I have seen more biased and tunnel visioned views in this subreddit than any christian I have ever met. I was born and raised catholic but have no religious views now. [SEP] >I have seen more biased and tunnel visioned views in this subreddit than any christian I have ever met.  Challenge them when you see them. Challenge them without insult, reasonably, and without condescending. Submit the kind of content you want to see. Make the kinds of comments you think people should be making. Be part of the solution. Finger wagging only lowers the quality of discourse further.  Your concern is noted.
Exactly. Poor Trump supporters see people like my family making a few hundred thousand a year as the liberal rich enemy. I just wish I could convence them we are on the same side getting screwed by the investment class in the US. After state, federal, fica our tax rate is almost 50% while the truly rich pay 15% maximum and most much less. Really, anyone who works for a living rather than Invests for a living should be on the same side.   Edited for typos on mobile.  [SEP] > Poor Trump supporters see people like my family making a few hundred thousand a year as the liberal rich enemy. I just wish I could convence them we are on the same side getting screwed by the investment class in the US.   All true, and most of these Trump supporters aren't poor. The average Trump voter makes about $75k per year. That's not rich but it's certainly not poverty. They're angry because they see us as condescending and exclusionary. They conflate "coastal liberals" with an insufferable and not that liberal 0.1% of left-leaning people who live on the coasts. It's like they think that everyone in Manhattan has access to this romantic-comedy life that they've been deprived of, and of course that isn't remotely true.   My theory is that our visible, not-that-liberal cultural elite is permitted to exist by the economic elite because it makes the left look bad to have a bunch of smug, elitist, and largely ineffective assholes represent liberalism. Every time some left-leaning Hollywood millionaire says something insufferable about the Midwestern town he grew up in (never mind that his parents moved to California when he was 10) it works to the benefit of our right-wing economic elite.
I love your logic: "why won't the fans keep coming out to by a decade old crappy product!"   Except for the fact that they have before. There have been many occasions where the fan base was excited and started showing up in big games. Many. Only to have Dolan and his team throw shit in their face in return. It's been like this year after year after year, yet somehow you're surprised team fandom and excitement is dying?  And really, only a fraction of those big situations have people thought "wow, this could be it...! This could be the team that does it!" The rest of the times invoked a shrug of the shoulders and a "meh, they're above average. Maybe they can pull something off?" That's what terrible ownership and incompetence has done to a franchise that was once the darling of the city.   Lol, I love your optimism calling these "two good years." I mean, I guess they weren't as bad or below average as other years. I guess that makes them good? I love that you blame the casual fans, essentially, even though they're the ones that caught on to how unserious management/ownership has been at winning the last decade while you demand we keep eating the garbage they serve . If the team can put together one legit playoff team (no, not some wild card choke team [that game sold out by the way]) then the fans will be excited and come out. [SEP] >I love your logic: "why won't the fans keep coming out to by a decade old crappy product!"  That isn't what I'm saying at all. As I said, I realistically don't expect the Indians to suddenly have fantastic attendance because they have had two good seasons in a row. There needs to be a pattern of success for attendance to really make large gains. What I am saying is that there is no excuse for attendance to be THIS bad, especially when there are other teams putting a worse product on the field with better results.  >Except for the fact that they have before. There have been many occasions where the fan base was excited and started showing up in big games. Many. Only to have Dolan and his team throw shit in their face in return. It's been like this year after year after year, yet somehow you're surprised team fandom and excitement is dying?  How are the Dolans throwing shit in the faces' of the fans recently? You can't keep pushing the LOL DOLANS ARE BAD line unless you're going to give me something concrete. In the last few years the Dolans have extended the core of the team, went out and got two of the biggest free agents in team history, and just recently announced a major renovation for the stadium.  >That's what terrible ownership and incompetence has done to a franchise that was once the darling of the city.  The franchise was the darling of the city of less than a decade because of a bunch of crazy factors that lead to a perfect storm for attendance. Historically, support for this team has been AWFUL and the fact that they strung together a few good years of attendance doesn't somehow make this team some sort of mistreated hidden gem.  >Lol, I love your optimism calling these "two good years." I mean, I guess they weren't as bad or below average as other years. I guess that makes them good?  They made the wild card last year and they're in the running for it this year. That is a lot better than many teams can say.   >I love that you blame the casual fans,  Did I ever say that? I actually feel that the 'casual fans' - people who just go to a baseball game because it is something fun to do, often regardless of team performance - are actually the people that support this team the best. Group outings, stuff like that.  Drop the bullshit condescending tone and quit trying to change my argument.
The point is that you are speaking in vague hyperbole about which policy positions of Hillary's were so much better than Sanders' that minorities came out to support her but not him. What exactly are you talking about? I suspect it had more to do with name recognition and a residual affinity for Bill, but you seem to think it was policy specifics. I am asking what policy specifics you are talking about.  [SEP] > What exactly are you talking about? I suspect it had more to do with name recognition and a residual affinity for Bill  Hilarious. You can't imagine Black voters would reject Sanders on his policies so it must be name recognition. Thats amazingly condescending and so many Sanfders supporters acted like that and it makes clear to Black voters that blocking a candidate that appeals to someone that thinks that way was the right move:  Anyway:  >One former Sanders staffer, who spoke to Fusion only on condition of anonymity, told me that the outreach team’s efforts to make inroads with black media were consistently blocked by the campaign. This included denying requests for interviews and access to the campaign, the staffer said.  >The staffer said that the campaign feared that engaging black media might expose Sanders’ weakness in articulating how his economics-heavy platform would benefit black voters.   http    
> Bullshit, there's nothing civil in how you started this exchange:  Are you Martin Shkreli? If so.. okay, but if not; what is your deal?   Frankly, I do think his actions are sociopathic, not just for the fraud, or the attempt to cover it up, or his attempt to extort another market to make up for this fraud, or for his behavior while acting as CEO but because he refuses to admit any wrongdoing and tries to make the case that everything he did was for other people. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm entitled to my opinion.  > You dumb fucking hypocrite.  And yet.. you don't see a difference between the two comments here? No one is that obtuse. You are being severely caustic for reasons that I can't rightly determine.. again, unless you are actually Martin Shkreli himself, I have no idea why the stakes are so high for you here.  > Right on the heels of patting yourself on the back for wanting to have an earnest discussion you still try to throw jabs?  After wading through your mountain of insult laden textual-diarrhea, yea.. I think I deserved one_. Notice, I didn't use profanity, didn't insult your ideas, or your intelligence, nor did I make some projection about your motives, character or capability. I try to stay above the belt, at least.  > Why are you so eager to defend the instance companies?  I'm not, you're moving the bar. I think Shkreli's behavior is worthy of sentence, I don't care who he gamed to get his money from, he did it improperly. He knew the rules equally well and chose not to follow them, why are you so eager to defend that?  > But you don't even admit that it's the insurance companies that were being targeted. You don't even understand the series of events, but still strongly hold an opinion.  Yea.. because insurance companies will happily take the loss, and will in no way pass that on to their consumers. It's just some millionaires money, or something? Shkreli's really doing a "Robin Hood" here for us all. Clearly, I don't buy into this narrative.  > That makes you a fool.  According to your relentless need to project, I'm sure it seems that way.  EDIT: psst! You forgot to downvote this one to show me how mad you are.  [SEP] >Are you Martin Shkreli? If so.. okay, but if not; what is your deal?  You start this by talking down to me. Now you're confused that I'm hostile and barbed towards you? Are you autistic?   >Frankly, I do think his actions are sociopathic  Is that because you have no functional understanding of sociopathy?   >because he refuses to admit any wrongdoing and tries to make the case that everything he did was for other people.  People rarely cop to their own shitty choices. That's not socipathic nor unique to pretty much anyone in particular.   >I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm entitled to my opinion.  You admit that lack the proper basis to make any such determinations, yet you don't let that prevent you from making said determination. This makes you either a fool, bullshit artist, or both.   >And yet.. you don't see a difference between the two comments here? No one is that obtuse. You are being severely caustic for reasons that I can't rightly determine.. again, unless you are actually Martin Shkreli himself, I have no idea why the stakes are so high for you here.  No, man. I get to respond to your bullshit condescending attitude. I happen to know more than you and I'm better at being an asshole. It's not my fault you spoke out of turn and can't see it through.   >After wading through your mountain of insult laden textual-diarrhea, yea.. I think I deserved one.  LOL! You faced the fire you started and want a cookie for it. What a fucking child!   >Notice, I didn't use profanity, didn't insult your ideas, or your intelligence, nor did I make some projection about your motives, character or capability. I try to stay above the belt, at least.  You started with an abject lack of respect, and then expect it in spades. You must be young to be this naive.   >I'm not, you're moving the bar.  Nope. That's what happened. It's unfortunate you hold a position you can't defend, but me citing facts isn't "moving the bar."   >I think Shkreli's behavior is worthy of sentence  Specifically, what behavior. And in violation of which law(s)?  >I don't care who he gamed to get his money from, he did it improperly.  Except he didn't. Jacking up prices on medications he was the sole producer of to bleed insurance companies isn't a crime. That's not what this post is about. I'm asking why people are cheering on his sentence based on him gaming the current insurance system.   >He knew the rules equally well and chose not to follow them, why are you so eager to defend that?  I actually don't defend his behavior, I just acknowledge that the medication pricing was fairplay. Scummy, but within the rules/laws.   >Yea.. because insurance companies will happily take the loss  WHAT?! What the fuck are you talking about? Insurance companies are businesses, too. They will do everything in their power to remain profitable.   >and will in no way pass that on to their consumers.  Trying to actually explain this to is just so fucking tedious. You should start by asking questions, not making statements. Your original position was that this guy was hurting people. Did you mean insurance companies? I doubt you did. Distributed costs are what insurance companies do, except they will remain profitable by unlawfully denying proper claims and sentencing their customers to death. Doesn't that strike you as more "sociopathic" in whatever ignorant conception of that you term you might be holding this instance?   >Shkreli's really doing a "Robin Hood" here for us all. Clearly, I don't buy into this narrative.  Nice straw man. Christ, you're stupid.   >According to your relentless need to project, I'm sure it seems that way.  No man, it's demonstrable. I can prove that you're a fool. 
If I misunderstood you, what definition are you using in the claim that it doesn't exist?  And to clarify my point, sure, I could call it sexism. But if I want to really convey what happened in detail, I have to call it sexism, then explain that the guy didn't know what he was talking about, and then explain that he tried to talk over a woman who did know what she was talking about. That's a long sentence that can be replaced by one word, and like I said, I appreciate precise language.   I like that English borrows or develops all these new words for very specific things, like to tartle, when one person is making introductions and forgets a name, so they hesitate in the hopes that the person will finish the introduction themselves, or an eirenicon, which is a statement designed to harmonize and bring into accord two conflicting viewpoints. These were all made up at some point, just like every word in every language. But they're fun, concise, and useful at times! [SEP] > And to clarify my point, sure, I could call it sexism. But if I want to really convey what happened in detail  Then you tell what happened in detail. You can't make up words on the spot for very specific situations, especially not if the same words are already used to mean something else entirely.  Mansplaining is not a term used to describe sexism. It is a sexist term used to describe a man explaining something to a woman as if it has a negative connotation, whether or not the explanation to the woman has any sexist background.  You appreciate precise language? Then don't misuse sexist terms - and hell, even terms that are made up - like "mansplaining".  >These were all made up at some point, just like every word in every language. But they're fun, concise, and useful at times!  The made up words that stayed in the dictionary are words that have actual meaning worthy of a dictionary definition. Mansplaining is not such a word as its only used by a small vocal group of disgusting horrible people in various ways with the sole intent to discriminate. Using the word makes you a sexist. Appreciate the English language and find non-sexist terms to describe what you wish to describe, if words are even necessary for that - which is not the case now. 
I really don't like that guy... can't wait to see him get rekt!  Next episode looks pretty good. [SEP] > I really don't like that guy  I think he's easily the nicest one on the council. Well, possibly crazy gun girl but I digress. He doesn't cheat, he simply plays by logic & he takes the time to understand and 'respect', in his own way, the opponent.  He's not a psychopath, he's simply brutally honest & condescending to a degree.
hah! i never said it was rustic. please, please read. i said that what the said grandmothers do is called "rustic" because thats a nice way of saying the food is delicious but ugly.   i never said you were wrong. the dude's food (im sure it tasted nice) was ugly and i wouldn't serve it the way he did. im just saying.. man.. chill.   reading comprehension comes a long way, especially for a person whose username looks like the result of epilepsy  [SEP] i misinterpreted your implication then, i apologize. but the food looks like shit BECAUSE of the fancy attempt at plating. being rustic would be the opposite of this very clear effort so your point is completely irrelevant.  > i never said you were wrong. the dude's food (im sure it tasted nice) was ugly and i wouldn't serve it the way he did. im just saying.. man.. chill.  so you condescend that people who make the effort to plate, and criticize others plating, even though YOU AGREE his food looks crap (a criticism) and that you wouldn't serve it that way (make the effort to plate it better)... LOL. so the EXTREMELY FINE LINE you are drawing here is that you wouldn't reply to the image and call it grotesque (again, consult your dictionary if you haven't)? please clarify... you just wouldn't fire the first, honest, shot? is that it?  don't tell me to chill you fucking hypocrite. the point of this site is to post links (pictures) and comment on them. i called it grotesque and it is an extremely apt word to describe the food in this submission if you have any clue what it means.  please fuck off.
I have no evidence. Just making a statement based on how I perceive the world and the people in it.  [SEP] > have no evidence. Just making a statement based on how I perceive the world and the people in it.  and thats simply not sufficient. your 'statement' is nothing but 'blabla'. if you want anyone worth their time to take you serious, you have to put more than 'bla bla' on the table.  references? basic fucking education in the field. if you don't have it, don't talk about the field, let alone expect people who did their homework to spend energy on your bullshit.  you're free to consult anyone who gets paid for it, and until then, a virtual slap to your face due to your infantile mindset is all you need to get back on path.  out of simple generosity:  interaction theory might be a nice starter to standalone refer your initial post to /r/quityourbullshit   and sry if this post is condescending, but you can't even imagine how tiring it is to deal with spoiled iamverysmart-material.   check   your   privilege
As a lover of words, all of the words being abused are legitimate words with legitimate usages that have just been appropriated and poisoned by aGGros and Venomists.  Each of them has their place in our cultural lexicon and shouldn't be discarded, but used properly. [SEP] > all of the words being abused are legitimate words with legitimate usages that have just been appropriated and poisoned  Except for "mansplaining".
Young, impressionable children, male and female, are vulnerable to older adults and can be manipulated into having sex too soon. Which part of that do you disagree with, exactly? That it's not true, or that there shouldn't be a law about it? Every case I've ever heard of was a female teacher and a male student. I really can't tell stats because I don't know them, but it happens. Whether you like it or not, women are not the problem here.   That is not me telling you you're wrong, I've done that. You have insulted me thoroughly and I really don't know what else you had in mind as a reaction. Women aren't going to take kindly to how you generalize them as weaker and inferior. Especially when I requested that you not use cutesy terms with me. That is why I'm ending this conversation.  [SEP] > Young, impressionable children, male and female, are vulnerable to older adults and can be manipulated into having sex too soon. Which part of that do you disagree with, exactly?    I disagree with legislating the related morality of that manipulation. What's the difference between me manipulating you when you're 16 and then when you're 18? Either way, men are dominant and women are dominated, such is life. OP was punished for natural human behavior, and that's wrong.    > Whether you like it or not, women are not the problem here.     Right, the government is the problem here because it continues to reinforce the notion that women are weaker and need protection. Until that protection and enforcement goes away, you will never be my equal.    > Women aren't going to take kindly to how you generalize them as weaker and inferior.    Let's be clear here, most women will endure whatever insulting and condescending attitudes I have in order to secure access to me. I want women who are thick-skinned enough to know when I'm joking, and I'm a considerable hand at testing them.
well you can't stop a LC lategame if she itemized correctly lol. You have to counterpick her (there's a ton of heroes that can do it, specially certain supports) [SEP] > You have to counterpick her (there's a ton of heroes that can do it, specially certain supports)  That is quite literally the question the OP asked. Do you just enjoy giving vague condescending answers on this sub?
Not a professional chef, but keeping fried onions all day does not sound appealing to me.  I know you say you are too busy, but hopefully you can spare a minute or two every hour or so...  Have you tried doing another quick flash fry of small batches throughout the day?  Prep and fry like normal, maybe a bit less time in the fryer depending on how done you want them, and try re-frying a small batch every hour or so to keep up with usage. It only takes a minute or two, and would probably keep them much tastier than the cold soggy onions you are getting now.  [SEP] >Not a professional chef  Not trying to be rude or condescending, but sometimes there literally is NO time to spend in the kitchen. Obviously your solution is the best, fresh is the best, but for something trivial like fried onions, the best (most efficient) way to go about it would be to prepare a LOT for the day, maybe even two days provided the consistency remains the same and the quality does not get compromised over time (which it is, so there's a problem). OP I'm sure thought of your idea before coming to the internet, but it's not a viable option, hence they are on here asking for advice.  Chances are that the fryer is being used by fries or something else during the busy times when the onions are needed.
I don't see it that way at all. I know my body isn't shameful, but at the same time, I really wouldn't want to parade my nudity as if it were nothing. Your own body is precious. Being selective about who you show your self to opens up intimacy between that other person and makes the relationship more special.  [SEP] >Being selective about who you show your self to opens up intimacy between that other person and makes the relationship more special.  You're stating this incorrectly as fact and that seems condescending and judgmental. Not everyone shares your belief that being selectively nude makes intimacy more special. It IS a very puritanical way of thinking, whether you think so or not. A better way to phrase that would have been "For me, being selective about who I am nude around makes it that much more special."
Yeah, this is the electronic music I like. Where you can hear each sound independently, so your attention gets drawn to the different melodies as the song progresses. I feel that the shape of the sound and the timing is what electronic music is all about.   I've been listening to house and techno a lot, but I often still can't tell the difference.  ps Brutalga Square made me think someone was knocking on my door... [SEP] I love some minimal, but I also love some of the opposite end of the spectrum, music that's almost overflowing with different elements.  >I feel that the shape of the sound  "Timbre" (pronounced tam-ber) is the word usually used for the actual nature of the sounds themselves. Not sure if that's what you meant there, and I hope I don't seem condescending.   If you like those two songs, there's actually a couple of remixes by those artists that are some of my absolute favorites:  - Koze - Mango Cookie Remix - Goldmann - Arcade Remix  Ooh, they both give me chills!
Well you have been acting like a twat all through this thread, so I thought I would turn it on you to wind you up. Seems to have worked.  The fact is that NFC can be used to turn your phones wi-fi off. That means NFC is not useless as you claimed as it is doing the job your asking of it. All you're doing is arguing over the preferred of turning your wi-fi off. For that there is no right or wrong answer, it's all down to personal preference. [SEP] > Well you have been acting like a twat all through this thread  That's false. i made factually correct claims and got instantly downvoted so much that i will never be able to bypass the timer in this subreddit ever again. and insulted on top of that, and then insulted more, and then also insulted more, and then insulted further. that goes beyond vindictive.   >I thought I would turn it on you to wind you up  Why didn't you think to apologize instead? Listen, something like "i am very sorry, /u/thefran, i see how you are correct now, i sincerely apologize for my condescending, irrational behavior" would have been enough, i am not demanding.  >The fact is that NFC can be used to turn your phones wi-fi off. That means NFC is not useless   you ever take basic economics? expenses are not evaluated in a vacuum, they are evaluated compared to options. literally turning your wi-fi off manually is a better way to do it. and i am arguing in favor of three other options (autodisable on signal loss, on GPS proximity, on cell tower proximity), all of which are objectively superior to both.  >All you're doing is arguing over the preferred of turning your wi-fi off. For that there is no right or wrong answer, it's all down to personal preference.  i have written a comment somewhere in this thread where i have extensively proven that it is not "personal preference", but in fact an incorrect way to do it. i expect you to read it and give your counterarguments or change your opinion.
Hey there me again. A good rule of thumb is just not to say "you". Everything was great till that last sentence. This comment is borderline because of it. [SEP] Telling someone they were proven wrong is now "a personal attack" as well isn't it? This is so fun! It must be great being a mod here, you can turn anything into a personal attack.   >A good rule of thumb is   see this? That is a PERSONAL ATTACK because you're being condescending to me. You attacked me and I'm reporting you to the mods, I hope they ban you
Where the hell are you quoting that from? The article is about these scandals giving rise to black and white thinking that is unrealistic. I'm not sure what article you are reading. [SEP] > The article is about these scandals giving rise to black and white thinking that is unrealistic.  So maybe we should solve those problems to prevent this black and white thinking? We don't do that by pretending nothing is wrong and be condescending to young people or whoever is complaining about the legal corruption in the system.
