"
-I wouldn't be surprised if something's up, whether or not it's malicious or whatever. Non-political subs don't tend to welcome political discussion, as it can quickly become divisive and devolve into something that isn't really constructive or desirable. It might be plausible that the mods wanted to remove it to keep politics out, but it got enough initial traction that they couldn't do so without people noticing. That's just conjecture, though. I can't say I really envy people who mod default subs, it sounds like a whole lot of bullshit for little to no reward. [SEP] it sounds like a whole lot of bullshit for little to no reward.
-Wasn't expecting Denver to be so cold. Poor planning on my part, but having a great time at GABF. Ran into a few Atlanta folks last night. [SEP] Wasn't expecting Denver to be so cold.
-I'm confused, BA is Bachelor's of Arts right? and BS is of Science? Yeah the class listing was on there before I got my first internship, mainly to take up a huge amount of space I couldn't otherwise fill [SEP] I'm confused, BA is Bachelor's of Arts right? and BS is of Science?
->Well I'm not going to argue with you but if you take a look at scripture, it's undeniably redpill. However, Christians may or may not live in that manner. That is why it's the people that are the problem, not the religion. Yes believing in a zombie as your God is red pill. Red pill is based on reality, Christianity is not, and worse, Christianity creates weak selfless men. [SEP] Yes believing in a zombie as your God is red pill.
-That's completely wrong. You will start with 0 legendary marks on Tuesday, but will have a commendation for every 50 vanguard/crucible you hold. The commendations give XP, not marks. [SEP] The commendations give XP, not marks
-> War is the absence of a monopoly on violence. In war, there is almost no law, hence legally-created equality doesn't exist. It's not as ridiculous as your kneejerk rejection insists. WTF? Do you have no idea what I'm talking about? I'm talking about the rules *within* the military (which, by the way, exists whether or not it is at war). In war, there is not "almost no law." You cannot shoot your commanding officer in a war. If you do, you will be put in front of a military court, you will be dishonorably discharged, and probably sentenced to death. There is absolute rule of law. The rule of law is only more strict; the commands of officers take on the character of law; the duties of employment take on the obligations of law; law is nowhere more powerful than within a strict authoritarian military hierarchy. [SEP] law is nowhere more powerful than within a strict authoritarian military hierarchy.
-Sheesh, if a noob like me saw a cheap panther mount and bought it... I didn't know the cost to make one... I didn't know panthers were made... I would hope that's not a permaban edit: That's not sarcasm, I'm fresh back after ~5 years [SEP] That's not sarcasm
-OMG. I used to interview people for Customer Service jobs. At ANY job interview it's a very bad idea to bring someone with you; even just to sit in the waiting room. We've had people bring the entire family and extended family...all kids included... There are places who now specify on the application that if you are called for an interview, you must come alone. Yeah. Don't EVER go to an interview accompanied or escorted. It's career suicide. [SEP] There are places who now specify on the application that if you are called for an interview, you must come alone.
-> My suspicion is that you're more objecting to the fact that the onus apparently falls on women to do X, Y, and Z to avoid getting raped, while there's relatively little "bombarding" of men in terms of reinforcing behaviors and messages that it's a man's responsibility not to force himself on women. Which I happen to agree with. This is the issue. And clearly I failed to articulate it properly. I'm in no way saying that women *shouldn't* take precautions because the bottom line is that rape exists. I was simply lamenting on the fact that I have to do all these exhausting, unfun, inconveniencing-other-people things in order to have a good time. I am not at all suggesting that X, Y, and Z are unhelpful. I never suggested it and never would. Seriously? That's ridiculous. The problem with how the anti-rape system works now is that it is, quite literally, making women terrified of men. While a level of caution is healthy and will keep you safe, I feel genuinely afraid when I walk from where I parked my car to my apartment (100 or so feet) and there's a man standing there. I've been told, time and time again, that it's entirely possible he'll rape me. And that's awful. I suppose it's the simplest, easiest method, but I'm not convinced it's the most beneficial for both genders. [SEP] The problem with how the anti-rape system works now is that it is, quite literally, making women terrified of men.
-You forgot the original topic: whether its useless for people to use words to express discontent in the direction of a system governed by rough consensus. I was not arguing for or against a particular direction. To use your marriage analogy, it's about whether it ever makes sense to use voice over exit if the person you marry becomes a religious fanatic and it ruins the relationship. [SEP] whether its useless for people to use words to express discontent in the direction of a system governed by rough consensus.
-Ah yes... Obsession as procrastination. I do this with my houseplants. I rationalize it by saying that doing a little bit of gardening/plant upkeep is relaxing and good for the brain, but I really just do it to avoid real work. I think I will give KonMari a half assed try when I move next year. I am secretly just hoping to get rid of my boyfriends crap. BOXES OF TANGLED OBSOLETE COMPUTER CABLES DOES NOT SPARK JOY FOR ANYONE. [SEP] BOXES OF TANGLED OBSOLETE COMPUTER CABLES DOES NOT SPARK JOY FOR ANYONE.
-People who need manuals to tell them how to live is not the ideal. After being thrown into a new environment, can you observe, experiment and emulate your way into flourishing in the new place? There won't always be a book telling you what to do and you can't always trust the book. [SEP] People who need manuals to tell them how to live is not the ideal. After being thrown into a new environment, can you observe, experiment and emulate your way into flourishing in the new place? There won't always be a book telling you what to do and you can't always trust the book.
-And that's why we don't have a carbon tax? And we have negative gearing? The Liberals pay lip service to free market and dabble in protectionism. [SEP] And we have negative gearing?
-Group RPs deteriorate quickly after more than three people get involved. It's hard to hold up a plot line with lots of creative people, and the interruptions and backtracking gets awkward really fast. Three is like the magic number -- four if you're all on the same page and compatible. Now ... a bunch of people in a chat talking and pairing off works, but that's not really a role played story line. That's just a bunch of folks getting together to fuck. ;) [SEP] That's just a bunch of folks getting together to fuck. ;)
-I have a couple of wooden boards and proper butcher's blocks, but for the most part (cooking professionally and at home) I use ~1/4-1/3" thick plastic boards that cost ~12-50$ depending on size. I get mine from a restaurant supply store, but home kitchen stores will have similar (though maybe less heavy-duty) products. With plastic boards, it is best to wash them in a dishwasher (since plastic boards have no antibacterial properties, the dishwasher sterilizes them). If you find they are starting to bend or curl, you can soak them in very hot water (or a hot water sterilize cycle in a dishwasher), and then just bend them back the other way by hand (source: I do this 1-2x a month with some of mine). If you are hand washing plastic boards, you want to keep an eye out for the grooves and cuts that your knives will make in the surface. Watch for blackening and discolouration along those lines, as this can indicate mold or bacterial growth occurring in those grooves (and I guarantee hand washing will not properly sterilize all those nooks and crannies). When a good round of sterilization and bleaching doesn't seem to be doing the trick, it's time to get rid of the board. That said, your boards shouldn't get to that point, as I mentioned above I have several plastic boards which have been in daily use for upwards of 20 years, and they are fine. The paper-thin plastic cutting surfaces are garbage, however. As for wooden boards, hand wash them and oil them, but never soak them. Soaking will cause warping, and splits between slats. Even a 50lb, 4" thick butcher's block will warp if you soak it too much. [SEP] The paper-thin plastic cutting surfaces are garbage, however.
-That's actually not true. Every year since they dropped the requirement you've still needed well below your BQ, more than a minute. [SEP] Every year since they dropped the requirement you've still needed well below your BQ, more than a minute.
-I thought he was spot on with Nintendo. Nobody knows if Splatoon is going to great, but everybody is still calling amazing. LoZ was there for a very brief time and people are basically jizzing themselves like its gonna be the best game ever. Their in their own little world appealing to fans who have already bought their console. We get it Nintendo, your 1st party titles are awesome...but they also don't drop in price for a long time...so I will buy your console when its cheaper and all of them are out. [SEP] Nobody knows if Splatoon is going to great, but everybody is still calling amazing
-In terms of mining, I know a block is just a bundle of transactions, but what does it mean to "find" a block? And why do transactions need to be organized into blocks? Why can't the blockchain just exist as a series of individual transactions without the block structure? [SEP] And why do transactions need to be organized into blocks? Why can't the blockchain just exist as a series of individual transactions without the block structure?
-That was very insightful thanks. You don't sound particularly religious though haha. [SEP] That was very insightful thanks. You don't sound particularly religious though haha.
-> But can Russia bully the EU or NATO? I do not think so. They already do. Ask the Baltics, or Romania which Rogozin threatened recently to send the strategic bombers. See the activity in Kaliningrad and the Russian Navy stance in the Baltic Sea. See the offer to split the Eastern Ukraine between Poland, Hungary and Romania, which Hungary's Orban took seriously. Orban now demands autonomy for Hungarians in Ukraine. See Grazprom's push to buy interconnecting pipelines in Hungary, Austria and Bulgaria. The Mistral ship will be based in Sevastopol, probably with the intent to project power to Odessa, control Transnistria and threaten Romania. [SEP] which Hungary's Orban took seriously.
-> You can change mypace to something like easygoing, indifferent, laidback, etc. People won't know what it means otherwise. I considered those of course. They were the first thing that came into my head. But each of those words is only a small part of 'maipeesu' and really the only way to describe it is 'doing things at one's own pace without heed to surroundings', which can't be described satisfactorily in any English adjective. &nbsp; Something like that can range from a completely lazy and easygoing person, to a jerk who doesn't sweat the details and just does as he pleases and challenging people across the globe to duels because he likes duelling. &nbsp; I then considered foregoing the adjective of course, and rewording the sentence to write that, but after much consideration, with flow, English and other factors on the scales in my mind, I came to the conclusion that it was least intrusive to flow to teach what 'mypace' meant at the top of the page. [SEP] I considered those of course. They were the first thing that came into my head. But each of those words is only a small part of 'maipeesu' and really the only way to describe it is 'doing things at one's own pace without heed to surroundings', which can't be described satisfactorily in any English adjective.
-Flanks don't need buffs. You need to learn how to use them properly. I use flanks more than any other class and I do great. I don't use Andro that much but I have it at lvl5 and I think he can't compare to Buck. The point of flankers is to... flank, kill and distract enemies. Buck is just perfect at it, my fav flanker(in and out fast, heal, 3khp). What about Skye? Not every match is the same but mostly if you cant do good with her, that means you are not playing the game right (I compare her to viktor in terms of, they are so fucking easy to get kills, no skill needed to be good with these 2). Evie, I'm not very good with her, to tell the truth only used her 1 or 2 times so I'm not very good but I have been matched with and against so fucking good Evies (she's so annoying to deal with if used right), Cassie is dope, but once they fix all the hitboxes, she will stop making kills even when people run from her arrows (hate this when I play against her, love it when I use her xD), Kinessa is good if their flankers don't do their job. Viktor i said before, no skill needed to be good. Bomb King seems pretty nice, and I'm gonna start using him now (didn't used him before because of all his bugs) and if done right can do huge amounts of damage even thou he is easy to counter and/or get rid of the sticky bombs. About Drogoz... I hate him, not my type. This said, stop camping in the back with flankers and do your goddamn job and you'll see how good flankers are. [SEP] she's so annoying to deal with if used right
-As @GrayConnolly has been reminding us, able bodied men heading desperately for EU welfare states speaks poorly of them & their countries. Just came across that before reading this, you may find both those guys interesting. [SEP] As @GrayConnolly has been reminding us, able bodied men heading desperately for EU welfare states speaks poorly of them & their countries.
-They can't fight the government on this. They'll just raise rates & fees on consumers to re-coop the amount. What's scary is that this is another shift to forcing banks to sell mortgages to the undeserving. Didn't we learn our lesson from the housing market crash? [SEP] They'll just raise rates & fees on consumers to re-coop the amount.
-Clapping. It just doesn't make any sense. [SEP] Clapping. It just doesn't make any sense.
-Cleveland is in the process of changing their logo - although the old one is still present, it is being downplayed, and will eventually go away. And people here in the Cleveland area had a shit fit over it, but they will get over it, as they should. Its not about "money to gain" always. Sometimes companies have to take a long-term approach - a short term loss can equal a long term gain, and keeping those logos will only hurt them in the long term. [SEP] people here in the Cleveland area had a shit fit over it
-Maybe you should use it to prove that the earth is flat (spheres don't have four corners, duh) and debunk the myth that the earth orbits the sun instead of the way god intended. [SEP] the myth that the earth orbits the sun instead of the way god intended.
-As an American that travels extensively, I never had to lie. I have done couchsurfing and homestays. People who casually lie about their nationality disgust me. Maybe lie in a situation when you feel uncomfortable, but consistently lying about it is absurd [SEP] casually lie about their nationality disgust me
-You probably don't want to hear this, but F2P is the future for all MMOs. The only place where this isn't accepted norm is the American market--the Asian market has been doing this for years now (in fact, paid subscription MMOs in the Asian market is now considered taboo). Gone are the days when we would conceitedly suggest that when an American MMO went F2P it meant it was "going down the tubes." It's actually a far more profitable pay model. [SEP] It's actually a far more profitable pay model.
-Ah, proving my point. You are in the union. Funny how nobody supports teachers unions but their members. I look forward to your destruction due to this court case. Your are an extortionist who holds a public commodity hostage for your own benefit at the expense of children. Your are contributing to the destruction of faith in government, and further arming the right wing. The union is you? That's how cult members think. [SEP] Your are contributing to the destruction of faith in government, and further arming the right wing.
-not to curb your happiness here, but keep in mind that this is more than likely them overshooting and hoping to settle. Same tactic used by feinstein. edit: I just realized I forgot the court order thing. Shit, tell em not to settle for a damn thing. Also, taking bets for what percent chicago murder rate drops by next year. Winner gets a nude photo of feinstein. [SEP] Winner gets a nude photo of feinstein.
-Treating the symptoms in an effective manner is just as important as patching up the damage. Education and empowering workers is just as important as welfare. It doesn't take a savant to design legislation to make a better future. But the American government only cares about quarterly profits for the corporations it's sponsored by. Look at the subsidies, tax cuts, and 'pet projects' that are financed in lieu of fixing the ills of society. [SEP] It doesn't take a savant to design legislation to make a better future.
-Lol it's not the same thing at all. I didn't say all guys are creepy racists, or even some of them. I said it wasn't worth finding out. You clearly have no idea what it's like to be a woman on a dating site. If I get messaged by someone, look at their profile and see that we aren't compatible, what would you have me do? Respond with "No thanks"? Ok, let me tell you what happens in that scenario. At least half the time a guy will want to know the reason. You can't even give a vague response like "we just aren't a good fit" because they will demand to know *why*. At this point, whether you respond honestly or completely ignore them, you will most likely get called a bitch, told you're "ugly anyway" or, in the more extreme cases, threatened. So why bother? I am not interested and not replying conveys that just as easily as having to explain myself, so why would I open myself to possible harassment for the same end result? [SEP] I didn't say all guys are creepy racists, or even some of them. I said it wasn't worth finding out.
->because you have a voting ring No because reddit in general is science oriented and likes to debunk anti-science, pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. The other anti-GMO activists don't seem to have a problem with forming coherent enough arguments to keep out of negative karma territory. For starters, you could stop your stalking, harassing and doxxing attempts because everyone of those seems to back-fire on you. [SEP] No because reddit
-Nah man, I appreciate the novel. This was super fucking awesome for me. Unbiased facts. So was the Vince Foster guy the weightlifting "suicide" guy that people are always talking about? Also, since this post was so fucking great, do you mind talking about the recent Hillary scandal? Reddit has been my only source of information about the emails. Apparently she should be in jail, but you're saying Bush lost a similar number? (I didn't like Bush either for the record, that presidency was definitely fucked). Also, how do I submit this to BestOf? [SEP] Reddit has been my only source of information about the emails.
-Yeah, I just couldn't believe the way Pettis softly and anticlimactically armbarred him in the center of the octagon in the beginning of the first. I would love to see him against Gunnar Nelson. [SEP] I would love to see him against Gunnar Nelson.
-You seem confused by my labelling of you as an insult slinger, Allow me to explain. I will keep the description nice and simple for you. Do you see the words 'moron' and 'tool' directed at me in your post? those are what we in society call 'personal insults'. These were in response to a post of mine (that incidentally was not addressed to you personally) which contained no personal insults. My labelling of you as a troll was in response to a post of yours that did contain personal insults. Perhaps its worth doing some hard thinking as to the reasons why you need this to be explained to you. [SEP] that incidentally was not addressed to you personally
-My favorite 'atheist' quote is this: >If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. ‘Cause that’s all there is. What we do. Now. Today. … All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because, I don’t think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there’s no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world. Put in a more pragmatic way, human beings are happiest when they have meaning in their lives. For someone who does not believe in any sort of higher power or higher meaning, the most beneficial thing they can do for themselves is to *create meaning of their own*. And because human beings are very social creatures, often the best form of that meaning comes in helping and caring about others. **Edit**: I am happy to expand on this point if you think it is worth exploring more. [SEP] Put in a more pragmatic way, human beings are happiest when they have meaning in their lives.
-hes a faggot but you insult the dead, whatever. that faggot co-founded the website you are insulting him on [SEP] that faggot co-founded the website you are insulting him on
-In your opinion, what will the future of electronic privacy and anonymity be? Many if not most politicians are either indifferent or against privacy and anonymity and there is a bill that could be passed in December that would allow the government to hack computers simply for accessing the Internet with TOR if I am correct. How much of an effect do you think increasing mass surveillance will have on fake ID related activities? [SEP] How much of an effect do you think increasing mass surveillance will have on fake ID related activities?
-Instead of LAN, Valve should sell a "tournament license" that includes the rights to lease or outright own your own tournament server. For those who don't know, this is what Valve did for The International 1&2 and what Blizzard does for their own SC2 events. They have a local tournament server. It's not LAN, but it effectively gives neglibeable ping, since the packets are going into, basically, the next room. Not all LAN tournaments would probably be able to lease/own such a server, but for big organizations that have sponsorship money on the line and especially those who broadcast on TV (such as G League), this would be a worthwhile investment in content production security. [SEP] It's not LAN, but it effectively gives neglibeable ping, since the packets are going into, basically, the next room.
-Mac OS, Ubuntu and others want you to run 'su' via 'sudo' Some implementations don't cache your auth, so if you have to run 'sudo post-install actions one and two', it's too many keystrokes. Also, without pulling root's ENV, you may wind up in csh or ksh, depending. Balls to that, I say. [SEP] Mac OS, Ubuntu and others want you to run 'su' via 'sudo'
-And a thousand crushes on julian began... Thanks for reminding me it's been a while since I've listened to them. Something terribly bittersweet about listening to them that I can't quite put my finger on [SEP] Something terribly bittersweet about listening to them that I can't quite put my finger on
->a heuristic idea that one should make as few assumptions as possible in a valid theory, and eliminate extraneous pieces from a theory if they are not necessary to explain the relevant phenomena. But why use this particular heuristic? Why go with the simplest theory and not with, say, the theory that makes you feel the happiest, or the theory that is most socially acceptable? And why is the Occam heuristic lauded rather than being derided as "simplicity bias" in the way that the availability and confirmation biases are? What is the difference between a "heuristic" and a "cognitive bias"? I don't see any. >Science does not hold firm as faith that the laws of physics are immutable, even though every observation made thus far has suggested it to be so. It may not be a firmly held belief, but it is assumed to be likely, even though one could just as easily make counter inductive assumptions with no contradiction. Why? And I am not questioning the laws of physics, I am questioning the uniformity of nature, which scientists seem to assume without justification. >It is not faith precisely because it is open to evidence-based changes. Could I justifiably and rationally believe that the apocalypse will happen in two days, and act on that belief, as long as I am open to changing my mind two days from now if it didn't happen? You would probably say no, but why not? [SEP] But why use this particular heuristic?
-Actually, it's not unique. There is a worm for which we know entirely how it progresses from single cell zygote to an adult. The cells of the members of its species **always** divide in the same way, and each cell has been named based on its relation to the original zygote. This organism has taught us a lot about embryology. The name of this organism escapes me at the moment, but I read about it in one of Richard Dawkins' books. *The Greatest Show on Earth*, I think. Edit: I found the animal. It's a nematode, species name *c. elegans.* Here's a nice quote from its Wikipedia page: >The developmental fate of every single somatic cell (959 in the adult hermaphrodite; 1031 in the adult male) has been mapped. These patterns of cell lineage are largely invariant between individuals, whereas in mammals, cell development is more dependent on cellular cues from the embryo. The first cell divisions of early embryogenesis in C. elegansare among the best understood examples of asymmetric cell divisions. Edit2: Furthermore, there is a name for organisms like this that don't grow by cell division once they reach maturity - they're called eutelic. [SEP] Edit: I found the animal. It's a nematode, species name *c. elegans.*
->we can't trade with them for free right now because of the EU. What would we trade? We don't exactly have much of a manufacturing industry and most of what we do, the Chinese can do cheaper and in many other parts of the developing world, the Chinese would be our competitors. [SEP] What would we trade?