Maybe they aren't just as bright gameplay wise. Maybe they can't build great decks every time, but not everybody has the time to learn these things. It would be completely different if the bot made decisions for them- that would actually be taking the skill out of it. But even some of the best players use HA, and sometimes the best decision is not to listen to it, as it isn't perfect. So even with those using it, they won't be building optimally.   And while there is definitely a difference between watching someone play and using software, I don't really understand where you would draw the line. You say that looking at tier lists is bad, too, but isn't that different? It doesn't take into account your current deck comp or anything. What if a youtuber cites a HA score as a reason to pick a certain card over another? Picking that card in a similar situation would be indirectly because HA reccomended it.   The reason why I think HA is okay in comparasin to p2w is specifically because it is free. If it cost money I really don't think I would be, it would just be people paying for an informational advantage. But in its current state it's free and public access. And I don't think it entirely closes the skill gap either-a casual player will usually be worse off in arena, both in drafting and in the actual battle than someone who has time to play- and I'm okay with that. HA closes the gap that I think matters the most- the information gap. Instead of requiring a large quantity of monetary input from a player to be able to test every card in each class in each deck, HA allows players to get that for free. What it doesn't come with is the actual skill needed to pilot the deck in matches or the knowledge of proper deck construction which it can sometimes advocate against.  And I hate the way downvoting is used these days. I don't know how many times I've seen it repeated but I'll say it again. Downvoting isn't for opinions you don't like, its for removing comments that don't encourage discussion- and you've done the exact opposite. I've had a ton of fun and I apologize if anything I've said has come off as rude. [SEP] To your last paragraph, fuck yeah dude. I'm the same way, and I've enjoyed this quite a bit.  >Maybe they aren't just as bright gameplay wise  And so I think they deserve to lose more because of it.  >but not everybody has the time to learn these things.  This also applies to losing other things. As per my working example, I don't have time to learn all the tier 1 decklists in constructed, so when I run into one I'm not sure of their decklist. This puts me at a disadvantage because I lack the time to learn something. Drafting is the same thing, if you are worse because you lack the time to learn it, that's a you problem.  > sometimes the best decision is not to listen to it, as it isn't perfect  This is a strong argument, but you're also giving up some ground I don't think you can afford to. You're admitting that drafting is a part of what makes a good player good. If drafting is a part of that, then any outside help artificially increases your chance to win against an opponent who did not receive that outside help. It should not be the standard for the community that "well a large part of the community all get the same help" because it decreases the effect of the players drafting skill by leveling the playing field. You've reduced the number of meaningful drafting decisions, and therefore decreased how much skill is involved and therefore INCREASED how much RNG decides games.  > I don't really understand where you would draw the line.  I'm a bit of a hardliner on this actually. While I understand that netdecking is inevitable, I wish that NO ONE did it. It's the reason the meta gets so stale so quickly, we have an army of thousands all optimizing roughly the same lists, and a consensus is reached pretty quickly.  Just imagine it, a world where everyone played their own homebrew decks. Deckbuilding would be a much more important skill in hearthstone, and the meta would be so varied. If people didn't have easy access to their winrates, more people would stick with wackier decks for longer. It would be closer to a fighting game, where people have a favourite character but that the individual playing the game would have the biggest impact on the victor. I can't hammer home the point enough, that the more you reduce the meaningful choices a player can make, the more you increase the effects of RNG. HA irrefutably reduces the number of meaningful choices in any given draft.  >If it cost money I really don't think I would be, it would just be people paying for an informational advantage.   I will concede right away that a monetary cost is so far and away a bigger and more important hurdle than what I'm going to relate it to, but it's a 'proof of concept' if you will. Because HA ISN'T free. While it is free monetary, it requires that you know about HA first and foremost, it costs space on my computer with that shitty bloatware Overwolf, and it costs us deckbuilding as a skill in arena, the DRAFT MODE. Draft modes are supposed to ESPECIALLY highlight deckbuilding as a PRIMARY skill instead of secondary, and as I've explained, HA reduces it significantly. Even though you're right, it isn't right every time, it still reduces the number of decisions from (admittedly not 30 because some cards are auto-select) 20ish to 5ish.   >I don't think it entirely closes the skill gap either  I don't think it does either, but I think it DOES close the skill gap, which means more instances of the better player losing. That is enough of a negative for me to be opposed, even though I am often the worse player.  > What it doesn't come with is the actual skill needed to pilot the deck in matches  True, but a better deck will win more games on average than a worse deck, no matter the skill of the person piloting it. Not to mention that Arena specifically is supposed to highlight deckbuilding's effect on the outcome of a game. If you want the experience of who's a better pilot, play constructed. If you want the experience of who's the better deckbuilder (the other HALF of what a CCG is about) play arena. Or so I wish it was.  Sorry this is a huge wall of text and I repeat myself a lot, but I think I repeat the important stuff. Sorry if anything came across as rude, I do tend to be a touch condescending and I apologize.
Even if Colors was considered good, I never bothered with it for what reason?  Wii exclusive.  And I own a Wii. [SEP] >Even if Colors was considered good, I never bothered with it for what reason?  >Wii exclusive.  >And I own a Wii.  So you own a system and didn't bother getting a game because they only made it for the system you own? Surely this must be a typo, otherwise it's just off-topic and borderline condescending.
>Did you even read my original reply?  Yeah where you said "It is precisely with distance units that we can measure speed" - and even emphasized distance by italicizing it. Your comment in no way reflects the equity of distance and time, but rather stressed the former as primary. You double, even triple down on this point, "A kilometer is a distance and is used as speed unit measure." Again, neglecting to cite the equity of time and failing to adequately contextualize the importance of time (e.g. km/per hour)  From your instance on stressing distance as the main factor in speed, I sought to enlighten you by giving a clear example.  >Distance is not static  Pay attention to the context in which I said "the distance is static". I was giving an example, specifically where the distance was static and I gave two different times to reach that same distance as a demonstration.   >You must not understand physics laws,  Lmao, this right here is just a frail ego lashing out. Dont worry, as you get older you'll remove that emotional lens from reading critical commentary and you'll find the ego serves mostly to impede comprehension.  [SEP] My initial comment emphasizing distance as a speed measure was because OC enlightened it as using distances as a mistake, which is not. Nevertheless, my initial comment and subsequent answer was in no means cientifically wrong neither one sided factor, but solely to conextually reply to a equivocated taunt.  >No. Speed is far more dependent on time than distance.  Not only you ignored the context of the discussion but also made an equivocated claim, in the end to act with arrogance to diminish my intellectuality with the parsec joke.  >this right here is just a frail ego lashing out.  You took my answear out of context only to flash yourself as a superior human being, even joke about it in the end, so forgive me to defend myself from a hollow claim tempered with arrogance. Maybe I was wrong to answear to you on the same condescending way I was treaten.  In fact, i'm old enough to know that this argument is hollow as your point, invest your resourceful words at will, but I no longer answer to this. Have a good day.
Non-parents seem to have a difficult time understanding the whole "You can't know what it's like until..."/"You can't imagine the bond.." thing. In fact, I see a lot of anger/resentment over these comments. I think I can help.  Let me make this clear from the start: You don't and probably cannot understand and or imagine it. So they're right. They were non-parents before they were parents and they didn't understand before either. This is much like when a parent tells a child that they shouldn't rush to grow up because they'll miss being a kid. The kid always thinks the adult is full of shit and they know just how awesome it is to be grown up but in reality they can't imagine the pressures of caring for a family, paying the bills and holding a job.  With that said, this bond is not some fucking magical spell. It's not made from unicorn horns. It's evolution at its greatest. Protection of your offspring is assured by an overwhelming instinct to care for them and protect them. Your brain and your hormones are literally taking over and you have little hope of stopping them. Humans call this love. Sure, some parents don't have it but them's the breaks. Mutations or environmental issues can interfere.   I think when people say these things they're just trying to explain to you what's happened to them by telling you just how little you can understand where they're coming from. So don't be annoyed. It's just like any other experience that can't accurately be described unless experienced directly.  [SEP] >Let me make this clear from the start: You don't and probably cannot understand and or imagine it. So they're right.   well thank you for clearing that up, that settles it then!   also, may want to tell other people like THIS guy who believes otherwise.  >They were non-parents before they were parents and they didn't understand before either.   so are all parents making decisions based on absolutely no knowledge? they had no idea whatsoever about what the experience was going to be like? they couldn't make an educated choice in the matter? does that mean all parents are making mistakes, or are you telling us that all parents are incredibly lucky and somehow make the right choice to have kids?   >. It's just like any other experience that can't accurately be described unless experienced directly.   riiight, so no amount of connection with any other life, pet, friend, teacher, brother, mother, father, uncle, etc can compare with what a parent feels for their child? does that mean the kids themselves don't have that feeling, seeing as the kid does not have the massive reconfiguration to look after their parents and love them till death?   i understand very well, more than you can imagine, the human behaviour of parenting. which is why when you arrogantly presume to tell me that me what i can and can't "know" it makes you sound rather condescending without any real basis.  do you presume to tell adoptive parents they don't feel the same way about their kids as birth-parents? do you presume to tell non-parents, that their choice not to have kids was a mistake?   you presume a lot, and i don't see any reason why a parent that gave birth has any entitlement to a very well understood set of behaviours tat billions of people have done in the past, and billions more will do in the future. it's not a unique experience, it's simply a personal one that has meaning for each parent, but while the meaning is personal, the experience that produces it is very much the same for most people. it's simply how the parents perceive the experience that will seem unique to them, and hence the arrogance of telling other people "you don't know".   tell me, does one parent tell the other "you don't know what my unique experience is like" ? or are all parents qualified in saying they share the same experience and they are not unique?   you don't know much about what's it's like to have many experiences, but you can learn about them and extrapolate the make-up of the experience using other experiences. it's the basis of learning and it's how we make educated decisions about what to do. we are born without experience except the knowledge in our DNA to start us off (mimicry, how to learn, autonomous systems, etc). how did you decide to do so many things in your life is you "can't know without doing it" ?
> What's wrong with my own opinion?   In case you haven't figured it out yet - I don't respect your opinion.   >Are you so averse to opinions of individual people that you need confirmation from some faux authority to make you feel warm and happy?   Is this a serious question? Yes, I'll take the evidence from a study over the blatherings of a 20 year old keyboard warrior who cannot even differentiate between housing subsidies and rent control.  >Opinions never become facts  What's wrong with my own opinion?  LOL!  >...which clearly indicates you had a problem with the second part of the statement.  I found both sentences in your statement to be quite stupid and speculative. The first sentence was an authoritative claim that was just flat out dumb and uninformed. The second was a bit of a hedge, but added no value.  >No, you have presented your opinion with an emotional charge.   And yet, you continue to avoid pointing out where that emotioal charge is. >You are also a hypocrite. Because there can be no doubt that you are asserting something as fact without any evidence, while you condemning me for expressing doubt.  [Only 10-15% of Republicans support cuts (read: something milder than dismantling the whole programs) to SS and Medicare.]( http   Read more. Learn. Educate yourself.  [SEP] > In case you haven't figured it out yet - I don't respect your opinion.   Obviously you do otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. You don't really know whether I am right and that's what is keeping you here. Problem is you don't know how to behave when you don't know hence the vitriol.  > Is this a serious question?  Yes, it is a serious question, and no, I have not suggested you are just supposed to trust me.  This is the most important question to answer before you can get anywhere. If your answer is that you need a NYT article to change your mind, then I can't help you. You are just an acolyte without any capacity for independent though. Just imagine the catastrophe if those media will ever come out of business, you will no longer know what to believe. You will be completely lost.  I don't know what you are here for, but I am here for discussion. Opinions are a starting points for a discussion. You can say they are likely or unlikely. Problem with you is that you mistake your own opinions for facts while discarding opinions of others as mere opinions without even entertaining the proposition. You probably don't even know how would you go about it.  > Only 10-15% of Republicans support cuts (read: something milder than dismantling the whole programs) to SS and Medicare.  I was talking about healthcare, 35% republicans are supporting cutting healthcare. That's significant minority. It indicates that the topic is debatable as I said.  > Read more. Learn. Educate yourself.  Condescending tone won't help you to mask the lack of substance behind your claims. You need to get better epistemology and unlearn all that garbage you have managed to collect in the past. Good luck, it won't be easy.
WASM will absolutely break out of any JS containerization in the long run.  If it becomes a standalone tech it absolutely will replace JavaScript in a lot of ways. Sure JavaScript won't get removed completely from browsers for legacy reasons, but few informed people will choose to use it.  1. Doesn't really matter since it's a compile target, so it's no worse than ASM which everyone relies on all the time.  2. That's a bad argument, JS on the backend only exists and is only still used because of JS on the frontend. More code reuse and less learning required. If JS's frontend popularity dropped so would it's backend popularity.   It seems like you don't understand that WASM is a compile target, WASM does not cost developer time, besides the initial creation and maintenance of the compiler from your language of choice to WASM.  It's actually quite funny that you trot out the "we'd all be using ASM" line, because we ARE, we do all use ASM for everything under the covers (well machine code but whatever), even for non-performance-sensitive tasks. Just like in the long run we will all be using WASM in the browser, just via a compiler or interpreter.   Like seriously this confuses me greatly, does no one on this subreddit get that WASM is a compile target and almost no one will write it directly? It will be a great thing to use for all kinds of web tasks assuming you have a compiler from your language of choice, and I know Haskell, Rust, C, Java, C# and C++ all either have working WASM compilers or are currently developing one.  [SEP] > Like seriously this confuses me greatly, does no one on this subreddit get that WASM is a compile target and almost no one will write it directly?  Don't get too full of yourself, Tysonzero. Had you read the article I posted, you would've seen that I already know that WASM is a compile target, because I walk the reader from setting up an emscripten development environment (which builds most of the glue code for you) through compiling a sample C project into WASM, and then profiling the results to measure the impact. The opinion you're condescendingly trying to explain to me is actually the opinion I had before actually building a WASM project. And I'm saying this as someone who learned VB, C, C#, C++, and Java before learning PL/SQL, Lua, Python, PHP, and JavaScript.  I'm excited to use WASM once it's more broadly supported and I get to stop caring about IE11, but I would never ever, ever, ever in a million years use WASM for anything but computationally heavy tasks. I foresee WASM being a good way to scale server-side applications by shifting the workload of heavy tasks from the server back to the client. The fact is, writing a color picker, or a dropdown, or any myriad other tasks using a freight train like WASM is overkill. For exactly the same reason that any scripting language exists. It's just not a necessary or efficient use of time. It takes longer to architect, it takes longer to create a development environment, it takes longer to build, and it takes longer to debug precisely because it's a compiled language.  JavaScript isn't popular for Node simply because of code reuse --- though that is part of it --- because Node isn't only used for web backends --- though that is one thing that Node does. JavaScript is also popular in Node for the same reasons that Python is popular: despite having some truly boneheaded idiosyncrasies, it's easy to build and debug "things" quickly than it is in compiled languages.  And no, I didn't say "we'd all be using ASM". What I said was "we would all be writing assembly". Those are two different statements. The fact that my compiler converts C++ code into ASM is immaterial to the fact that my project is written in C++.  The fact that you seem to think that WASM is a drop-in replacement really only tells me one thing: either you really suck at and/or hate JavaScript, or you have never actually tried to use WASM. Methinks it's probably a combination of both. Otherwise, I can't imagine why you would think that it made any sense to use a precompiled binary just to send an AJAX call and print it to the page.
> He has repeatedly chastised this sub for being worthless for content creators and people who want constructive talk about the game  He's not wrong. You're not addressing the posits.  > If the sub has gotten popular, and contributes topics to the front page of reddit, and is one of the most popular subs on reddit... Why change it?  Because low effort content is garbage.  > We've seen what the sub becomes without 'low effort' content  No, you've seen what happens when you try to force the low effort audience to try something better. Don't equate that to a conclusion of superior subreddit enforcement, because it objectively would be better.  > There is no compelling reason to change the subreddit after that experiment showed what would occur.  Sure, only if your capability of drawing conclusions is faulty. [SEP] >He's not wrong. You're not addressing the posits.  I am, by pointing out there is no 'wrong.' Content that is popular with the wide majority of the sub's users rises to the top page of the sub.  The wide majority of the sub's users like the content on the front page, or it wouldn't be there.  >Because low effort content is garbage.  Subjective, and a minority view, not a majority.  >No, you've seen what happens when you try to force the low effort audience to try something better. Don't equate that to a conclusion of superior subreddit enforcement, because it objectively would be better.  No, it's what happens when you try to force a wide majority of the sub's users to operate by the standards of a small minority, and it quickly becomes unpopular with both sides.  It was a failed experiment that pleased neither side of the issue. Don't equate that to a conclusion of your idea of good content being what everyone should view as good content.  >Sure, only if your capability of drawing conclusions is faulty.  The fault lies with you and the fact that you disagree with the wide majority; this is why you argue in an insulting, condescending tone that actually presents no counterarguments.
Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy.  You fail to see that corporations - absent government interference - must provide goods and/or services which people desire and sell said goods/services on the free market for a price. If they do not do this, than they go bankrupt and fail. Which means that in a truly free market, the only way companies can get rich is by providing for society. Which is a good thing and further illustrates that corporations in actuality have no power; they exist to serve the wants of the people that sustain them.  In order to produce goods and services for society, the owner of a company must initially forgo his own consumption and save his income such that he may use his savings to hire laborers and pay said laborers wages. He can now presumably produce more and better product. If this is true, his business will pass the market's test and people will buy more of his goods. He will expand. He is now able to employ more workers and produce more product. Society benefits.  In your little Marxian construct, the owner withholds money from his employees and gets richer and richer. However, in reality, if he does this his company suffers; he produces less, or his products are inferior (or both); people stop buying his product and buy somewhere else. He goes bankrupt or he starts spending more so that he can stay alive and stay profitable. Which is what that lovely little construct known as "competition" is all about.  If government arbitrarily interferes with this process, it retards the market's ability to function. Money is misallocated into areas where it should not have gone (like to paying workers more than the market rate) and society as a whole is worse off. Further, government sponsored fiat money allows consumption without production, which means corproations are able to make money from the government without actually producing anything that people want. THIS is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.   You also fail to realize that laborers are free people with the ability to leave their job at any point. This is where their power lies. If a corporation is not catering to an employee's interests, than said employee can leave and work somewhere else. He could even start his own company. He is not forced to do anything. Business is ultimately at the mercy of the consumer, so long as government is not allowed to arbitrarily intervene. [SEP] >little Marxist construct.  I'd point out fallacies in your view, but there's no point in speaking to speaking to someone so condescending and smug.  So I'll just point out that the market doesn't work in magical ways. Sometimes its effects are of benefit and sometimes they are not.   I'm not speaking of you in particular, because I don't know you. But there are some who irrationally worship market forces the way that Fundies worship the Bible.
Am I? Miss superfan? Just watch. I haven't been wrong this season, it kinda pisses me off. Strong moves.  Twistin and ADC is next. [SEP] > Am I? Miss superfan?   again with the condescending talk towards me. fuck off. look at your downvotes on this post.
Sometimes, it's better not to reveal your stupidity publicly. Their predictions were based on data gathered before the election and continued to update as votes came in. Just like every other major poll, they were wrong. You can say fuck polls and be happy that Trump proved them wrong, but you're making yourself sound like an ass by pretending that Silver had some sort of bias. [SEP]   > Sometimes, it's better not to reveal your stupidity publicly.  I agree ;) Also you're a condescending asshole.    This is a direct quote from Nate on Previous Trump models.   "Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we “subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses. In other words, we were basically acting like pundits, but attaching numbers to our estimates. And we succumbed to some of the same biases that pundits often suffer"  
It might be hard for you to understand how ultimately exhausting this kind of casual, relentless misogyny can be. In the end, you have to choose what's worth the fight. Some chauvinists are so entrenched, so damned blind to their prejudice that absolutely nothing you say will get through. The frustration from these encounters add up, and it would be so easy for a woman to become hardened and bitter. If I thought I could actually have an honest-to-goodness conversation, I'd be delighted to correct misconceptions. But I won't waste my time banging my head against a wall. [SEP] > If I thought I could actually have an honest-to-goodness conversation, I'd be delighted to correct misconceptions  That's arrogance. You arrogantly believe that a) you are the absolute authority on the topic and that b) you are always the more reasonable and informed of the two. The thing you don't consider is that you could be wrong. And that is why you are closed to debate. I'd be willing to bet that you, like most women, rarely admit to being incorrect or in the socially acceptable or morally wrong. Especially when you actually are.   > But I won't waste my time banging my head against a wall.  And this is where you are closed minded and condescending. Again. Your opinion is immovable. You think you are right no matter what. The only wall that you're banging your head against is the wall you've built around yourself to keep out dissenting opinion. And you think that you are better, more mature, or more informed than anyone who disagrees with you.
Overwatch, requires people purchase boxes to keep the game servers live. If everyone just decided that they wanted to play it for free, it would go down.  GTA V sells shark cards...You buy in game currency with real money, its how they pay for the servers.  Call of duty use to be hosted on the users computer, this is why switching host and lag was never consistent. Call of duty also sells a shit ton of map packs that divides the community in an effort to pay for its servers.  Rocket league will be, or is going to be doing a crate system similar to either CS:GO or Overwatch.  I also dont think you understand the concept of something.....A console game has free multiplayer, its call local, its called sitting in the living room with your friends, each of you have a controller and playing a game. Its the same way on PC, its called opening up hamachi to fake like you are in the same building, each of you with your own computers, and playing the game. There is a reason the term "Lan party" exist. I dont know if you are too young to not understand that term, but it would explain a lot.  The only difference between PC and console, is that PC users found a means to spoof their location.....But, with consoles you only need 1 console, with computers you need several of them plus a host machine....Tell me again how PC multiplayer is "free?"  > You can play online, forever, without paying anything extra.  Yes YOU can, but SOMEONE cant. I dont know if you understand the concept of money, or that servers cost money, but someone is footing the bill for you. If you are a free to play player, you are a mooch, you contribute NOTHING and someone has to pay your way.  You amount to a little kid who has 0 concept of money. They see a toy, they want a toy, they get a toy, and they think said toy is free....But they dont realize that mom or dad had to work for that, had to pay for it, and had to give something up for it so you could play it.  Just because you feel entitled to being a special snowflake doesnt mean something is free. Just because you dont pay for something, doesnt mean its free. [SEP] >Overwatch, requires people purchase boxes to keep the game servers live. If everyone just decided that they wanted to play it for free, it would go down.  >GTA V sells shark cards...You buy in game currency with real money, its how they pay for the servers.  You think Blizzard or Rockstar is going to run out of money if not enough people buy their stupid loot boxes? Both companies are doing fine. And remember, everyone still has to BUY those games with real money. Running servers doesn't cost a ton and they get plenty of cash from the biggest spenders (aka "whales," the top 10% of spenders who contribute over 50% of microtransaction revenue). At some point, the population of the game will drop and they may even shut down the servers, but that happens with all multiplayer games eventually, even ones that don't have any sort of cash shop.  >I also dont think you understand the concept of something.....A console game has free multiplayer, its call local, its called sitting in the living room with your friends, each of you have a controller and playing a game. Its the same way on PC, its called opening up hamachi to fake like you are in the same building, each of you with your own computers, and playing the game. There is a reason the term "Lan party" exist. I dont know if you are too young to not understand that term, but it would explain a lot.  Very few console games have local or split-screen multiplayer anymore. They keep cutting the feature out or gimping it. It's not gone completely but it's nowhere near where it used to be 10-15 years ago.  Also how unbelievably condescending. Yes I have heard of LAN parties. I've participated in a bunch! I'm 32 years old and I do them at least once or twice a year since I was in high school. I've never had to use Hamachi for it because the games we've played have always been local only, but of course I understand the concept. I also remember what a big deal it was when Blizzard didn't include a LAN mode in Starcraft 2.  >Yes YOU can, but SOMEONE cant. I dont know if you understand the concept of money, or that servers cost money, but someone is footing the bill for you. If you are a free to play player, you are a mooch, you contribute NOTHING and someone has to pay your way.  Holy shit what is your problem? I don't even play any F2P games! I used to play League of Legends but stopped. I'm talking about how you can purchase a game like Overwatch and play it for as long as the servers are active without being obligated to spend any money in the cash shop. That doesn't make me a mooch! If Blizzard wanted to require people to spend $X per month to keep playing, they'd make that a requirement. As it stands, they have not, so what's the problem? In fact, I'm really happy that there is a cash shop because it allows companies to sell games for less up-front money and still turn a nice profit by basically allowing people to decide how much they want to spend. Overwatch is only $40 when most games are $60.  >You amount to a little kid who has 0 concept of money. They see a toy, they want a toy, they get a toy, and they think said toy is free....But they dont realize that mom or dad had to work for that, had to pay for it, and had to give something up for it so you could play it.  >Just because you feel entitled to being a special snowflake doesnt mean something is free. Just because you dont pay for something, doesnt mean its free.  Again I'm 32 years old, I play video games, I understand that shit costs money. I buy my games, I don't pirate them, I pay for games I like, and I don't pay for shit that I don't want like skins or crates or any other microtransaction garbage. It's on the game publisher if shit doesn't work financially; it's not my obligation to participate in their completely optional cash shop if I don't want to. If eventually the game loses popularity and the servers shut down, I'll just move on to something else. By that point they will have made their money.