-Is it weird that I'm most excited to see if they've come up with any good new auto awesome effects? I love my phone popping up with a cool new picture it's created. My favourite one is when google decided to remove my girlfriend from a photo. I wound her up with that one for days. [SEP] My favourite one is when google decided to remove my girlfriend from a photo
-the concept of "unpaid" software interns is insulting. That isn't "proper".. Not in our industry. Anyone that does such is taking advantage of young upcoming engineers that don't know better. My first internship, I coded 33% of the release for our flagship software, on a team of 3. The other 2 were senior engineers. 8 years later, just had my own intern. First time, junior in college, and no experience in the problem domain. Yet he was able to learn and become a productive member in his 3 month internship (productive meaning he implemented more feature points than I would have in the time I spent training him). Sure, interns aren't going to be effective in building architectures, requirements elicitation, or otherwise engaging with customers... but any competent programmer (which most compsci/softeng college students will be) can be productive WHILE learning. Due to the nature of software and the wonders of proper source control, an unpaid software internship is never acceptable. [SEP] the concept of "unpaid" software interns is insulting. That isn't "proper".. Not in our industry. Anyone that does such is taking advantage of young upcoming engineers that don't know better.
-My daddy died a hero. He was bringing freedom to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Syria! [SEP] My daddy died a hero
-Emergency professionals already deescalate situations, and convince people they need help. I don't think you are going to resolve issues by the roadside of an incident. This takes several sessions with experience professionals. Even if you had a psycologist in an ambulance, they would not be able to resolve an issue by the roadside. It's not like handing them an icepack, or bandaging a wound. The Gus Deeds example is unfair, because he doesn't even get treatment. I never said that people don't need treatment. Just that they don't need immediate treatment. For your last point, how to mental health facilities not see people in crisis? They are taking care of people who either have volunteered to get help, or been committed against their will. Even if you volunteer to enter, they can get a TDO for a certain amount of time to make sure that you can't leave until they have a chance to re-evaluate you and clear you. In the example I presented no one saw any warning signs to get him committed. Besides the fact, they would have had no way to respond fast enough to that incident to prevent him from shooting. And what few warning signs the Isla Campus shooter showed to his parents were not enough to get him committed. [SEP] The Gus Deeds example is unfair
-Workers in nearly every country were demanding that, except for Germany! LOL And get your facts straight. Germany was being outspent on militarization until 1937-1939. England, the U.S. And Soviet Union all spent more than Germany ever did throughout the 30's. Stop lying and start reading, will you? How could Germany build up the military when there were labor shortages in all other aspects of German industry? Germany didn't prepare for war until it became obvious that England, France, and the U.S. Would not stop their belligerent behavior, that's why Germany reunited with its lost territories peacefully before Poland made that impossible. Most of your stuff comes from the same source, the U.S. government. It's propaganda, and you need to get proper sources. EVERYTHING you've said is a distortion or a plain lie. We are talking about Nazi Germany, where the German leaders actually represented the German people, they are one force. Not like England or the U.S. where the people are seperate from the leaders. [SEP] Germany didn't prepare for war until it became obvious that England, France, and the U.S. Would not stop their belligerent behavior
-Readable versions of charts: 100k income: http://i.imgur.com/lfoZy.png 300k income: http://i.imgur.com/5xlNr.png Edit: Not so sure how much I trust them, since Denmark is remarkably low despite having some of the highest taxes in the world. Edit: Oops... only the Social Security is on those charts. [SEP] Edit: Not so sure how much I trust them, since Denmark is remarkably low despite having some of the highest taxes in the world.
-Well they coded up BitcoinXT in what many interpreted as a hostile hardfork attempt on the bitcoin consensus. Imagine if a small group of core developers attempted the same thing with the 21million supply limit? It would ruffle a few feathers. Given those hostile actions, as well as Mike Hearn's well-known "*Benevolent dictatorship over consensus*" view, I think it's pretty clear why they did not sign. (edit: assuming they were asked, I hope they were) Which is a shame. Bitcoin works by consensus. We should continue to extend olive branches and handshakes to everyone so bitcoin can progress by consensus and agreement instead of war. [SEP] if a small group of core developers attempted the same thing with the 21million supply limit? It would ruffle a few feathers.
-I bought a former police car when I was in college, a blue crown victoria from a city auction. they took all the stickers off but it still had the brush guard on the front and a spotlight. During my spring semester at school (3 months) I got pulled over 18 times and had my apartment searched by a sergeant and 3 cops.They never found anything because there was nothing to find but goddamn did they try. I finally hired an attorney to draft a letter and I started collecting names, dates, and incidents. Every single time they pulled me over they would have a bullshit excuse like the one time when a cop pulled me over from behind I asked him a million times why he pulled me over and he walked around the car and said it was because I was missing my front license plate. That was true but he never saw the front of my car until after I asked. That year the police did a great job of turning a good citizen into a citizen who has zero respect for police. Respect for the law yes, but zero for the police. [SEP] I finally hired an attorney to draft a letter and I started collecting names, dates, and incidents.
-Can you recommend a good beginner's guide to energy commodities trading? Upstream/downstream and how price changes affect both always confused me. [SEP] Upstream/downstream and how price changes affect both always confused me.
->“Under Stephen Harper, there were so many people unhappy with the government and their approach that people were saying, ‘It will take electoral reform to no longer have a government we don’t like’. But under the current system, they now have a government they’re more satisfied with and the motivation to change the electoral system is less compelling,” he said. Another entire article written based on a likely incorrect interpretation of this single quote. It sounds to me like he merely made an observation that the general public isn't clamoring for electoral reform as much as they were during the election campaign because they aren't as unhappy with the government. It in no way clearly implies that he intends to abandon the consultations and processes that are already under way. It's really fortunate for all these journalists that he didn't clarify his position on the matter yet so they can continue writing articles based on manufactured outrage. [SEP] Another entire article written based on a likely incorrect interpretation of this single quote. It sounds to me like he merely made an observation that the general public isn't clamoring for electoral reform as much as they were during the election campaign because they aren't as unhappy with the government
-You only started maining Kha'Zix in season 5, and first played him in season 4, something you admitted to. Kha'Zix was released in season 2, and you have zero Kha'Zix games registered on him before season 4. Not only that, you only have six ranked games as him in season 4. Please, stop lying when it's so easy to look up the truth. You haven't one tricked Kha'Zix since he was released, you started in season 5. So, no, you don't know what you're talking about. You're a troll that constantly lies to feed your giant ego, who's currently being boosted by an actual Kha'Zix player. [SEP] You only started maining Kha'Zix in season 5, and first played him in season 4, something you admitted to.
-Why? Do they somehow not count as shootings? Are people accidentally shot with something that is not a gun? Do gun suicides not involve guns? Why would you do that unless you're trying to misrepresent he facts and lie to people in order to push an agenda? [SEP] Why would you do that unless you're trying to misrepresent he facts and lie to people in order to push an agenda?
-When it comes to the Non-Catholics the issue of hypocrisy comes front and center on this issue. If they are of the Protestants who insist the Bible is literal and inerrant they should practice what it unequivocally declares, and not have women priests. The Bible couldn't be more plain that women are to "remain silent" at church. If they want to disregard those scriptures they need to be very careful about insisting the Bible's injunctions are literal for anyone else. It is the Lord Himself who told us that if we apply any part of the law to another we must keep all of it ourselves. We can't pick and choose. Either it is literal for everybody, or it's not literal. [SEP] The Bible couldn't be more plain that women are to "remain silent" at church
-> Is there a legitimate reason to own a semi-auto rifle? Who defines this? I think it's legitimate if you want to own one. Do you require a reason beyond that? Is there a legitimate reason to own a Ferrari? It can drive much faster than you need to on any highways and costs lots of money. Who could possibly need that? [SEP] Is there a legitimate reason to own a semi-auto rifle?
-Well that's an issue for me, I have a small data cap on my internet and my ping is god awful so I don't ever play multiplayer on any game. If the Singleplayer is still downloading why did it allow me to select Singleplayer first and download the 10GB that allowed me to start playing? [SEP] If the Singleplayer is still downloading why did it allow me to select Singleplayer first and download the 10GB that allowed me to start playing?
-What did his parents do? They fled from a war zone so you feel disgust for them? [SEP] They fled from a war zone so you feel disgust for them?
-I just don't think anyone should need to learn new phrases and be scolded for using historical terms for things. I believe in free speech, free love, et cetra. It's not a complicated issue. It's people who choose to be offended by shit and want everyone else to change things to appease them. It's all very simple and childish. You should be able to say whatever you want without consequence. So should I. If I don't like what you're saying, then I need to deal with it - not demand everyone change to protect my feelings from whatever I consider to be dirty wordies. [SEP] You should be able to say whatever you want without consequence.
-It isn't charity if they are working for you. This is such an American attitude to have. [SEP] It isn't charity if they are working for you.
-No, you're thinking of the extremist prisoners who Assad knowingly released from jail as the protests escalated. In the months up to October 2011 Assad released prisoners as part of an amnesty deal for protestors and that the project was overseen by the General Security Directorate, who simultaneously began releasing extremists from prison along with the jailed protestors in order to support the regime's claim that the regime's murderous approach to the protests was necessary to crush an islamist uprising. *Then* the US started moving arms to Syria from Libya through 2012, while the Gulf states and Turkey began pushing their own regional proxies. Ex-Baathists from Iraq began to move over the border in this following period as well. [SEP] No, you're thinking of the extremist prisoners who Assad knowingly released from jail as the protests escalated.
-Favorite author. Oryx and Crake was only OK though... To this day, Atwood refuses to call it science fiction. It's "speculative fiction". What a snob :P [SEP] Atwood refuses to call it science fiction
-And repressive hypnosis brings up represed memories you dumb ass it'd hurt these supposed child molesters fucking idiot [SEP] And repressive hypnosis brings up represed memories
-Sorry for length I'm mostly just venting here. Wow you sure are dedicated, and so very nice to all those cats. Glad to hear you could get some adopted out. You sound like you have a solid plan with how you care for your cat colony. Do you find yourself spending a lot of time with them (do you play with them?), or do you just go out to leave food for them? Do any of them ever get in fights or have it out for each other when you add a new cat to your colony? It sounds like you've got a support system in your neighborhood for cats. I used to spend 2-3 hours a day outside with my 2 outdoor cats (1-1.5hrs to feed them wet food in the morning/hang out with them/do yard work, 1-1.5hrs to feed them wet food in the evening/hang out with them) and it kinda felt like a burden, but now with the new kitten I'm spending 4 hrs/day outside (2 hrs each feeding) trying to keep up the kitten's socialization with people, and trying to get the adult cats to like him (which is not working...). This is stressing me out. Previously, with another kitten I had sent to the SPCA a couple months ago..I was spending 6 hrs/day outside with it, for 4 days, to socialize it before bringing it to the shelter...thinking I was improving it's chances of getting adopted...that was before I did any research about the SPCA/cat shelters...but I get what you mean about the SPCA. It's more of a stray holding/euthanasia center than an animal shelter...yet, it's like one of those necessary but unpleasant things for an unfair situation. It's not really the SPCA's fault...it's more of casual breeders' faults for failing to require spay/neuter/microchip. For a population of 1 million people, the SPCA in Fresno is the only place that "takes in" stray cats...that just boggles my mind how there is only 1 open intake 'shelter' for *cats* in all of Fresno... Anyway, I don't talk to my neighbors (1 of them rents - so no animals, the other only tolerates my outdoor cats trespassing/pooping in their yard in exchange for catching their tree rats), and I don't have friends...but I put up some Found/Free cat flyers and FB posts...but this kitten...it's a very common looking and uninteresting gray tabby, so it's not pretty or eye-catching and I haven't gotten any calls. TBH the only reason why I approached it was because I thought it was mine (it looks like a smaller copy of one of my outdoor cats)...if I hadn't thought it was mine, I would've chased it away...but then I petted it, thinking it was mine and realizing it was not, and it started following me and layering on it's neediness...it was so pathetic looking... Last night, I was outside for about 2 hours during their evening feeding and during that time my adult cats attacked/stalked him 3 different times (there were loud screams, biting/batting, and high pitched whining)...and again this morning the territorial adult cat attacked him again and bit him. I try to get between them when I can but it's hard to deter fighting between outdoor cats :( I can't do that cat introduction thing since they're all outdoor cats...the house I live in is not mine, so I can't bring animals inside either. This kitten definitely sounds like he is an indoor/house cat and belongs indoors though. Despite getting attacked multiple times he'll still approach the mean cat if I'm near...he's just so stupid! Whenever I go outside and he's sleeping, he doesn't hear me unless I make a louder noise...that is not a good trait for an outdoor cat to have. The only good thing though, is that he sometimes sleeps on a space I made for him on top of my anti-raccoon cat feeder, so at least the raccoons/possums can't get to him at night if he sleeps there. The kitten is okay with people though and will follow me closely to where I have to watch where I step, so I believe he was raised by people... I can put cat clothes on him, handle his paws/feet, rub his belly, have him fall asleep on my arm, and he hasn't nipped at me yet for handling him willy nilly...he doesn't like to be held/picked up though. I think my biggest issue is that I'm just not equipped to foster cats to rehome them since I can't bring them indoors, and I get the feeling most people don't want to adopt cats/kittens that come straight from the outdoors because they're dirty/germy and probably a little wild/untrained from the outdoor experience. My 2 adult outdoor cats- their paw pads are always dirty but they generally look clean because they clean each other...but this new kitten...you can just tell he's dirty since he can't lick his head/ears himself. If my adult cats are going keep harassing him they'll just add more scratches to his body...man...ugh. Sorry for this rant and for whining at you. I just needed to vent... I think...if I can't get my adult cats to get along with him without attacking him or if no one adopts him, I'll probably just neuter him and let him go in the neighborhood somewhere. But the thing is...he isn't feral? It's not quite like TNR? Because this dude was pretty obviously someone's indoor cat and relies on people for food and shelter. Anyway thanks for listening. [SEP] Do you find yourself spending a lot of time with them (do you play with them?), or do you just go out to leave food for them? Do any of them ever get in fights or have it out for each other when you add a new cat to your colony?
-But you would need to change trains to go on to philly, and since these trains won't serve Penn Station, there goes all your time savings. I don't understand why conventional high-speed rail got ignored so quickly. So much cheaper to simply improve the existing infrastructure. [SEP] I don't understand why conventional high-speed rail got ignored so quickly
-Goodbye and good riddance to Thunderbolt, the newest in a long line of failed interfaces that Apple--and only Apple--hitched their wagon to. That's not saying that Thunderbolt is bad; it's not. But an interface is only as good as its ubiquity, which drives down price. Unless you can get everyone to pile on, any tech is really not worth it. [SEP] the newest in a long line of failed interfaces that Apple--and only Apple--hitched their wagon to.
-The real reason was self preservation and profits for the military-industrial complex. War is good business, cold war is only good business if there is a possible enemy. But the real fear was ideology. If you are part of the American elite, the idea of the working class getting ideas from the Sovietunion would scare you shitless. magine if there had been a leader of the workers like MLK was for blacks? Mass riots and civil war could have happened over who is on power. So better stop the ideology at the borders... [SEP] If you are part of the American elite, the idea of the working class getting ideas from the Sovietunion would scare you shitless.
-Guys, listen up. This is important. When you're posting fights, *please* specify whether or not the character is jobbing/OOC. Otherwise, if we do a Flash vs Superman debate, people are gonna be all "Flash drops him in the speedforce dimension and vibrates his testicles 13 trillion times the speed of light before IMPing him into sub-atomic particles". Come on. It's just like saying Superman vs Hulk (example) and commenting "Superman speedblitzes Hulk and throws him into a black hole". It's ridiculous. If you want those kind of things being said, then specify in the OP that they're bloodlusted. Sentry loses a lot of his fights because he's holding back a lot. As does Iceman. That should carry over to here *unless* you're specifying otherwise. Oh, and one more thing (unrelated). Lifting strength =/= punching strength. Batman is stronger than an unarmored Master Chief in bench pressing, but keep in mind that when Master Chief is punching, he's aiming for the groin, throat, kidneys, and other potentially lethal locations. Batman doesn't do that kind of thing, so who punches harder? Another thing to consider is the fighting style they use and if they actually *know how to punch well*. Of course, the MC/Bats debate is just an example, and I'm not about to get into another one of those, but my point stands. [SEP] for the groin, throat, kidneys, and other potentially lethal locations. Batman doesn't do that kind of thing
-Yeah, he s really good at the game. But definitely competing against enemys who are way lower skill level wise. Not even hitting him or shooting back or in Eco or fully flashed. [SEP] Not even hitting him or shooting back
-> Unfortunately, the only examples of functional anarchy history has provided us are left-libertarian. Must I repeat; > Libertarian anywhere else refers to the anarchists of Europe in the early 1900's, ie. 'left libertarians'. Also; > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics > Leftist economic beliefs range from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy and the social market to nationalization of the economy and central planning American Libertarians are not anarchists and you've avoided the question. > there was also no profit motive = no capitalism. This isn't possible with functional human beings. Sex, relationships, proving a point, survival, etc -- there is always profit. Otherwise the study of human behaviour is void and many great INTP's are completely wrong. I suggest you take the actual MBTI. [SEP] American Libertarians are not anarchists and you've avoided the question.
-They might have started it, but the idea was after they used it in 2010 the Tea Party would go back into it's little box. The problem was they fell of the tiger and it ran around destroying everything in it's vicinity. Anyone currently under the "Tea Party" banner is definitely not taking orders from the Kotch bros any more. [SEP] Anyone currently under the "Tea Party" banner is definitely not taking orders from the Kotch bros any more.
-My few observations - 1. iPhone is not perfect in every aspect of a smartphone, but it is well rounded. It has excellent design, good camera(not best), good battery life(not best), good looks(not best) but it is consistently good in all areas. 2. The software experience doesn't change from version to version. Many elderly people are suckers for this, they don't like change and like to have the same experience with minor tweaks here and there. Don't believe me, just Google Windows 8.X and the number of people bitching about it .. just coz they didn't want to learn something new. 3. Apps don't crash as often as on Android (honest truth, I like Android apps but they do crash more than iOS). The software experience feels a bit more polished 4. Applecare and resale value. Heck, if you buy a Mac or iPhone you can sell it for a decent price after a year's use. Android phones have no chance there. Applecare is also expensive but many suckers out there who trust Apple with their money and Apple doesn't disappoint them. They provide good service. 5. Brand value and Hype. Apple can get non-technical people into the loop unlike Microsoft or Google.Word of mouth is/was strong. Esp. in the US. [SEP] The software experience doesn't change from version to version. Many elderly people are suckers for this, they don't like change and like to have the same experience with minor tweaks here and there. Don't believe me, just Google Windows 8.X and the number of people bitching about it .. just coz they didn't want to learn something new.
-I never understood the argument that high taxes on high income prevent those people from working. I think the focus changes from hoarding money to building your business. If you keep reinvesting the money then you avoid the high taxes but still build wealth. Right now, our economy is stagnant because too much money is being hoarded so increasing taxes on the people/corporations that are sitting on it makes sense. Those people have already benefited from a prolonged period of low taxes and we are not any better a country for it. [SEP] If you keep reinvesting the money then you avoid the high taxes but still build wealth.
-An addition to the 'tell us' line, an observation to make is that it is very rare for a guy to give a negative reaction to the attentions of a woman. At worst, it will be a 'not interested', and then at least you know. Often guys aren't as oblivious as many of us make out, they just know that, short of outright saying it, anything else that women might tend to consider as 'signals', can always be misread easily. One woman's just being friendly is another woman's signal of interest, and men usually have to deal with much stronger negative repercussions as the result of misreading these signals. Edit: Well scupper me sideways, all that karma and reddit gold! :) Merci beaucoup! [SEP] and men usually have to deal with much stronger negative repercussions as the result of misreading these signals.
-Spurs in 4. A red-hot Manu Ginobili, disappointing Chris Bosh, and defensively dominant Kawhi Leonard will all contribute to a San Antonio sweep, in four closely contested games that all go to overtime. [SEP] all go to overtime.
-Are you kidding me? We know what hydrogen can do chemically. It can't do anything sufficiently complex to give us biological life. Is this really controversial? I thought atheists were supposed to have multiple science Ph.D's? [SEP] We know what hydrogen can do chemically.
-Yes, she has tweeted that sadly. I do believe a man and a MTT help with FemFreq. She might also not want more harassment after getting death threats every single day from angry men because she makes critical videos about video games. Calling prostituted women in games exactly that instead of "sex workers" has given her a lot of shit too. I support her and her videos. This one shows exactly how fucking ugly male opinions on women are, when they can create their own fantasy world without even hiring real actors. Making the psychologist's breasts bounce when she spoke about the main character's trauma was just... [SEP] Calling prostituted women in games exactly that instead of "sex workers" has given her a lot of shit too.
-Shhhhhh don't expose the hypocrisy that fills this subreddit. [SEP] don't expose the hypocrisy
-It's so silly that we can't map keys to other things, WoW, SC2, each let you revamp your keys. Hell I bet you can in heroes too. But, we won't get it, and I bet it's because of consoles. [SEP] and I bet it's because of consoles.
-In general without going into much detail: his advocacy for privatizing traditional state programs such as prisons and education, annulling the CBA rights of public employees, decreasing taxes on the wealthy, implementing incredibly strict and austere welfare reform, pushing for harsher sentencing laws, and -in the grand scheme- his most basic underlying assumptions about government. [SEP] pushing for harsher sentencing laws
-Dont lie. You're just mad that they read your bible and the truth hurts that its all trash. [SEP] You're just mad that they read your bible and the truth hurts that its all trash.
-I do not like the patriots. In fact, I would go as far as to say I hate that team. That being said, I felt this whole ordeal was so dumb. I'm not really sure how they claim to regulate something that changes with temperature and that they don't even thoroughly document in the first place. [SEP] I'm not really sure how they claim to regulate something that changes with temperature and that they don't even thoroughly document in the first place.
-Basically, it's saying we should stop acting like the sight of boob is such a huge thing, or that posting yours online is 'immoral'. Yeah, some of us find them sexy. That doesn't mean we get to harass or slutshame women who show them, nor does that make it 'immoral' to 'show too much boob'. They're just boobs. We, as a society, have GOT to stop thinking with our genitals all the time. We are fully capable of seeing a pair of breasts without slutshaming, making moral judgements, or leering. Boobs can be nice and pretty and soft and life giving to infants - but they're just boobs. No big deal. [SEP] That doesn't mean we get to harass or slutshame women who show them, nor does that make it 'immoral' to 'show too much boob'. They're just boobs.
-Dota 2 is bringing new meaning to "Valve time". The rate of progress just to get the full DotA roster ported, let alone introduce anything genuinely new, is kindof ridiculous. [SEP] let alone introduce anything genuinely new
-How long until they start selling "distressed" gis with torn lapels and faded pits? [SEP] How long until they start selling "distressed" gis with torn lapels and faded pits?
-As much as I don't like Peter Thiel, leading this story with his sexuality as though that somehow explains or compounds his actions is just plain wrong. Some republicans / Trump supporters are gay .. as contradictory as that sounds. [SEP] Some republicans / Trump supporters are gay
-Rally advice Hi, Congrats on heading to a TRUMP RALLY! It will be one of the greatest days of your life (the best day). BUT your experience depends on what YOU want to put into it. I was FIRST at the Costa Mesa (Day before he beat Lyin' Ted), Anahiem (day before he hit 1237) and San Diego (day after he hit 1237) The best part of the rally isn't Trump speaking, it's actually spending the day with Trump Supporters! That's the biggest reason to get there early. Bc the rest of the first people around you will also be super centipedes! Trump is Bonus! Here are my signed treasures and a goofy video I made of my 1st Trump Rally. The second rally I got 2 hats signed and the God-Emperor himself graced me with a shake and told me, "You're doing a damn fine job!" and the 3rd I got my 1934a $500 bill signed! Truly incredible! That is why I want to share this info with you! https://sli.mg/MF9BxM http://youtu.be/lfmqGFS-U7s Anyway, I may already be way too high energy for your plans, but if not... Read on! General advice is get there right before sunrise, however, since your rally is at 8pm. I think you can arrive at 8-9am to be in very front. If you arrive at 10am, you can probably make your way to the front eventually, with some effort and hustle ( bc there are multiple "checkpoints" you go through, as I explain later.) Don't listen to the guy that said one or two hours. Check out the line in my video. In my second and third rally's, almost everyone in the front were people who missed the first rally bc they showed up late. Some even 5 hrs early and missed it. Again, check that fucking line out! THAT is when the stadium was already full. As far as standing in line, everyone will be so friendly, and you will form a bond, you will be able to leave the line at anytime and come back. Going to the bathroom is no problem, they'll save your spot (bc you'll be saving theirs!). As far as bags, two rallies let me have my backpack, the third didn't, so be careful if you do bring it. I definitely brought snacks and water and even ordered a few pizzas for my new friends. Like I said, no big deal if you get up to grab them. Go to the bathroom before you enter the final hall, bc you will not want to move from your spot. You will likely stand outside and then go to another waiting area inside and then wait there til 6:30 or 7 and then you will go through metal detectors to enter the TRUMP RALLY AREA. RUN! RUN! Run to the best spot! Out run the grannies you made friends with all day long, run for yourself and your experience! Now your focus is on enjoying the rally and getting that special signature! Trump always walks around the half circle in front of the stage and signs gear. He will have his own sharpie so don't bring one. Also, BRING SOMETHING MAGA to get signed. If you bring a hat or a trump book or something "special" like that, he WILL sign it. The secret service is often annoyed at how slow he goes signing things. He even reaches back to sign things as the Secret service is pushing him along. Have fun! [SEP] https://sli.mg/MF9BxM
-depending on what you mean over 50% of the post on this sub reddit could be considered bro science. But let's use common sense and logic to figure this out. If you are hungry and you wait longer technically you would be more hungry right? Than why is it when you go to bed hungry, you wake up not feeling as hungry at all. This is because your body was never hungry in the first place. [SEP] Than why is it when you go to bed hungry, you wake up not feeling as hungry at all. This is because your body was never hungry in the first place.
-It will certainly change attitude. If your principal had a problem with your teaching in the past you could ignore them. Now you've got to listen. [SEP] If your principal had a problem with your teaching in the past you could ignore them.
-Okay. There are several factors that affect a football player: resistance, musculature, and intelligence, for example. For LoL players, there is only one factor: intelligence (which affects reaction time and game analysis). Thus, if a football player is not very intelligent, it can compensate it with its physique; if, in the other hand, a LoL player is not smart, he simply goes nowhere. [SEP] For LoL players, there is only one factor: intelligence
-It's called New Amsterdam Fencing Academy and it's primary appeal is that it is close. It's the only way I get things in. I dont think there is a Houstonian alive that would believe you did that commute by Metro. Wow. I could be in a helicopter and every time I go see my godsons out there (off Spring Cypress) it feels like I'm going to Oklahoma. Beautiful campus though. Did you enjoy the school? [SEP] It's the only way I get things in.
->White people get shot by the police, so the idea that only black people get short is demonstrable incorrect. The assertion that white people don't get shot for misbehaving is demonstrable incorrect. Who is making this claim? >The biggest problem however is that you're only looking at the raw statistics of the outcome, not at the behavior. Saying black people are killed by the police at a rate three times higher means absolutely nothing without taking into account the behavior of the groups in question. Where is your evidence that looks at behavior? >Hooligans are much more likely to be than nuns; that doesn't mean that there is discrimination against hooligans, it means that certain behavior leads to police action. Ahh yes. The blacks that get shot are hooligans. I'm done here. [SEP] Ahh yes. The blacks that get shot are hooligans. I'm done here.
-but with Jenny they bigged her up so much at the end of the episode with her saying shes going to have a lot of exciting adventures and what would be the point of bringing her back to life and saying all that just for her to never come back [SEP] they bigged her up so much at the end of the episode with her saying shes going to have a lot of exciting adventures
-I guess that's our difference, I don't beleive hipster is a definable fashion outside of 'kids dressing how they want.' However, fashion isn't something I'm very aware of. I was referring more to music, and how being a 'movie buff' is acceptable but you rarely hear someone say "he's really into music, dude knows his stuff" because there is some kind of attached superiority stigma. [SEP] I don't beleive hipster is a definable fashion outside of 'kids dressing how they want.' However, fashion isn't something I'm very aware of.
-You seem to be under the impression that if you're overweight that you're automatically unhealthy and slovenly. I know people who are chubby or even fat who put a lot of work into the way they look. They're very clean, well-groomed, buy nice clothes, many of the women take great care with their makeup and hair. Some of them even work out regularly and eat healthy foods, and most are in fairly good health. It's not great to be overweight, especially long-term, but it does not automatically mean you are unhealthy. >To some this does not sound as bad but really if you think about we are literally programmed by nature to do one thing and one thing only. Fuck. Once you ve reached that point you are no longer a human. What absolute, pseudo-evo psych nonsense. Sex is important to most romantic relationships and is an important aspect of human experience. If it were the *sole* focus of most relationships and the ultimate goal of all humans, there would be no happy couples that don't get busy that often, and if reproducing were the defining feature of humanity, there would be no couples who don't have children and don't want any. Humans are animals, but they are also capable of being more, and often choose to be more in many ways. [SEP] You seem to be under the impression that if you're overweight that you're automatically unhealthy
->How do you even know which people were "terrorized"? Really? It's pretty obvious. If a particular group was targeted, that's how you know who was terrorized. If no particular group was targeted (or it's not obvious), it's not a hate crime. [SEP] If a particular group was targeted, that's how you know who was terrorized.
-Not adding a slider coupled to an integer range doesn't save _that_ much money or time, not even enough to be worth mentioning. It is more the sick notion that changing FOV is regarded as a cheat by devs of stupid games like CoD. From there this unfounded opinion spread like a disease. [SEP] It is more the sick notion that changing FOV is regarded as a cheat by devs of stupid games like CoD.
-> fight like the men/women their characters are supposed to be What if someone's cosplaying Maldron? Or Jester Thomas? Or Navlaan? Or, you know, some other super-scummy/-badass character? [SEP] What if someone's cosplaying Maldron?
-Ex-Muslim living in Europe. I grew up with a semi-religious father who was raised by a very religious man. His beliefs would take the better of him and he would be considered abusive by today's standards. My mother was religious, but never forced her religion on anyone else. She's a bit modern, so she doesn't cover her hair, but she does wear long sleeve and long shirts when she's out. Overall, she prays and everything, just doesn't cover her head. I always had a problem with my religion. It wasn't so much the bad parts that I had an issue with, but the compatibility with Western culture. I grew up for a few years in Bristol, and lived my life between Dubai and Syria, and as such, I don't really have a true identity. I identify with parts Syrians and parts Western. It's a mess in my head, because half of my thoughts are in Arabic while half are in English. Here's my problem: I love the idea of democracy. I love the notion of being able to express myself in anyway I want. I love the fact that I can talk about a leader and not be punished. I love that I can question a religion, and not be killed. These were the issues I had with Islam. When I was taught Islam in school, I was taught a happy, fluffy version. A version that seems to not do any wrong. Homosexuality is not God's will. Sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems. Women who don't cover up are to blame for being raped. And yet when I thought about all these things, they didn't bother me. Yes, some guy is gay. If I find it icky, isn't that on me? Why is it on him? If this person isn't bothering me, why is he to blame? If a couple have sex outside of marriage, how will it change if there is a legal contract saying they are married? Why does a woman who have to carry the blame for a person who attacks her? To me this was synonymous with bullying, something that I went through as a child, and it really struck a chord with me. Why do I, owning a penis, get a pass because a woman doesn't cover up her hair? It seemed like bullshit to me. So time moved on, and I grew older and wiser, and I got to a point where I stopped hanging out with anyone that would even use religious language. In 2011 I took my first trip to Europe as an adult. It was a shock. Not because of the lifestyle of Europeans, but of the lifestyle of Arabs and Muslims. I've seen more religious extremism in Europe than I have in a lifetime in the Arab world. It was a shock to me. To this day, I don't understand it. Religion in Syria is a very personal and private affair. We don't judge you based on what God you worship. My home town is considered to be very religious, and even there, Christians lived side by side with Muslims. Every Christmas, there would be decorations and celebrations and carols and church affairs, and every Ramadan the whole city would observe fasting from sunrise to sunset. My grandmother had a Christian neighbour that would celebrate Ramadan. My grandmother would always put up a Christmas tree because she loved the spirit of Christmas. I was 14 when I found out her neighbour was Christian, and it was only when one of their family members passed away and we went to the wake. My grandmother, mother, and aunts never mentioned it. When I asked, they said because it's not important. It wasn't worth mentioning, because they didn't care what their religion was. What does this have to do with Europe? Europe's problem stems from countries like Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, and the rest of Asia. The further east you go, the more extreme your Islam is. It's the same the further West you go. Though Saudi Arabia isn't a beacon of tolerance, for some reason the countries surrounding it in the Levant seem to be. Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon never cared about what sect you followed from a religious point of view. For some reason, when Muslims come to Europe, they fail to integrate, and become more extreme with their beliefs. Why, I don't know. I think part of it is lack of identity. Europe COULD be partially to blame, for seeing these immigrants as second-rate workers, and not seeing them as equals, so their kids grasp on to their identity. It COULD also be that their parents are just cunts and raise them to be hateful and entitled. Except for every extreme story you hear, you'll find one that is very tolerant and able to integrate and live in peace. There is a new breed of Muslim that is growing, the breed of the Modern Muslim. These are kids who are in their mid-20's and younger, who have been exposed to Western ideas and ideals, who have grown up in a time where you CAN be gay, but it is still dangerous, where you CAN date a girl, but you parents can't find out, where you CAN marry outside your religion, but it is still risky. And they all say the same thing: while they do believe in the religion, they think it is time for a reform. They think it is time to not be so extreme in our reactions. A lot of people would tell you in a private conversation that they have no issue with a homosexual, but get them together, and they will shout angry rhetoric about how they need to be stoned. This is the problem with being a Muslim: you are ashamed of your thoughts because you don't want to be marginalised within your society/community. I know it because I went through it. You're afraid of the isolation so you go with the crowd, even though inside you know you don't agree with it. This modern Muslim is growing in the majority of the Arab world. Globalisation has brought a lot of new thought into the dialogue. A lot of these Modern Muslims don't discount the Qu'uran or the hadith, but rather believe since it is an eternal message, that God predicted the changes in humanity, and as such, the language used can be interpreted to work with the times. We don't live in 1253, where it would be acceptable to stone someone for having a different belief (no matter what Saudi tries to tell you, it is unacceptable). We live in 2015, where we are accepting our differences and commonalities, where we can accept that people can have different views on subjects and still be civil with each other. As such, they read the Qu'uran and think that the verses that call on for killing people are no longer relevant, and such acts should be left to God, as he is the final judge of all. If a person is homosexual, judge him on his actions to others, not on who he bangs. If God is really angry with him being homosexual, then God will sort him out. While these seem to be contradictory to a lot of what is known about Islam and Muslims, there are a lot of parts that say God is the last judge, that we are just here temporarily, that we do not know his final plan, that we can only follow his will. So these Modern Muslims leave it all to God. Are you a tranny that can't figure out how to dress? I'll treat you based on how you treat others, and let God sort out the rest. Are you a girl who wants to marry a Christian? I'll treat you based on how you treat others and let God sort out the rest. So on and so forth. I went to college with religious folk who had gay friends. Their reasoning was, I am not God, and I cannot judge this person just because he likes to sleep with a person of the same sex. I will treat him based on how he treats me and others. That is what dictates he is a good/bad person. The rest is up to God. The problem with a lot of Muslims is, they seem to forget this. They seem to forget that while God made rules to govern humanity, he is the final judge. That while we are told to execute murderers and what not, this person will ultimately be judged by God, and we are in no position to judge them. Europe's problem is that they are missing out on this modern Muslim. Why, I cannot tell. Part of me believes that because Europe has had a bad experience with Moroccans/Turks, they leave them alone and brush them with the same brush. Suddenly all Syrians are like Moroccans, even though we do not get along with them at all. I stayed in a room with 5 other Muslims that would pray and fast and what not, but they would get stoned on weekends and drink every now and then. To a lot of them, it is just cultural, the same way Christianity and Judaism can be cultural. It's a modern era for this religion, and a lot of people are abiding by the norms, not the religion. I don't know how to solve this problem, sadly. I look at the US, and I notice Muslims are way better integrated there than in Europe. Maybe it's because the US is a younger country, and as such, it is composed of many ethnicities, while Europe tries to hold on to it's own because it's been inhabited for thousands of years. Maybe it's because Americans are more tolerant, but I doubt that. Maybe it's because Europeans aren't as social as Americans, so these immigrants don't integrate as well. I don't know. All I do know is that Islam needs a kick in the ass and needs to be modernised if it is to live peacefully with the modern world. All this isn't enough for me to follow the faith. I believe in Science and not a magical being living in the sky. Tl;dr Islam can be bad. Not all Muslims are bad. [SEP] Europe's problem is that they are missing out on this modern Muslim.
-Davis's job as the County Clerk is not to grant personal permission for marriages to take place. Her job is not to determine whether a marriage meets her own personal religious doctrines. **Davis's job as the Rowan County Clerk** is to ascertain whether the applicants for a Kentucky marriage license have met all of the minimum statutory requirements and have provided all of the necessary documents in order to obtain a legal marriage license. Once those prerequisites have been met, Davis's job as the Rowan County Clerk is to then certify that those requirements have been fulfilled by issuing a marriage license, which provides a legal record for the applicant couple verifying that they have met those legal requirements. And if her personal religious views prevent her from fulfilling the requirements of that job **as she had taken an oath to do**, then Davis should immediately step down and find another line of work that does not create such a obligational conflict for her. Maybe Mike Huckabee could hire her to fill a $80K per year clerical position in his religious organization? If Davis refuses to comply with the conditions of the release agreement, then she needs to be remanded to a jail cell asap and the Clerk's office should be placed under court ordered federal receivership. [SEP] the Clerk's office should be placed under court ordered federal receivership.
->How do you not interpret that as, "Okay, guys, you don't have to wash your hands." You're missing out a crucial bit. instead, it's pretty clearly: "Okay, guys, you don't have to wash your hands to keep your soul clean." You missing the end off made it sound like the advice is wider reaching than it was. Jesus was talking about the relation between washing hands and cleanliness of your soul. Attaching any other meaning to it is a misinterpretation. >At the very least, an omniscient deity who has a complete knowledge of germs and bacteria, should have added the qualifier: "It's not a sin to eat with unwashed hands, but it's probably still a good idea to wash them anyway." Why? There's no problem with how it is. It fails to specifically guard against a wacky misinterpretation that you have no evidence of anyone falling for other than yourself - but all the evidence that it's wacky is there. All he really doesn't say is "and by the way, if you haven't got the message by now, I'm not talking about sickness and disease when I'm talking about the relationship between sin and handwashing - in case you forgot there are other things that handwashing does help with, like having clean hands. Just in case 2000 years later someone gets the wrong end of that particular stick - I was saying washing doesn't cleanse sin, but just in case you get confused please don't forget washing also cleans other things quite nicely." [SEP] instead, it's pretty clearly: "Okay, guys, you don't have to wash your hands to keep your soul clean."
-In terms of teamfighting, I find that often the only person I can safely attack is their tank. The problem there becomes they have so much armor and health that it takes forever to kill them. Do you just have to have patience here and assume most teamfights you mostly be attacking their tank (or bruiser ) who charges your backline and the other teammates won't be targets until much later in the fight? I have a hard time in teamfights deciding when to be somewhat aggressive and try to deal consistent damage to the enemy team versus playing it safe, ensuring I survive, but possibly doing extremely little damage. Depending on the team comp, it *almost* seems I would win more if stay way, way back and don't even attack a single enemy until all enemies have used their ults already and only then come engage for my first attack. I'm assuming this is just the kind of thing that comes with experience, and is highly dependent on team comp: do they have assassins, do you have great peel, shields or heals etc. [SEP] Do you just have to have patience here and assume most teamfights you mostly be attacking their tank (or bruiser ) who charges your backline and the other teammates won't be targets until much later in the fight?
-That is a great paper, but let's put it into context. The conclusion is that theoretically, it is more difficult to enforce collusion in a prisoner's dilemma scenario than a network industry scenario. This paper is hardly a hand wave against nay sayers, it is interesting but you cannot simply link this and say the discussion is over. I only did undergrad econ so I am not on the same level of discourse as Caplan. That being said, I think I have a critique. I have heard arguments for an ancap FDA before for example, the idea being that a third party entity is in business purely to verify the safety of food and drugs. Their business model is based on reputation, so this third party entity has no incentive to cheat, collude, accept bribes in the short run. If we look at the assumptions of the basic prisoner's dilemma, it requires both parties in the classic scenario to have no knowledge of what the other one is saying to police in the interrogation room. Basically, for a classic prisoner's dilemma to exist there needs to be information asymmetry and the expectation that your competitor will cheat in the future. Thus, you cheat first because if cheating is inevitable, you mine as well be the one to do it. But what if there was a third party firm whose business model was solely centered around surveillance of the cartel member firms? Their business would rely upon reputation, so this third party entity would have no incentive to help any single party in the cartel cheat. This would eliminate the information asymmetry in the classic prisoner's dilemma scenario, and make price collusion more similar to a network industry scenario, where it actually hurts individual dissenters who do not cooperate. Expectations for future cheating by other cartel member firms would be lessened or non-existent, there is no longer any incentive to cheat because the member firms all know each others quantity produced and pricing from a trusted independent third party source. And I have to mention that all of this is dependent upon the reliability and accuracy of neoclassical econ models and assumptions, which I actually don't believe, but I am accepting all this for the sake of argument. [SEP] you cannot simply link this and say the discussion is over.