That's a pretty good psycho-analyzation on my entire personality and how I fit into communities based on one of my comments. It's real simple. I wasn't talking down to anyone intentionally. If it wasn't intentional, you could even call it an accident if you will. Our argument is at a paradox where I believe he was talking bullshit when he said everyone knows what it means and I'm doing it wrong. Maybe he was trying to be helpful but I highly doubt it considering there were already many constructive responses to my post as is. We are at a cross roads on whether or not this guy is a douche bag or not and I will do more research before asking this toxic community any more questions to avoid accidental patronization and angry know-it-alls. [SEP] > I believe he was talking bullshit when he said everyone knows what it means and I'm doing it wrong  Honestly, you're just embarrassing yourself more now. Whether you like it or not, any half-decent photographer will know what bokeh is, and you typed it wrong. There's literally popular entire webseries devoted to it. There are kickstarter campaigns for lenses with it. Pretty much ANY lens review has a "bokeh" section. There's even a wedding photography business named after it, so photographers definitely expect even non-photography clients to kinda know about this photography term.  Straight up, you were wrong. You started with a condescending post, got told that you made a mistake, and you can't even own up to your mistakes. And you know what? When you get told that you're wrong, in a factual statement, you end up throwing even more shit all over the place, crying about elitism and toxic communities etc. You didn't even bother to respond to say "thank you" to the other posts that helped, but you're sure willing to respond to someone saying that you're wrong and complain about "toxic communities"? Do you know how ironic you look when you say "many constructive responses" and "toxic community" in the same post?  I don't really even need to psychoanalyze you, honestly. You managed to cram so much narcissism into your responses that anyone can see the problem.
I meant "few authors" as a percentage, not as a base estimate. Obviously, many authors use stream of consciousness and other similar styles that completely neglect even the most basic of grammar foundations, but they are not in the majority. The majority of writers use grammar as an anchor for their literary style, and find individual ways to personalize it. If every author held grammar above literary style, books wouldn't be worth reading. However, to imply that grammar is not a foundation for writers, is clearly incorrect. And either way, you're implying that my literary background is lacking, which is categorically untrue, and unlike you, I don't lie about how well read I am. "All of the information you need to fake being well read is at your fingertips. I know, I've done it before. I did it through most of high school." [SEP] > I don't lie about how well read I am  can you be a little more condescending. the fact that I bullshitted a couple book reports is necessarily indicative of whether or not I am lying about my background. even if I was, what would I gain from saying that? how would that benefit my argument? I said those things to prove to you that either of us can be bullshitting and just because you can rattle off a few names, I should be impressed? That's stupid.  When you write something, grammar is suppose to be second nature. That's why we have rough drafts.You add the corrections later, or not if your jack kerouac, be it grammatical or structural. That right there should tell you that grammar is usually in the peripherals. Creativity doesn't from a regimented structural abyss. It's free flowing and spontaneous. I just don't agree that grammar is the foundation, i feel like it's more of the scaffolding. 
Asking questions is better than sitting around doing nothing because you're scared to ask questions.  That said, try not to ask questions Google could have answered for you. Spend 30 minutes trying to figure out how to solve a given issue before asking someone about it. [SEP] >Asking questions is better than sitting around doing nothing because you're scared to ask questions.  This is something extremely important. I honestly have trouble asking questions - likely from past trauma.  Plus, to make things more fun, my current "mentor" tells me in emails, "Don't hesitate to ask questions." So naturally i ask him a question and he condescendingly tells me,"review the code." To a yes or no question. And the code he wants me to review is uncommented and a dead fucking language that has no support docs on the internet.  But the point I'm trying to make is that your coworkers are likely not my piece of shit of a mentor. Ask questions. Everyone wants you to succeed as much as you want to succeed.
>This doesn't say anything about negligent losses.   LOL - do you even understand what liability and negligence are??  Alright, please explain to the rest of us morons what you meant when you said "do you really believe any of your exchanges have liability when it comes to losses?"   [SEP] >Alright, please explain to the rest of us morons what you meant when you said  You've really come full circle here, haven't you? A dozen posts misunderstanding the topic and putting words in my mouth and finally you calm down and actually want to understand? Shocked.   >"do you really believe any of your exchanges have liability when it comes to losses?"  I mean that if Circle or Coinbase are "hacked" and no negligence is proven then your liability is limited to the LIMITED LIABILITY section of your TERMS OF SERVICE, which last I checked entitle you to 3 months worth of fees paid MAXIMUM.   Do you understand yet, you condescending asshole?   Please bear in mind i'm not talking about the status of LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATIONS. I want to make sure you don't make the same mistake twice because you certainly seem dense enough to. And again, for the seventh time, I've said nothing of negligent losses (though even limited liability in cases of negligence can occasionally be enforced depending on circumstances) 
Yes be nice. But do make it obvious that you've run out of patience. Also the agents cant do much [SEP] Haha, yes! Nice and assertive. :D Some people think going ballistic on the agent IS the Way, the Truth, and the Life. You're usually doing only two things to an agent:  Seasoned rep - /mutes call, takes the opportunity to document or get a quick shut-eye. Waits for expletives. Uses it as a reason to give profanity spiel.  Newbie rep - /cries, floorwalker or sup takes the call but puts him/her on defending-my-subordinate mode   > Also the agents cant do much  This is true as well. Frontliners have often limited powers. They're gatekeepers, filtering calls for the squeakiest wheels only. But don't be condescending to the agent. They're the ones who have to look for supervisors on the floor to talk to you. (Agents get a LOT of pushbacks. but if they say the customer is reasonable and calm and just wanna talk to someone higher, you'll likely get a sup on the line faster.)  "(Agent's name), I understand that it's a policy, but I would like to talk to your supervisor anyway to see if there's a way we could meet halfway. You were great, and I appreciate your help so far."
Because They still BELIEVE in the bullshit! OK, cheers, understand what the jaw dropping was referring to now. Yeah, it's a bit of an eye-opener for me too, having to consider this. And you may well be right, perhaps on some level they still do. There are definitely levels of some sort of hypocrisy going on here, whatever the reason.  Hip pocket primed in case defense needed. Evil grin appreciated. I raise you with a mocking chuckle. [SEP] > I raise you with a mocking chuckle.  See you one mocking chuckle & raise you a condescending sneer (for the way the Watchtower Society mocks higher education, yet their propaganda is written at the level of a fourth-grade school child.)
What sort of people upvote this?  "sometimes launch"??? What number of rocket attacks would it take for you (and your upvoters) to be too ashamed to use the qualifier 'sometimes'. Obviously the current average of 1000 launches a year doesn't cut it with you.  Your rhetoric really makes me despair.   [SEP] > Obviously the current average of 1000 launches a year doesn't cut it with you.  You mean those things that are barely a step up from model rockets with the nose cone glued shut?  They have no payload or even a guidance system and they just get fired randomly, usually into a field or something.  Israel has sirens, bomb shelters, the iron dome thing and a big ass wall.  > Obviously the current average of 1000 launches a year doesn't cut it with you.   http   Here's the list of last year's attacks. Obviously it's considerably lower than your bullshit 1000 per year loaded statistic. The only people killed were 5 civilians and that was due to IDF mistaking them for bad guys.  > Your rhetoric really makes me despair.  Same with your condescending attitude.
1) Your Russell-tea-pot reference gets you style points, but that's not what I'm getting at. It has nothing to do with scripture, either. Go back to Plato, aka the founder of Western philosophy: he posited a super-rational faculty called "nous" which transcended the rational and provided a divine blueprint for the universe. It's called by many names, but all theists adopt some version of the nous story. New Atheists, by contrast, tend to instead place faith in reason. Much as you did in this very post, New Atheists believe that rationality is the faculty that provides us with the closest approximation of "the truth." Two faculties, one story.   2) It's clear you know very little about the scientific method. Science doesn't ever prove anything; it only disproves, and even then only temporarily. No one has "disproven" religious cosmology, because this is impossible. How many Christian nutters link the big bang to Genesis? Too many. As for your points about six days, etc. etc., these are all hand-waived as "allegorical."   Besides all this, your arguments are scriptural. At heart, theism makes a single claim: that God exists.  [SEP] >Much as you did in this very post, New Atheists believe that rationality is the faculty that provides us with the closest approximation of "the truth." Two faculties, one story.  When people start going to a church rather than a hospital to cure their illnesses, or praying their way to the moon rather than using centuries of scientific advancement to do it, I'll take this point seriously.   No one gives a single fuck about the magical allcause until they're either too lazy to explain a scientific principal or afraid of their own mortality.   This is because it explains literally nothing and is the realm of circlejerking philosophers who want to feel deep by claiming there is no objective truth, when maybe they could find that truth if they'd, y'know, study something useful.   >It's clear you know very little about the scientific method. Science doesn't ever prove anything; it only disproves, and even then only temporarily.  I like how you make that assumption. Nice and condescending, but here's why you're full of shit:  Science doesn't prove anything 100%, no. It proves things to a high degree of accuracy with a margin of error.  And yet, you never have some little agnostic wanker navel-contemplating about the unknowable nature of the toaster. It might not make toast. It might explode and burn your house down.  Years of experience and thousands of trials have taught you that the toaster makes toast, and yet, you can't say for 100% certain that this time won't be different until you actually press the button and do the trial.  And yet... why is there no Toaster Agnostic movement? Why is no one pointing out that we can't be sure, so is it really right to call it a toaster? Where is the 'It may or may not be a toaster' crowd?   Oh, right. They only use the 'well, science isn't 100% sure...' argument when science says something they don't want to hear.   For everything else, 99.99% certainty is fine. We'll take it for lifesaving surgery or airplane rides or making toast, but when it comes to sky fairies? By golly, we need mythical 100% evidence!   ---  tl;dr: I do not respect anyone who invokes the 'scientific uncertainty' argument for God, unless they also invoke it for airplanes, medicine, toasters, gravity... basically, every scientific principal or piece of technology.  You don't get to say 99.99~% is 'good enough' for everything and then expect the mythical 100% when it comes to God. Be consistent. 
"You need to prove the that are different. Why do you think the default assumption is that sexual services are in a separate category?"  That's ridiculous. a) the world certainly thinks it they are different (except you); b) the number of women who have suffered physical harm through prostitution vs. the number of people suffering physical harm from cutting the grass is vastly different; c) the number of women requiring therapy and medical attention for years afterward is vastly different than from those people who need therapy and mdical attention from cutting grass. The burden is on you - squarely on you - and your complete ridiculousness.  Now it is true - something being almost universally held doesn't make it true. But it does help shift he burden of proof. I've cited sources. You've cited baloney. I've made arguments. All you can do is say "prove it more". You've made no argument that cutting the grass is the same as subjecting yourself to the sexual demands of someone. Claiming it doesn't make it so. Your meager attempt to rationalize needed to be challenged.  I've pointed out repeatedly, with sources, prostitution is almost exclusively about men using their power over women. It's rampant with slavery, kidnapping, physical and sexual abuse almost always preying on women.  If you think the norm is that perfectly normal women just happen to want breast implants so badly that they will engage in wild sex acts in return is a fantasy. Has it ever happened? Maybe. But don't believe what you read.  Even in the only documented case of this - Olympian Suzy Favor Hamilton - ultimately needed serious help, and is regretful and remorseful for what she did.  You're welcome to keep considering me wrong. Just pointing out you've provided nothing.   [SEP] People may not get hurt cutting the grass, but there are plenty of other dangerous jobs where people do get hurt that we still treat like any other service. Loggers, slaughterhouse workers, sherpas, etc.   There are countries in the world (even counties in the United States) where prostitution is legal. So it is clearly not true that the whole world thinks sexual services are inherently exploitative.  The fact that there is widespread abuse in the sex trade is perhaps good reason for it to be illegal, but has no bearing on whether an individual instance is unethical. I don't contest any of your sources about women being treated unethically, I just think they are completely irrelevant to the question of whether a specific incident between two specific people is unethical.   >If you think the norm is that perfectly normal women just happen to want breast implants so badly that they will engage in wild sex acts in return is a fantasy.   This is another complete mischaracterization of my position. I never said that.   If you want to continue this discussion, please cut out the name-calling and condescending tone. It's childish.
Laws are laws because they maintain order. That said it's not even entirely the choice of Activision, it's a precedent-based obligation of IP owners to always make an effort to protect their IP, otherwise their grip on it is legally loosened. If this was a simple "tracing of textures or meshes", or whatever excuse for it being anything but copy and pasting you're using, then they would have to defend it regardless or else they would be more likely to lose in the future on the grounds that they hadn't attempted to defend it previously.  Also I'd like to comment that your entire contribution has not in any way demonstrated an understanding of the topic other than stating "Law is dumb ptthhhfffttt." So... Ya know, if you're gonna retort at least read up on the relevant aspects of the legal system and apply some critical thinking. [SEP] >Laws are laws because they maintain order.  The nazi's wrote laws as they felt it maintained order, it didn't make their laws any less repulsive and wrong. Laws can be an ass, and my belief is that copyright, patent and trademark law as it stands currently, in particularly the usa, is bad for creators of content and art, innovation and consumers.  PCMasterRace always has threads about some company being greedy and unethical - whether it be NVidia, Oculus, EA and now Activision... and my contribution to this topic has been that the "copying" that went on would be classified as inspiration by most people in most situations and taking it down was heavy handed and unnecessary. I even drew analogies to past events with similarities to this. You can argue my point but resorting to simple "your argument is dumb ptthhfffttt" is condescending and well... pathetic. 
>You realize that when people like Mewnfare say he's good in the low - mid level, they're not talking about shit like gold and platinum league, right?  So, the lower Master League players are sooo many, that they push the winrate of trash heroes like Li Li up, and the one-two true Master players are too few.  That makes perfect sense and I'm absolutely biased. Pro players can't be biased, after all, they're pro.  >So no, it's not your 4 team mates who are the burden on your team for refusing to "adapt" to your out of place choices.  Yeah, neither are they a burden when they cannot adapt to the enemy getting Twilight Dream etc. Adaptability is for noobs! Learn the meta only, good advice.  >It's you, the one who goes against everyone else because you're convinced that you know better than them, who is the burden.  Yeah, if I'm using a build nobody else does and winning with it, I'm the burden!  >you will forever be plagued by this flaming  Me? You think I'm only talking about me here? Oh, right, noobs only talk about themselves.  Sorry to have wasted your time.  >You are incredibly biased towards anyone who prefers the more popular picks and strategies  No, just towards those who flame the rest because they don't understand them. You think I'm doing everything in my power to get niche weirdo heroics?  >and honestly it is far more likely that their opinions are the correct ones  So, statistics in HotsLogs, with thousands of samples from the community, are garbage because 90% of Master League players are noobs, and those who say 56% winrate Nazeebo is tier 4 are right because it's more likely.  Ok! [SEP] It is very obvious from the tone of the post and your replies that yes, you are talking about yourself. Specifically games that have gotten you really upset because people flamed your ult or character choices so you came here to vent, and found none of the support that you were looking for.  >No, just towards those who flame the rest because they don't understand them. You think I'm doing everything in my power to get niche weirdo heroics?  Yes. Yes you are.  >So, statistics in HotsLogs, with thousands of samples from the community, are garbage because 90% of Master League players are noobs, and those who say 56% winrate Nazeebo is tier 4 are right because it's more likely.  The problem is that you have no idea how to interpret statistics and fail to realize that there are many reasons for these numbers to appear the way they do. Hotslogs showing things like a decent Li Li winrate does not conflict with pro players saying that she's low tier. Nobody's saying that she's completely unplayable. There are obviously going to be situations where she shines, but those situations are much less common than the situations where most of the other supports shine, and she doesn't really require specific types of allies like a Brightwing would in order to really shine.  I seriously cannot comprehend why you continue to post here. It's very clear that you get significantly more hate than support in almost all of your threads. You don't have decent discussions, you just make condescending posts while insulting people while stating that you aren't mad despite sounding super mad. Then most people in the thread disagree with you while you make even more condescending posts towards them with some kind of self-righteous tone that makes it sound like you're enjoying beating these people in an argument that didn't actually happen. I just honestly do not understand what you get out of these threads. You have convinced a grand total of nobody to agree with you on this point that you seem to make a new thread about every several days.
 http ~eecsba1/sp97/reports/eecsba1d/report/telecommute.html   http    http    http    http    http   >Did you read your source?  Did you read my post? I acknowledged it was a counter-paper, which made its attempt to damn with faint praise all the more plausible. Net productivity gains at the least are the consensus on this topic in the literature. I'd hoped your own "camp" saying that is the consensus would convince you, but nope.  > If you have actual sources, use them. The fact that you've now provided two sources, one with a very specific sample and one that contradicts you, suggests that rather having actually read about this, you're looking for reports to back up your opinions and coming up short.  Alternatively, I didn't feel like dragging up half a dozen studies for an arrogant moron using a tablet. But fine, if that's what you want. If you want more, just whistle.  >whereas you're apparently insisting that in all situations, working from home is better.  News to me.  >Both of these points are childish nonsense   Actually, again, both of them are pretty well supported by employer statements and research. But hey, who needs actual data on the topic when they can have personal opinions?   Now tell me global warming is a fraud because it snowed where you live.   >Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to stop feeding the troll.  You formed an opinion on this topic in ignorance of any real data, based entirely on your own personal experience, and are now fighting like hell to support your stupidity. Typical redditor I guess.  [SEP] >  http   > Findings  > – Results showed that main office and home‐based workers had similar high levels of WLB support and job satisfaction. Main office workers reported higher levels of WLB support than satellite and client‐based workers. Additionally, main office workers reported the highest levels of workplace inclusion.  >  http   > As for outcomes, little clear evidence exists that telework increases job satisfaction and productivity, as it is often asserted to do.   > Actually, again, both of them are pretty well supported by employer statements and research. But hey, who needs actual data on the topic when they can have personal opinions?  They both exist, yes, but you claimed they are the only two advantages, and again that is not the case. Read your own studies, they provide many of the same advantages that I supplied you.  > You formed an opinion on this topic in ignorance of any real data, based entirely on your own personal experience, and are now fighting like hell to support your stupidity. Typical redditor I guess.  Actually I made a statement and continued to assert that it's horses for courses - there is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to telecommuting. You go around picking fights, being condescending and throwing out studies that support my assertion that there is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to telecommuting. Far more typical redditor.   Goodbye and go fuck yourself. Best of luck when you actually get a job. 
SO many questions lately in threads could be answered via google. At least half of these questions could be answered within seconds (Do stimulants cause weight loss?). Some people even admit their ignorance by not knowing what words they are using even mean. Our attention is precious and we should start to treat it as such.  We just passed 2000 members and things are starting to get a bit crazy. So far, the mods are taking a hands-off approach...but we might have to start monitoring things closer...and we REALLY don't want to do this (as mentioned in another thread today computers/Reddit isn't the best for ADHD).  Us helpful /r/adhd commenters can only answer/re-answer so many questions repeatedly trying to be helpful until we hit our limit. The FAQ should help alleviate this once we figure out how to allow others to edit it easily.     I am starting to see the patience of many of our active commenters wearing thin and I would hate to see them go (or reduce their commenting). I don't know what we can do to make things better at this time...  EDIT: To the OP. Welcome to the community! No fault of yours, but the community is starting to see people rely on /r/ADHD to answer many questions that are simply factual. Enjoy the new awareness being able to explain many of your current/past actions through the veil of ADHD!  [SEP] > Our attention is precious and we should start to treat it as such.  Are we being serious? This is the "easily bothered arrogance" I was referring to in my post. What you mean by that is your time is more important. And that's fine, really. It probably is, I'm not in the position to comment on how you spend your time. Except for the fact that we are all on Reddit right now.   >At least half of these questions could be answered within seconds (on google)  I agree. And if not by google they should be answered by a doctor. That's why I gave my opinions on those questions which were legitimate and were based on other peoples experiences with ADHD (isn't that why we're here?). But the truth is that these questions are going to continue to arise until we have a well thought out and lengthy FAQ. Until then we should either be polite and give them helpful links/resources, or just not be spiteful condescending douchebags and don't say anything at all, considering how "precious" our time and attention are. Most of the first time posters here, not talking about OP in particular, are in fragile and vulnerable states of mind who are just looking for answers to questions that we've all had at one point or another. 
I respect opinions, but just because your friends haven't played the newest dlc yet, doesnt indicate wether the map is good or not, nor does the fact that they "post here" or you've played with them for 8 years.  I completely understand that if you can't quite get the hang of a map, you think it's bad. I felt the same about origins until I learned it's EZ PZ as well.   In the end, fun is a relative term depending on that person. If you are as good as you say you are, you know that round 14 isnt that good and that you are in the minority of people who have played that map who can actually get to high rounds. The map isn't hard. I've only played it 3 times on solo and I've already beaten the easter egg and gotten to round 30+ before I downed myself [SEP] > I've only played it 3 times on solo and I've already beaten the easter egg and gotten to round 30+ before I downed myself  so how did you know what to do? i don't watch youtube, and I didn't do any studying before my first runs. This map requires a lot of knowledge to do well on.  And don't be so condescending. I can get the hang of the map, and I've tried to get the hang of it, but the problem is the damn thing is not fun at all to learn.   I will probably continue to work at it to get at least a 30+ round game, but it sucks because it is time wasted because i get no joy from playing on this map.   And my friends don't play zombies anymore, not because the maps are too hard, it is because the blundell formula for maps is not fun to them. The tedium of doing rituals or upgrading bows/staves or doing more rituals and skull stuff and flowers and building 5 different items just to be able to access all perks and upgrade guns. I still normally enjoy it, I really liked Der Eisendrache, Shadows, Origins, and Mobof the dead. But Zetsubou takes it 1 or 2 steps too far.   
I think the context was, "It's not a big deal to say a few words into a microphone, so why the drama"? I don't have a problem with that comment so much as the response, which was this:  >To you, sure. To me it would be a very big deal, and would probably trigger a panic attack.  >It’s all part of that whole “people are different” thing. You get that, right?  But what really bothers me is that the person who talked about closing announcements was called Space Turtle, and the person who responded to them was called Great A'Tuin, which is the name of a giant space turtle in the Discworld novels by Terry Pratchett.  I'm not saying it's a giant conspiracy, but I find that very unlikely. [SEP] >You get that, right?  What a condescending dick. 