->The basic philosophy of feminism is that women and men should be equal. Saying that belief in the patriarchy is an integral part of being a feminist and that people are rightly kept out of discussions because they don't subscribe to it is very clearly what I'm talking about. The problem here is that feminism isn't just a debate group. Feminist theory/women's studies/gender studies is an *academic discipline*, under the subheading of sociology, with some fifty years of study and analysis and, yes, even experimentation, justifying the basic analytical underpinnings of the feminist movement. Saying that you're a feminist but you don't believe in patriarchy as a concept is like saying you're a physicist but quantum entanglement is just too weird for you to accept. That's why, like TCZapper points out, a lot of feminist spaces refuse to deal with 'feminist 101' questions: because feminism's not *just* 'women and men should be equal' - hell, the *Vatican* believes that - but also a set of theories about *why* women and men are unequal, and if you don't understand or accept that theoretical background, you're probably not a feminist. And just in brief: >And, oh the good old cartoon clearly labeling the vandals that ruin all discussion as MRAs. Wouldn't a sub so heavily infected by these assholes downvote the post calling them out to oblivion? Not upvote it to the all time top spot? The lurkers are mostly feminists, the comment section is full of MRAs. This dichotomy between readers and commenters shows up all over Reddit - for example, r/science, where like half the front page posts have top comments explaining why the post is bullshit. [SEP] Saying that you're a feminist but you don't believe in patriarchy as a concept is like saying you're a physicist but quantum entanglement is just too weird for you to accept.
-Oh yes! Makes guys look so much more smarter somehow. Its like a magic wand, a good fit check shirt in nice dark colors and the guy looks smart! [SEP] check shirt in nice dark colors
-It's like what a commentor said a day or so ago, remember to take a break from KiA every so often. Some people really need to take that advice and let themselves calm down a bit so they can think and act a bit more clearly. [SEP] take a break from KiA every so often
-Yes and no. I mean graphics on the software side are definitely advancing, but I don't think they are advancing faster than the hardware is, we've over the past decade we've seen the standard gaming resolution push from something crazy like 1024x768/1280x1024 to 1080p/1440p, meanwhile GPUs are getting exponentially faster. Not to mention as we make the push to higher and higher resolutions it's making extra processing like Anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering completely unnecessary. We are going to be getting to a point where unless you have a highly trained eye you literally can't discern the difference and what is going to matter most is the texture quality. I'd say the 900 GTX will give 4k a solid run for the money, and the 1000 GTX (or however they change the name) will be very 60fps+ on 4k. [SEP] over the past decade we've seen the standard gaming resolution push from something crazy like 1024x768/1280x1024 to 1080p/1440p
-You all are dilusional. If you actually had a serious conversation with most dudes in the navy they could go on and on about the troubles working with females brings. You are straight fucking lying if you want a 130 lb female to come rescue you in a fire versus an average built male. [SEP] You are straight fucking lying if you want a 130 lb female to come rescue you in a fire versus an average built male.
-How am I supposed to know to look in /r/politics, eh? Still, while I'm sure she has a thing against Israel and Jews, her comment does bring up an interesting point. Why ARE we allowed to call the President whatever the fuck we want but it's political suicide to criticize Israel. Either, we should be more careful with what we say regarding our President or pro-Israel advocates need to lighten up a bit. The top vote only got 272 net votes, the way you posted it was misleading. You can upvote something in the hopes that more people read it, but that doesn't mean you agree with it. Need I quote reddiquette? Also, I feel that while her past comment did not cross the line into anti-semetism (making it ok to support) these new accusations have. She's getting more and more extreme making her less and less a moderate liberal. There are far more moderate liberals than extreme ones. [SEP] Why ARE we allowed to call the President whatever the fuck we want but it's political suicide to criticize Israel.
-One way you can incrementally back up data to a second disk is... RAID 1 :) There are only 2 types of hard drive - those which have failed, and those which are going to fail. "Burning out" of disks is irrelevant; it's the data that matters. RAID 1 means that the probability you will lose data is reduced to the probability that both drives will fail at the same time (presumably very low). The software RAID implementation in the Linux kernel is excellent, as good as (if not better than) all but the most expensive hardware RAID controllers. You won't get much of a performance increase with a 2-disk RAID 1 solution, however. [SEP] "Burning out" of disks is irrelevant; it's the data that matters.
-Thanks! It's not really an argument for an improved shooting range, explicitly. I think you're taking that from my devils advocate about bot matches and the shooting range. It's just one of the counter arguments I figured would be easy to bring up, and I tackled that is all. [SEP] I think you're taking that from my devils advocate about bot matches and the shooting range.
->Labeling him an "illegal immigrant" just removes us from seeing the very real human tragedy that lead to his death They are illegal immigrants. The term offending you does not change this fact. If they were genuine asylum seekers then they would have sought asylum in the first safe nation. Going beyond those nations is just a blatant grab at welfare and better economic stability. [SEP] Going beyond those nations is just a blatant grab at welfare and better economic stability.
-I am so glad that you had such a positive experience! It sounds comfortable and arousing all in one go, which a lot of people are afraid of at sex clubs, especially. There is a great comic by Erika Moen on her experiences at Ron Jeremy's Sex Club in Portland it has since been shut down. My partner and myself happened to go there a few times before the fire code issues cropped up. We had hopes on it re-opening, but are now looking for other locations. Just being able to be in a friendly sex positive environment, that also happened to have a liquor license and a buffet was fun! I am glad there really are still places that cater to the more kinky and accepting heathens ;P . [SEP] comic by Erika Moen
-... I'm not really sure how to respond to that. Your logic makes no sense. This isn't halo. This isn't the halo universe. They're making something new and not halo. [SEP] Your logic makes no sense.
-Yeah, but it becomes pretty hypocritical when you claim to be libertarian but only want freedom for straight, white males. Liberty has to be for everyone. [SEP] but only want freedom for straight, white males.
-Ah, History 12. In response to learning Japan had invaded China, "Why would Japan invade China? Aren't they in Asia?" Also, "Hitler isn't dead" And upon hearing that Japan is the only country to ever be attacked with nuclear weapons, this student then cited 9/11 and the millions that died during that horrendous nuclear attack. Every day was agony. [SEP] Also, "Hitler isn't dead"
-Travel Reward Cards generally suck. I've never been impressed with them and have gone back and forth several times with "Pro Travel Rewards Cards" people and they have never once shown me how they are better than just normal cards unless you are churning. If you plan to churn, then visit /r/churning. If you don't want to churn, then I would recommend getting a good rewards card like SallieMae BarclayCard or the Citi DoubleCash card and then just using your cash back from those to pay for your travel. All the travel rewards card is doing is forcing you to use your points towards travel, but you're going to be getting less than if you just used a normal cashback rewards card and funneled that money to travel. If you want to travel, then budget for it, don't use a less than efficient travel card to force you into it. [SEP] If you want to travel, then budget for it, don't use a less than efficient travel card to force you into it.
->Yea, I'm in an extremely lucrative profession Bahahahahaha, you think anyone actually believes your cowardly bullshit? You're a sad autist and eternal virgin, go put another 1000 hours into this terrible game kiddo. Just face it, you're a scrub baby with bad stats and you're upset about it having to acknowledge that fact. Go cry somewhere else about it. >It doesn't need any more scrubs like yourself crying because vehicles are too hard. Haha and yet my vehicle stats are better then yours (well, all of them are), don't be angry that you've put so much time into this series and yet are still really bad at it. I love shitting on scrub coward pubstars like you, deal with it kiddo. [SEP] I love shitting on scrub coward pubstars
-And how do you explain the inconsistencies such as certain narratives being repeated twice? [SEP] certain narratives being repeated twice
-I read somewhere that it only works up to 30 blocks, but don't quote me on that [SEP] I read somewhere that it only works up to 30 blocks, but don't quote me on that
-Wait we believe that economies work and can be studied in concrete fashion, but personal choices can't? She puts forth that casual sex isn't good for women, that's not a mystical belief it is a logical assertion. The question is whether or not that is true, not if it is insulting. [SEP] Wait we believe that economies work and can be studied in concrete fashion
-Peasant Comments: * lol that will shut the noise from PC gamers. * lol master race * There are plenty of mods on ps and Xbox you just have to look for them * Thats because pc gamers may have better tech but are NOT better or bigger than console gamers. And we won't talk about how many pc gamers pirate all their games. [SEP] There are plenty of mods on ps and Xbox you just have to look for them
-If you search on google, the google definition at the top is a compiler. The 'injure or kill' portion is from the oxford english dictionary. The only other place it shows up is in the 'translations' box of thefreedictionary.com, but not in the definition portion. I don't know what that means. I'm curious where else you're finding it outside of oxford - but it's a moot point - because I acknowledge that words change over time in my post, and I was simply musing over how I feel this is a change for the worse. [SEP] I'm curious where else you're finding it outside of oxford
-Thank you for the very thorough answer. An example of how much space I actually use would probably be this past summer's week long trip to Mexico. A lot of outdoor activities were done so a lot of footage was recorded, but that was primarily recorded in 1080p because my old computer rig at the time wasn't powerful enough for 4K. However despite shooting 95% 1080p I shot about 100GB of footage to comb through. My main SSD will have Win7 for now, and eventually Win10 once the kinks are worked out. It'll have plenty of apps installed with the usuals like MS Office but especially the entire Adobe suite. It will have a few games installed on there as well but most of the games will be installed on the slower but much larger "Data" HDD. Even so even just a couple latest-gen games can add up at at least 50GB each. For the OS + apps/couple games reason alone I wanted at least 256GB for the OS drive if it doesn't also include projects on it, and 500GB or bigger if it does. I would only be working on 1 project at a time on this theoretical project-only SSD. Again this past trip the source footage was around 100GB but that was at 1080p, but on the other hand that is probably an extreme example of the upper end of how much source footage I end up with for a project. I will absolutely be backing up SSDs and HDDs regularly and to the cloud. For what it's worth the rig I am building right now has a i7-5820k; MSI X99S Sli Krait mobo, 32GB RAM, GTX 980 video card. Thanks. [SEP] An example of how much space I actually use would probably be this past summer's week long trip to Mexico.
-VPN? So you buy VPN service and assume they won't turn you in when they get slapped with a court order? Don't people realize that VPN hides your IP from the final destination but doesn't hide what you are doing from the VPN provider? And who is to say the MPAA, etc, isn't running the VPN service to nab you? [SEP] So you buy VPN service and assume they won't turn you in when they get slapped with a court order?
-I think that's a bit of a stretch to presume that much about his meaning behind it, but even still, not rape. As unfortunate as it might be, we live in a time where "Can I fuck you" actually gets a positive response more often than we might like to admit. Hell, you almost have to admire not bothering to coat it in lies. So that's the tactic he went with. Saying "Oh but I'm the bad guy", says nothing to the effect of "Well, say no all you want, I'm gonna come get it..." THAT would be rape. This is not. [SEP] Hell, you almost have to admire not bothering to coat it in lies.
-Yeah been here since day one and never seen that for locks so dunno what you mean by missed that. It doesn't even fit the warlock vibe, just like the above user mentioned, bro is a Titan thing. [SEP] Yeah been here since day one and never seen that
-No, they would. I'm Engineer #1 at a rather large finance company and if *anyone* came in and started mouthing off consistently about a system they barely understand, then they'd be on probation before they knew it. Also, never listen to anything some contractor has to say. [SEP] Also, never listen to anything some contractor has to say.
-At the point where you're worse than Sarah Palin, don't you have to quit the race? [SEP] At the point where you're worse than Sarah Palin, don't you have to quit the race?
-> have it approved This costs millions of dollars. If you wanted to be benevolent, you could finance this by fleecing the insurance companies, raising the list price on existing drugs they'd be paying for. [SEP] This costs millions of dollars
-I don't own any crazy expensive ammo, so I've never had an issue letting someone use my stuff. If you are generous, you might have it paid back to you. One guy at my range brought in his pre-ban giggle-switch AR he had modified back in the day. It was awesome. [SEP] pre-ban giggle-switch
->It's entirely possible for an action to happen during a play that is dirtier than one happening after. Sure, but Meriweather hitting someone high doesn't trump Suh kicking someone in the dick completely on purpose. Suh's dirty plays are so dirty that there is no defending them. Meriweathers dirty plays are hard hitting football plays, Suh's are just straight up cheap shots. I really don't see how it's not black and white. Suh is so much dirtier. [SEP] I really don't see how it's not black and white.
-Why the fuck is pure blond advertising that it has less calories than wine? Might as well advertise that it has less calories than coke for how relevant it is. [SEP] Why the fuck is pure blond advertising that it has less calories than wine? Might as well advertise that it has less calories than coke for how relevant it is.
-I don't love this article. Not a word about the **zero** unemployment in the non-union skilled trades, nothing about small business, and the lion's share of credit going to Albany for incentive programs such as Solar City. Sincere question: Does anybody know anybody who has benefited in any way from Solar City (besides Ciminelli)? [SEP] Does anybody know anybody who has benefited in any way from Solar City (besides Ciminelli)?
-Honestly Joe interrupts people all the time, which can get really annoying for guests. But more importantly, Faber and Ludwig are in the middle of a massive dispute, so suddenly we can cherry pick out of context behaviour and make assumptions based on that? "Wow, Bang spoke quickly once, he is probably on drugs, no he has a drug addiction, no his dispute with TAM was because he got greedy for money to fuel his racism and drug habit". Jesus fucking christ, I don't know enough about Ludwig or Faber to know who the fuck is right, but maybe, MAYBE we can take shit people say with a grain of salt instead of immediately bringing out the pitch forks against someone who 24 hours before we didn't all consider to be a racist sexist peanut butter hustling piece of shit. [SEP] Honestly Joe interrupts people all the time, which can get really annoying for guests.
-'another guy walks passed me and says "hey gorgeous, have a beautiful day" (in a tone... you know the one) and I shouted "no!" and he said "I said have a great day" and I just shouted no again and kept walking.' I don't think this was sexual enough for such a reaction and I don't think it's reasonable, but I don't care about the "NO!" that much, I would just be irritated as a man. I don't understand how some women complain (in my country) that men don't spontaneously talk to women anymore (aka where have the real men gone), and at the same time there are women shouting at any man that tries to talk to them. You should know that for some men it needs a lot of courage to talk to a random girl you don't know, and being shouted at in this situation is definitely devastating to them, crushing their (already small) self-confidence. But the comment clearly puts men on one level with dogs, and even if it is a joke, it's damn stupid. She sees men as Untermensch, as a Nazi would say it. But I agree that I should see other feminist subreddits, just to have a better view on it. I didn't know /r/feminism had that few active users, since there are so many post there. [SEP] You should know that for some men it needs a lot of courage to talk to a random girl you don't know, and being shouted at in this situation is definitely devastating to them, crushing their (already small) self-confidence.
-Women who take themselves too seriously. If she does not have the self esteem to take light ribbing/joking she will likely not have the self esteem for a normal relationship. All the women I know like this get very clingy/desperate or controlling. But even things like yes its nice to look nice, but no one is going to care if you don't wear make up to xyz. Similarly any woman who takes YOU/the relationship too seriously. If it feels too serious, then it probably is. These types of women tend to be husband focused in my experience. Or just like flat out nuts. Being an adult and having a massive passion for Disney. Or anything kinda childish. Anyone who's a bad drunk. This is just an extension of them. And if she can't consistently hold her liquor. If she's boring and incurious. I feel like that doesn't need to be said. If she cares about brands or status symbols an ODDLY large amount. If she doesn't work but needs more cash or relies on someone else for money when she could work. When she uses you as a coping mechanism. Is it nice to have the support of a partner? Absolutely. Is that the same thing as putting your partner in a difficult scenario (missing friends/hobbies/work) consistently to get "support" for trivial shit. Being an adult means taking care of your emotions and not letting them trash other people's lives. If she talks shit about all her close friends. If she has no hobbies or passions. If she doesn't blink enough. [SEP] If she doesn't blink enough.
-Sometimes, the game developers' attachment to the game can blind them, maybe even too much. Elemental: War of Magic was a very key example of this, the game, during beta, was plagued with issues and base design decisions that almost unanimously were being spoken of in the forums as broken or boring. The devs never heard. The side of the crowd of 'it's BETA!' was, as always, there, and as always, 1.0 didnt do anything to fix it. War of Magic failed disastrously. Reviews across the board saying it sucked and felt unfinished, both critics and players disliked it. Eventually the CEO of the company, and one of the developers of the game, came out and explained this, they were so invested in it, that they were blind, and dismissed everything the players said. They changed a lot for the next Elemental games, even gave the next 2 for free to those that had pre ordered WoM, so I dont hold them a grudge, if anything I felt shocked for the 'repayment' pack. And yet, three Elementals down the line, try as I might, I just cant get to like it. Perhaps CO has started to see Skylines a bit like this, and I wouldnt be surprised. As Skylines came out, it was an unending train of pure praise and all, it's hard to be self-critical in the face of that. [SEP] Sometimes, the game developers' attachment to the game can blind them, maybe even too much.
-What do you guys think their plan is for Hayne? He seems to have a very minor role as RB, and a very minor role in special teams. If anyone is going to show quick improvement from getting game time it's Hayne, so why not play him more in junk time? [SEP] What do you guys think their plan is for Hayne?
->Statistics, my friend. They mean things. Yep. Figures don't lie but a lot of liars figure. They do not 'mean' that when 80 and 95% of a population adopt a system, the system is wrong. In your case, you are taking a single data point from a sample and a single data point from a sub population of that sample and attempting to define a correlation. A really sophomoric canard! Shame on you for sleeping through statistics 101! OMG! I spent a lot of time in Thailand. You are out of your skull!! [SEP] I spent a lot of time in Thailand.
-What trinkets do you recommend for raiding vs mythic +? I'm hoping to get the one off Ursoc and the one off of spider bird but rngeezus has been a real mcasshole. [SEP] and the one off of spider bird
-Isn't it just great r/[redacted] does not have ONE SINGLE post on this? Actually i lied, i saw exactly one post on it. had about 500 upvotes, but 60% upvoted. And the comment section? Everyone saying o'keefe was a hack [SEP] Everyone saying o'keefe was a hack
-oh that sounds so awesome. diamond drill with efficiency and fortune.. this will happen. thank you much! [SEP] diamond drill with efficiency and fortune
-First of all, 90% of your complaints come from 1 or 2 players about the lions being dirty and "trying to injure players". That is 1 foot stomp, keep clinging to it though, thats fine. The actual leaders of our team, Matt, Calvin and Nate are among the classiest guys in the league and uphold the game of football to a higher standard than most. So you can relax with all your crying about how we hit late and after the whistle, that is not our philosophy or how they play. It is just some events blew up by the media to get ratings, and you eat right into them like a fat kid in a all you can eat ice cream sunday buffet. And also, if you were treated like shit and laughed at for years, never respected, wouldn't you have some fire in you as well? I sure as hell would. But, I will let the season play out as it will, I believe in Matt. As long as he is upright there isn't anyone we can't beat. And after we beat you this year, all your stars on that precious defence of yours are going to be another year older, another year slower, and your decline will follow. [SEP] Matt, Calvin and Nate are among the classiest guys in the league and uphold the game of football to a higher standard than most
-While I approve of Mulcair's stated aim, I have to wonder how it would be received if Jeb Bush called up Putin during the U.S. Election to ask him to pull out of Ukraine. Shouldn't direct foreign policy be left to elected leaders? [SEP] called up Putin during the U.S. Election to ask him to pull out of Ukraine.