Awww it's just too cute how hard you're trying to be like all cool and stuff here... I mean, downright adorable even! Here... Have a cookie... [SEP] > Sorry little one,   > Here... Have a cookie...  Why do people say things like this while taking the biggest L? You missed the point and turn around pathetically trying to condescend to someone correcting your ignorance. Delete your account.
sorry i dont play shit tanks other than the a-43 cause its in my way :) [SEP] > need to learn to aim if you cant hit anything with a cromwell   >dont move and shoot??? Not hard  >sorry i dont play shit tanks  So first you insist that I need to learn to play, then you offer condescending advice, and then finally you admit that you've never even played the tank you're [dickishly] offering advice on? You're a class act.   In any case, the cromwell is a fantastic tank with some drawbacks, just like the A-43. 
Dude, at this point I don't even know if you're trolling...  You post a list of a really bad deck, then proceed to say it wins games. After a random guy on the internet takes time out of his life to explain to you the basics of the commander you play, you still want to stick to your bad list.  Well, if you like your list then stick to it an have fun with it. If the people you play with play equally bad decks, yes you will win a few (I give you the benefit of the doubt here). [SEP] > You post a list of a really bad deck  I’m sorry. Again, I’m amazed at how you think this is a bad deck and have never seen it play. I respectfully acknowledged when the commenter made a good point, and explained why when I disagreed.  I understand you don’t get the strategy involved here, or don’t see how effective these cards can be. It’s surprisingly insulting to condemn it because they are “suboptimal” in your eyes.  Please take your condescending insults and use them elsewhere. They are misplaced here.
Right. The necon consensus and neocon propaganda narratives that dominate the media. Well it's always interesting to meet "liberals" who support the war crime of invading Iraq ("to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam"), the destruction of Libya ("to protect the Libyan people from Gaddhafi"), and the destruction of Syria ("to protect the Syrian people from Assad by replacing their government with ISIS and Al Qaeda").  If you know anything about US history you know that we never base our foreign policy on human rights. That is the pablum they serve to the weak minded domestic citizenry to manufacture consensus. The fact that you cite these as reasons for American intervention just proves your gullibility.  We know the reasons for our intervention in Syria which had been planned for over a decade. Some of it is outlined in Hillary's leaked State Dept. cable from 2010 about how it would advance Israel's foreign policy objectives. Other reasons include the pipeline from Qatar to Turkey that was thwarted. The regional ambitions of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey also played a role.  But if you're going to spout off all this "we're doing it to help the Syrian people" nonsense like some sort of infantilized teenager, then there's no basis for a discussion. The US has no qualms funding and training death squads, providing kill lists to genocidal regimes, training right wing dictatorships how to torture, using white phosphorous and cluster bombs, cozying up to dictators who use chemical weapons on their own people (when Saddam was our buddy), and exterminating civilian populations.  For Americans to spout off about how we're somehow a white knight come to save the day, just shows how succeptible to propaganda you are. You live in a Truman show America constructed for you by the American media. [SEP] > Well it's always interesting to meet "liberals" who support the war crime of invading Iraq ("to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam"), the destruction of Libya ("to protect the Libyan people from Gaddhafi"), and the destruction of Syria ("to protect the Syrian people from Assad by replacing their government with ISIS and Al Qaeda").  Do you want to build a strawman? The Iraq War vote was a massive issue in the DNC primary and liberals like Sherrod Brown , Feingold voted against it. I didn't support Iraq or doing anything with Libya. As for Syria, I think Bernie is correct that we can't have Assad around.It is possible to oppose Assad and ISIS. It isn't either or.   >If you know anything about US history you know that we never base our foreign policy on human rights. That is the pablum they serve to the weak minded domestic citizenry to manufacture consensus. The fact that you cite these as reasons for American intervention just prove your gullibility.  >But if you're going to spout off all this "we're doing it to help the Syrian people" nonsense like some sort of infantilized teenager, then there's no basis for a discussion  >For Americans to spout off about how we're somehow a white knight come to save the day, just shows how susceptible to propaganda you are. You live in a Truman show America constructed for you by the American media.   You have such a condescending tone and keep skipping over what I've said to dump another adderall rant. 
Just because they worship "cold gods" doesn't mean they are around. You don't see the Father, R'hollor, The Drowned God walking around and people still worship them.  The story of the Night's King is thousands of years old as well. The Night King is a made up character for the show. [SEP] >Just because they worship "cold gods" doesn't mean they are around. You don't see the Father, R'hollor, The Drowned God walking around and people still worship them.  But we know who they mean. They even make sacrifices to them. The whole point of the reference in the books is to hint that the Others are ubiquitous beyond the Wall. That they're entrenched.  >The story of the Night's King is thousands of years old as well. The Night King is a made up character for the show.  Don't condescend to me. I crossed them up. My point is that they haven't gone away. Even years after they were supposedly sent packing, they were still around. There's no reason to believe they haven't been around ever since. 
Statistics are made up of individual pieces of information, or data. The data I provided is very real. Maybe to you it's anecdotal or an outlier but to me it's a reality. And excuse me for assuming somebody with Noah in their username is a man trying to explain to me, a woman, feminism. You don't seem too dense, maybe you'll see the irony in that.  [SEP] It‘s not a reality based on general misogyny though. If you think that you‘re treated unfairly you can do something against it and the law is definitely on your side.   > And excuse me for assuming somebody with Noah in their username is a man trying to explain to me, a woman, feminism.  That doesn‘t even make sense. Feminism is, according to feminists, the equal treatment of men and women (ironic, I know). So what if he‘s a man? Maybe he knows way more about feminism than you do? I know many women who have far greater knowledge about cars than me, for example, despite it being my hobby. Are they 'womansplaining' when they‘re trying to explain something to me?   Mansplaining is a sexist term and using it undermines your credibility. That‘s like shouting racial slurs at someone who‘s racist. 
Like most Communists you fail to respond to the actual question. It's adorable that you think it's applicable to anything other than long-winded books, but if we want to make things better, why would we go back to a system that failed so spectacularly every time it's been attempted?   [SEP] Oh come on, I just really want a copy of the book! Maybe he will sign it for me?  >If it worked so well, why weren't they able to put a stop to poverty and hunger and war?  And when has capitalism even attempted to stop these things? You do know that more people starved in capitalist countries than commie in the 20th century right? Also, this trend continues today, at ~20 000 needless deaths.     >Like most Communists you fail to respond to the actual question.  Sometimes stupid questions aren't worth answering, especially when the guy asking them is a condescending jackass.
My gf doesn't eat meat but I do. whenever we go out for food with people and it happens to come up that she's doesn't eat meat we hear all about how people can't live without meat and so many people asking where she gets her protein. Also so many Fucking Bacon memes come up in facebook . I like eating meat but meat eaters are way more annoying about their food than non meat eaters  [SEP] > so many people asking where she gets her protein  Like in a polite curious way or condescending way. Maybe these people are considering going Vegan but want more info?
>you push new trends that you do  I do like all of the new things out, probably because they seem fresh and exciting, and I tend to gravitate more toward colorful natural looks and less on eyeliner and eyebrows.  >But no one is vilifying women who pass on the Kim Kardashian look  I'll have to agree to disagree. My blog is primarily for people interested in the beauty industry , bloggers, cosmo professionals, creators, etc and I have heard so much about this issue that it sparked me to write this. It is a very common issue for content creators at the moment. Perhaps you're not in the community so you are not aware. But I am glad you said this, you're right that some readers may not understand the references or inferences I make here, and I need to become more aware of who the audience is when I share articles.  >women who do follow that trend are not changing the beauty standard  I'm not sure what HAES is. The women are not changing the beauty standard. Media and culture are. It is changed already. Scroll through Instagram today and check it out. :) We can agree to disagree, but in my circles, this is my point of view. I am seeing primarily ethnic centered looks that are inspired by these celebutards. Most attempts to do things otherwise are just not popular, mainstream, in style, etc. Maybe I am more attuned to this than others but I didn't think so.   edit to add: the issues I discuss in this article are also echoed over at /r/muacjdiscussion very frequently as well. if you are interested I do like the sub. [SEP] > Perhaps you're not in the community so you are not aware. But I am glad you said this, you're right that some readers may not understand the references or inferences I make here, and I need to become more aware of who the audience is when I share articles.  I don't think it's necessary to patronize users who share a different opinion or have different experiences than you. The beauty industry is not homogenous and some members of community like and dislike certain trends, as well as encounter different attitudes. /u/Littleknownfacts is an established and respected user of this sub who responded fairly to your article. You are, of course, welcome to disagree and engage in a thoughtful discussion without being condescending.   > I'm not sure what HAES is.   HAES is the "Health At Any Size" movement. You can educate yourself on it by read this post I wrote, if you are interested. I agree media and culture are primary drivers of alterations to the beauty standard, but their motivation is pure profit which is often informed by the demands of women - I don't see them as fully distinct entities.   > Maybe I am more attuned to this than others but I didn't think so.   Again, patronization is not necessary. I think /u/Camille11325 responded very constructively to this component of your article regarding the assertion they are ethnically influenced - I hope you read it because I think it was a wonderfully comprehensive response that also exemplifies how we can disagree or elaborate without directing unnecessary negativity toward other users. 
Yes I know the reason. A donate button with a majority of the donations go to the modder is the best solution. In the modding community anything you have to pay for dies very quickly. Whereas when it is free and have a donate link, you generate some revenue. If they just added this to the steam workshop this solves all the problems with funding mods [SEP] > In the modding community anything you have to pay for dies very quickly. Whereas when it is free and have a donate link, you generate some revenue.  As I've said they effectively had the option to do this. If you're right then that's what modders would end up doing.   The thing I really take issue with is the idea that modders shouldn't be allowed to charge for their work on steam, it's completely condescending and entitled.   So no a donation link doesn't "solve all the problems" because it still limits the options of modders to being forced to offer everything on steam for free. The only thing valves paid mods implementation did was give modders more options.   You can argue all you like about shitty percentages dictated by the publisher or the stupid pricing by specific mods/modders but it really is irrelevant to the core issue as far as I'm concerned.
In my ^^humble experience moderating /r/Arabs, if you begin from the position that it's "more up to the users to decide what they want", then you're doomed from the start. Especially when moderating anything middle-east related where there are a thousand competing religious and political agendas. You need some sort of vision — some sort of leitkultur, no matter how minimal, to make something like this work.  Also, don't underestimate how many users will dedicate their time and resources to push their agenda and sabotage everything. Seriously, you will be amazed what free time, boredom and zealotry can do. My spirit is broken. [SEP] > My spirit is broken.  There, there muffin top. condescendingly pets daretelayam's head There, there.
> everything he was charged with. That everything else  this is circular reasoning. your argument boils down to, Look at all those charges, they must be railroading an innocent man. except we've been given almost no details of what went down and why. so basically what doing is superimposing the scenario that would make you the maddest, and wanting it to be true.   here's what i suggest: copy all the text from the story, paste it into a word doc, and one by one go thru every sentence of the story and delete every statement that doesn't look like a verifiable detail. what you'll have left is only a few things, most prominent of which will be the list of charges.   then ask yourself: if this stripped down list of facts was all you knew about a certain event, would you be inclined to assume all the same things you're assuming now?  [SEP] > this is circular reasoning.  No, it's not. You have no idea what you're talking about.  I said "We can assume the trafficking charge is baseless, given everything else I've said."  You said "What everything else?"  I reply "The remainder of the list of charges."  >so basically what doing is superimposing the scenario that would make you the maddest, and wanting it to be true.  That's what you want me to be doing, so you can condescend to me or whatever.  >then ask yourself: if this stripped down list of facts was all you knew about a certain event, would you be inclined to assume all the same things you're assuming now?  Yes. Because that's all we know. One guy shot another guy, and suddenly holy fuck look at all these charges. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark, wouldn't you say?
I get what you're saying, and you are obviously intelligent. But where we part ways is that I do not believe his goal is to present himself as superior. It is to offer a reason for certain behaviors. He's not decrying those things in themselves but the motivation of fear that, say, pushes certain people into hostility toward others who are different and/or pushes them into a militarized attitude toward guns versus a recreational one. I'm know you can appreciate this distinction. [SEP] > He's not decrying those things in themselves but the motivation of fear  But that's exactly what's condescending: presuming that other people--who have strongly different opinions than you do--are motivated by fear. While of course believing that you are motivated by only the highest of intellectual and ethical concerns. The unfortunate truth is that Obama has no idea why those people own guns, largely because he can't imagine personally owning one. His view is just as narrow-minded and parochial as the caricatured description he paints of the other side.  > pushes them into a militarized attitude toward guns versus a recreational one  He wasn't making some subtle point about militias vs target shooters. He was broadly stereotyping an entire geographical region's motivations based purely on their statistically larger per capita gun ownership. It's precisely the fact that so many "progressives" automatically assume that all gun owners are racist, secessionist KKK militia members that makes so many of those people so cynical about liberals.  Fundamentally, Obama was saying, "we shouldn't hate these people--we should pity them". That's condescending as hell.
> It's not a farm when someone needs to spend money for it to happen.  Hey look at that, and actual valid point, impressive.   > Plat doesen't spontaneously combust. It's not a resource someone gets and trades ingame, which is why you're wrong. There's no way to farm plat without someone shelling out first, which is why plat being necessary is an issue.  And DE needs to make money. People who spend plat are people who value time over money. It's one of those necessary evils.   > Selling for plat isn't playing the game since someone has to actually buy it, making it a resource necessary for progression that's unfarmable.  We have been over this, the term farm is a loose term that you can't cherry pick what does and doesn't apply to. People can say they farm for plat by farming out trade items and obtaining plat.   > No, instead the game simply locks out of 90% of the content and builds.  Builds yes, content no. You can do any mission with any frame. There is no gameplay locked behind by not having a certain frame.   An argument could be made that Nidus being the exception but at the moment the only thing you need him for is sitting in a chair.  [SEP] >Hey look at that, and actual valid point, impressive.   Hey look that, condescending and dismissive, not impressive since that's all you do.  >And DE needs to make money. People who spend plat are people who value time over money. It's one of those necessary evils.  I can name around 6 free2play games off the top of my head and around 10 more if I search that don't require premium currency for progression.  >We have been over this, the term farm is a loose term that you can't cherry pick what does and doesn't apply to. People can say they farm for plat by farming out trade items and obtaining plat.   And how do those who have the plat farm for it?  >Builds yes, content no. You can do any mission with any frame. There is no gameplay locked behind by not having a certain frame.   I was referring to weapons and frames, unless you mean selling frames to make slots for new ones.  >An argument could be made that Nidus being the exception but at the moment the only thing you need him for is sitting in a chair.   Why is he an exception? You can get him normally.
 http   Start with the vanity fairs article and then work your way through his forbes.com mentions predating his 'fame' recently (30 under 30 etc)  He made his money recognising bad FDA approved drugs and shorting them.  He had no hereditary wealth (son of poor albanian immigrants) and has a genius intellect (measured at 150-160)  He became a successful biotech ceo because he knew how to quickly identify when firms were making bad, bloated or useless drugs. (Came up through Cramer-berkowitz, got recognised as insanely talented in biotech)  His company used the price hike for a self admittedly shitty drug to increase research spending to 60-70% compared to 15% which other large big pharma types do.   He's researching treatment improvements to rare diseases that are economically unprofitable and are accordingly unprovided by the market.  He doesn't take a salary from his company.  He's no saint, but he's no sinner.  And if that shit doesn't sell you on him, check out his discussion with a HIV patient on his screencast.  http   It starts off heated but then when Shkreli outlines how he's going to innovate the pharmaceutical world.  Crucially, the articles that feature him predating all this troll stuff and price hike stuff, show quite clearly that he was always in it for helping with diseases, treatment resistant depression and so on.  He has a weird form of sarcasm and might have some major issues regarding an inability to relate socially, but there's a reason why his investors and research doctors and the like stick to him so rigidly.  I think he also really wants to be liked as well.  He really knows his shit, he can find frauds, and he wants to make a fuckload of money solving rare disease problems the market is not supplying.  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Edit: For the inevitable media companies seeking to leech content such as my comment from reddit without my permission over the next 72 hours: please read [SEP] > He has a weird form of sarcasm and might have some major issues regarding an inability to relate socially, but there's a reason >why his investors and research doctors and the like stick to him so rigidly.  I think he has a weird sense of humor in general.   He does some weird things like make a 'diss' video against Ghostface Killah of [Wu-Tang Clan] ( http  buying the sole copy of Wu-Tang Clan's latest album for $2 million and deciding to not release it and even saying that he's going to destroy it, and he even went so far as to pretend he got scammed out of $15 million dollars for early access to Kanye's latest album over bitcoin.   I think the guy loves being the bad guy. Just check out some of the things he says on twitter [1] ( http  [2] ( http  [3] ( http  There's also [this video] ( http  of him testifying before Congress. While some of the questions are pretty condescending, you get the general idea that he loves being seen as the villain.   
lmfao. Check the citation above:  "France will be able to build atomic weapons of all kinds and within every type of range. At relatively low cost, she will be in a position to produce large quantities of such weapons, with fast breeders providing an abundant supply of the plutonium required. Lucky Europe and Luck France - at long last in a position to engage in an enlarged nuclear deterrent of their own, thus guaranteeing their security."  -General Jean Thiry, advisor to the French Atomic Energy Commission:   Hey look, here it is in another peer-reviewed publication   http   And here is his follow up in case someone thought he was being misquoted  "In 1987 General Thiry confirmed his statement and declared: “One can always get plutonium, especially if one de- velops ... . This is apparently an idea that one should not say [openly] because it is not moral, but I defend Creys-Malville [Superph´enix]and the fast breeder reactor type, because there you have plutonium of extraordinary military quality. "  [SEP] > France will be able to build atomic weapons of all kinds and within every type of range. At relatively low cost, she will be in a position to produce large quantities of such weapons, with fast breeders providing an abundant supply of the plutonium required. Lucky Europe and Luck France - at long last in a position to engage in an enlarged nuclear deterrent of their own, thus guaranteeing their security  Just because one general said that doesn't make it the reason why it was built. You can also make bombs with nitric acid, made from ammonia. Would you say ammonia plants were made to make bombs?  "lmfao" I can't believe you are still allowed to post on this sub at this trolling and condescending levels.
> No, but 1. By staying there you have already agreed to pay [whether you pay or not is a different story], and   So the issue is that the United States forcibly naturalized you as a citizen, and didn't offer you the chance to sign a contract the instant you emerged from the womb?  You can agree not to pay the US any more taxes, and leave. Just like you can agree not to pay a hotel anything, and leave. Now, how harsh the sun is outside the hotel, the fact that there aren't any nicer hotels in town, etc. is not really any concern of the hotel. It's your choice.  > 2. The agency that actually takes your money and gives it back to the hotel is the government.  Do you acknowledge that in this country, at least in theory, the government is a democratically elected expression of the will of the people? Compared to, say, a monarchy or a totalitarian state? When 10 people on a desert island form a tribal council, they've formed a government. If one of them dissents and doesn't want to participate, he is free to leave to another part of the island. If he decides to stay and agrees to abide by the council's rules, then isn't it only fair that he holds up his side of the bargain?  Again, I bring up the distinction with North Korea, or perhaps a monarchy. Your parents birthed you in the USA, without consulting your preferences. They thrust that unfortunate fate upon you. However, the people of the USA have been so kind as to allow you the option of leaving if you don't like the system we've set up. Under these circumstances, your decision to stay is a voluntary one. No one is forcing you to stay here except your own preferences of convenience, as you've stated above. So in what way is the government's request for you to uphold your end of the citizenship contract any different from a hotel's request that you pay the bill if you choose to stay the night? Yes, I know the word "g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t" is spelled differently from the word "h-o-t-e-l". I mean other than that.  > In other words, because the there isn't a better country, that means we are already the best-possible country and can't get any better.  Nope, not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that as you look around the world and look for a better, more equitable, market-friendly environment, you might realize that there aren't actually that many. And rather than automatically assuming that all the financiers, economists, politicians, and businessmen of the rest of the world are stupid and fail to see the simple ingenuity of "just letting the market work", perhaps there are other forces in play, and other reasons for why the world is the way it is. [SEP] >So the issue is that the United States forcibly naturalized you as a citizen, and didn't offer you the chance to sign a contract the instant you emerged from the womb?  The problem is that I'm supposedly bound to a contract I did not sign.   >You can agree not to pay the US any more taxes, and leave.  Actually, you can't leave without the US taking some of your money.   >Do you acknowledge that in this country, at least in theory, the government is a democratically elected expression of the will of the people?  Yes. In theory (lol).  > Compared to, say, a monarchy or a totalitarian state? When 10 people on a desert island form a tribal council, they've formed a government. If one of them dissents and doesn't want to participate, he is free to leave to another part of the island.   Actually under your argument he'd have to leave the island entirely, even if there's no other islands around.   >If he decides to stay and agrees to abide by the council's rules, then isn't it only fair that he holds up his side of the bargain?  what's his side of the bargain? Where did the property rights arise? Simply because there were 9 of them and 1 of him, they got to control who got what? How is that a bargain? Bad analogy, IMO.   >However, the people of the USA have been so kind as to allow you the option of leaving if you don't like the system we've set up. Under these circumstances, your decision to stay is a voluntary one.  You are framing the situation as if moving away from your friends and family is something you can do at the snap of your fingers, with no effort [or costs associated] whatsoever. 1. It's not that easy and 2. There aren't exactly a lot of places better than the US. Most other countries are actually more meddlesome than the US.   Also you are framing the situation as "Don't like it? Leave", when there is a very valid option of trying to change the country so that you don't have to move away from your friends and family. Even if you were to assume the US is the best country on the planet, that doesn't mean they're the best possible country.   >I'm saying that as you look around the world and look for a better, more equitable, market-friendly environment, you might realize that there aren't actually that many.  Just because there aren't that many doesn't mean they can't exist. The US was founded on these very principles and became a superpower under them.   >nd rather than automatically assuming that all the financiers, economists, politicians, and businessmen of the rest of the world are stupid and fail to see the simple ingenuity of "just letting the market work"  Could you be any more condescending? I've made no such claims. The hypocrisy is actually quite steaming seeing as the tone of your post is "I know best".   Just a reminder: I'm not a market anarchist.  
We invented a system called GPA to determine if they were as, more, or successful at the "mission" (?) as others in learning environments. It has nothing to do with having "decent" grades, it has to do with relative performance. And yes, GPA is not a perfect system. But that doesn't mean that since it's already imperfect we should throw it out the window instead of analyzing what could be done to improve it. You're just saying it's worthless as a justification for other people to get in. I'm not a low intelligence person for having this view. I'm a biological engineering student at an ivy that is internationally renowned for its engineering program. Your points are riddled with fallacy if you think that calling me stupid wins you the argument.  I am able to refute and reply, but I really don't see the point if you are so unabashedly willing to start every conversation with the conviction that you can never be wrong. I am wrong, frequently. It's how one learns about everything. If you are unable to see the nuance in things or the fact that there are a million reasons people judge people and systematically maximizing ("reverse racism", which isn't a thing) that through AA and parity movements makes the situation worse, I see no possible reason that you would have any genuine interest in sharing ideas with me, as you can't stop yourself from spouting on about how racist and sexist I am for being analytical. Even worse, you think it justifies your positions by putting words in my mouth.  It is possible to disagree on things and not be a gaping cockhole about it. I probably have to bring things down to your level here, so how about this. I dare you to put aside your distaste for my positions and make any genuine inquiry. Double dog dare ya. All you gotta do is say, "Okay, I'm listening" in the reply and I'll refute all of your points. Maybe I'll learn something too, and change my view if I come to see your reasoning follows stronger.   [SEP] >It has nothing to do with having "decent" grades, it has to do with relative performance.   What is "it" meant to refer to here?   >And yes, GPA is not a perfect system. But that doesn't mean that since it's already imperfect we should throw it out the window instead of analyzing what could be done to improve it.   I never claimed we should throw out the GPA system.  >You're just saying it's worthless as a justification for other people to get in.   I didn't say it's worthless. I do think B and even C students, who show promise in some other way, getting a chance to succeed in a university is great. Universities are the gatekeepers to a better life. Underprivileged people especially need a shot at that better life. Universities should consider more than grades when creating their school environments as uni is about more than being the best A+ student.  >I'm not a low intelligence person for having this view. I'm a biological engineering student at an ivy that is internationally renowned for its engineering program. Your points are riddled with fallacy if you think that calling me stupid wins you the argument.  One can be intelligent about a specific field and be dumb about a lot of other things. It was genuinely unintelligent of you to posit that affirmative action existing could reasonably indicate that black people are "morons."  >I am able to refute and reply, but I really don't see the point if you are so unabashedly willing to start every conversation with the conviction that you can never be wrong.   Clearly you're not. Even now you devoted all of this time to writing all of these lines but not a single refutation save for an attempt about the irrelevant affirmative action stuff, but even there it's more like you backtracked then changed up your argument to argue something else I refuted. I've never started a conversation saying I can't be wrong. Of course I can be wrong, so please do make me see how I'm wrong. I don't think I am, hence why I'm able to still argue. And even though you're no longer able to argue the points because you are wrong, even you don't think you're wrong, so again, maybe take your own advice. Back me into a corner with your point so I am forced to see its rightness and my wrongness. I don't think you can because my points are rooted in logic and reality, not racial or gendered resentment or bias like yours were.   >I am wrong, frequently.   Unnecessary comma.  >It's how one learns about everything.   No, it's not the only way. There are far more common ways to learn about things in this world than being wrong.   >If you are unable to see the nuance in things or the fact that there are a million reasons people judge people and systematically maximizing ("reverse racism", which isn't a thing) that through AA and parity movements makes the situation worse, I see no possible reason that you would have any genuine interest in sharing ideas with me...  Goddamn, your English kind of sucks. Nuance in what? Seems like to you, "nuance" = me not arguing and just agreeing that you're right.   >...you can't stop yourself from spouting on about how racist and sexist I am for being analytical.   I only ever noted your sexism and racism when you said something misogynistic or racist.  >Even worse, you think it justifies your positions by putting words in my mouth.  More bad English. What is "it" in this instance? And I didn't put words in your mouth.  >It is possible to disagree on things and not be a gaping cockhole about it.   Gaping cockhole? Jfc, that's painful imagery.  >I probably have to bring things down to your level here, so how about this.   That period should be a colon, and you're far too... far from bright for that level of condescension to be effective.  >I dare you to put aside your distaste for my positions and make any genuine inquiry. Double dog dare ya.   What are you on about now? The comment of mine you're responding to is littered with my refutations and questions directly to you meant for you to answer and in so doing, back up and further explain or give examples of your claims. Those were genuine inquiries. Why didn't you just respond properly and answer that post and those questions with answers and counterpoints? Your shamefully obvious stalling as a result of not actually being able to answer my questions is the "further embarrassment" to which I was referring.  >All you gotta do is say, "Okay, I'm listening" in the reply and I'll refute all of your points. Maybe I'll learn something too, and change my view if I come to see your reasoning follows stronger.  No. No weird games. Just answer if you can and don't if you can't. Condescend to someone then demand they write out a special phrase? Lolwut? You high or just that dumb? You made your points. They were mostly ridiculous and coming from a place of ignorance, illogical inconsistent beliefs, and gendered bias. I refuted them and asked follow-up questions that you've proven incapable of answering without acknowledging your wrongness, so you lost. White flag accepted, weirdo. 
Yes, but my condescension (which was entirely deserved) accompanied a rebuttal. You ignored the rebuttal and focused on the insult, presumably because your point was fairly incontrovertibly disproven.   As to the second part... I'm afraid you misunderstand. I said don't ignore the part of my comment which is relevant. I didn't do that. I addressed your point, but also pointed out your silly lack of capitalisation. You replied solely to the part of my comment which was irrelevant. [SEP] >You replied solely to the part of my comment which was irrelevant.  because i'm not going to post a well-thought-out rebuttal if the person i'm responding to is just going to berate and condescend to me.
You are 13! I'm 34 and I will trade you my life for your straight up, car bank account, age, ect. Nothing matters when you are 13. You can fail school and you know what happens? you get to do it all over again. Seriously even if you get kicked out of school you can still find a job, a SO, some place to live, and just have a life in general (a happy one too).  Actually, I think your problem is your parents. They have bad habits that cause problems instead of prevent them, they freak out about them, and over the years you have learned to freak out about them mimicking your parents. Your depression and anxiety is a learned behavior when it comes down to it. You could medicate it, but can you medicate a learned behavior? You need to spend time with people that have good habits, and learn that shit. [SEP] > Nothing matters when you are 13.  Not only is this completely untrue, I would also urge you to consider how condescending and belittling it is. Being 13 isn't a choice. OP is 'stuck' being 13, for now at least. A 13 year-old may not have the life experience and resultant perspective of a 34 year-old, but that isn't a reason to completely rubbish everything they're thinking and feeling.   Compared to a 34 year-old, a 13 year-old has an extremely limited set of options available for dealing with the kinds of things OP is describing. They're stuck at home, with limited independence. They are required to go to school and put up with all the shittiness that can entail. They are dependent on adults who may not be perceptive or wise enough to realize that the 13 year-old has a serious problem and needs real help. Sometimes, when you're 13, you tell someone that you've wanted to pitch yourself off a building, only to be told it doesn't matter because you're 13. It isn't always as easy to be a kid as you seem to have had it.
Democracy is a process, not an event. There's been countless explanations that not going ahead with Brexit is not anti-democratic. For starters, an important part of the constitutional law of the UK involves MPs not acting against the interests of the people, even if the people want them to. [SEP] > an important part of the constitutional law of the UK involves MPs not acting against the interests of the people  That is so condescending. If you don't think people can choose their own political opinions, why do you trust their ability to choose a representative to act in their interests?
I like the show too, but there's definitely a subset of really obnoxious fans who like to jerk themselves off over how smart they are for understanding a sci-fi cartoon about an alcoholic scientist and his hapless sidekick. There may not be a lot of them, but they're certainly loud enough to make it seem like there are. [SEP] > but there's definitely a subset of really obnoxious fans  That's an insanely weak point to make, literally every single form of entertainment/interest to ever exist has had those fans. Name me a single fandom or interest/hobby that doesn't have an obnoxious, annoying and/or condescending group of people that enjoy it. This is just how people are, there will always be people like this in every single interest you can possibly think of.
That is the only point he presented for why travel will not become much faster. If there were other points maybe he should state them? Maybe you aren't following the comment chain? The original poster said traffic would be worse, the next guy said there shouldn't be a clog, which is correct because if you see how traffic jams actually happen a lot of it is preventable if there was some sort of interconnectivity between cars telling each one how and when to move so that there aren't artificial jams created by someone not picking up speed when they should or slowing down because the guy in front of them wasn't paying attention and stopped suddenly. He said you can't fit every single car on the bridge at once, but that's not the point. The rate of new cars entering and old cars leaving will be substantially increased so overall capacity won't really matter.  I don't think either of you understand what it would mean to have self-driving cars.   >So if you think traffic is going to be a thing of the past then you are living in fantasy land.  I never said that.  It's pretty clear you don't really understand the reality we are working towards.  If a bridge can only fit 500 cars at a time but those cars are networked and communicating between one another, they will pour out of both ends much faster than they do now, and what we view as "rush hour" will eventually become like regular midday traffic with no comparable "backups".  It's like the difference between moving 10 feet every 5 minutes and stopping at a stop sign before you continue on your way.  Btw, downvote is not the disagree button. [SEP] > That is the only point he presented for why travel will not become much faster.   Seriously? Is he required to bring up every single issue that can possibly happen?  Just because this is the only point he brought up doesn't mean he thinks it's the only factor. You're just using ad hominem to try and make his argument look weak, and you are failing.  >Maybe you aren't following the comment chain?  I was about to say the same thing of you. Stop it with the condescending bullshit because it's clear you don't have a clue.  > The original poster said traffic would be worse  Yes, and that's under the assumption of more cars being on the road. Not because there will be autonomous cars. But that doesn't matter because the conversation moved passed that after 2 comments.  >the next guy said there shouldn't be a clog  BINGO, that's what you should be focusing on. The guy you were responding to is arguing that there WILL be clogs because roads can only physically handle so many cars at a time.  >If a bridge can only fit 500 cars at a time but those cars are networked and communicating between one another, they will pour out of both ends much faster than they do now, and what we view as "rush hour" will eventually become like regular midday traffic with no comparable "backups".  You literally just supported his custard vs. water through a hose analogy. You're also agreeing that autonomous vehicles won't completely get rid of traffic. Which is all the other guy was ever arguing for fucks sake.  >I never said that.    You can't even keep your argument consistent though so idk wtf you are talking about anymore. In this very comment you say Fictionalpoet is right that there shouldn't be any clogs and then go on to say that there will be clogs they just won't be as bad.
I know you are going nuts with trying to call me out on stuff, and that is fine, but would you disagree with that? I admit my original post was more blunt, but I did clarify almost everything in the comments. Would you disagree that for most people in a long term committed relationship that this fetish is unsustainable? if so, then we have a difference of opinion.  [SEP] > Would you disagree that for most people in a long term committed relationship that this fetish is unsustainable?  I won't answer loaded questions that are meant to move the goalpost. I'll say that I disagree that it is unhealthy for most of us in the fetish.  Notice how you moved the goalpost from "unhealthy for most in the fetish" to "unhealthy for most relationships". A goalpost you were so explicit about in your post that you even had a qualifier to explicitly state that where you're moving the goalpost now is NOT what you meant. Is this what you call "addressing" the points? Pretending you were saying something you took the time to explicitly clarifying is not what you were saying?  It wasn't "blunt". It was insulting, condescending, and relied on a lot of ego centrism. I don't give a shit if someone is blunt, but I will damn sure call you out if you look down on others based on your own lack of understanding. 
No worries mate, u gave me a genuine laugh irl.  "With his career stalled, he took out a £30,000 bank loan,[4] secured by a life insurance policy, to buy his way into the fledgling March team as a Formula Two (F2) driver in 1971. Because of his family's disapproval he had an ongoing feud with them over his racing ambitions and abandoned further contact."   http  [SEP] > gave me a genuine laugh irl.  Huh, is it genuinely that funny to inadvertently omit part of a story? Sorry but it seems like you're being condescending.
What about what about whataboutism?  Get out of here with your apologist BS. Russia taken taken step after step in recent years to undermine democracy, weaken Western alliances, and encourage neofascist kleptocracy all over the world. They've committed chemical attacks in foreignp nations, assassinated political opponents, invaded and annexed their neighbors, and in a wild turn of events seem to have brought the ruling US political party to it's knees after throwing the election in its favor, perhaps their biggest victory since 1945.  [SEP] > What about what about whataboutism?  So if RT ran an article accusing Clinton or whoever of funding Zhirinovsky (not that I would expect RT to criticise Zhirinovsky), you seriously wouldn't mention the 2016 US elections?  There is nothing wrong with telling people to get off their high horses. There arguably is something wrong with excusing one country's actions because so did a second.  My point isn't that Russia is somehow excused from doing these horrible things just because the US does them - rather that both the US and Russia do them, so something as condescending as 'Fuck Russia' is deeply unfair.  > Russia taken taken step after step in recent years to undermine democracy, weaken Western alliances, and encourage neofascist kleptocracy all over the world.  No shit. Major world powers have always - and always will - operate in this manor, meddling in others' domestic politics for their own gains. Does it make them above criticism because of that? Absolutely not. But for some reason American media (in particular) seems very selective about which stories are run (though this is no doubt due to nationalistic news selling better, and I'm not implying this is part of some conspiracy or something).  > and in a wild turn of events seem to have brought the ruling US political party to it's knees after throwing the election in its favor, perhaps their biggest victory since 1945.  If we're including the Soviet Union, does this top the war in Vietnam or something, where at (relatively) very little cost the Soviet Union and China were able to cause such major domestic political problems for the US?  And seriously? I'm sure Russia had some effect, but like it or hate it Trump was the GOP's candidate, and since the US is for all intents and purposes a two-party state a very large portion of the US will automatically vote for him.
>There's not thing wrong with vigilanteism if it's used correctly.  Good vigilantism is called due process  This of course makes all vigilantism incorrect  Your personal definition of justice is not what the law is trying to uphold, and thank fuck for that  [SEP] >Good vigilantism is called due process. This of course makes all vigilantism incorrect  Let me translate your snarky and illogical set of sentences to show why you're wrong.  Good X is called Y. This makes all X incorrect (bad).   So what you're saying is that not all X is bad, but all X is bad.   You shouldn't contradict yourself, it looks even worse when you're being condescending. 
I for one support your typographical preferences.  It is important to bring emphasis to where emphasis is due.  DWShimoda always spits the good shit. Dude is among the most woke here. [SEP] > I for one support your typographical preferences.  And you will doubtless be downvoted for expressing that.  -- Whiny twats tend to bitch about EVERYTHING. == Write ANY long comment or main thread and they whinge, bitch & moan about "wall of text" (even though that "complaint" is really only applicable to things that DON'T have paragraph breaks and other formatting elements that "aid the eye").  Add formatting -- lines, bolding & italics and other things -- all of which not only emphasize points, but provide "anchors" for the eye to read, especially when the base "formating" (online fonts, line spacing, lack of indents, etc) is abysmal (as it most definitely is with Reddit)... and they whinge & bitch & moan about that.  -- And of course it's much worse than that: use some term or phrase they're not familiar with and -- despite having the easiest and most powerful "lookup" system humanity has ever known or had access to (literally a "lift a finger" level of effortlessness) -- they'll whinge & bitch & moan.  Explain what such things mean (or when they have multiple meanings, how you are using them, applying them) in some parenthetical or footnote -- and they will whinge & bitch & moan about the text is "too complex"\, and/or how you're being "to wordy" and "pedantic" and even "condescending" or "arrogant" or "obtuse" (LOL).  DARE, as I just did above to place words in quotation marks... and they'll whinge & bitch & moan about that too.  -- Plain fact of the matter is that said "whiney twats" are pragmatically/functionally ILLITERATE; and intellectually, dispositionally, they are nearly all "lazy, entitled little 'special' snowflakes." They've been so coddled and indulged and pandered to (also "controlled by" though they mostly DON'T get that) for so long that they sincerely think they can DEMAND just about anything, and that people will RUSH to kiss (rim) their buttholes as a result.  What most of them NEED of course... is a good swift KICK to said "butt." -- They need to realize that other people are NOT their fucking "servants" ... and telling them to "fuck off" when they whinge & bitch & moan is one part of that.  -- Also, of course... I really Don't Give a Flying Fuck about anything the little "snowflakes" have to say.  --- \ Even though the level/degree of "complexity" is trivial; its a matter of subjective experience -- people who are used to 140 character "tweets" (or even fewer character/word "meme" pics) -- will likely view anything longer as "complex."
An appeal to authority is a subset of an appeal to ethics. You're starting to get it, but you overstep by making the assumption that appeals to authority/ethics are inferior. Logic can be distorted by falsities, emotion by insincerity, and ethics by exactly what you described. There is nothing inherently wrong with Americans respecting their constitution, but it has been used for manipulation to their detriment; just as any other tendency among the culture could. [SEP] >You're starting to get it   Don't be patronizing. I won't act condescending towards you if we can both agree to keep this civil.  >you overstep by making the assumption that appeals to authority/ethics are inferior  An appeal to authority is by definition a logical fallacy. It is an error in reasoning.   From a formal or mathematical logic perspective, arguments from authority fail. From an informal logic perspective, the key point relevant to our discussion is this:  "The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."  >There is nothing inherently wrong with Americans respecting their constitution...  Holding respect for the constitution is laudable for any country governed by laws. But to hold the constitution and the persons who wrote it exempt from criticism is logically flawed and in practice grossly problematic.  Far too much effort is spent parsing and divining what James Madison or some other founding father intended instead of critically assessing modern-day issues at hand. If any other country acted in a similar fashion, most of us would think it absurd.  "Well, we'd like to change our marriage laws in France, but first let's hold a seance to see what the all-knowing Napoleon would have thought in 1799."  Georgetown University constitutional law professor Louis Michael Seidman gives an excellent argument here that Americans' fundamentalist obsession with the constitution is creating political dysfunction that threatens the country. (He wrote this during one of the debt-ceiling battles in Congress.) The constitution is used as a tool, he argues, to force others to give up their morals and political ideas.  (And no, I am not being ironic and claiming Seidman is above criticism.)
So wait, Fable - which was a very cute, entertaining if admittedly short adventure - and FEAR - which was very entertaining, genuinely scary shooter with sort of crappy (in my opinion, anyway) multiplayer - are "bad games", but a game where you run around all day grinding experience points, and pay a monthly fee for the "service", is good?  You know what I call games like WoW? A job. If you ever get one, you'll understand what I mean. [SEP] >You know what I call games like WoW? A job. If you ever get one, you'll understand what I mean.  And you know what I call people like you? A condescending prick. I have a job, a good one. One that lets me afford my WoW subscription, which I play regularly and enjoy.   
Why, she's a woman.  You're attacking him by saying the he is too feminine, which is to say being feminen is bad thing to be. Even more you're saying that him being feminine is a disqualifying characteristic for the vice presidency since you wouldn't vote for the ticket with him on it.  Last you say you won't vote for the guy because of his comedy and personality. Those are shallow characteristics to base your vote off of, why not vote on policy.  It's troubling when Clinton's own supporters are engaging in sexist rhetoric and voting behavior. [SEP] > You're attacking him by saying the he is too feminine, which is to say being feminen is bad thing to be  Not at all, I just personally find him extremely grating  >Last you say you won't vote for the guy because of his comedy and personality. Those are shallow characteristics to base your vote off of, why not vote on policy.  Because his personality hurts our ability to promote our policies, he's the epitome of the stereotype of the condescending liberal  >It's troubling when Clinton's own supporters are engaging in sexist rhetoric and voting behavior.  Right, I'm sexist for supporting clinton, but not franken gotcha, there's some mental gymastics for ya 
The reasoning for this was explained by a very eloquent discussion on Radio 4 that I heard on the way home today. It's all about the visibility of woman who have made a contribution to British society and, why as public institution the Bank of England has a responsibility to do so. Now, the female lawyer (Caroline Criado-Perez) who campaigned for this was happy with Austin as she was a fan but would have preferred someone who wasn't from popular culture one example and would be my choice is the Dark Lady of DNA.  However, as it is summer and, all you boys are here, any sensible conversation about this is unlikely...any of you have daughters? [SEP] > However, as it is summer and, all you boys are here, any sensible conversation about this is unlikely...any of you have daughters?  That's an awfully condescending and unhelpful thing to add. I was with you completely until you resorted to what appears to me to be an unwarranted cheap shot. That said, I do hope I've simply misunderstood your meaning. 
I actually think Toronto is one of the most accepting cities of the renter mindset in North America other than NYC and SF. On the flipside, many millennials in Toronto somehow feel upset that many people (Gen X'ers) are totally fine in buying a place and "settling down". To each there own. [SEP] > On the flipside, many millennials in Toronto somehow feel upset that many people (Gen X'ers) are totally fine in buying a place and "settling down".   I don't think that's true though. I've never met anybody who is upset about people buying their own place, only an insane person would be upset by such a thing. But you definitely get the condescending "why would I waste my money on rent when I can own my own place?" word track a lot here. I mean you said it yourself (not in those precise words, obviously), as have others in this thread. And every other thread about housing in Toronto.  So I think what you're referring to is angst about: 1) Having ownership being equated to personhood/adulthood here, combined with 2) Extremely high housing prices here and relatively low wages for most millennials.  So what you've casually disregarded as a generational "oh millennials don't like Gen X'ers for 'settling down'" I think is a lot more complicated than that. I'd bet you that a lot of millennials want to "settle down" too, but it's prohibitively expensive or you need to live in Innisfill. Also that comment still perpetuates the idea of a lesser nature of not owning a house that permeates Toronto's (and perhaps Canada's more widely) culture. It's so pervasive you didn't realize you just did it. Settling down means owning a house. You cannot settle down as a renter. Instead you're off galavanting and not living a real life.  And before you jump on me for using my own life as the original example -- yes I am off galavanting and have no intention of "settling down" -- I know people who have rented the same apartment (or house fwiw) for decades. Would they be better off owning that place? Maybe. But they shouldn't be lesser for not making that choice.
French have a better view of America than Germans, and also have more military cooperation with us. Their people are more mean towards foreigners though and they don't speak as much English.  So for me personally to visit or live in, i'd say Germany. But in a way that affects my life, I would say I like France better although I wouldn't want to visit France over Germany. They're just better allies to have. [SEP] >Their people are more mean towards foreigners though and they don't speak as much English.  Ya know I appreciate your input, but I've never experienced this. Maybe it's because I haven't spent enough time in Europe, but when I was in France everybody was very nice, and in Switzerland (yea, not Germany but I figure just Germans on steroids) people were a lot more stern and condescending. I've also been yelled at by a German here in San Diego and I'm dating girl from Québec so I probably have a bit of bias.