+Loool really? You'd call this a masterpiece of a campaign? I could go on all day why this campaign and story blows. I'm on mobile right now but I will gladly spell out the reasons why this story is god awful later Edit: Taking what I posted from a Youtube comment and slightly modifying it. First, the stories within the games should be self contained. One should not have to read extended media to know what happened to other plot points started in Halo 4 or were introduced outside the games like fighting/sealing the Ur-Didact, the Janus Key, and Chief reuniting with Blue Team. Especially not from some backwater comic that a lot of lore fans didn't even read. Halsey, Palmer, Cortana and even Chief had sudden personality shifts. What happened to Palmer disliking Halsey? They had moments of interaction, but Palmer didn't say anything to her. Halsey had a sudden change of mind from the end of Spartan Ops when she stated 'I want revenge on the UNSC'. Yes you can say she just said that to Jul to gain his trust, but something like that should be clarified rather than leaving the player guessing. Chief mentioned to Cortana something along the lines of "You mean like what Halsey did to me", with an undertone of resentment. Except in Fall of Reach, it was explicitly stated he was grateful he became a Spartan, as he was allowed to become the full potential a human could be and he wouldn't even know what he would be doing had they not taken him. Speaking of Jul, way to kill him off at the end of the first mission. It felt rushed and was an incredibly disappointing conclusion to an interesting character since the Kilo 5 trilogy. And the Prometheans turned on the Covenant? When was this? I'm assuming Escalation, but not everyone read Escalation. If the Ur-Didact was sealed in Escalation, then what are the Prometheans doing? Who is leading them, what is their goal? Blue team served no actual story purpose and it felt like they were just tacked on because 343 is advertising this new fireteam co-op thing and you will need a team for the Chief missions. Locke and Tanaka had no personality, Vale had a bit, and Buck did, but it's different than the Buck from ODST who was more serious and butted heads with the wise cracking Romeo. "Miss Naval Intelligence. Our new boss. So check your mouths, find your chairs, and get set for a combat drop." Instead he turned into the wise cracker now. I had expected Buck to go against Locke a bit, as Buck used to be a team leader and there are some decisions he would have made differently than Locke. I expected Osiris to have a skirmish with Blue team and lose horribly due to their own lack of teamwork and Blue team's superior teamwork, which then spurs Osiris to talk to each other and get to know each other. This would lead to character background and development, and after trusting and opening up to each other, they begin to work better as a team and later have a rematch with Blue Team where they are more evenly matched. Cortana living was incredibly glossed over. Everyone was either casual about it or already knew, except for Roland. Even Chief, when he first sees Cortana and she tells him to go to Meridian, he completely accepts it. Despite the next line he said, in response to someone from Blue Team (I forgot who asked) asking isn't Cortana dead and he responds with "I saw her die with my own eyes". So why tf was he so casual in accepting she's still alive? This casual glossing over Cortana's survival greatly cheapens the ending scene of Halo 4. We were told that Halo 5 was about Chief dealing with his personal loss, yet we got none of that. The advertisements were blatant lies. Yes, other Halo games had trailers that didn't show up like Halo 3's Believe, ODST live action, etc. But they were just hype trailers. Halo 5 had trailers explicitly telling us to be excited about this stuff that would be in the game that was not in the game. "Greatest hunt in gaming history"? That could barely quality as a hunt, Locke and Chief met literally one time as adversaries and the whole "hunt" lasted only like 3 missions. We had expected a more morally gray story, questioning whether Chief was in the right or not, with Locke and Osiris tracking him down from world to world and finding out clues that either starts to clear up the true story or add even more confusion. "Hunt the truth"? What truth? They knew from the get-go where Chief was going and why, they just wanted him to come back. The ads sold us a completely different game that no other Halo game did before. Just a few other notes. It completely contradicts Silentium that the Domain is still active, as the Domain being Precursor technology and therefore would be destroyed by the Halo array was a huge plot twist at the end of the book. It makes no sense that only connection was cut off and it could be reactivated from a Forerunner installation. This completely contradicts what was told to us in the novel. The only possible explanation there could be is that the Domain chose to show itself at this time, but it still does not explain how it survived. I am pretty sure the Halo array affects even slipspace. And the first cutscene with Roland, it implied there would be a subplot of Roland agreeing with Cortana, as he got angry that Lasky, Halsey and Palmer were blaming Cortana. In his own words "Why is she at fault? For living when she wasn't supposed to?" Yet this subplot gets resolved offscreen and Roland wants to help stop Cortana again. Not to mention fighting the same boss like 10 different times. That's pure laziness and uncreative. How did Halsey know all this stuff was going on with Cortana while she was in Jul's captivity? Who knows. This story makes no sense and is all over the place. False advertising, missing information, bad characters and no characterizations, all in all this is probably the worst story I've seen from any Halo campaign. Bar none [SEP] When has Cortana disliked Halsey?
+First let me say that I'm not trying to gaslight you. I understand that the Gaming Pop Quiz is a real thing. But, I do wonder if it's a black and white phenomenon. The reason that I ask is because I usually ask a bunch of questions when I meet a gamer of either gender. I don't do it to check the other person's legitimacy but just to identify common interests and get a feel for what type of gamer they are. [SEP] Can you easily tell the difference between that type of questioning and the Gaming Pop Quiz? I would hate to think that I am making anyone uncomfortable.
+Atheism is too simple. And I will tell you another view that is also too simple. It is the view I call Christianity-and-water, the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right -- leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption. Both these are boys ' philosophies. It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are not simple. They look simple, but they are not. The table I am sitting at looks simple: but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of--all about the atoms and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and what they do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain--and, of course, you find that what we call 'seeing a table' lands you in mysteries and complications which you can hardly get to the end of. A child saying a child's prayer looks simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not and the modern world usually is not -- if you want to go on and ask what is really happening -- then you must be prepared for something difficult. If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the something more is not simple. Very often, however, this silly procedure is adopted by people who are not silly, but who, consciously or unconsciously, want to destroy Christianity. Such people put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack. You must be on your guard against these people for they will change their ground every minute and only waste your time. Notice, too, their idea of God 'making religion simple'; as if 'religion' were something God invented, and not His statement to us of certain quite unalterable facts about His own nature. – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity [SEP] When you try to explain the Christian doctrine as it is really held by an instructed adult, they then complain that you are making their heads turn round and that it is all too complicated and that if there really were a God they are sure He would have made 'religion' simple, because simplicity is so beautiful, etc.
+> There's also the fact that most Republicans are voting for Trump and Trump is currently at the top of almost every poll. You don't have to be omniscient to be aware of this simple fact. You do if you're going to quote favorability to support your point in one breath and then denounce favorability in the next when it's convenient. > You're being redundant. "Quote-unquote" is something you use in spoken language to delimit a quotation. Using it prior to actual quotation marks in written language is just tedious and repetitive. Just thought you should be aware of that. You're transparently reaching to make yourself sound smart. Just thought you should be aware of that. [SEP] And you're being pedantic.
+Don't you see the disconnect, you rightly mention how gender roles and masculinity harm men, but you're Just be happy, live your life, masturbate a lot (and learn to enjoy masturbating and not fixate on sex so much) and things will go your way in the future. Get involved in your local radical scene, maybe you'll find someone. Experiment with homosexuality, maybe you'll really enjoy it? Dwelling on your status as an incel is incredibly unhealthy. All you have to do is go on an incel sub and see the misery. Focus on making yourself a cool and interesting person, learn to be relatable and talk to people. There's a lot of other lonely people out there, you'll find someone. [SEP] putting forth a rather patriarchal concept which is that your worth is dependent on if you've had sex and how much of it you have.
+BS on your part. Businesses are the biggest investors in what direction a city goes. Cops are not charged with keeping average citizens safe. Who told you that? Warren v. DC: The police have no duty of care to citizens, and I quote: "District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine." ^1 1. http [SEP] Read up a bit, my man. I think you could benefit.
+It was disappointing in the sense that I didn't feel anything. Normally I'd go to these things and at the very least be happy to see my friends. But this last conference was...kind of disorganized and mediocre. I connected with no one. The presentations were trite. I needed more than some 'stay strong!' 'chant more!' platitudes and I didn't get that. Maybe I felt that way because I was about 90 percent mentally out and I saw it for what it was. Or maybe I wanted there to be some magic experience that renewed my faith. When that didn't happen, I knew it was a matter of time before I left completely. It felt like dressing up nice and putting on makeup, traveling to a fancy restaurant, and when you look at the menu there ain't shit on it but Kraft mac-n-cheese and chicken fingers. And you reallyyy had your mouth tuned up for some cacciatore. So you go home disappointed that when it was advertised as a high end establishment. I threw away my program booklets, but I don't even need to go into detail about what was said because it's the exact same stuff you hear at district meeting and SWS. [SEP] you got served toddler food
+I appreciate the sentiment, alas, . I'll not eat something I don't need to. PS: Ew. [SEP] I'm not a caveman
+Those ships look pretty similar. When you take a comic or book adaptation almost 100% of the time there are aesthetic changes made to some things. When everything is speculation you can make little jumps of faith like this to help lend credence to your argument, its what makes it fun! [SEP] Also you know what that guy meant relax a bit.
+>>I have never met a single Asian person who feels racially superior to whites, Lol. How many Asians have you met? A dozen? >>There is no racism towards westerners in Asia. [SEP] Double Lol. When have you been to Asia?
+This is how I see "Bernie or Bust' You're the people that walks into a grocery store after moving into a new neighborhood. It has everything that was in your old grocery store except this certain brand of bread that says 'organic' on the label. You go up front to see if they can get it. They can get it but it will have to be put on order. They can't deliver it to you right on the spot due to a system, that's been in place since the grocery store was built. You throw a tantrum and say "fuck it. Bern the store down. Fuck everyone else that shops here. People in the neighborhood have no meaning to me if I can't get exactly what I want. They can get my 'organic' bread, but don't have it right at this moment and that's not acceptable. I've never been a customer here, but they should have my particular brand and type of bread. Yes, they have other organic bread, but it doesn't come from the same farm that the cool old guy I know told me about. Fuck it. Bern down the store!" This is what you Bernie or Bust people are. Just a bunch either whiny brats, or Republican plants. [SEP] Then pack your shit and go. We don't need you.
+For those who want to see it in action here's a Leopard vs Porcupine. WARNING: There's a decent amount of blood and this is EDIT:Since you guys are into nature here's a Impala tree takedown Last Edit: Puma vs Sloth (5 min) [SEP] nature so it may not end how you want.
+> But some people say "lets wait for the facts" and that is not the fucking same as saying "the accuser does not matter"! it depends on what "wait for the facts" means for you. For some, it's a honest statement they'd say about anything. For others, its a dodge to avoid confronting the idea that their idol might be a rapist. it's different for everyone. But, . This is the very essense of the words. Its up to you if you feel that what Kane provides for you is worth it. Many people have decided that scoring goals in hockey does not warrant this. [SEP] on it's own merits..."wait for the facts" essentially means "I don't believe you until more information is provided"
+I wouldn't be surprised if something's up, whether or not it's malicious or whatever. Non-political subs don't tend to welcome political discussion, as it can quickly become divisive and devolve into something that isn't really constructive or desirable. It might be plausible that the mods wanted to remove it to keep politics out, but it got enough initial traction that they couldn't do so without people noticing. That's just conjecture, though. I can't say I really envy people who mod default subs, [SEP] it sounds like a whole lot of bullshit for little to no reward.
+Poor planning on my part, but having a great time at GABF. Ran into a few Atlanta folks last night. [SEP] Wasn't expecting Denver to be so cold.
+Yeah the class listing was on there before I got my first internship, mainly to take up a huge amount of space I couldn't otherwise fill [SEP] I'm confused, BA is Bachelor's of Arts right? and BS is of Science?
+>Well I'm not going to argue with you but if you take a look at scripture, it's undeniably redpill. However, Christians may or may not live in that manner. That is why it's the people that are the problem, not the religion. Red pill is based on reality, Christianity is not, and worse, Christianity creates weak selfless men. [SEP] Yes believing in a zombie as your God is red pill.
+That's completely wrong. You will start with 0 legendary marks on Tuesday, but will have a commendation for every 50 vanguard/crucible you hold. . [SEP] The commendations give XP, not marks
+> War is the absence of a monopoly on violence. In war, there is almost no law, hence legally-created equality doesn't exist. It's not as ridiculous as your kneejerk rejection insists. WTF? Do you have no idea what I'm talking about? I'm talking about the rules *within* the military (which, by the way, exists whether or not it is at war). In war, there is not "almost no law." You cannot shoot your commanding officer in a war. If you do, you will be put in front of a military court, you will be dishonorably discharged, and probably sentenced to death. There is absolute rule of law. The rule of law is only more strict; the commands of officers take on the character of law; the duties of employment take on the obligations of law; [SEP] law is nowhere more powerful than within a strict authoritarian military hierarchy.
+Sheesh, if a noob like me saw a cheap panther mount and bought it... I didn't know the cost to make one... I didn't know panthers were made... I would hope that's not a permaban edit: , I'm fresh back after ~5 years [SEP] That's not sarcasm
+OMG. I used to interview people for Customer Service jobs. At ANY job interview it's a very bad idea to bring someone with you; even just to sit in the waiting room. We've had people bring the entire family and extended family...all kids included... Yeah. Don't EVER go to an interview accompanied or escorted. It's career suicide. [SEP] There are places who now specify on the application that if you are called for an interview, you must come alone.
+> My suspicion is that you're more objecting to the fact that the onus apparently falls on women to do X, Y, and Z to avoid getting raped, while there's relatively little "bombarding" of men in terms of reinforcing behaviors and messages that it's a man's responsibility not to force himself on women. Which I happen to agree with. This is the issue. And clearly I failed to articulate it properly. I'm in no way saying that women *shouldn't* take precautions because the bottom line is that rape exists. I was simply lamenting on the fact that I have to do all these exhausting, unfun, inconveniencing-other-people things in order to have a good time. I am not at all suggesting that X, Y, and Z are unhelpful. I never suggested it and never would. Seriously? That's ridiculous. While a level of caution is healthy and will keep you safe, I feel genuinely afraid when I walk from where I parked my car to my apartment (100 or so feet) and there's a man standing there. I've been told, time and time again, that it's entirely possible he'll rape me. And that's awful. I suppose it's the simplest, easiest method, but I'm not convinced it's the most beneficial for both genders. [SEP] The problem with how the anti-rape system works now is that it is, quite literally, making women terrified of men.
+You forgot the original topic: I was not arguing for or against a particular direction. To use your marriage analogy, it's about whether it ever makes sense to use voice over exit if the person you marry becomes a religious fanatic and it ruins the relationship. [SEP] whether its useless for people to use words to express discontent in the direction of a system governed by rough consensus.
+Ah yes... Obsession as procrastination. I do this with my houseplants. I rationalize it by saying that doing a little bit of gardening/plant upkeep is relaxing and good for the brain, but I really just do it to avoid real work. I think I will give KonMari a half assed try when I move next year. I am secretly just hoping to get rid of my boyfriends crap. [SEP] BOXES OF TANGLED OBSOLETE COMPUTER CABLES DOES NOT SPARK JOY FOR ANYONE.
+ [SEP] People who need manuals to tell them how to live is not the ideal. After being thrown into a new environment, can you observe, experiment and emulate your way into flourishing in the new place? There won't always be a book telling you what to do and you can't always trust the book.
+And that's why we don't have a carbon tax? The Liberals pay lip service to free market and dabble in protectionism. [SEP] And we have negative gearing?
+Group RPs deteriorate quickly after more than three people get involved. It's hard to hold up a plot line with lots of creative people, and the interruptions and backtracking gets awkward really fast. Three is like the magic number -- four if you're all on the same page and compatible. Now ... a bunch of people in a chat talking and pairing off works, but that's not really a role played story line. [SEP] That's just a bunch of folks getting together to fuck. ;)
+I have a couple of wooden boards and proper butcher's blocks, but for the most part (cooking professionally and at home) I use ~1/4-1/3" thick plastic boards that cost ~12-50$ depending on size. I get mine from a restaurant supply store, but home kitchen stores will have similar (though maybe less heavy-duty) products. With plastic boards, it is best to wash them in a dishwasher (since plastic boards have no antibacterial properties, the dishwasher sterilizes them). If you find they are starting to bend or curl, you can soak them in very hot water (or a hot water sterilize cycle in a dishwasher), and then just bend them back the other way by hand (source: I do this 1-2x a month with some of mine). If you are hand washing plastic boards, you want to keep an eye out for the grooves and cuts that your knives will make in the surface. Watch for blackening and discolouration along those lines, as this can indicate mold or bacterial growth occurring in those grooves (and I guarantee hand washing will not properly sterilize all those nooks and crannies). When a good round of sterilization and bleaching doesn't seem to be doing the trick, it's time to get rid of the board. That said, your boards shouldn't get to that point, as I mentioned above I have several plastic boards which have been in daily use for upwards of 20 years, and they are fine. As for wooden boards, hand wash them and oil them, but never soak them. Soaking will cause warping, and splits between slats. Even a 50lb, 4" thick butcher's block will warp if you soak it too much. [SEP] The paper-thin plastic cutting surfaces are garbage, however.
+That's actually not true. [SEP] Every year since they dropped the requirement you've still needed well below your BQ, more than a minute.
+I thought he was spot on with Nintendo. . LoZ was there for a very brief time and people are basically jizzing themselves like its gonna be the best game ever. Their in their own little world appealing to fans who have already bought their console. We get it Nintendo, your 1st party titles are awesome...but they also don't drop in price for a long time...so I will buy your console when its cheaper and all of them are out. [SEP] Nobody knows if Splatoon is going to great, but everybody is still calling amazing
+In terms of mining, I know a block is just a bundle of transactions, but what does it mean to "find" a block? [SEP] And why do transactions need to be organized into blocks? Why can't the blockchain just exist as a series of individual transactions without the block structure?
+ [SEP] That was very insightful thanks. You don't sound particularly religious though haha.
+> But can Russia bully the EU or NATO? I do not think so. They already do. Ask the Baltics, or Romania which Rogozin threatened recently to send the strategic bombers. See the activity in Kaliningrad and the Russian Navy stance in the Baltic Sea. See the offer to split the Eastern Ukraine between Poland, Hungary and Romania, Orban now demands autonomy for Hungarians in Ukraine. See Grazprom's push to buy interconnecting pipelines in Hungary, Austria and Bulgaria. The Mistral ship will be based in Sevastopol, probably with the intent to project power to Odessa, control Transnistria and threaten Romania. [SEP] which Hungary's Orban took seriously.
+> You can change mypace to something like easygoing, indifferent, laidback, etc. People won't know what it means otherwise. &nbsp; Something like that can range from a completely lazy and easygoing person, to a jerk who doesn't sweat the details and just does as he pleases and challenging people across the globe to duels because he likes duelling. &nbsp; I then considered foregoing the adjective of course, and rewording the sentence to write that, but after much consideration, with flow, English and other factors on the scales in my mind, I came to the conclusion that it was least intrusive to flow to teach what 'mypace' meant at the top of the page. [SEP] I considered those of course. They were the first thing that came into my head. But each of those words is only a small part of 'maipeesu' and really the only way to describe it is 'doing things at one's own pace without heed to surroundings', which can't be described satisfactorily in any English adjective.
+Flanks don't need buffs. You need to learn how to use them properly. I use flanks more than any other class and I do great. I don't use Andro that much but I have it at lvl5 and I think he can't compare to Buck. The point of flankers is to... flank, kill and distract enemies. Buck is just perfect at it, my fav flanker(in and out fast, heal, 3khp). What about Skye? Not every match is the same but mostly if you cant do good with her, that means you are not playing the game right (I compare her to viktor in terms of, they are so fucking easy to get kills, no skill needed to be good with these 2). Evie, I'm not very good with her, to tell the truth only used her 1 or 2 times so I'm not very good but I have been matched with and against so fucking good Evies (), Cassie is dope, but once they fix all the hitboxes, she will stop making kills even when people run from her arrows (hate this when I play against her, love it when I use her xD), Kinessa is good if their flankers don't do their job. Viktor i said before, no skill needed to be good. Bomb King seems pretty nice, and I'm gonna start using him now (didn't used him before because of all his bugs) and if done right can do huge amounts of damage even thou he is easy to counter and/or get rid of the sticky bombs. About Drogoz... I hate him, not my type. This said, stop camping in the back with flankers and do your goddamn job and you'll see how good flankers are. [SEP] she's so annoying to deal with if used right
+Just came across that before reading this, you may find both those guys interesting. [SEP] As @GrayConnolly has been reminding us, able bodied men heading desperately for EU welfare states speaks poorly of them & their countries.
+They can't fight the government on this. What's scary is that this is another shift to forcing banks to sell mortgages to the undeserving. Didn't we learn our lesson from the housing market crash? [SEP] They'll just raise rates & fees on consumers to re-coop the amount.
+ [SEP] Clapping. It just doesn't make any sense.
+Cleveland is in the process of changing their logo - although the old one is still present, it is being downplayed, and will eventually go away. And , but they will get over it, as they should. Its not about "money to gain" always. Sometimes companies have to take a long-term approach - a short term loss can equal a long term gain, and keeping those logos will only hurt them in the long term. [SEP] people here in the Cleveland area had a shit fit over it
+Maybe you should use it to prove that the earth is flat (spheres don't have four corners, duh) and debunk [SEP] the myth that the earth orbits the sun instead of the way god intended.
+As an American that travels extensively, I never had to lie. I have done couchsurfing and homestays. People who . Maybe lie in a situation when you feel uncomfortable, but consistently lying about it is absurd [SEP] casually lie about their nationality disgust me
+You probably don't want to hear this, but F2P is the future for all MMOs. The only place where this isn't accepted norm is the American market--the Asian market has been doing this for years now (in fact, paid subscription MMOs in the Asian market is now considered taboo). Gone are the days when we would conceitedly suggest that when an American MMO went F2P it meant it was "going down the tubes." [SEP] It's actually a far more profitable pay model.
+Ah, proving my point. You are in the union. Funny how nobody supports teachers unions but their members. I look forward to your destruction due to this court case. Your are an extortionist who holds a public commodity hostage for your own benefit at the expense of children. The union is you? That's how cult members think. [SEP] Your are contributing to the destruction of faith in government, and further arming the right wing.
+not to curb your happiness here, but keep in mind that this is more than likely them overshooting and hoping to settle. Same tactic used by feinstein. edit: I just realized I forgot the court order thing. Shit, tell em not to settle for a damn thing. Also, taking bets for what percent chicago murder rate drops by next year. [SEP] Winner gets a nude photo of feinstein.
+Treating the symptoms in an effective manner is just as important as patching up the damage. Education and empowering workers is just as important as welfare. But the American government only cares about quarterly profits for the corporations it's sponsored by. Look at the subsidies, tax cuts, and 'pet projects' that are financed in lieu of fixing the ills of society. [SEP] It doesn't take a savant to design legislation to make a better future.
+Lol it's not the same thing at all. You clearly have no idea what it's like to be a woman on a dating site. If I get messaged by someone, look at their profile and see that we aren't compatible, what would you have me do? Respond with "No thanks"? Ok, let me tell you what happens in that scenario. At least half the time a guy will want to know the reason. You can't even give a vague response like "we just aren't a good fit" because they will demand to know *why*. At this point, whether you respond honestly or completely ignore them, you will most likely get called a bitch, told you're "ugly anyway" or, in the more extreme cases, threatened. So why bother? I am not interested and not replying conveys that just as easily as having to explain myself, so why would I open myself to possible harassment for the same end result? [SEP] I didn't say all guys are creepy racists, or even some of them. I said it wasn't worth finding out.
+>because you have a voting ring in general is science oriented and likes to debunk anti-science, pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. The other anti-GMO activists don't seem to have a problem with forming coherent enough arguments to keep out of negative karma territory. For starters, you could stop your stalking, harassing and doxxing attempts because everyone of those seems to back-fire on you. [SEP] No because reddit
+Nah man, I appreciate the novel. This was super fucking awesome for me. Unbiased facts. So was the Vince Foster guy the weightlifting "suicide" guy that people are always talking about? Also, since this post was so fucking great, do you mind talking about the recent Hillary scandal? Apparently she should be in jail, but you're saying Bush lost a similar number? (I didn't like Bush either for the record, that presidency was definitely fucked). Also, how do I submit this to BestOf? [SEP] Reddit has been my only source of information about the emails.
+Yeah, I just couldn't believe the way Pettis softly and anticlimactically armbarred him in the center of the octagon in the beginning of the first. [SEP] I would love to see him against Gunnar Nelson.
+You seem confused by my labelling of you as an insult slinger, Allow me to explain. I will keep the description nice and simple for you. Do you see the words 'moron' and 'tool' directed at me in your post? those are what we in society call 'personal insults'. These were in response to a post of mine () which contained no personal insults. My labelling of you as a troll was in response to a post of yours that did contain personal insults. Perhaps its worth doing some hard thinking as to the reasons why you need this to be explained to you. [SEP] that incidentally was not addressed to you personally
+My favorite 'atheist' quote is this: >If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. ‘Cause that’s all there is. What we do. Now. Today. … All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because, I don’t think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there’s no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world. For someone who does not believe in any sort of higher power or higher meaning, the most beneficial thing they can do for themselves is to *create meaning of their own*. And because human beings are very social creatures, often the best form of that meaning comes in helping and caring about others. **Edit**: I am happy to expand on this point if you think it is worth exploring more. [SEP] Put in a more pragmatic way, human beings are happiest when they have meaning in their lives.
+hes a faggot but you insult the dead, whatever. [SEP] that faggot co-founded the website you are insulting him on
+In your opinion, what will the future of electronic privacy and anonymity be? Many if not most politicians are either indifferent or against privacy and anonymity and there is a bill that could be passed in December that would allow the government to hack computers simply for accessing the Internet with TOR if I am correct. [SEP] How much of an effect do you think increasing mass surveillance will have on fake ID related activities?
+Instead of LAN, Valve should sell a "tournament license" that includes the rights to lease or outright own your own tournament server. For those who don't know, this is what Valve did for The International 1&2 and what Blizzard does for their own SC2 events. They have a local tournament server. Not all LAN tournaments would probably be able to lease/own such a server, but for big organizations that have sponsorship money on the line and especially those who broadcast on TV (such as G League), this would be a worthwhile investment in content production security. [SEP] It's not LAN, but it effectively gives neglibeable ping, since the packets are going into, basically, the next room.
+Some implementations don't cache your auth, so if you have to run 'sudo post-install actions one and two', it's too many keystrokes. Also, without pulling root's ENV, you may wind up in csh or ksh, depending. Balls to that, I say. [SEP] Mac OS, Ubuntu and others want you to run 'su' via 'sudo'
+And a thousand crushes on julian began... Thanks for reminding me it's been a while since I've listened to them. [SEP] Something terribly bittersweet about listening to them that I can't quite put my finger on
+>a heuristic idea that one should make as few assumptions as possible in a valid theory, and eliminate extraneous pieces from a theory if they are not necessary to explain the relevant phenomena. Why go with the simplest theory and not with, say, the theory that makes you feel the happiest, or the theory that is most socially acceptable? And why is the Occam heuristic lauded rather than being derided as "simplicity bias" in the way that the availability and confirmation biases are? What is the difference between a "heuristic" and a "cognitive bias"? I don't see any. >Science does not hold firm as faith that the laws of physics are immutable, even though every observation made thus far has suggested it to be so. It may not be a firmly held belief, but it is assumed to be likely, even though one could just as easily make counter inductive assumptions with no contradiction. Why? And I am not questioning the laws of physics, I am questioning the uniformity of nature, which scientists seem to assume without justification. >It is not faith precisely because it is open to evidence-based changes. Could I justifiably and rationally believe that the apocalypse will happen in two days, and act on that belief, as long as I am open to changing my mind two days from now if it didn't happen? You would probably say no, but why not? [SEP] But why use this particular heuristic?
+Actually, it's not unique. There is a worm for which we know entirely how it progresses from single cell zygote to an adult. The cells of the members of its species **always** divide in the same way, and each cell has been named based on its relation to the original zygote. This organism has taught us a lot about embryology. The name of this organism escapes me at the moment, but I read about it in one of Richard Dawkins' books. *The Greatest Show on Earth*, I think. Here's a nice quote from its Wikipedia page: >The developmental fate of every single somatic cell (959 in the adult hermaphrodite; 1031 in the adult male) has been mapped. These patterns of cell lineage are largely invariant between individuals, whereas in mammals, cell development is more dependent on cellular cues from the embryo. The first cell divisions of early embryogenesis in C. elegansare among the best understood examples of asymmetric cell divisions. Edit2: Furthermore, there is a name for organisms like this that don't grow by cell division once they reach maturity - they're called eutelic. [SEP] Edit: I found the animal. It's a nematode, species name *c. elegans.*
+>we can't trade with them for free right now because of the EU. We don't exactly have much of a manufacturing industry and most of what we do, the Chinese can do cheaper and in many other parts of the developing world, the Chinese would be our competitors. [SEP] What would we trade?
+Is it weird that I'm most excited to see if they've come up with any good new auto awesome effects? I love my phone popping up with a cool new picture it's created. . I wound her up with that one for days. [SEP] My favourite one is when google decided to remove my girlfriend from a photo
+My first internship, I coded 33% of the release for our flagship software, on a team of 3. The other 2 were senior engineers. 8 years later, just had my own intern. First time, junior in college, and no experience in the problem domain. Yet he was able to learn and become a productive member in his 3 month internship (productive meaning he implemented more feature points than I would have in the time I spent training him). Sure, interns aren't going to be effective in building architectures, requirements elicitation, or otherwise engaging with customers... but any competent programmer (which most compsci/softeng college students will be) can be productive WHILE learning. Due to the nature of software and the wonders of proper source control, an unpaid software internship is never acceptable. [SEP] the concept of "unpaid" software interns is insulting. That isn't "proper".. Not in our industry. Anyone that does such is taking advantage of young upcoming engineers that don't know better.
+. He was bringing freedom to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Syria! [SEP] My daddy died a hero
+Emergency professionals already deescalate situations, and convince people they need help. I don't think you are going to resolve issues by the roadside of an incident. This takes several sessions with experience professionals. Even if you had a psycologist in an ambulance, they would not be able to resolve an issue by the roadside. It's not like handing them an icepack, or bandaging a wound. , because he doesn't even get treatment. I never said that people don't need treatment. Just that they don't need immediate treatment. For your last point, how to mental health facilities not see people in crisis? They are taking care of people who either have volunteered to get help, or been committed against their will. Even if you volunteer to enter, they can get a TDO for a certain amount of time to make sure that you can't leave until they have a chance to re-evaluate you and clear you. In the example I presented no one saw any warning signs to get him committed. Besides the fact, they would have had no way to respond fast enough to that incident to prevent him from shooting. And what few warning signs the Isla Campus shooter showed to his parents were not enough to get him committed. [SEP] The Gus Deeds example is unfair
+Workers in nearly every country were demanding that, except for Germany! LOL And get your facts straight. Germany was being outspent on militarization until 1937-1939. England, the U.S. And Soviet Union all spent more than Germany ever did throughout the 30's. Stop lying and start reading, will you? How could Germany build up the military when there were labor shortages in all other aspects of German industry? , that's why Germany reunited with its lost territories peacefully before Poland made that impossible. Most of your stuff comes from the same source, the U.S. government. It's propaganda, and you need to get proper sources. EVERYTHING you've said is a distortion or a plain lie. We are talking about Nazi Germany, where the German leaders actually represented the German people, they are one force. Not like England or the U.S. where the people are seperate from the leaders. [SEP] Germany didn't prepare for war until it became obvious that England, France, and the U.S. Would not stop their belligerent behavior
+Readable versions of charts: 100k income: http://i.imgur.com/lfoZy.png 300k income: http://i.imgur.com/5xlNr.png Edit: Oops... only the Social Security is on those charts. [SEP] Edit: Not so sure how much I trust them, since Denmark is remarkably low despite having some of the highest taxes in the world.
+Well they coded up BitcoinXT in what many interpreted as a hostile hardfork attempt on the bitcoin consensus. Imagine Given those hostile actions, as well as Mike Hearn's well-known "*Benevolent dictatorship over consensus*" view, I think it's pretty clear why they did not sign. (edit: assuming they were asked, I hope they were) Which is a shame. Bitcoin works by consensus. We should continue to extend olive branches and handshakes to everyone so bitcoin can progress by consensus and agreement instead of war. [SEP] if a small group of core developers attempted the same thing with the 21million supply limit? It would ruffle a few feathers.
+I bought a former police car when I was in college, a blue crown victoria from a city auction. they took all the stickers off but it still had the brush guard on the front and a spotlight. During my spring semester at school (3 months) I got pulled over 18 times and had my apartment searched by a sergeant and 3 cops.They never found anything because there was nothing to find but goddamn did they try. Every single time they pulled me over they would have a bullshit excuse like the one time when a cop pulled me over from behind I asked him a million times why he pulled me over and he walked around the car and said it was because I was missing my front license plate. That was true but he never saw the front of my car until after I asked. That year the police did a great job of turning a good citizen into a citizen who has zero respect for police. Respect for the law yes, but zero for the police. [SEP] I finally hired an attorney to draft a letter and I started collecting names, dates, and incidents.
+Can you recommend a good beginner's guide to energy commodities trading? [SEP] Upstream/downstream and how price changes affect both always confused me.
+>“Under Stephen Harper, there were so many people unhappy with the government and their approach that people were saying, ‘It will take electoral reform to no longer have a government we don’t like’. But under the current system, they now have a government they’re more satisfied with and the motivation to change the electoral system is less compelling,” he said. . It in no way clearly implies that he intends to abandon the consultations and processes that are already under way. It's really fortunate for all these journalists that he didn't clarify his position on the matter yet so they can continue writing articles based on manufactured outrage. [SEP] Another entire article written based on a likely incorrect interpretation of this single quote. It sounds to me like he merely made an observation that the general public isn't clamoring for electoral reform as much as they were during the election campaign because they aren't as unhappy with the government
+Kha'Zix was released in season 2, and you have zero Kha'Zix games registered on him before season 4. Not only that, you only have six ranked games as him in season 4. Please, stop lying when it's so easy to look up the truth. You haven't one tricked Kha'Zix since he was released, you started in season 5. So, no, you don't know what you're talking about. You're a troll that constantly lies to feed your giant ego, who's currently being boosted by an actual Kha'Zix player. [SEP] You only started maining Kha'Zix in season 5, and first played him in season 4, something you admitted to.
+Why? Do they somehow not count as shootings? Are people accidentally shot with something that is not a gun? Do gun suicides not involve guns? [SEP] Why would you do that unless you're trying to misrepresent he facts and lie to people in order to push an agenda?
+When it comes to the Non-Catholics the issue of hypocrisy comes front and center on this issue. If they are of the Protestants who insist the Bible is literal and inerrant they should practice what it unequivocally declares, and not have women priests. . If they want to disregard those scriptures they need to be very careful about insisting the Bible's injunctions are literal for anyone else. It is the Lord Himself who told us that if we apply any part of the law to another we must keep all of it ourselves. We can't pick and choose. Either it is literal for everybody, or it's not literal. [SEP] The Bible couldn't be more plain that women are to "remain silent" at church
+> Who defines this? I think it's legitimate if you want to own one. Do you require a reason beyond that? Is there a legitimate reason to own a Ferrari? It can drive much faster than you need to on any highways and costs lots of money. Who could possibly need that? [SEP] Is there a legitimate reason to own a semi-auto rifle?
+Well that's an issue for me, I have a small data cap on my internet and my ping is god awful so I don't ever play multiplayer on any game. [SEP] If the Singleplayer is still downloading why did it allow me to select Singleplayer first and download the 10GB that allowed me to start playing?
+What did his parents do? [SEP] They fled from a war zone so you feel disgust for them?
+I just don't think anyone should need to learn new phrases and be scolded for using historical terms for things. I believe in free speech, free love, et cetra. It's not a complicated issue. It's people who choose to be offended by shit and want everyone else to change things to appease them. It's all very simple and childish. So should I. If I don't like what you're saying, then I need to deal with it - not demand everyone change to protect my feelings from whatever I consider to be dirty wordies. [SEP] You should be able to say whatever you want without consequence.
+This is such an American attitude to have. [SEP] It isn't charity if they are working for you.
+In the months up to October 2011 Assad released prisoners as part of an amnesty deal for protestors and that the project was overseen by the General Security Directorate, who simultaneously began releasing extremists from prison along with the jailed protestors in order to support the regime's claim that the regime's murderous approach to the protests was necessary to crush an islamist uprising. *Then* the US started moving arms to Syria from Libya through 2012, while the Gulf states and Turkey began pushing their own regional proxies. Ex-Baathists from Iraq began to move over the border in this following period as well. [SEP] No, you're thinking of the extremist prisoners who Assad knowingly released from jail as the protests escalated.
+Favorite author. Oryx and Crake was only OK though... To this day, . It's "speculative fiction". What a snob :P [SEP] Atwood refuses to call it science fiction
+you dumb ass it'd hurt these supposed child molesters fucking idiot [SEP] And repressive hypnosis brings up represed memories
+Sorry for length I'm mostly just venting here. Wow you sure are dedicated, and so very nice to all those cats. Glad to hear you could get some adopted out. You sound like you have a solid plan with how you care for your cat colony. It sounds like you've got a support system in your neighborhood for cats. I used to spend 2-3 hours a day outside with my 2 outdoor cats (1-1.5hrs to feed them wet food in the morning/hang out with them/do yard work, 1-1.5hrs to feed them wet food in the evening/hang out with them) and it kinda felt like a burden, but now with the new kitten I'm spending 4 hrs/day outside (2 hrs each feeding) trying to keep up the kitten's socialization with people, and trying to get the adult cats to like him (which is not working...). This is stressing me out. Previously, with another kitten I had sent to the SPCA a couple months ago..I was spending 6 hrs/day outside with it, for 4 days, to socialize it before bringing it to the shelter...thinking I was improving it's chances of getting adopted...that was before I did any research about the SPCA/cat shelters...but I get what you mean about the SPCA. It's more of a stray holding/euthanasia center than an animal shelter...yet, it's like one of those necessary but unpleasant things for an unfair situation. It's not really the SPCA's fault...it's more of casual breeders' faults for failing to require spay/neuter/microchip. For a population of 1 million people, the SPCA in Fresno is the only place that "takes in" stray cats...that just boggles my mind how there is only 1 open intake 'shelter' for *cats* in all of Fresno... Anyway, I don't talk to my neighbors (1 of them rents - so no animals, the other only tolerates my outdoor cats trespassing/pooping in their yard in exchange for catching their tree rats), and I don't have friends...but I put up some Found/Free cat flyers and FB posts...but this kitten...it's a very common looking and uninteresting gray tabby, so it's not pretty or eye-catching and I haven't gotten any calls. TBH the only reason why I approached it was because I thought it was mine (it looks like a smaller copy of one of my outdoor cats)...if I hadn't thought it was mine, I would've chased it away...but then I petted it, thinking it was mine and realizing it was not, and it started following me and layering on it's neediness...it was so pathetic looking... Last night, I was outside for about 2 hours during their evening feeding and during that time my adult cats attacked/stalked him 3 different times (there were loud screams, biting/batting, and high pitched whining)...and again this morning the territorial adult cat attacked him again and bit him. I try to get between them when I can but it's hard to deter fighting between outdoor cats :( I can't do that cat introduction thing since they're all outdoor cats...the house I live in is not mine, so I can't bring animals inside either. This kitten definitely sounds like he is an indoor/house cat and belongs indoors though. Despite getting attacked multiple times he'll still approach the mean cat if I'm near...he's just so stupid! Whenever I go outside and he's sleeping, he doesn't hear me unless I make a louder noise...that is not a good trait for an outdoor cat to have. The only good thing though, is that he sometimes sleeps on a space I made for him on top of my anti-raccoon cat feeder, so at least the raccoons/possums can't get to him at night if he sleeps there. The kitten is okay with people though and will follow me closely to where I have to watch where I step, so I believe he was raised by people... I can put cat clothes on him, handle his paws/feet, rub his belly, have him fall asleep on my arm, and he hasn't nipped at me yet for handling him willy nilly...he doesn't like to be held/picked up though. I think my biggest issue is that I'm just not equipped to foster cats to rehome them since I can't bring them indoors, and I get the feeling most people don't want to adopt cats/kittens that come straight from the outdoors because they're dirty/germy and probably a little wild/untrained from the outdoor experience. My 2 adult outdoor cats- their paw pads are always dirty but they generally look clean because they clean each other...but this new kitten...you can just tell he's dirty since he can't lick his head/ears himself. If my adult cats are going keep harassing him they'll just add more scratches to his body...man...ugh. Sorry for this rant and for whining at you. I just needed to vent... I think...if I can't get my adult cats to get along with him without attacking him or if no one adopts him, I'll probably just neuter him and let him go in the neighborhood somewhere. But the thing is...he isn't feral? It's not quite like TNR? Because this dude was pretty obviously someone's indoor cat and relies on people for food and shelter. Anyway thanks for listening. [SEP] Do you find yourself spending a lot of time with them (do you play with them?), or do you just go out to leave food for them? Do any of them ever get in fights or have it out for each other when you add a new cat to your colony?
+But you would need to change trains to go on to philly, and since these trains won't serve Penn Station, there goes all your time savings. . So much cheaper to simply improve the existing infrastructure. [SEP] I don't understand why conventional high-speed rail got ignored so quickly
+Goodbye and good riddance to Thunderbolt, That's not saying that Thunderbolt is bad; it's not. But an interface is only as good as its ubiquity, which drives down price. Unless you can get everyone to pile on, any tech is really not worth it. [SEP] the newest in a long line of failed interfaces that Apple--and only Apple--hitched their wagon to.
+The real reason was self preservation and profits for the military-industrial complex. War is good business, cold war is only good business if there is a possible enemy. But the real fear was ideology. magine if there had been a leader of the workers like MLK was for blacks? Mass riots and civil war could have happened over who is on power. So better stop the ideology at the borders... [SEP] If you are part of the American elite, the idea of the working class getting ideas from the Sovietunion would scare you shitless.