You are clearly taking that out of context. There is an argument that sexism describes a systemic power dynamic in society at large, i.e., sexism is a system where one gender has a pervasive advantage in most areas of society over others. By that definition, sexism against multiple genders can't exist because you can't have men and women both be systemically disadvantaged in comparison to each other. The implication of this is that an individual act by the oppressed group against the oppressing group does not reinforce that power difference in the same way, and so it is less harmful. This does not mean that individual act is right.  Another way to look it is that when you and kinderdmom use the word "sexism", you are talking about different things. If we called overarching disparities in power "foo"s and individual acts that treat people unfairly because of their gender "bar"s, I think you and kindermom would both agree that this app is "bar". kindermom is saying a black person hating a white person is not a "foo", even if it is a "bar".   It's also important that Kindermom isn't defending this app, and neither is anyone else you and others have linked to who makes this argument about sexism as a system. No feminist is defending this app. [SEP] > You are clearly taking that out of context. There is an argument that sexism describes a systemic power dynamic in society at large, i.e., sexism is a system where one gender has a pervasive advantage in most areas of society over others. By that definition, sexism against multiple genders can't exist because you can't have men and women both be systemically disadvantaged in comparison to each other. The implication of this is that an individual act by the oppressed group against the oppressing group does not reinforce that power difference in the same way, and so it is less harmful. This does not mean that individual act is right.  Unfortunately, this same argument is used to trivialize actual incidences of sexism against men.  > Another way to look it is that when you and kinderdmom use the word "sexism", you are talking about different things. If we called overarching disparities in power "foo"s and individual acts that treat people unfairly because of their gender "bar"s, I think you and kindermom would both agree that this app is "bar". kindermom is saying a black person hating a white person is not a "foo", even if it is a "bar".   This all sounds very reasonable, but as you're probably well aware, there are plenty of people out there who simply do not accept the dictionary definition of sexism at all. Secondly, it would be more correct simply to refer to this sort of sexism as institutionalized sexism, although that would mean accepting that in certain cases (such as higher car insurance rates) men are the victims of it too. As it is, excluding men from being allowed to call this sort of discrimination leads to double standards, although those are generally dismissed with the words "because patriarchy."  The entire philosophy leads to a lot of people being utterly unconcerned with the well-being of others (mind you, the MRA crowd is just as bad; they have precisely the same problem). People also tend to use this to make a lot of assumptions about other peoples' lives ("you're a white male, therefore you have privilege and your life has been awesome"). I've personally tried to engage people in the past, and I was told that in order to do that, I needed to "shut up", and that I've "probably never been told to shut up before", which was frankly condescending and obnoxious, and further indication of the problems with this mindset. This is also the crux of the argument used to shut down any sort of criticism from the outside ("STFU privilege").  Ultimately, I can't really buy that this is just a philosophical thing, useful for academic discussion. Even if you don't personally hate white men, there are people in your community who do, and to them, this redefinition of sexism is just another way of saying that it's okay to hate.  > It's also important that Kindermom isn't defending this app, and neither is anyone else you and others have linked to who makes this argument about sexism as a system. No feminist is defending this app.  Just a note for the record, I never said they were. That said, I haven't gone through the SRS thread to look for it (I prefer to avoid SRS), although I imagine there are some posts there saying that men (as a group) deserve it. Tell me that I'm wrong.
Haha, well, if I tried, I think I could create counter arguments to that- not that it really makes any true arguments to start with. I thought it was hilarious though.   And I have a completely different set of reasons for that. Here's one I listed before:  One is that I believe there is no path to understanding God. Once you accept that there is a God, the fact that we can not reach a similar understanding of him using logic and reason probably means that he doesn't intend to show himself to you. Thus, God has to come to you to understand him, not the other way around.  This is not something that most religions believe- in fact, as far as I know, only CERTAIN Christians believe that such is the case. [SEP] > Haha, well, if I tried, I think I could create counter arguments to that- not that it really makes any true arguments to start with. I thought it was hilarious though.  Weird. I find that it makes a lot of really deep and important philosophical points about the meaning of free will, of unconditional love, of God's nature and purpose. It's hard to believe we're reading the same words.  > One is that I believe there is no path to understanding God.   Semantic stop sign. How convenient for religions, that God is not understandable, so it is a waste of time to ask questions about him. Very helpful that God is the one and only thing where we can say that the answer to the questions is not known but "not knowable."  Just another way of saying: "Don't worry your pretty little head about it. It's all taken care of. You wouldn't understand." Very condescending.  > Once you accept that there is a God, the fact that we can not reach a similar understanding of him using logic and reason probably means that he doesn't intend to show himself to you.   "Once you accept that there is a tooth fairy, the fact that you cannot understand what she does with the teeth using logic an reasoning probably means that she doesn't intend to show/explain herself to you."  Once again, I'll mention how convenient it is for religions that God is a semantic stop sign. "Sure, this stuff may seem to make no sense, but it is because God wanted it to make no sense." The Chewbacca defense. Once you're on the outside it is so obvious that religion is constructed with as much precision as a supercomputer. All of its dictates are very convenient from a population control point of view:   you must spread the Good Word   you should avoid fraternizing with those that would corrupt you (convince you otherwise)   you shouldn't bother asking too many questions because the answers are unknowable  > Thus, God has to come to you to understand him, not the other way around.  Convenient.  > This is not something that most religions believe- in fact, as far as I know, only CERTAIN Christians believe that such is the case.  All Christians believe some equivalent of the semantic stop sign. "The Lord works in mysterious ways." They spin it different ways but ultimately every religion must have an answer to the question: "Why does none of this make any rational sense?"
Wow. This is a very oversimplistic analysis. I'm surprised to see it get so many upvotes.  >If we compare this to hockey, where penalty shot goal conversion is around 30% and a 1-0 score is highly unlikely to stay throughout the game, it's no wonder that players try to stay on their feet instead of flopping down on the ice.  First of all, this is comparing apples and oranges.  A hockey ring and goal is much much smaller in comparison to a footballfield/goal. It takes less effort to score. Physically much more is allowed. Really, there is no way you can keep a straight face and compare penalties in either sports with eachother.   >If a football player who is attacking all alone is entering the penalty area to the far right, close to being out of bounds and is tackled, of course he is going to flop over and dive!  You're making it seem as if "entering the penalty area" is the easiest thing in the world. It's the task of defence, not only to prevent goals, but specially to keep attackers from entering the penaltybox. Once an attacker is inside the box, the risk of getting a goal against increases. Instead of "blaming" the concept of penalties, please consider the fact that a defender is already failing by allowing attackers to near his goalarea.  I'm not defending flopping or unfair play. But your view is so simplistic and shows your knowledge of the game is limited. And with you a lot of "soccer" fans on Reddit unfortunately. [SEP] >Really, there is no way you can keep a straight face and compare penalties in either sports with eachother.  Uhh, yes I can, because in both sports a penalty is supposed to be a replacement of an opportunity that was taken from a player in a rule-breaking way. The difference is that while hockey gives the player a chance to score again in a manner that has a very similar chance-to-goal ratio, a football penalty very often gives the player a much, much higher chance to score than he had before. This discrepancy is what makes diving advantageous for a player, since a penalty can be given even if the player had no chance to score. That is, if rules are followed, which they aren't always since referees usually don't have the guts to give penalties for such occasions. This tendency for referees not to give penalties for infractions that would have been a freekick had it taken place just a metre back, is evidence enough that something is wrong with penalties. Both the referees and the players know that a penalty carries more weight than almost every other decision in the game (save a red card), and as such the players will try to get one if they feel they aren't guaranteed to score from their present position.  And considering your condescending tone I won't even try to address the rest of your post, since you are apparently already the master of all football knowledge and didn't really need this response.
I will just go ahead and be the first to suggest that she must have an adorable personality, a lovely figure and an all around charming presence about her that is difficult to describe, plus lots of money. Without those, there would apparently be little to recommend her as an acquaintance, much less a mate. "Tape it!." "I am!!" Picture of countryside.  Edit: Fuck you all. I stand by it. You don't like my comment because it's about a woman. I would have said the same thing if it had been a man, but no one wants to consider that. [SEP] > Fuck you all. I stand by it. You don't like my comment because it's about a woman.  No, we don't like your comment because you're clearly a condescending douche. Your edit only makes that more abundantly clear.
Germaine Greer is very much mainstream in the UK. She appears on TV quite a lot, or certainly used to.  > Trp is a sexual strategy. Feminism is a movement to promote gender equality, yet you keep equating them as if their paths are similar.  I think feminism is a sexual strategy, given that it's a strategy to promote the interests of one sex (women) over the other (men). The equality it promotes is superficial and selective, eg. we want 50% of CEOs to be women, but we don't want 50% of garbage collectors to be women. Also, the understanding I get is that feminism thinks that gender is a social construct, that men and women are essentially the same (except physically) and that we should be treated the same. I disagree and think that men and women are equal but different, that we have different needs, desires and motivations, but that we exist on a spectrum of masculine and feminine, with women being more feminine in general, and men being more masculine, but some crossover.  This is where the main problem lies with feminism in my opinion. It's not that you have bad intentions. I believe you have good intentions but are misguided. [SEP] I actually responded to this yesterday, but my phone did something stupid and my comment never posted. The gist of my reply is that I'm not going to be able to debate with you if you continue to use radical feminism as your defense against feminism as I can't argue for views I don't even support. I'm sure Germaine Greer is popular, in the same way a shock jock is, but it doesn't make her any less radical. Feminism is a movement for equality among genders. You keep arguing that feminists want women to be better than men and that simply is not true for me or any feminist I know.  > This is where the main problem lies with feminism in my opinion. It's not that you have bad intentions. I believe you have good intentions but are misguided.   I find that to be pretty condescending. Feminism has accomplished some amazing things throughout its movement and still continues to push for changes to positively impact society. I can't say the same for Trp.
You need to calm down and realize these people are just trying to explain how a third party thinks. Anti abortionists think that a person is being killed in the process. Women making their own choices is a secondary issue. [SEP] >You need to calm down...  I won't tell you that you need to stop condescending to people on this thread, but I will say that it's the moral thing to do. 
Grown-ups have no excuse for the "welfare creates dependency" myth. How do you remember to breathe while harboring such a fantastically stupid thought? Social spending doesn't break the necks of people with paralyzed bodies. Democratic politicians surely did not cause for more than 1 in 100,000 of the pregnancies that lead to single mother households. If ideology has anything to do with the mental illnesses that render some American unable to work, surely the batshit insane ravings of cutthroat conservatives are much more liable than the reasonable calls for balance from the left.  Quit shitting all over this great nation with your mind and start embracing reality. Welfare is a response to a problem, not the cause of it. There are easily 100 cases of real need for each case of fraud and abuse. Do you really want to be the monster who starves dozens of American children just to root out that one guy who took a couple of pennies out of your annual salary without really needing it? [SEP] > Welfare is a response to a problem, not the cause of it.  Correct! Is it a good response though? Is it a good solution? What are the goals of welfare programs? Do they accomplish those goals? When one actually investigates the outcomes of some of our social welfare programs we find that it hardly provides much benefit. However, at the very least we have to give our political leaders some credit that some -- albeit a small fraction -- of the money siphoned from the masses does in fact reach the people it is intended to reach. But this isn't a solution, it creates more problems than solves and creates a sub-culture of people that feel helpless and beholden to those sparse handouts.   Are you honestly suggesting that social welfare programs are the end all for any social responsibility? It amazes me that many "progressives" feel as though if the government doesn't force the masses to pay then people won't want to be charitable.   Progressives -- if I could even slump them all into one category -- have a very pessimistic outlook on human ingenuity and progress, which is humorous to say the least.  Furthermore, your condescending attitude is stereotypical in this subreddit and it doesn't promote thought provoking discussion in the slightest.  But downvote me for stating the obvious, that these social welfare programs are a haphazard solution to a problem that is getting worse as our national debt increases. We reap what we sow.
If you care, you'll read. I summed it up earlier with "they knew it was a sham even then" basically. Said and Leibovitz are extremely important when trying to gain perspective on the situation here beyond the narratives we are fed by current, louder interests.  They are also more fun to read and listen to than an imbecile like me. I recommend it. But I'm way beyond your simplistic popular narrative, and frankly no longer into trying to write out and argue my own perspective to such lengths to users. [SEP] > I'm way beyond your simplistic popular narrative  Such arrogance. Just to be clear this just makes you sound condescending, not correct. You're extreme view might be unique and special, but it is not true. You are cherry picking people to listen to and facts to argue with. You wrongly assume I have not been exposed to wide narratives of this subject.  >and frankly no longer into trying to write out and argue my own perspective to such lengths to users.  That's reasonable. I'm not forcing you to do anything. Just know I am not going to read these in length. I don't have the time to read every piece of information on the internet. Our generation is all about filtering information, summarizing it, to understand it quickly and compare it with other views, then dig deep. The way you presented it seemed so biased and cherry picked, simplified, that it doesn't seem worth the effort to look into.  
My own grave? Who is burying me?   I care not for the downvotes of dipshits, lol.   I would, however, love to hear your example of where I failed to comprehend something. Incredulity is not a lack of comprehension. Also, that statement you're so hurt over had nothing to do with an opinion I expressed about the show. It was in reference to them completely failing to understand what the opinion I was expressing was and how to answer it in a contextually appropriate manner, which they had failed to do in multiple posts.  Lack of comprehension, indeed. You can't even figure out how to insult me properly because you can't even understand what I'm saying in context, lol. I don't think I've ever seen anyone fail so hard at trying to /r/iamverysmart someone before. You literally just proved that you're not smart enough to understand what I was criticizing them for understanding.  Thanks for the laugh, kiddo. [SEP] >My own grave? Who is burying me?  >I care not for the downvotes of dipshits, lol.  You might not care but you're still being 'buried'. Also, there you go with the whole 'I don't care because I am smarter than you'.   I'm not trying to insult you here, I just think you come off as a dick. Believe it or not I was hoping my comment would be helpful. If I was trying to insult you I would say you are a dick.   >Also, that statement you're so hurt over had nothing to do with an opinion I expressed about the show. It was in reference to them completely failing to understand what the opinion I was expressing was and how to answer it in a contextually appropriate manner, which they had failed to do in multiple posts.  Well, I was going to go reread those comments to form a rebuttal or cede the point, but it seems you deleted them. Weird behaviour from someone who claims not to care about what anyone else thinks.    You continuously assert that you're smarter than everyone and act like anyone who disagrees with you is factually incorrect. You're also displaying a real lack of self awareness since you apparently have no idea that you come off as combative and condescending. Which, by the way, is undermining the points you made. Nobody wants to discuss, let alone cede a point, to someone who insults their intelligence.  
When a "rock star" espouses opinions on gun control, THEY are bringing gun control debate into rock. He made the headlines not me.    And you may not have noticed that A lot of countries are talking about your issues with guns, not just Britain.  [SEP] The two subjects exist independent of one another. Rock and gun control aren't tied to one another in any way, shape, or form. It stands to reason that rock musicians are going to have opinions each way (which they do), but it's purely happenstance and doesn't mean that the debate needs to be drug into every subreddit. And you don't see me (or anyone else, really), posting here each time some rock star voices an opinion either way.  Regardless, my overall point is that it already gets drug into endless threads with the same talking points on both sides, regurgitated and repeated on hundreds of threads in thousands of subs on a daily basis. What, exactly, is the point of bringing it here, unless you have your own agenda to push and/or are wanting to ignite the same pointless arguments here as well? You and I both know this isn't the place for it; don't play as if you don't.  >A lot of countries are talking about your issues with guns  True. Although, I would submit that not everyone speaks with the same authority on the subject as those who actually live in the US.  >not just Britain  It has been my personal experience that Brits (and to a lesser extent, Aussies) are the first to jump in and make their (often ill-informed) opinion known...as well as make a point to be as condescending about it as possible.
I hope not, trophies bore me. If I get them, yay? but I dont bust a gut looking for them.  Having said that, I can see the sort of things that would be awarded with trophies;  1) first upgrade to suit/mutli tool/ship 2) first warp to a new system 3) get to the center (minus 50dkp cos you didnt know what the fk to do, sorry) 4) acquire new ship. 5) make x # of units. 6) combine x and y elements to make a new one.  fairly obvious and brain numbing stuff really.  Dont play for trophies, play for fun. If I could find a way to turn off all trophies for all games, trust me I would. [SEP] > I hope not, trophies bore me.  You hope there aren't trophies because they bore you? Then don't bother with them, but why wouldn't you want them in for the many people who would want them?  > Dont play for trophies, play for fun.  I don't even care about trophies, but you're just coming off as really condescending here. People have fun in different ways and enjoy different things. Getting trophies IS fun for some people. 
Your husband sounds like a total child. You sound like you'd like to be a good wife in a mature relationship, but honestly this doesn't sound like the guy. I can't believe he would argue about space in the fridge. That's something you do with a roommate when you aren't even good at being roommates with each other.   I think you should feel free to go to the hotel today, but you should drop this "really wanting to make the marriage work" thing because that takes two people. You can't make this work on your own without being a miserable slave.  [SEP] > but honestly this doesn't sound like the guy.  My father said something very similar to me once, when I was in an 'ok but not great' relationship that I was working WAY too hard on. It was very much like Op describes their marriage. Honestly, with one person pulling this much weight and working this hard to 'make it work', things could limp along like this for a very long time. It really is up to how much Op is willing to take, because her husband is unlikely to change. That would require an epiphany of some kind regarding his entire self, and he doesn't sound open to that kind of self reflection.   To Op directly: If he is unwilling to try couples therapy to address his inability to be in an equal and loving relationship, these issues will not be solved. The only real decision you have to make is how much you're willing to put up with in this regard, as your husband will not change with things as they are. You apologized three times because he was condescending and treated you disrespectfully. His reaction to your subsequent apologies (after the first one where you apologized for your actions, you had nothing left to apologize for but his behavior. Never offer an apology because you feel you deserve one in response; only offer one because you feel someone else deserves one from you, and you mean it) was to tell you to 'get the fuck out' of his apartment.   My only question is why would you stay, when he so clearly doesn't give a fuck about your marriage, and doesn't want you around? If he wanted you around, he wouldn't tell you to leave. If he cared about your marriage, he would talk about your issues.   I don't know why he married you, Op. I don't know why you stay. I do know that you (both) need a significant amount of help to even have a hope of making this work. Personally, it wouldn't be worth the effort for me to make a relationship work with someone like this. In my own similar relationship, as soon as I realized things were like this, I left. I was happier after I did, and I hadn't even realized how miserable I was ('working' on the relationship took so much time, energy, emotion and thought that I never had time to consider my own needs). 
No, not really. If you actually read the lore in WoW (hard for some of you to do, I know), we can't go around killing off Old Gods, as this has adverse affects on Azeroth.  As far as the Titans go, we haven't killed off any of them either, just some of the Watchers (and I think just Loken, at that).  Stories grow, and change. I don't see the big deal about killing off major characters. What makes them so sacred that they can only be killed off in an RTS version of the game, and not an MMO version? [SEP] >(hard for some of you to do, I know)  I don't think I've ever seen someone be so condescending about not reading video game novels.
>Arguing with...  yeh but ur not arguing my point, ur acting like ur educating me, as if the fact that im wrong is a forgone conclusion that you can illuminate by telling me stuff  >There are people who...  its irrelevant because as I just pointed out, its wrong to look at anarchism and feminism as movements in the same sense of the word. A liberal feminist is a feminist in the same way that a terf is a feminist and an anarcha-feminist is and some other stuff im sure [SEP] >yeh but ur not arguing my point, ur acting like ur educating me, as if the fact that im wrong is a forgone conclusion that you can illuminate by telling me stuff  Apologies if I come across as condescending but I was merely trying to put forward my points in a clear manner. Hence the numbers etc.  >its irrelevant because as I just pointed out, its wrong to look at anarchism and feminism as movements in the same sense of the word. A liberal feminist is a feminist in the same way that a terf is a feminist and an anarcha-feminist is and some other stuff im sure  But what about the fact that most anarcha-feminists say that TERFs aren't actually feminists because of their rigid obsession with maintaining the gender binary?
> You're very presumptuous for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.  It's really annoying that you use this kind of rhetoric, because I'm giving you the revolutionary black nationalist and marxist feminist views of these issues, while you're offering the standard liberal approach that I hear every single day. If you consider yourself an anarchist, you should really read the anarchist literature on the subject.  This is what I mean when I call your point of view "capitalist". I'm not saying you're a right-libertarian, I'm saying you're resorting to the default liberalism, the hegemonic bourgeois view, which befalls on everyone through the media and all the rest of it. The only antidote to this is to actually study the sociology of race and gender.  > You can't redefine racism to be only 'violent, systematic oppression'. If a white person gets a job ahead of a black person because the employer is racist, is that not racism? I could summon hundreds of other examples.  I don't mean violence in the immediate sense of genocide or slavery, but in the sense of structural violence, in the sense that it doesn't allow people to meet their basic needs. A black person not getting a job because a white person got it is structural violence, racist structural violence. A white person not getting a job because a black person got it isn't.  Here's some useful resources for black liberation. This book is a favorite of mine as well. Here's a similar collection of leftist works on feminism. I really hope you're interested in studying these issues more. Especially because anarchism is currently very detached from people of color and women, and this has been one of its biggest setbacks, as shown in After Winter Must Come Spring. [SEP] >You're very presumptuous for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. >>It's really annoying that you use this kind of rhetoric, ... while you're offering the standard liberal approach that I hear every single day. If you consider yourself an anarchist, you should really read the anarchist literature on the subject.   Sorry but your head is actually just up your own ass. You're just lecturing me to look important. Pure condescending nonsense with no substance. For your information, many 'liberals' (nanny-statist 'socially' liberal types) view racism, sexism, etc, as 'social structures' so your point is ultimately non-applicable. They just don't take the same view of the state and capitalism (that they need to be radically changed, i.e. replaced).   Why else would you make ridiculous non-sequiturs like:  > In this world-view of yours, racism and sexism aren't social structures, but something that happens to you in a specific context.  >This liberal (capitalist) philosophy of individualism  I didn't want to address this at all because it's so ludicrous. You just plucked that crap out of nowhere. There's nothing in my comment which shows that I don't think of racism etc. as 'social structures'. I was rejecting the view - in short - that racism can only exist if it's systematic. Apparently this is 'bigotry' but 'not racism' - a preposterous and empty manipulation of words.   >I'm not saying you're a right-libertarian, I'm saying you're resorting to the default liberalism, the hegemonic bourgeois view   No, you're projecting that view on me so you can lecture.   >The only antidote to this is to actually study the sociology of race and gender.   Oh my fucking goodness. Lecture!