+Guys, listen up. This is important. When you're posting fights, *please* specify whether or not the character is jobbing/OOC. Otherwise, if we do a Flash vs Superman debate, people are gonna be all "Flash drops him in the speedforce dimension and vibrates his testicles 13 trillion times the speed of light before IMPing him into sub-atomic particles". Come on. It's just like saying Superman vs Hulk (example) and commenting "Superman speedblitzes Hulk and throws him into a black hole". It's ridiculous. If you want those kind of things being said, then specify in the OP that they're bloodlusted. Sentry loses a lot of his fights because he's holding back a lot. As does Iceman. That should carry over to here *unless* you're specifying otherwise. Oh, and one more thing (unrelated). Lifting strength =/= punching strength. Batman is stronger than an unarmored Master Chief in bench pressing, but keep in mind that when Master Chief is punching, he's aiming , so who punches harder? Another thing to consider is the fighting style they use and if they actually *know how to punch well*. Of course, the MC/Bats debate is just an example, and I'm not about to get into another one of those, but my point stands. [SEP] for the groin, throat, kidneys, and other potentially lethal locations. Batman doesn't do that kind of thing
+Yeah, he s really good at the game. But definitely competing against enemys who are way lower skill level wise. or in Eco or fully flashed. [SEP] Not even hitting him or shooting back
+> Unfortunately, the only examples of functional anarchy history has provided us are left-libertarian. Must I repeat; > Libertarian anywhere else refers to the anarchists of Europe in the early 1900's, ie. 'left libertarians'. Also; > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics > Leftist economic beliefs range from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy and the social market to nationalization of the economy and central planning > there was also no profit motive = no capitalism. This isn't possible with functional human beings. Sex, relationships, proving a point, survival, etc -- there is always profit. Otherwise the study of human behaviour is void and many great INTP's are completely wrong. I suggest you take the actual MBTI. [SEP] American Libertarians are not anarchists and you've avoided the question.
+They might have started it, but the idea was after they used it in 2010 the Tea Party would go back into it's little box. The problem was they fell of the tiger and it ran around destroying everything in it's vicinity. [SEP] Anyone currently under the "Tea Party" banner is definitely not taking orders from the Kotch bros any more.
+My few observations - 1. iPhone is not perfect in every aspect of a smartphone, but it is well rounded. It has excellent design, good camera(not best), good battery life(not best), good looks(not best) but it is consistently good in all areas. 2. 3. Apps don't crash as often as on Android (honest truth, I like Android apps but they do crash more than iOS). The software experience feels a bit more polished 4. Applecare and resale value. Heck, if you buy a Mac or iPhone you can sell it for a decent price after a year's use. Android phones have no chance there. Applecare is also expensive but many suckers out there who trust Apple with their money and Apple doesn't disappoint them. They provide good service. 5. Brand value and Hype. Apple can get non-technical people into the loop unlike Microsoft or Google.Word of mouth is/was strong. Esp. in the US. [SEP] The software experience doesn't change from version to version. Many elderly people are suckers for this, they don't like change and like to have the same experience with minor tweaks here and there. Don't believe me, just Google Windows 8.X and the number of people bitching about it .. just coz they didn't want to learn something new.
+I never understood the argument that high taxes on high income prevent those people from working. I think the focus changes from hoarding money to building your business. Right now, our economy is stagnant because too much money is being hoarded so increasing taxes on the people/corporations that are sitting on it makes sense. Those people have already benefited from a prolonged period of low taxes and we are not any better a country for it. [SEP] If you keep reinvesting the money then you avoid the high taxes but still build wealth.
+An addition to the 'tell us' line, an observation to make is that it is very rare for a guy to give a negative reaction to the attentions of a woman. At worst, it will be a 'not interested', and then at least you know. Often guys aren't as oblivious as many of us make out, they just know that, short of outright saying it, anything else that women might tend to consider as 'signals', can always be misread easily. One woman's just being friendly is another woman's signal of interest, Edit: Well scupper me sideways, all that karma and reddit gold! :) Merci beaucoup! [SEP] and men usually have to deal with much stronger negative repercussions as the result of misreading these signals.
+Spurs in 4. A red-hot Manu Ginobili, disappointing Chris Bosh, and defensively dominant Kawhi Leonard will all contribute to a San Antonio sweep, in four closely contested games that [SEP] all go to overtime.
+Are you kidding me? It can't do anything sufficiently complex to give us biological life. Is this really controversial? I thought atheists were supposed to have multiple science Ph.D's? [SEP] We know what hydrogen can do chemically.
+Yes, she has tweeted that sadly. I do believe a man and a MTT help with FemFreq. She might also not want more harassment after getting death threats every single day from angry men because she makes critical videos about video games. I support her and her videos. This one shows exactly how fucking ugly male opinions on women are, when they can create their own fantasy world without even hiring real actors. Making the psychologist's breasts bounce when she spoke about the main character's trauma was just... [SEP] Calling prostituted women in games exactly that instead of "sex workers" has given her a lot of shit too.
+Shhhhhh that fills this subreddit. [SEP] don't expose the hypocrisy
+It's so silly that we can't map keys to other things, WoW, SC2, each let you revamp your keys. Hell I bet you can in heroes too. But, we won't get it, [SEP] and I bet it's because of consoles.
+In general without going into much detail: his advocacy for privatizing traditional state programs such as prisons and education, annulling the CBA rights of public employees, decreasing taxes on the wealthy, implementing incredibly strict and austere welfare reform, , and -in the grand scheme- his most basic underlying assumptions about government. [SEP] pushing for harsher sentencing laws
+Dont lie. [SEP] You're just mad that they read your bible and the truth hurts that its all trash.
+I do not like the patriots. In fact, I would go as far as to say I hate that team. That being said, I felt this whole ordeal was so dumb. [SEP] I'm not really sure how they claim to regulate something that changes with temperature and that they don't even thoroughly document in the first place.
+Basically, it's saying we should stop acting like the sight of boob is such a huge thing, or that posting yours online is 'immoral'. Yeah, some of us find them sexy. We, as a society, have GOT to stop thinking with our genitals all the time. We are fully capable of seeing a pair of breasts without slutshaming, making moral judgements, or leering. Boobs can be nice and pretty and soft and life giving to infants - but they're just boobs. No big deal. [SEP] That doesn't mean we get to harass or slutshame women who show them, nor does that make it 'immoral' to 'show too much boob'. They're just boobs.
+Dota 2 is bringing new meaning to "Valve time". The rate of progress just to get the full DotA roster ported, , is kindof ridiculous. [SEP] let alone introduce anything genuinely new
+ [SEP] How long until they start selling "distressed" gis with torn lapels and faded pits?
+As much as I don't like Peter Thiel, leading this story with his sexuality as though that somehow explains or compounds his actions is just plain wrong. .. as contradictory as that sounds. [SEP] Some republicans / Trump supporters are gay
+Rally advice Hi, Congrats on heading to a TRUMP RALLY! It will be one of the greatest days of your life (the best day). BUT your experience depends on what YOU want to put into it. I was FIRST at the Costa Mesa (Day before he beat Lyin' Ted), Anahiem (day before he hit 1237) and San Diego (day after he hit 1237) The best part of the rally isn't Trump speaking, it's actually spending the day with Trump Supporters! That's the biggest reason to get there early. Bc the rest of the first people around you will also be super centipedes! Trump is Bonus! Here are my signed treasures and a goofy video I made of my 1st Trump Rally. The second rally I got 2 hats signed and the God-Emperor himself graced me with a shake and told me, "You're doing a damn fine job!" and the 3rd I got my 1934a $500 bill signed! Truly incredible! That is why I want to share this info with you! http://youtu.be/lfmqGFS-U7s Anyway, I may already be way too high energy for your plans, but if not... Read on! General advice is get there right before sunrise, however, since your rally is at 8pm. I think you can arrive at 8-9am to be in very front. If you arrive at 10am, you can probably make your way to the front eventually, with some effort and hustle ( bc there are multiple "checkpoints" you go through, as I explain later.) Don't listen to the guy that said one or two hours. Check out the line in my video. In my second and third rally's, almost everyone in the front were people who missed the first rally bc they showed up late. Some even 5 hrs early and missed it. Again, check that fucking line out! THAT is when the stadium was already full. As far as standing in line, everyone will be so friendly, and you will form a bond, you will be able to leave the line at anytime and come back. Going to the bathroom is no problem, they'll save your spot (bc you'll be saving theirs!). As far as bags, two rallies let me have my backpack, the third didn't, so be careful if you do bring it. I definitely brought snacks and water and even ordered a few pizzas for my new friends. Like I said, no big deal if you get up to grab them. Go to the bathroom before you enter the final hall, bc you will not want to move from your spot. You will likely stand outside and then go to another waiting area inside and then wait there til 6:30 or 7 and then you will go through metal detectors to enter the TRUMP RALLY AREA. RUN! RUN! Run to the best spot! Out run the grannies you made friends with all day long, run for yourself and your experience! Now your focus is on enjoying the rally and getting that special signature! Trump always walks around the half circle in front of the stage and signs gear. He will have his own sharpie so don't bring one. Also, BRING SOMETHING MAGA to get signed. If you bring a hat or a trump book or something "special" like that, he WILL sign it. The secret service is often annoyed at how slow he goes signing things. He even reaches back to sign things as the Secret service is pushing him along. Have fun! [SEP] https://sli.mg/MF9BxM
+depending on what you mean over 50% of the post on this sub reddit could be considered bro science. But let's use common sense and logic to figure this out. If you are hungry and you wait longer technically you would be more hungry right? [SEP] Than why is it when you go to bed hungry, you wake up not feeling as hungry at all. This is because your body was never hungry in the first place.
+It will certainly change attitude. Now you've got to listen. [SEP] If your principal had a problem with your teaching in the past you could ignore them.
+Okay. There are several factors that affect a football player: resistance, musculature, and intelligence, for example. (which affects reaction time and game analysis). Thus, if a football player is not very intelligent, it can compensate it with its physique; if, in the other hand, a LoL player is not smart, he simply goes nowhere. [SEP] For LoL players, there is only one factor: intelligence
+It's called New Amsterdam Fencing Academy and it's primary appeal is that it is close. I dont think there is a Houstonian alive that would believe you did that commute by Metro. Wow. I could be in a helicopter and every time I go see my godsons out there (off Spring Cypress) it feels like I'm going to Oklahoma. Beautiful campus though. Did you enjoy the school? [SEP] It's the only way I get things in.
+>White people get shot by the police, so the idea that only black people get short is demonstrable incorrect. The assertion that white people don't get shot for misbehaving is demonstrable incorrect. Who is making this claim? >The biggest problem however is that you're only looking at the raw statistics of the outcome, not at the behavior. Saying black people are killed by the police at a rate three times higher means absolutely nothing without taking into account the behavior of the groups in question. Where is your evidence that looks at behavior? >Hooligans are much more likely to be than nuns; that doesn't mean that there is discrimination against hooligans, it means that certain behavior leads to police action. [SEP] Ahh yes. The blacks that get shot are hooligans. I'm done here.
+but with Jenny and what would be the point of bringing her back to life and saying all that just for her to never come back [SEP] they bigged her up so much at the end of the episode with her saying shes going to have a lot of exciting adventures
+I guess that's our difference, I was referring more to music, and how being a 'movie buff' is acceptable but you rarely hear someone say "he's really into music, dude knows his stuff" because there is some kind of attached superiority stigma. [SEP] I don't beleive hipster is a definable fashion outside of 'kids dressing how they want.' However, fashion isn't something I'm very aware of.
+and slovenly. I know people who are chubby or even fat who put a lot of work into the way they look. They're very clean, well-groomed, buy nice clothes, many of the women take great care with their makeup and hair. Some of them even work out regularly and eat healthy foods, and most are in fairly good health. It's not great to be overweight, especially long-term, but it does not automatically mean you are unhealthy. >To some this does not sound as bad but really if you think about we are literally programmed by nature to do one thing and one thing only. Fuck. Once you ve reached that point you are no longer a human. What absolute, pseudo-evo psych nonsense. Sex is important to most romantic relationships and is an important aspect of human experience. If it were the *sole* focus of most relationships and the ultimate goal of all humans, there would be no happy couples that don't get busy that often, and if reproducing were the defining feature of humanity, there would be no couples who don't have children and don't want any. Humans are animals, but they are also capable of being more, and often choose to be more in many ways. [SEP] You seem to be under the impression that if you're overweight that you're automatically unhealthy
+>How do you even know which people were "terrorized"? Really? It's pretty obvious. If no particular group was targeted (or it's not obvious), it's not a hate crime. [SEP] If a particular group was targeted, that's how you know who was terrorized.
+Not adding a slider coupled to an integer range doesn't save _that_ much money or time, not even enough to be worth mentioning. From there this unfounded opinion spread like a disease. [SEP] It is more the sick notion that changing FOV is regarded as a cheat by devs of stupid games like CoD.
+> fight like the men/women their characters are supposed to be Or Jester Thomas? Or Navlaan? Or, you know, some other super-scummy/-badass character? [SEP] What if someone's cosplaying Maldron?
+Ex-Muslim living in Europe. I grew up with a semi-religious father who was raised by a very religious man. His beliefs would take the better of him and he would be considered abusive by today's standards. My mother was religious, but never forced her religion on anyone else. She's a bit modern, so she doesn't cover her hair, but she does wear long sleeve and long shirts when she's out. Overall, she prays and everything, just doesn't cover her head. I always had a problem with my religion. It wasn't so much the bad parts that I had an issue with, but the compatibility with Western culture. I grew up for a few years in Bristol, and lived my life between Dubai and Syria, and as such, I don't really have a true identity. I identify with parts Syrians and parts Western. It's a mess in my head, because half of my thoughts are in Arabic while half are in English. Here's my problem: I love the idea of democracy. I love the notion of being able to express myself in anyway I want. I love the fact that I can talk about a leader and not be punished. I love that I can question a religion, and not be killed. These were the issues I had with Islam. When I was taught Islam in school, I was taught a happy, fluffy version. A version that seems to not do any wrong. Homosexuality is not God's will. Sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems. Women who don't cover up are to blame for being raped. And yet when I thought about all these things, they didn't bother me. Yes, some guy is gay. If I find it icky, isn't that on me? Why is it on him? If this person isn't bothering me, why is he to blame? If a couple have sex outside of marriage, how will it change if there is a legal contract saying they are married? Why does a woman who have to carry the blame for a person who attacks her? To me this was synonymous with bullying, something that I went through as a child, and it really struck a chord with me. Why do I, owning a penis, get a pass because a woman doesn't cover up her hair? It seemed like bullshit to me. So time moved on, and I grew older and wiser, and I got to a point where I stopped hanging out with anyone that would even use religious language. In 2011 I took my first trip to Europe as an adult. It was a shock. Not because of the lifestyle of Europeans, but of the lifestyle of Arabs and Muslims. I've seen more religious extremism in Europe than I have in a lifetime in the Arab world. It was a shock to me. To this day, I don't understand it. Religion in Syria is a very personal and private affair. We don't judge you based on what God you worship. My home town is considered to be very religious, and even there, Christians lived side by side with Muslims. Every Christmas, there would be decorations and celebrations and carols and church affairs, and every Ramadan the whole city would observe fasting from sunrise to sunset. My grandmother had a Christian neighbour that would celebrate Ramadan. My grandmother would always put up a Christmas tree because she loved the spirit of Christmas. I was 14 when I found out her neighbour was Christian, and it was only when one of their family members passed away and we went to the wake. My grandmother, mother, and aunts never mentioned it. When I asked, they said because it's not important. It wasn't worth mentioning, because they didn't care what their religion was. What does this have to do with Europe? Europe's problem stems from countries like Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, and the rest of Asia. The further east you go, the more extreme your Islam is. It's the same the further West you go. Though Saudi Arabia isn't a beacon of tolerance, for some reason the countries surrounding it in the Levant seem to be. Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon never cared about what sect you followed from a religious point of view. For some reason, when Muslims come to Europe, they fail to integrate, and become more extreme with their beliefs. Why, I don't know. I think part of it is lack of identity. Europe COULD be partially to blame, for seeing these immigrants as second-rate workers, and not seeing them as equals, so their kids grasp on to their identity. It COULD also be that their parents are just cunts and raise them to be hateful and entitled. Except for every extreme story you hear, you'll find one that is very tolerant and able to integrate and live in peace. There is a new breed of Muslim that is growing, the breed of the Modern Muslim. These are kids who are in their mid-20's and younger, who have been exposed to Western ideas and ideals, who have grown up in a time where you CAN be gay, but it is still dangerous, where you CAN date a girl, but you parents can't find out, where you CAN marry outside your religion, but it is still risky. And they all say the same thing: while they do believe in the religion, they think it is time for a reform. They think it is time to not be so extreme in our reactions. A lot of people would tell you in a private conversation that they have no issue with a homosexual, but get them together, and they will shout angry rhetoric about how they need to be stoned. This is the problem with being a Muslim: you are ashamed of your thoughts because you don't want to be marginalised within your society/community. I know it because I went through it. You're afraid of the isolation so you go with the crowd, even though inside you know you don't agree with it. This modern Muslim is growing in the majority of the Arab world. Globalisation has brought a lot of new thought into the dialogue. A lot of these Modern Muslims don't discount the Qu'uran or the hadith, but rather believe since it is an eternal message, that God predicted the changes in humanity, and as such, the language used can be interpreted to work with the times. We don't live in 1253, where it would be acceptable to stone someone for having a different belief (no matter what Saudi tries to tell you, it is unacceptable). We live in 2015, where we are accepting our differences and commonalities, where we can accept that people can have different views on subjects and still be civil with each other. As such, they read the Qu'uran and think that the verses that call on for killing people are no longer relevant, and such acts should be left to God, as he is the final judge of all. If a person is homosexual, judge him on his actions to others, not on who he bangs. If God is really angry with him being homosexual, then God will sort him out. While these seem to be contradictory to a lot of what is known about Islam and Muslims, there are a lot of parts that say God is the last judge, that we are just here temporarily, that we do not know his final plan, that we can only follow his will. So these Modern Muslims leave it all to God. Are you a tranny that can't figure out how to dress? I'll treat you based on how you treat others, and let God sort out the rest. Are you a girl who wants to marry a Christian? I'll treat you based on how you treat others and let God sort out the rest. So on and so forth. I went to college with religious folk who had gay friends. Their reasoning was, I am not God, and I cannot judge this person just because he likes to sleep with a person of the same sex. I will treat him based on how he treats me and others. That is what dictates he is a good/bad person. The rest is up to God. The problem with a lot of Muslims is, they seem to forget this. They seem to forget that while God made rules to govern humanity, he is the final judge. That while we are told to execute murderers and what not, this person will ultimately be judged by God, and we are in no position to judge them. Why, I cannot tell. Part of me believes that because Europe has had a bad experience with Moroccans/Turks, they leave them alone and brush them with the same brush. Suddenly all Syrians are like Moroccans, even though we do not get along with them at all. I stayed in a room with 5 other Muslims that would pray and fast and what not, but they would get stoned on weekends and drink every now and then. To a lot of them, it is just cultural, the same way Christianity and Judaism can be cultural. It's a modern era for this religion, and a lot of people are abiding by the norms, not the religion. I don't know how to solve this problem, sadly. I look at the US, and I notice Muslims are way better integrated there than in Europe. Maybe it's because the US is a younger country, and as such, it is composed of many ethnicities, while Europe tries to hold on to it's own because it's been inhabited for thousands of years. Maybe it's because Americans are more tolerant, but I doubt that. Maybe it's because Europeans aren't as social as Americans, so these immigrants don't integrate as well. I don't know. All I do know is that Islam needs a kick in the ass and needs to be modernised if it is to live peacefully with the modern world. All this isn't enough for me to follow the faith. I believe in Science and not a magical being living in the sky. Tl;dr Islam can be bad. Not all Muslims are bad. [SEP] Europe's problem is that they are missing out on this modern Muslim.
+Davis's job as the County Clerk is not to grant personal permission for marriages to take place. Her job is not to determine whether a marriage meets her own personal religious doctrines. **Davis's job as the Rowan County Clerk** is to ascertain whether the applicants for a Kentucky marriage license have met all of the minimum statutory requirements and have provided all of the necessary documents in order to obtain a legal marriage license. Once those prerequisites have been met, Davis's job as the Rowan County Clerk is to then certify that those requirements have been fulfilled by issuing a marriage license, which provides a legal record for the applicant couple verifying that they have met those legal requirements. And if her personal religious views prevent her from fulfilling the requirements of that job **as she had taken an oath to do**, then Davis should immediately step down and find another line of work that does not create such a obligational conflict for her. Maybe Mike Huckabee could hire her to fill a $80K per year clerical position in his religious organization? If Davis refuses to comply with the conditions of the release agreement, then she needs to be remanded to a jail cell asap and [SEP] the Clerk's office should be placed under court ordered federal receivership.