First off, I wasn't beinf hostile, just trying to prove a point. What you are implying is that I'm a teenager with no occupation and somehow this makes my argument any less valid. I too am a man with a full-time job. That's no excuse to have THAT much mastery points with that tier elo. The "I would have been higher elo if i had grinded" js a bullshit excuse. And for how many games you played and your elo, 60 wr is pretty shitty. If you are already hitting 60 wr at gold that means for your skill level right now you hit your ceiling.   I posted one of my builds in this same thread, go look at my reasoning for it but i will post the build again for you.    (Tiger) Talisman+Refil --> Tiamat --> Chilling Smite --> Boots of choice (Swifties, Merc, or Tabi)--> Raptor Cloak (or Sheen, if you are ahead) --> Finish Cinderhulk --> Frozen Gauntlet (and Raptors if you bought sheen instead earlier) --> Spirit's Visage --> Finish Titanic's (or Finish Zz'rot if your lanes are pushed in and your team doesnt have reliable wave clear/ Finish Ohmwrecker if ahead and have a towerdive team comp) --> Finish Zz'Rot (or Titanic's, if you build Zz'Rot already)  This build is unarguably (in termsof pure stat) the most well-rounded build Udyr can have. By the time you get a point in Phoenix, you should have finished Titanic's. this makes your wave clear better than Kayle or Ziggs. This build Maximizes the amount of MR and Armor without sacrificing damage by lettinf Titanic's do all the Damage scaling for you.   Udyr's biggest threat is map presence and versatility. Getting items and Towers >>> Kills and teamfights in most cases. Gank ONLY when kill is guaranteed or when you have to countergank. Always try to be at least 10 jungle creeps ahead of enemy Jungler.   Alternate builds for enemy team having no Insta burst/infinite CC chain and /or your team lacks AP damage=   (Phoenix)  Talisman+Refil pot --> Chilling Smite --> T1 Boots --> Finish Echo --> T2 Boots --> Build Abyssal Sceptre --> Lich Bane --> Thornmail --> Deadman's /Zz'Rot (Zz'Rot if behind, Deadman if ahead)   This build, unlike the Tiger build, goes for early damage. instead of Triforce you get Lich Bane, which doesn't fall off late game and absolutely destroys towers even in late game and still deals decent damage to non-tanks. You can get an early lead from the strong Phoenix proc and become a tanky god throughout the game. This build actually does fall off extreme late game when everyone have already finished their build and have elixirs, but if you haven't won already with this build you messed up somewhere big time.   There's literally more than a dozen builds Udyr is viable with. The point is you have to find the one that's strongest in YOUR game at the moment. If you think Triforce is a must on Udyr no matter what you already aren't maximizing the benefit that Udyr's versatility offers you. [SEP] > First off, I wasn't beinf hostile, just trying to prove a point.   You weren't comming off as hostile, but condescending more like. We all have some ego to protect you know.  > What you are implying is that I'm a teenager with no occupation and somehow this makes my argument any less valid.   It's not what I implied. I know adults can be high elo and have a full time job, one of my coworkers in my old job was challenger, also a college student and mainted a 3v3 team and a website dedicated in making patch to patch 3v3 tierlist. Went to Heroes of the Storm, and became Rank 1 in couple of month, but stopped playing altogether for his college. The guy got talent.  The difference between me and him, is I started to play ranked, for real, was this season, but he played since beta(where he was still in school). There lies our difference, and this is what I implied. Yes, there are people who advanced much faster, but those are mostly teenagers or young adults(like Reckful, who went from Bronze to Gold in 2 months, nvm he is a rank 1 in a previous game and got expert coaching).  > too am a man with a full-time job. That's no excuse to have THAT much mastery points with that tier elo. The "I would have been higher elo if i had grinded" js a bullshit excuse. And for how many games you played and your elo, 60 wr is pretty shitty.   An excuse would be someone with million mastery points and still in Bronze.  I started Bronze this season, but yes, there were times I couldn't play league of legends at all. Beside being at a full time job, I am at colllege too, and I am absolutely and undoubtly shit at this game. But every day I pray to King Trick to lend me his gate breaching blessings.  > The "I would have been higher elo if i had grinded" js a bullshit excuse.   This is how you gain elo, you grind games. Duh. I am higher elo than what I have started, by doing what exactly? Grinding games whenever I was free.   > If you are already hitting 60 wr at gold that means for your skill level right now you hit your ceiling.   No, I was 70% winrate, it dropped to 60% winrate(after the nerf), and stopped playing Udyr. Played meta/tierlist champions like Zac and Sejuani. I didn't "hit" my cieling, I stopped playing ranked after getting into Gold. It was my goal to get to Gold.  If say, after some hundred of games I am still in Gold, that means I have reached my limits and it is the elo I belong to.   > (Tiger)  It's those Tiger proselytizers again... -.-   >If you think Triforce is a must on Udyr no matter what you already aren't maximizing the benefit that Udyr's versatility offers you.  There are games I don't build triforce at all. There are other options beside Triforce, Wit's End, Bork.  If you look at this community made infographics, 5 out of 8 builds adopts Trinity Force in its build. Ofc, by no means you should build it always.  i.imgur.com/VlJtHro.png
Ok then, enlighten me on a game that your far superior mind can understand has good physics then?   Personally I think Gta V has really good driving physics seing as they're easy to understand, fun spaz out just enough to be able to give a fun gameplay. Not 100 % realistic, because that shit would not be fun at all, but realistic enough to not feel strange to play.  [SEP] > Ok then, enlighten me on a game that your far superior mind can understand has good physics then?  Nah, fuck you, you're a condescending prick and you aren't worthy of my time or attention.
He grabbed his neck. That is it.  Of the tings you mentioned, the only objective factor you mentioned about rl is him being controversial. And that is because drama whores takes anything he says as ammunition against him. Even when he just expresses an opinion, which he should be able to do.  The 12 year old argument there really aren't any basis for.   I also disagree about your argument. People getting hired in esports based on hidden things they are doing, of course that is bad.  But do you have proof of any reason why rl should not be hired other than saying things that are considered controversial?  People doing hidden things is of course bad, because the people hiring doesn't know about it. But if someone is getting hired over and over again, despite everything they do being out in the spotlight, then you may have to look at yourself. [SEP] > He grabbed his neck. That is it.  No, there have been statements made by witnesses that stated he actually strangled him. Hellspawn being one of them.  > Even when he just expresses an opinion, which he should be able to do.  Which he usually does by being condescending and rude. So people are supposed to be treated like shit by him, but when they give him shit they are just drama whores?  > The 12 year old argument there really aren't any basis for.  Just an observation. I would really hope they're 12 year olds for how they defend a grown up man acting like a fucking child every single time he's called out on something. if they're actually adults, well, that's just fucking sad then.  > But do you have proof of any reason why rl should not be hired other than saying things that are considered controversial?  I would say stalking someone and then mocking them for suicidal tendencies goes a little beyond "saying something controversial". Only a scumbag would do such a thing. A hateful person.  > But if someone is getting hired over and over again, despite everything they do being out in the spotlight, then you may have to look at yourself.  There is a Dota 2 personality in the Chinese scene that goes by the name of Sayuri. She was part of an event that was raising money for charity. After the event was said and done, she pocketed some (iirc most) of the money. This is a well known fact in eSports, yet she still managed some of the biggest teams and remained a prominent figure after such acts.   Point is, that shit happens. One google search will give you several reasons why Richard Lewis is an immature man child. Whether you want to support such a guy, its up to you.   EDIT: Might I add this gem as well. What a nice guy, right? We're so blessed to have a guy like him around to make us all better and smarter individuals. /s
>Why do you keep repeating this line? I have already showed how it was relevant, by the way you responded to it. Why did you stop asking your 'questions', if it wasn't relevant? Why wont you answer that?  I've already explained that something isn't relevant simply because it's replied to. Why would stop asking questions make it relevant?  >Funny how your 'questions' stopped when i made a clarification. Why is that?  You mean when you answered my questions. Why would I keep asking for clarification for something that I've already gotten?  >What was wrong with my reasoning? What did you find amusing about my reasoning?  Saying that a group believes something, especially when it comes to minorities, is an amusing way of reasoning.  You later clarified that's not what you meant, and then started talking about me being too hung up on semantics, as if I believed that you weren't dumb enough to generalise like that.  Your original premise (even if you had meant what you said) was amusing, and your response to pointing out what you said was also amusing.  >I guess you don't really understand... you copied my line. What intent do i have to guess about? I dont really care what your intent was... you copied my line, and used it in conversation.  It seems that you're unable to follow the conversation, which doesn't really surprise me. You said that I repeated what you said in an attempt to sound clever, and because I thought you were clever to say it. That has to do directly with my intent:  "This is the part where you feign ignorance and repeat what i say, in an attempt to sound clever... because you thought it sounded clever when i said it."  I'm glad to see that it only took you 10 replies to begin to understand this. Maybe there is hope for you yet?  >Srsly bro... what is this... like 3 times? Let me help you a little because i'm starting to feel bad for you. Saying that my opinion doesn't impact your opinion, lacks substance. It's like saying 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me'.  What does that have to do with what I said?  >Whoops! Now you are starting to get tripped up while you try and keep your story straight. How could my first statement not be relevant? Lol... that is literally nonsense.  You make a lot of claims, but I think that I've yet to see you substantiate one. That your first reply to me was irrelevant is what I've been saying all along, so how am I getting tripped up over anything?  Do you mean that you've been unable to follow the conversation? Because that would explain a lot.  >And why did you repeat what i said? Of course it wasn't semantically/factually/technically (whatever you want to say) correct... but that doesn't mean that in the context, it wasn't acceptable and understandable.  This is again assuming that I'd give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to your intelligence. This would have been easier to do if your reply was actually relevant to mine, which I've stated in almost all of my replies to you now, but it wasn't. You're not president Obama. This is not "a normal conversation", and I do not know you.  By the way, I didn't repeat what you said. There's a difference between semantically correct and factually correct.  >because everyone else realized that i wasn't literally speaking for every 'black' person on the planet.  That's why all your replies at the top were downvoted, right? If you're going to use an argumentum ad populum fallacy as your argument then at the very least make sure that the people actually agree with you. Your first replies are at -1 as I'm writing this, and they have been since this begun. I've neither upvoted nor downvoted you.  >I mean... we both know that you also realized that...  You flatter yourself if you think that I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you know what you were talking about. I was apparently right not to.  >Nobody really likes people that do that kind of stuff  Especially not black people, right? [SEP] >You mean when you answered my questions.   This implies that you thought my answer to 'what else do black people say' was not sarcastic. Really? It went that far over your head? If so, then I think i've been giving your comprehension abilities too much credit.  >What does that have to do with what I said?  That was a description of why your statement lacked substance. How could you not realize that's 'what it had to do' with what you said? Are you really unable to process such a simple explanation? I mean, disagreeing with my statement is one thing... but if you can't even understand such a basic analogy, then i shudder to think of the problems you would have in trying to debate it.  >That your first reply to me was irrelevant is what I've been saying all along, so how am I getting tripped up over anything?  Because you referred to my first statement as being irrelevant. That's literally nonsense. Re-read the exchange, if you still don't understand what i am talking about.  BTW, i dont know why you are talking about my first reply ("nope, just repeating what they say") here. ?? What does that have to do with what we are currently talking about? Having problems keeping everything straight?  >That has to do directly with my intent:  Stop repeating yourself and actually listen to what i am saying. If you want to debate something, base it off of my rebuttals... dont just keep repeating the same thing.   I dont care what your 'intent' was. Obviously you aren't going to admit that you thought it was clever (after all, it was an insult directed at you), but that doesn't even matter. You saw my line, and then copied it to use in a conversation. I am flattered that you decided to use my work as your own. The fact that you used it is what flatters me. Flatters. That sure is a funny sounding word, haha.  >You make a lot of claims, but I think that I've yet to see you substantiate one.  Wow man... stop repeating these meaningless statements. The fact that you dont think i have substantiated any of my claims doesn't mean that i havent actually substantiated any of my claims. You appear to be one of those types that never budges from their positions, or admits when the other person has a point... they are easy to spot. So everybody already knows that you think i haven't substantiated anything. It's a meaningless statement.   >You're not president Obama. This is not "a normal conversation", and I do not know you.  Wow.  Ok... first of all, whether or not I am President Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my example. And you want to talk about my reasoning? Sheesh. Re-read the example and pay attention to what i was saying, because it fits with what is going on here. This time try not to get distracted by the fact that i'm not President Obama. lol.  Secondly, how is this not a normal conversation?   Third, i don't see what 'knowing me' has to do with this. I didn't have to 'know' the OP of this thread tree to deduce that he probably didn't intend to imply that every black individual on the planet might be offended at the word.  >You flatter yourself if you think that I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you know what you were talking about.  You didn't have to assume that i knew what i was talking about... all you had to assume was that i wasn't literally talking about every black person in existence.   You know... like a normal person would do. Like nearly everyone else in the thread apparently did. There has been lots of discussion based off of that initial comment, and no one is going after the OP for saying 'a black individual' instead of 'some black individuals'.  What's funny is that if you want to talk about 'knowing what they were talking about'... it is actually YOU that didn't appear to know what you were talking about, when it comes to the actual issue that was being discussed. Some black people consider this specific word condescending, and it is very easy to prove that. You seemed to be completely oblivious to this, based on your initial reaction.  >That's why all your replies at the top were downvoted, right?   Yeah, because a downvote automatically means that they are downvoting me for the reason you verbalized. /s   >Especially not black people, right?  That's a lame attempt at an insult... i mean... it doesn't really even work. I guess you couldn't think of anything to say, after i described the type of personality i think you have. Probably hit a little too close to home.   ------------  >Saying that a group believes something, especially when it comes to minorities, is an amusing way of reasoning.  First statement  >You later clarified that's not what you meant, and then started talking about me being too hung up on semantics...  Second statement  facepalm  You just confirmed my argument... you just showed how my second statement was relevant to our discussion.  I'm speechless.  Thanks?  
Yes, there's a lot of that. I can't tell you how many times I got "Why are you still single?" or "Aww, you aren't dating anyone?"  [SEP] >"Aww, you aren't dating anyone?"  How beautifully condescending. :-/ 
I rephrased below. The politicians you support are generally very anti gun. [SEP] >The politicians you support are generally very anti gun.  So... not only do you know my politics better than I do, you also know which politicians I support.   Wow. Way to be condescending.   
I can't believe you were upmodded.  http   Disclaimer   In case you didn't get it, none of the stories are real.  It's all fake.  We made it all up.  It's satire.  The people might be real but the quotes are not.  If it gets you mad, get a life.(see first amendment)  Some definitions of satire  witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Johathan Swift  A literary work which exposes and ridicules human vices or folly. Historically perceived as tending toward didacticism, it is usually intended as a moral criticism directed against the injustice of social wrongs. It may be written with witty jocularity or with anger and bitterness. Sidelight: Satiric poets often utilize irony, hyperbole, understatement, and paradox, as in Pope's An Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot . (See also Burlesque, Goliardic Poetry, Hudibrastic Verse, Lampoon, Mock Epic, Parody, Pasquinade) (Compare Antiphrasis)  the use of ridicule or scorn, often in a humorous or witty way, to expose vices and follies  A mode of writing which exposes the failings of individuals, societies or institutions to ridicule and scorn. Its tone varies from tolerant amusement to bitter indignation (as in Sassoon's war poetry). V  An amusing exposure of folly and vice, which aims to produce moral reform.  a work of art, literature or music that mocks or ridicules a popular idea or public figure by reduction to absurdity.  A work that blends a critical attitude with humor and wit as well as with the intention of improving human institutions or humanity.  Unconfirmed Sources political satire and news story parodies as represented above are written as satire or parody. They are, of course, fictitious.  [SEP] >I can't believe you were upmodded.  I can't believe you were so condescending.
Yes, but due to the higher altitude, it can prevent the premature detonation. Apparently, I haven't tested it. [SEP] > Apparently, I haven't tested it  If you have, no need to come off as a condescending asshole since you never said that originally. To me it seems counter-intuitive. 
>While that may be an element of some instances of sexual misconduct I dont believe thats where it stems from.   Obviously, I disagree.   >lack of boundaries, entitlement, overinflated ego....  Lack of boundaries? What a great euphemism for sexual misconduct. It wasn't about sexual gratification, it was about him just lacking boundaries. Are you serious?   Entitlement? I mean, that borders so close to my idea of "presuming attraction", that I am going to have to ask why you so fervently rejected my reasoning and then provided one that is almost the same and really too general to serve as a decent explanation anyway.   Overinflated ego? Same as above. Guys with big egos think they are the shit. They think they are hot, they think all women want them. That's essentially the same thing I'm saying, even if you don't want it to be.   >abuse of power could be argued as the root cause(s).  Abuse of power is an action that is taken. You are arguing that the root cause of an action is the action itself?   If you ever go into the sciences, you will learn that there really is no such thing as a "root cause" anyway. I would argue that presumption of attraction was a principal factor in all of these cases -- not a root cause.   >Presumption of Sexual attraction can lead to a feeling of entitlement, but other factors could also lead there too without it.  You forgot the part where you give examples of these other factors....I'm not seeing it.   >inflated his ego to the point where he believed he could get away with his misconduct  But people don't do everything that they think they can get away with. Are you really going to completely ignore the sexual nature of his actions? Did you miss the part where he masturbated? This is an act of sexual gratification. He had a choice. He could have just interacted with these women the same way that everyone else does and went and jerked off at home, but he didn't. He chose to do something that would give him more pleasure and disregard how the other person felt about it.   Anyway, you really took my jokey aside off-topic. The point is that no one should presume anything without a preponderance of evidence. Don't presume innocence, don't presume guilt, don't presume attraction, don't presume repulsion. Presuming anything as a matter of course leads to all sorts of problems, because when you presume something, you are probably wrong.  [SEP] > Lack of boundaries? What a great euphemism for sexual misconduct. It wasn't about sexual gratification, it was about him just lacking boundaries. Are you serious?  In retrospect I agree that my wording was reductionist. A better way to put it would be pushing boundaries.   > Entitlement? I mean, that borders so close to my idea of "presuming attraction", that I am going to have to ask why you so fervently rejected my reasoning and then provided one that is almost the same and really too general to serve as a decent explanation anyway.   There can be many causes of entitlement that are outside the realm of attraction. "I bought her a drink on our date so she owes me", "Weve gone on 3 dates so its time to make a move".  > If you ever go into the sciences, you will learn that there really is no such thing as a "root cause" anyway.   No need to be condescending. But I disagree. Many things have root causes.  http   > Are you really going to completely ignore the sexual nature of his actions? Did you miss the part where he masturbated? This is an act of sexual gratification.    http   Sexual assault is NOT a crime of passion, driven by a strong desire for sex; it is a violent crime driven by a desire for dominance. Most perpetrators of sexual assault have access to consensual sex with someone other than the victim.  Sexual assault happens because a perpetrator believes that they are entitled to have sex or sexual contact with another person without that person’s consent.   
His "Why You Should Subscribe" Video:  http   If some of the comments he makes regarding WoW and CoD don't come across as egotistical, I don't know what does.  This vid also seemed unwarranted and made me lose a bit more respect from him:  http   I tend to appreciate people who are more humble but can still maintain good quality, insightful vids. He has the quality and content down, I just wish he would tone down the pretentiousness. I watched his live stream for a bit during the alpha and couldn't get over his complaining and whining when he was playing the PvP. I went in thinking he was great but came out a bit underwhelmed at his skills regarding map awareness and shooting accuracy. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he didn't get much sleep, which he tends to remind people in his vids, but get some sleep my man! Come back in a better mood. This is all just criticism and I will probably get downvoted for it, but I want to be honest and I want to get back into watching his content without having this thought in the back of my head that just reminds me he isn't as special as he thinks he is.  These are just my opinions and everyone is entitled to one. You were just curious of what other people thought. This is my opinion. [SEP] That first video you're complaining about didn't come across to be as egotistical to me. To me it sounded more like he was trying to do a job interview as opposed to a video, and in a job interview, you're supposed to say "hey, I'm qualified!". When he said "lol my old vids are better than everyone's!" I think he was just failing at humor.  >This vid also seemed unwarranted and made me lose a bit more respect from him:  http   I agree he shouldn't have done a video on this topic to avoid causing more enflamed butthurt than there was at the time, and he could have included more primary reasons than just "Bungie's a business" and sound so condescending about it.  >These are just my opinions and everyone is entitled to one.  I think no one is entitled to a (edit: valid) opinion unless they can explain why they view things that particular way, and actually know what they're talking about. Even though I disagree with you for the most part, your opinions are valid because you bothered to explain them, and I can respect that.  Edit: I'm not saying you shouldn't have an opinion if you're not informed properly, but if you have an opinion, you'd better damn well be able to explain why you feel that way before you open your mouth, and be informed on the matter as well--for there is a difference between a valid opinion and a plain old opinion.
I don't like Clarence Thomas' political and legal opinions one bit. The guy is a complete paleo-conservative. Having met him and his family IRL I can't say anything bad about him on that level, but at this point I think it's a billion times more probably that his beliefs come from more of your standard "fucking Liberals REEEEEEEEEEEE" side of things that much of the GOP spawns from. And after his confirmation hearing it's pretty understandable.   Frankly, the term people should be using when referring to your Ben Carsons is "useful idiot." You don't strip agency away from the person but instead are placing the blame on the organization. [SEP] >And after his confirmation hearing it's pretty understandable.  Seems a lot more like self-hating and self-loathing to me. Like he really, really resents and despises the fact that he did actually benefit from liberal policies starting in the 1960s that were designed to level the playing field for race and uplift black people and give them better social mobility. His career was started and propelled by liberal Democratic policies and institutions.  He once said something along the lines of he preferred the upfront, unrestrained racism of whites in the rural South rather than the "condescending", open-arms, hold hands and sing Kumbaya embrace he received from northeastern liberals. He thought that white liberals despised him just the same as or even more than whites in the South, but that the whites who were openly racist to him in the South had the decency to be upfront about it.
This is not entirely correct. Hypothetical case: If your computer is part of a botnet because of a windows vulnerability, microsoft should fix this and push an update. Your stubborness on not updating is keeping the botnet alive. And it's your fault, because microsoft has already fixed the problem. [SEP] > Your stubborness on not updating is keeping the botnet alive. And it's your fault, because microsoft has already fixed the problem.  It's still my machine and I get to decide that, not Micro$oft. I don't need their condescending, patronizing arrogance to lead the way.  That being said, we're not just talking about just Security Updates but Feature Updates that M$ like to ram down people's throats. Win10 crapware that has nothing to do with security at all.