+>How do you not interpret that as, "Okay, guys, you don't have to wash your hands." You're missing out a crucial bit. You missing the end off made it sound like the advice is wider reaching than it was. Jesus was talking about the relation between washing hands and cleanliness of your soul. Attaching any other meaning to it is a misinterpretation. >At the very least, an omniscient deity who has a complete knowledge of germs and bacteria, should have added the qualifier: "It's not a sin to eat with unwashed hands, but it's probably still a good idea to wash them anyway." Why? There's no problem with how it is. It fails to specifically guard against a wacky misinterpretation that you have no evidence of anyone falling for other than yourself - but all the evidence that it's wacky is there. All he really doesn't say is "and by the way, if you haven't got the message by now, I'm not talking about sickness and disease when I'm talking about the relationship between sin and handwashing - in case you forgot there are other things that handwashing does help with, like having clean hands. Just in case 2000 years later someone gets the wrong end of that particular stick - I was saying washing doesn't cleanse sin, but just in case you get confused please don't forget washing also cleans other things quite nicely." [SEP] instead, it's pretty clearly: "Okay, guys, you don't have to wash your hands to keep your soul clean."
+In terms of teamfighting, I find that often the only person I can safely attack is their tank. The problem there becomes they have so much armor and health that it takes forever to kill them. I have a hard time in teamfights deciding when to be somewhat aggressive and try to deal consistent damage to the enemy team versus playing it safe, ensuring I survive, but possibly doing extremely little damage. Depending on the team comp, it *almost* seems I would win more if stay way, way back and don't even attack a single enemy until all enemies have used their ults already and only then come engage for my first attack. I'm assuming this is just the kind of thing that comes with experience, and is highly dependent on team comp: do they have assassins, do you have great peel, shields or heals etc. [SEP] Do you just have to have patience here and assume most teamfights you mostly be attacking their tank (or bruiser ) who charges your backline and the other teammates won't be targets until much later in the fight?
+That is a great paper, but let's put it into context. The conclusion is that theoretically, it is more difficult to enforce collusion in a prisoner's dilemma scenario than a network industry scenario. This paper is hardly a hand wave against nay sayers, it is interesting but I only did undergrad econ so I am not on the same level of discourse as Caplan. That being said, I think I have a critique. I have heard arguments for an ancap FDA before for example, the idea being that a third party entity is in business purely to verify the safety of food and drugs. Their business model is based on reputation, so this third party entity has no incentive to cheat, collude, accept bribes in the short run. If we look at the assumptions of the basic prisoner's dilemma, it requires both parties in the classic scenario to have no knowledge of what the other one is saying to police in the interrogation room. Basically, for a classic prisoner's dilemma to exist there needs to be information asymmetry and the expectation that your competitor will cheat in the future. Thus, you cheat first because if cheating is inevitable, you mine as well be the one to do it. But what if there was a third party firm whose business model was solely centered around surveillance of the cartel member firms? Their business would rely upon reputation, so this third party entity would have no incentive to help any single party in the cartel cheat. This would eliminate the information asymmetry in the classic prisoner's dilemma scenario, and make price collusion more similar to a network industry scenario, where it actually hurts individual dissenters who do not cooperate. Expectations for future cheating by other cartel member firms would be lessened or non-existent, there is no longer any incentive to cheat because the member firms all know each others quantity produced and pricing from a trusted independent third party source. And I have to mention that all of this is dependent upon the reliability and accuracy of neoclassical econ models and assumptions, which I actually don't believe, but I am accepting all this for the sake of argument. [SEP] you cannot simply link this and say the discussion is over.
+>The basic philosophy of feminism is that women and men should be equal. Saying that belief in the patriarchy is an integral part of being a feminist and that people are rightly kept out of discussions because they don't subscribe to it is very clearly what I'm talking about. The problem here is that feminism isn't just a debate group. Feminist theory/women's studies/gender studies is an *academic discipline*, under the subheading of sociology, with some fifty years of study and analysis and, yes, even experimentation, justifying the basic analytical underpinnings of the feminist movement. That's why, like TCZapper points out, a lot of feminist spaces refuse to deal with 'feminist 101' questions: because feminism's not *just* 'women and men should be equal' - hell, the *Vatican* believes that - but also a set of theories about *why* women and men are unequal, and if you don't understand or accept that theoretical background, you're probably not a feminist. And just in brief: >And, oh the good old cartoon clearly labeling the vandals that ruin all discussion as MRAs. Wouldn't a sub so heavily infected by these assholes downvote the post calling them out to oblivion? Not upvote it to the all time top spot? The lurkers are mostly feminists, the comment section is full of MRAs. This dichotomy between readers and commenters shows up all over Reddit - for example, r/science, where like half the front page posts have top comments explaining why the post is bullshit. [SEP] Saying that you're a feminist but you don't believe in patriarchy as a concept is like saying you're a physicist but quantum entanglement is just too weird for you to accept.
+Oh yes! Makes guys look so much more smarter somehow. Its like a magic wand, a good fit and the guy looks smart! [SEP] check shirt in nice dark colors
+It's like what a commentor said a day or so ago, remember to . Some people really need to take that advice and let themselves calm down a bit so they can think and act a bit more clearly. [SEP] take a break from KiA every so often
+Yes and no. I mean graphics on the software side are definitely advancing, but I don't think they are advancing faster than the hardware is, we've , meanwhile GPUs are getting exponentially faster. Not to mention as we make the push to higher and higher resolutions it's making extra processing like Anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering completely unnecessary. We are going to be getting to a point where unless you have a highly trained eye you literally can't discern the difference and what is going to matter most is the texture quality. I'd say the 900 GTX will give 4k a solid run for the money, and the 1000 GTX (or however they change the name) will be very 60fps+ on 4k. [SEP] over the past decade we've seen the standard gaming resolution push from something crazy like 1024x768/1280x1024 to 1080p/1440p
+You all are dilusional. If you actually had a serious conversation with most dudes in the navy they could go on and on about the troubles working with females brings. [SEP] You are straight fucking lying if you want a 130 lb female to come rescue you in a fire versus an average built male.
+How am I supposed to know to look in /r/politics, eh? Still, while I'm sure she has a thing against Israel and Jews, her comment does bring up an interesting point. Either, we should be more careful with what we say regarding our President or pro-Israel advocates need to lighten up a bit. The top vote only got 272 net votes, the way you posted it was misleading. You can upvote something in the hopes that more people read it, but that doesn't mean you agree with it. Need I quote reddiquette? Also, I feel that while her past comment did not cross the line into anti-semetism (making it ok to support) these new accusations have. She's getting more and more extreme making her less and less a moderate liberal. There are far more moderate liberals than extreme ones. [SEP] Why ARE we allowed to call the President whatever the fuck we want but it's political suicide to criticize Israel.
+One way you can incrementally back up data to a second disk is... RAID 1 :) There are only 2 types of hard drive - those which have failed, and those which are going to fail. RAID 1 means that the probability you will lose data is reduced to the probability that both drives will fail at the same time (presumably very low). The software RAID implementation in the Linux kernel is excellent, as good as (if not better than) all but the most expensive hardware RAID controllers. You won't get much of a performance increase with a 2-disk RAID 1 solution, however. [SEP] "Burning out" of disks is irrelevant; it's the data that matters.
+Thanks! It's not really an argument for an improved shooting range, explicitly. It's just one of the counter arguments I figured would be easy to bring up, and I tackled that is all. [SEP] I think you're taking that from my devils advocate about bot matches and the shooting range.
+>Labeling him an "illegal immigrant" just removes us from seeing the very real human tragedy that lead to his death They are illegal immigrants. The term offending you does not change this fact. If they were genuine asylum seekers then they would have sought asylum in the first safe nation. [SEP] Going beyond those nations is just a blatant grab at welfare and better economic stability.
+I am so glad that you had such a positive experience! It sounds comfortable and arousing all in one go, which a lot of people are afraid of at sex clubs, especially. There is a great on her experiences at Ron Jeremy's Sex Club in Portland it has since been shut down. My partner and myself happened to go there a few times before the fire code issues cropped up. We had hopes on it re-opening, but are now looking for other locations. Just being able to be in a friendly sex positive environment, that also happened to have a liquor license and a buffet was fun! I am glad there really are still places that cater to the more kinky and accepting heathens ;P . [SEP] comic by Erika Moen
+... I'm not really sure how to respond to that. This isn't halo. This isn't the halo universe. They're making something new and not halo. [SEP] Your logic makes no sense.
+Yeah, but it becomes pretty hypocritical when you claim to be libertarian Liberty has to be for everyone. [SEP] but only want freedom for straight, white males.
+Ah, History 12. In response to learning Japan had invaded China, "Why would Japan invade China? Aren't they in Asia?" And upon hearing that Japan is the only country to ever be attacked with nuclear weapons, this student then cited 9/11 and the millions that died during that horrendous nuclear attack. Every day was agony. [SEP] Also, "Hitler isn't dead"
+Travel Reward Cards generally suck. I've never been impressed with them and have gone back and forth several times with "Pro Travel Rewards Cards" people and they have never once shown me how they are better than just normal cards unless you are churning. If you plan to churn, then visit /r/churning. If you don't want to churn, then I would recommend getting a good rewards card like SallieMae BarclayCard or the Citi DoubleCash card and then just using your cash back from those to pay for your travel. All the travel rewards card is doing is forcing you to use your points towards travel, but you're going to be getting less than if you just used a normal cashback rewards card and funneled that money to travel. [SEP] If you want to travel, then budget for it, don't use a less than efficient travel card to force you into it.
+>Yea, I'm in an extremely lucrative profession Bahahahahaha, you think anyone actually believes your cowardly bullshit? You're a sad autist and eternal virgin, go put another 1000 hours into this terrible game kiddo. Just face it, you're a scrub baby with bad stats and you're upset about it having to acknowledge that fact. Go cry somewhere else about it. >It doesn't need any more scrubs like yourself crying because vehicles are too hard. Haha and yet my vehicle stats are better then yours (well, all of them are), don't be angry that you've put so much time into this series and yet are still really bad at it. like you, deal with it kiddo. [SEP] I love shitting on scrub coward pubstars
+And how do you explain the inconsistencies such as ? [SEP] certain narratives being repeated twice
+ [SEP] I read somewhere that it only works up to 30 blocks, but don't quote me on that
+, but personal choices can't? She puts forth that casual sex isn't good for women, that's not a mystical belief it is a logical assertion. The question is whether or not that is true, not if it is insulting. [SEP] Wait we believe that economies work and can be studied in concrete fashion
+Peasant Comments: * lol that will shut the noise from PC gamers. * lol master race * * Thats because pc gamers may have better tech but are NOT better or bigger than console gamers. And we won't talk about how many pc gamers pirate all their games. [SEP] There are plenty of mods on ps and Xbox you just have to look for them
+If you search on google, the google definition at the top is a compiler. The 'injure or kill' portion is from the oxford english dictionary. The only other place it shows up is in the 'translations' box of thefreedictionary.com, but not in the definition portion. I don't know what that means. - but it's a moot point - because I acknowledge that words change over time in my post, and I was simply musing over how I feel this is a change for the worse. [SEP] I'm curious where else you're finding it outside of oxford
+Thank you for the very thorough answer. A lot of outdoor activities were done so a lot of footage was recorded, but that was primarily recorded in 1080p because my old computer rig at the time wasn't powerful enough for 4K. However despite shooting 95% 1080p I shot about 100GB of footage to comb through. My main SSD will have Win7 for now, and eventually Win10 once the kinks are worked out. It'll have plenty of apps installed with the usuals like MS Office but especially the entire Adobe suite. It will have a few games installed on there as well but most of the games will be installed on the slower but much larger "Data" HDD. Even so even just a couple latest-gen games can add up at at least 50GB each. For the OS + apps/couple games reason alone I wanted at least 256GB for the OS drive if it doesn't also include projects on it, and 500GB or bigger if it does. I would only be working on 1 project at a time on this theoretical project-only SSD. Again this past trip the source footage was around 100GB but that was at 1080p, but on the other hand that is probably an extreme example of the upper end of how much source footage I end up with for a project. I will absolutely be backing up SSDs and HDDs regularly and to the cloud. For what it's worth the rig I am building right now has a i7-5820k; MSI X99S Sli Krait mobo, 32GB RAM, GTX 980 video card. Thanks. [SEP] An example of how much space I actually use would probably be this past summer's week long trip to Mexico.
+VPN? Don't people realize that VPN hides your IP from the final destination but doesn't hide what you are doing from the VPN provider? And who is to say the MPAA, etc, isn't running the VPN service to nab you? [SEP] So you buy VPN service and assume they won't turn you in when they get slapped with a court order?
+I think that's a bit of a stretch to presume that much about his meaning behind it, but even still, not rape. As unfortunate as it might be, we live in a time where "Can I fuck you" actually gets a positive response more often than we might like to admit. So that's the tactic he went with. Saying "Oh but I'm the bad guy", says nothing to the effect of "Well, say no all you want, I'm gonna come get it..." THAT would be rape. This is not. [SEP] Hell, you almost have to admire not bothering to coat it in lies.
+for locks so dunno what you mean by missed that. It doesn't even fit the warlock vibe, just like the above user mentioned, bro is a Titan thing. [SEP] Yeah been here since day one and never seen that
+No, they would. I'm Engineer #1 at a rather large finance company and if *anyone* came in and started mouthing off consistently about a system they barely understand, then they'd be on probation before they knew it. [SEP] Also, never listen to anything some contractor has to say.
+ [SEP] At the point where you're worse than Sarah Palin, don't you have to quit the race?
+> have it approved . If you wanted to be benevolent, you could finance this by fleecing the insurance companies, raising the list price on existing drugs they'd be paying for. [SEP] This costs millions of dollars
+I don't own any crazy expensive ammo, so I've never had an issue letting someone use my stuff. If you are generous, you might have it paid back to you. One guy at my range brought in his AR he had modified back in the day. It was awesome. [SEP] pre-ban giggle-switch
+>It's entirely possible for an action to happen during a play that is dirtier than one happening after. Sure, but Meriweather hitting someone high doesn't trump Suh kicking someone in the dick completely on purpose. Suh's dirty plays are so dirty that there is no defending them. Meriweathers dirty plays are hard hitting football plays, Suh's are just straight up cheap shots. Suh is so much dirtier. [SEP] I really don't see how it's not black and white.
+ [SEP] Why the fuck is pure blond advertising that it has less calories than wine? Might as well advertise that it has less calories than coke for how relevant it is.
+I don't love this article. Not a word about the **zero** unemployment in the non-union skilled trades, nothing about small business, and the lion's share of credit going to Albany for incentive programs such as Solar City. Sincere question: [SEP] Does anybody know anybody who has benefited in any way from Solar City (besides Ciminelli)?
+But more importantly, Faber and Ludwig are in the middle of a massive dispute, so suddenly we can cherry pick out of context behaviour and make assumptions based on that? "Wow, Bang spoke quickly once, he is probably on drugs, no he has a drug addiction, no his dispute with TAM was because he got greedy for money to fuel his racism and drug habit". Jesus fucking christ, I don't know enough about Ludwig or Faber to know who the fuck is right, but maybe, MAYBE we can take shit people say with a grain of salt instead of immediately bringing out the pitch forks against someone who 24 hours before we didn't all consider to be a racist sexist peanut butter hustling piece of shit. [SEP] Honestly Joe interrupts people all the time, which can get really annoying for guests.
+'another guy walks passed me and says "hey gorgeous, have a beautiful day" (in a tone... you know the one) and I shouted "no!" and he said "I said have a great day" and I just shouted no again and kept walking.' I don't think this was sexual enough for such a reaction and I don't think it's reasonable, but I don't care about the "NO!" that much, I would just be irritated as a man. I don't understand how some women complain (in my country) that men don't spontaneously talk to women anymore (aka where have the real men gone), and at the same time there are women shouting at any man that tries to talk to them. But the comment clearly puts men on one level with dogs, and even if it is a joke, it's damn stupid. She sees men as Untermensch, as a Nazi would say it. But I agree that I should see other feminist subreddits, just to have a better view on it. I didn't know /r/feminism had that few active users, since there are so many post there. [SEP] You should know that for some men it needs a lot of courage to talk to a random girl you don't know, and being shouted at in this situation is definitely devastating to them, crushing their (already small) self-confidence.
+Women who take themselves too seriously. If she does not have the self esteem to take light ribbing/joking she will likely not have the self esteem for a normal relationship. All the women I know like this get very clingy/desperate or controlling. But even things like yes its nice to look nice, but no one is going to care if you don't wear make up to xyz. Similarly any woman who takes YOU/the relationship too seriously. If it feels too serious, then it probably is. These types of women tend to be husband focused in my experience. Or just like flat out nuts. Being an adult and having a massive passion for Disney. Or anything kinda childish. Anyone who's a bad drunk. This is just an extension of them. And if she can't consistently hold her liquor. If she's boring and incurious. I feel like that doesn't need to be said. If she cares about brands or status symbols an ODDLY large amount. If she doesn't work but needs more cash or relies on someone else for money when she could work. When she uses you as a coping mechanism. Is it nice to have the support of a partner? Absolutely. Is that the same thing as putting your partner in a difficult scenario (missing friends/hobbies/work) consistently to get "support" for trivial shit. Being an adult means taking care of your emotions and not letting them trash other people's lives. If she talks shit about all her close friends. If she has no hobbies or passions. [SEP] If she doesn't blink enough.
+Elemental: War of Magic was a very key example of this, the game, during beta, was plagued with issues and base design decisions that almost unanimously were being spoken of in the forums as broken or boring. The devs never heard. The side of the crowd of 'it's BETA!' was, as always, there, and as always, 1.0 didnt do anything to fix it. War of Magic failed disastrously. Reviews across the board saying it sucked and felt unfinished, both critics and players disliked it. Eventually the CEO of the company, and one of the developers of the game, came out and explained this, they were so invested in it, that they were blind, and dismissed everything the players said. They changed a lot for the next Elemental games, even gave the next 2 for free to those that had pre ordered WoM, so I dont hold them a grudge, if anything I felt shocked for the 'repayment' pack. And yet, three Elementals down the line, try as I might, I just cant get to like it. Perhaps CO has started to see Skylines a bit like this, and I wouldnt be surprised. As Skylines came out, it was an unending train of pure praise and all, it's hard to be self-critical in the face of that. [SEP] Sometimes, the game developers' attachment to the game can blind them, maybe even too much.
+He seems to have a very minor role as RB, and a very minor role in special teams. If anyone is going to show quick improvement from getting game time it's Hayne, so why not play him more in junk time? [SEP] What do you guys think their plan is for Hayne?
+>Statistics, my friend. They mean things. Yep. Figures don't lie but a lot of liars figure. They do not 'mean' that when 80 and 95% of a population adopt a system, the system is wrong. In your case, you are taking a single data point from a sample and a single data point from a sub population of that sample and attempting to define a correlation. A really sophomoric canard! Shame on you for sleeping through statistics 101! OMG! You are out of your skull!! [SEP] I spent a lot of time in Thailand.
+What trinkets do you recommend for raiding vs mythic +? I'm hoping to get the one off Ursoc but rngeezus has been a real mcasshole. [SEP] and the one off of spider bird
+Isn't it just great r/[redacted] does not have ONE SINGLE post on this? Actually i lied, i saw exactly one post on it. had about 500 upvotes, but 60% upvoted. And the comment section? [SEP] Everyone saying o'keefe was a hack
+oh that sounds so awesome. .. this will happen. thank you much! [SEP] diamond drill with efficiency and fortune
+First of all, 90% of your complaints come from 1 or 2 players about the lions being dirty and "trying to injure players". That is 1 foot stomp, keep clinging to it though, thats fine. The actual leaders of our team, . So you can relax with all your crying about how we hit late and after the whistle, that is not our philosophy or how they play. It is just some events blew up by the media to get ratings, and you eat right into them like a fat kid in a all you can eat ice cream sunday buffet. And also, if you were treated like shit and laughed at for years, never respected, wouldn't you have some fire in you as well? I sure as hell would. But, I will let the season play out as it will, I believe in Matt. As long as he is upright there isn't anyone we can't beat. And after we beat you this year, all your stars on that precious defence of yours are going to be another year older, another year slower, and your decline will follow. [SEP] Matt, Calvin and Nate are among the classiest guys in the league and uphold the game of football to a higher standard than most
+While I approve of Mulcair's stated aim, I have to wonder how it would be received if Jeb Bush Shouldn't direct foreign policy be left to elected leaders? [SEP] called up Putin during the U.S. Election to ask him to pull out of Ukraine.