We're comparing openers vs finishers. Openers have the chance to bat all day, finishers/ tail ender's don't. Also, can you fuck off with the downvotes and the condescension [SEP] No we're talking about how remaining not out increases a batting average, regardless of its from an opener, middle order batsman or a tailender. There's been multiple people show you why remaining not out increases a persons batting average if they remain not out but you refuse to concede your argument that it doesn't and somehow insist that it'll decrease it instead without actually providing any logical explanation for it.   >Also, can you fuck off with the downvotes and the condescension  Pretty rich to complain about other people being condescending when you've said "Has it clicked chief?" "Do you know what opportunity costs are?" and "I went through the same thing when trying to understand special/general relativity" in your past few posts.   Get off your fucking high house mate.
Undertale - game you could do on an Atari ST. Super Meat Boy - 2D game originally done in flash Fez - written in XNA Game Studio Braid - 2D game Ori and the Blind Forest - 2D game written in Unity  Yes, they're all very successful, very well done games.  They are not, however, Call of Duty, Halo, Sunset Overdrive or any number of other games which rely a lot more on CPU than the GPU.   You could run the games you've described quite happily on a low-end laptop with Intel integrated graphics.   There's nothing wrong with that - but you're really not making an apples to apples comparison here.  [SEP] >There's nothing wrong with that - but you're really not making an apples to apples comparison here.  Yes, my point is not to make an apples to apples comparison. My point is that I worry when I see people who act like Acton, because he acts very smug and condescending without making it clear that he is talking about coding in a very narrow problem space.  I'd dare say most of the coders in this subreddit aren't going to be making AAA games. However, a lot of people will look at big talkers like Acton and think they should code like that, which does not apply to most people.
he doesn't have to nor should he. if you take what 2gb says seriously, then you're a fucking idiot. he jokes more than anyone in the scene. sure he could apologize, if there was malicious intent. but there wasn't.  again, it's a joke, if you the subject of the joke or people that hear it can't understand that, then it's not the fault of the person talking.  being tasteless and juvenile have no relevance in the argument of speech.  i'm not going to get in to a debate because this is not the sub for this type of thing. it's for sc2 and witch-hunting, which i'm sure you're very much a part of. [SEP] > it's for sc2 and witch-hunting, which i'm sure you're very much a part of.  Condescend more please.
Blue is insipid and sweet and too simple. It's pretty pedestrian for scotch. If it was $20-30 a bottle, it'd be about right.  If you want to pay a lot and get good scotch, try the older Macallans. Unfortunately they've gotten super-expensive lately, so the 18-year is in the Blue's neighborhood, now. A few years ago when Blue was uber-popular you could get Macallan 30 for the same price. People figured it out, though...  Alberlour is way cheaper and also pretty nice, and in the same flavor range. Scotch is one of those things were price and flavor are almost totally uncorrelated.  This looks like a good list of flavor profiles and the brands that match them.  Total Wine's website is good for sorting by rating (and they use Wine Enthusiast's ratings, not some in-house BS) and checking prices. [SEP] > Blue is insipid and sweet and too simple. It's pretty pedestrian for scotch.  Boy, aren't we condescending.  Good thing I've learned to consume what I please; not what others think I should consume. I know more than enough to know what I prefer... and definitely don't need your pretentious input.  Besides, the original context was not about taste; rather, about dropping a Red. 
> that doesn't work for a majority of its players?  The fuck are you talking about?  It works for the vast, vast vast majority of people. There are 180 Thousand people playing right now, peak was at 210 thousand today.  There is a small number of people who have issues. And instead of shutting the fuck up and directing their feedback properly, they went here and started yelling like idiots, and all the other idiots who infest this sub just propell their bullshit.   The game fucking works. Some people have issues, yes, welcome to a launch of a game from a small indie company that created their own engine for said game. its normal, its expected.   Dont want that to happen to you? Dont fucking play on launch day.  Welcome to gaming. Get a clue.    [SEP] again, HOW does the companies size excuse this kind of shit? and the "currently playing" stat includes people stuck at launch, experiencing unplayable frame rates, etc. Not to mention the advertised multiplayer ISN'T EVEN IN THE GAME! No one, in any industry, should be ok with paying for something and not getting what they paid for. idc if the game was built by a single guy programming from the top of Mt Everest.   > instead of shutting the fuck up and directing their feedback properly, they went here and started yelling like idiots, and all the other idiots who infest this sub just propell their bullshit.  yeah god forbid people vent their frustration about not being able to even launch a game they paid for...  I love when people can't come up with good arguments so they just act condescending to try to feel superior. I'd suggest you take your own advice.
This was not a thread for you to run around approving and disapproving of people's positions like some kind of surprise schoolmaster.  Not only did I not ask you, but you didn't resolve the Earth's age at all, so the 'we' is unfounded. You also gave a link to Wikipedia, as if I've never heard anyone's position on the age of the Earth in my life, showing your ability to read as though I am a human being and not some character in your mind is pretty poor. And worst of all, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that you and those who "resolved" the age of the Earth could be completely and utterly wrong for reasons currently unknown, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to anything--other than making your attitude about it entirely inexcusable.  People who work in fields that actually pertain to this kind of thing are aware of how much estimation and extrapolation goes into it. [SEP] > This was not a thread for you to run around approving and disapproving of people's positions like some kind of surprise schoolmaster.  Dude, relax... He's not being rude or condescending, the tone of your reply is completely uncalled for. 
Blah blah meta game blah blah.   I have still yet to have a precise definition of what this "lack if meta game" people keep referring to actually is.   A meta game is how people generally play the game. The Planetside 2 meta game involves everyone playing heavy assault and driving a Sunderer with AMS up to a base and just trying to out-pew pew the defenders. This will probably change once we have actual MLG events in battle islands and the nexus and outfits begin to see just how effective alternative methods are to take bases, such as gal drops, squad beacons, squad deploys, and having more combat medics than heavy assaults.   It's just like how people watched Starcraft 2 matches and tried to emulate whatever IdrA, Boxer, etc. did in their matches.   This issue of needing continent lattices and crap is just fluff. It's not going to make the game "fun" or purposeful. It's going to be another excuse for people to justify ghost capping dead continents at 3am. The reason the game is boring to people is because most people don't know how to engage in good fights and try to dump 48 man platoons on 12v12 fights and then wonder why all the action goes away. The only "action" they can find are critical mass biolab fights where people don't render 3 feet in front of them.  [SEP] > Blah blah meta game blah blah.  Welp, I guess I should read the rest of this post in a condescending tone. :/
Did you read OP? Obviously Hog and Bastion are entirely self heal. Moira’s heal stat includes both. I want them separated out so Moira mains don’t have a misunderstanding as to how much team heal vs self heal they are doing.    [SEP] >Did you read OP?  I did, and you do not need to be a condescending asshole just because I didn’t understand the point you were getting at.   All you need to do is subtract the self heal number from healing done to find out the team heal vs self heal. Pretty simple. 
You were confused from the very beginning. Other people understood and they were the universalists.   If you want a structured debate then why don't you stick to what you do know at r/debatechristianity and learn to be meek here in /r/universalism because this is actually a kind community up until you arrived.  [SEP] >You were confused from the very beginning.  That's rich coming from the person that admitted after a dozen posts that they had never heard of the concept they had been trying to debate against the entire time.  >Other people understood and they were the universalists.  Two other people replied to your top level response. Both made the same point I did.  Agrona made one of the same points I did Here.  The same user eventually came to a very wise conclusion Here.  Not a single person here agreed with you.  >learn to be meek here in /r/universalism[1] because this is actually a kind community up until you arrived.  Advice to be meek from the person that belittles people with lines like:  "Then the Spirit isn't in you. Learn the gospel and sin no more."  "Maybe you lack the Holy Spirits guidance? Maybe you should think about it for 15 years, maybe it will then make sense."  "Oh dear Lord give me the patience I need here."  "If you don't care to research my claims, then maybe it's too much information for you currently?"  You possess enough arrogance to go around telling people they don't have the Holy Spirit (i.e. aren't Christians) based on only short exchanges in an online forum. You're condescending constantly. But I'm the problem? I'm not going to pretend I was cordial the whole time. I wasn't on purpose. But I'm at least not going to be a hypocrite about it. Good luck with your rambling and Holier-than-thou mindset. Have a nice day.
> if they do not follow the law and the procedures of their profession they are held accountable.  Actually, in the US, police are routinely not held responsible for egregiously criminal actions. Google "Sean Bell" for a recent example.  > you mandate the government when you vote for them  Never voted in the 27 years I've been old enough. Just because all the other monkeys choose to participate in selecting someone to tell them what to do does not in any way mandate my participation in that process. I can honestly say I am not responsible for any gov't actions, ever. I suppose you do vote, like the good and obedient lad you doubtless are?  [SEP] >Never voted in the 27 years I've been old enough.  Then how can you sit at your desk and write so much on the problems you see with the world? You seem smart enough to be able to do something about it if you wanted too. Where is your optimism?  >I suppose you do vote, like the good and obedient lad you doubtless are?  I know you meant "good and obedient" in the condescending "sheeple" usage of the turn but yes. In every one election I have been eligible to vote in. I plan on running for local council elections when it is time, too. My grandfather taught me that if nobody else is willing to change something that bothers you, you should do it yourself.   
TL;DR version: Thank you  > Secondly, within reasonable limits, it's okay for a loved one like a parent to warn of such things. Less so for perfect strangers picking apart the events of your trauma  This is the first I've heard a hint of this. This is all I really wanted to hear. If I had heard something like this on my first related post a few articles ago, I wouldn't have tried to dig further.  > Many people who are assaulted, and certainly those who are raped, often relive the event over and over in their mind like its on an endless VHS loop  Trust me. I know this. My mom woke me up once when I was staying back at home over a holiday, only I was having a "nightmare". If I didn't experience anything else, having broken my mom's nose by accident is packed in the recesses of my brain too. But I've still my memories and retracings to keep that company.  >In sum: they know, without anyone else ever telling them, what they could've done to avoid that trauma.  They know 10,000 things that it might have been. They know 9,000 wrong things that it could have been, but wouldn't have made a difference. They may not recognize the 1 or 2 things that actually would have made a difference out of that 10,000, and that will free them going forward.   My life got infinitely better when I was able to let go of worrying about most of them, realizing that they really didn't matter, or were so incredibly unlikely that worrying about them actually made things worse. When I was thinking about those 10,000 things, everything was wrong. The entire world was a danger. There was no possibility of safety outside. That's a feeling I don't wish on anyone. And that was the environment I was thankfully mistakenly seeing promulgated here.  >You keep saying 'safety', but what exactly does that mean?  I had a story of one of my friends here, but it made the post too long. Suffice it to say if you actually do care about "reason" as you say below, I think you know I never meant that absolute safety was achievable. But safety and self defense classes exist for a reason.  > Leaving aside for the moment the fact that most women already do behave the way you want them to   Well, that's damn offensive. I don't "want women to behave" in any particular way.. and I don't know which way it is you think I want. With the pure offense of this statement I can only imagine that you're telling me that I want women to be miserably crying away in a corner because of all the things they could have done. If that's it, I wouldn't think there is a possibility for rational discussion here, except that you give hints of it in other places. I really don't get the shift in focus unless you were writing the post in stream of consciousness and your mood changed throughout.  >what you're suggesting here is part of a certain ideology regarding individualism. The idea that the individual can seize power and shape their world dramatically.  Kinda, only to an extent though. You can shape some things. Others you can't. So shape what you can. It's not a black&white, 100%/0% world out there. I'm not even claiming it's 90/10. But you seem to know this by what you say below, and yet you still respond as if you don't.  > has been to give people the false impression that they really can do this and that if they just work hard enough and take enough "personal responsibility" they can live in their very own world without rape/crime/etc  ALL lessons can be taken extremely, and when they are, they're typically very very wrong. That doesn't mean the intended lesson itself is bad.  > Rather than living with the delusion that I have ultimate power over whether or not I, say, get raped  I was actually kinda hoping you mistook me gravely enough to think that I was saying there were magical formulas that would ensure perfect safety. There isn't, and nothing I ever wrote should even hint that there is. I made the bad assumption you were reading me with the thought that I might have a deeper than comic book black/white view of the world. It's sad to me that you assume I was that dumb, or that you might think that anyone questioning the automatic application of a judgement for a label is that black/white.   Somehow I became a caricature instead of a person.  Like I said above. That one sentence was the first time in any response so far that anyone here has hinted that there could possibly be a circumstance. And I tried really hard to leave room for exactly that. But it never came up until then.   > I am empowered to know that I can fight from the get-go any internalising of self blame.  Which is something every human needs to learn, regardless of every gender, race, creed, etc. However, as we see with any sort of lesson... it can go badly if taken too far.  >What I said above is directed primarily at the more extreme version of what you're saying which tends to over-emphasise the power of the individual.  So you haven't been arguing against me, but against a caricature of what my arguments could become? I guess I made the bad assumption that when someone responded to me in a conversation they were responding to me. Not dishonestly responding to something else, but pointing it at me.  Like I said, all I wanted to hear was that there was a possible time. That was it. I got it, I'm happy. And it wasn't just so I could feel right about something. I was seeing a detachment from reality, and I was really trying to understand. And when continually misunderstood, one tool was to hand out an example of "no sane person could reject this", only to have it rejected because the person wasn't responding to me, but to other people who share my gender (since you mention MRA).  >I do everything I can to be safe.  Good for you. And not knowing you at all, let alone not knowing your habits, personality, history, etc I wouldn't deign to give you any suggestions about anything. I never meant to imply any sort of "oh, you got assaulted lil lady? well c'mon on down to the men's hut and we'll tell you how the real world works since you're not lucky enough to be one."  > called paranoid if we laid out our safety measures time and time again for people, especially men  Not likely with me. I am quite the paranoid myself, but fortunately since I'm a guy I seem to be able to get away with it since I'm supposed to be into violence.  > MRAs have come into the women's subreddits and openly insulted, degraded or otherwise belittled women who talked about what they do for safety. Even getting called misandrist or profilers for it.  I hang out in /r/atheism and /r/christianity a lot so I've seen my share of "invaders" dropping in for things like that. but I've always tried to treat them as individuals on the off chance I'm talking to someone who just phrases things poorly, and not treat them as "an outsider" and respond to them with the vitriol built up by all their predecessors.   Thank you for taking some time to do similar for me here. [SEP] I feel I ought to explain some things here as you took some parts of my argument considerably more personally than I had intended and I'm sorry about that.  Let me begin by saying that the reason I drew the lens back from beyond the parameters of what you were discussing was because I was trying to answer your basic question of why many people are very reflexive and defensive about any hint of victim blaming, and I had to go beyond what you were saying to illustrate that point.  >Well, that's damn offensive. I don't "want women to behave" in any particular way.. and I don't know which way it is you think I want. With the pure offense of this statement I can only imagine that you're telling me that I want women to be miserably crying away in a corner because of all the things they could have done.   Despite my propensity for being longwinded, on occasion I don't explain things as clearly as I should.  I know that this wasn't what you meant and that this was not where you were coming from (or where you felt you were coming from). I spun it in those terms to let you know how many other people- particularly women- might perceive it to give you some understanding of why it tees us off.  Secondarily, 'intent' is a lovely thing but it by itself does not change the meaning of things to certain people. That's just how it is, alas. It may help explain where you were coming from but the context of certain statements and ideas is also embedded in other peoples' experience, the broader society and culture, and other things besides your own ideas. Hence why something can appear offensive despite intent.  (Again, I was not offended by anything you said, but I am trying to illustrate why you may come across that way to others).  >So you haven't been arguing against me, but against a caricature of what my arguments could become? I guess I made the bad assumption that when someone responded to me in a conversation they were responding to me. Not dishonestly responding to something else, but pointing it at me.  So going back to where I began this comment, I was trying to make clear to you why, regardless of how nice and moderate one appears, you may appear to be condescending, to help you better understand why- in your view- there is little "rationality" in discussions on this topic.  I personally believe there is plenty, for reasons I've already explicated. But I'm trying to explain, and that involves going beyond what you said.  I do not appreciate the label of "dishonest" as I do my best to stay on topic and not spin anything, but I'm hoping that once my meaning becomes clear you'll see what I wrote a little differently.  >I think you know I never meant that absolute safety was achievable. But safety and self defense classes exist for a reason.  Indeed. I certainly don't discourage women or anyone else for that matter from taking self defence classes. My point stands that I seriously doubt anyone is living in a bubble of denial about how messed up the world can be at times and that to have that pointed out to you seems a tad insulting.  As to some ideas about safety, it's hard for me to conceive of anything beyond what I've learned about it, but if there's something I missed, well... what ever could it be?  >but I've always tried to treat them as individuals on the off chance I'm talking to someone who just phrases things poorly, and not treat them as "an outsider" and respond to them with the vitriol built up by all their predecessors.  To my mind this is part of the problem. The concept that there are just bad individuals; that these bad individuals are not encouraged or empowered by social forces larger than themselves. I do treat people as individuals to the best of my ability, but I'm under no illusion that we do internalise certain social messages and worldviews to varying degrees that can justify some pretty ugly things or ideas.  (I can do whole essays on Atheism v. Christianity et al. with regards to the social versus the individual but I'll spare you that. :P)
I don't know, it's still tricky for me. I went through trauma growing up but made a point to take control of how I think of it and what it does to me.  How do you have a relationship with someone with BPD? Do you have to essentially parent them?  This all comes from being burned very hard last year by someone with BPD and likely NPD as well (or narcissism manifesting in ASPD). I likely have a degree of NPD though I tend to have some control of it or channel it in a pro-social way (it's also spurred me on to accomplish good things for myself). I had an experience of BPD myself as a result of the breakup with this person. It was horrible - I went from having full control of my emotions to losing it. Flight or fight mechanism was triggered in me, and I froze, hoping they'd stop trying to provoke a fight or give me a greenlight that things were okay. It didn't help that the previous year was spent with a roommate who likely also had it. How do you set limits with people who constantly push them? Is it possible to have a 2 person mature relationship? I gave them room in decision-making and they utterly ruined my life and the relationship. I couldn't have been any more fair. They meanwhile did pity plays, projected their immaturity on me, played mind games, and then expected friendship. After 10 years of knowing one another - they concealed their disorder well. Being in love with them made it horribly difficult. I refused to call them names, like they asked.  I have nothing against people with PDs, but I want to learn more and having been raised to be conscious of my behaviour, I expect others to likewise be able to control themselves. I just find it frustrating - the person I was with got sympathy and a job promotion out of the breakup, and my life fell apart.   [SEP] Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a troll, but it will be tough.....   > I don't know, it's still tricky for me. I went through trauma growing up but made a point to take control of how I think of it and what it does to me.   our BRAINS were LITERALLY formed differently because of trauma... I didnt develop BPD because I simply "didnt make it a point to take control of how i think of it and what it does to me."   I see you said you have removed all inflammatory comments, etc., but I think you should be a bit more mindful of your humble bragging and condescending tone ("do you essentially parent them?", etc.).
Too bad. It's quite cheap to live here and we are hiring at my company at least. Also I like it here. [SEP] > It's quite cheap to live here  This is kind of the condescending tone people are talking about in this thread. It's quite cheap to live there because people don't want to live there. Housing prices in OK are 45th out of 50 states. Cost of living is 45th out of 50 as well. It's quite doable only because you live in a cheap undesirable area.   Most people are unwilling to completely uproot their lives to afford a home, and many of us are tied to certain metro areas for our jobs. It didn't used to be that way. Say what you want about interest rates but our parents had houses in major metro areas on salaries that can barely squeak out a nice apartment now. That's the point people are trying to make. Your anecdotal evidence is just wrong. "Don't let the internet get you down" is a false sentiment. 
I didn't say she was 100% negative, she is extremely caring and would make a good mother. [SEP] > she is extremely caring and would make a good mother.  Do you have any sense how creepy and condescending that sounds??
I suspect this comment will be downvoted, but whatever.  Hi, I'm the [S] and the writer of this submission. Disclosure: I do not support GamerGate. My goal with this article isn't to attack you or even GamerGate itself. The quoted argument in the title is one of the most commonly seen arguments made by Gaters, as best as I can tell, and I hope many of you see it that way too. After all, that argument is not a direct attack on women or minorities, so it stands to reason that you shouldn't be accused of misogyny for making it—and I agree!  That said, there are aspects to the argument that I think people are overlooking, ignoring or, most likely, simply not realizing when they make it. And that's what this article (and this series) is about: breaking down the argument into the things it actually says and what it means.   In the end, I leave it up to the reader to do what they want with the argument—keep using it (but perhaps refine it), stop using it, I don't really care. What I do hope is that if you disagree with it, you can express that disagreement in a way that we can both learn from each other.   My goal here isn't to make you feel bad or criticized (which, again, I'm not doing — I'm picking apart only the argument itself), but to hopefuly build a conversation. [SEP] > My goal with this article isn't to attack you or even GamerGate itself.  So why do you refer to GamerGaters repeatedly with a condescending tone? Why all the comments about white males with internalised misogyny that don't want to change?  EDIT: Also >The number of game developers who follow, support, link to and RT Anita Sarkeesian’s Tropes Vs. Women In Video Games series far outnumbers the number of game developers within #GamerGate.  That's because developers that do show support are shunned by Anita's peers and fear losing their jobs.
Straight GW and bant builds get by without it, so not as necessary as it might seem. There is better removal against most threats, as others have pointed out stormbreath but especially Elspeth make it so it's usually good to have access to HD. I think your tone is fairly insulting and your response is totally unthoughtful and dismissive.  [SEP] > I think your tone is fairly insulting and your response is totally unthoughtful and dismissive.  Welcome to MTG Subreddits; where 95% of comments are condescending, and everyone downvotes everything.
Y'all are free to make counterpoints, but you seem to be more interested in tone policing than actually making strong arguments.  A cynic might assume that's because there isn't a good counter argument to make. [SEP] > A cynic might assume that's because there isn't a good counter argument to make.  Debate implies two people are willing to listen and act civil.   It is clear you don't want to listen, nor are you being civil (Previous commenter included).   Debating an arrogant and condescending person is extremely futile. 
My gym only has one barbell benchpress.   My week went like this:  Day 1- elderly people training some odd glute exercise by swaddling two benches including the benchpress. Kudos for being in a gym and not a grave homies, I let this one slide and I train back instead.   Day 2- scary knuckle dragging bro-dude supersets around benchpress for a solid hour- in between his curls on more curls of course. I avoid eye contact and all costs and train legs instead.   Day 3- get my 2k warmup done, think yes, finally, benchpress is free! Negative, a 50 something mumbod straddles benchpress bench and starts doing some variation of a pull-up on the bar. Mumbod Pull ups, are you shitting me? Not today satan. I walk over and politely ask her if she's finished, correctly anticipating her awkward AF departure and I train my barbell bench presses on the equipment whatever divine fitness god created it for.  Fucking rookies.   [SEP] >Day 2- scary knuckle dragging bro-dude supersets around benchpress for a solid hour- in between his curls on more curls of course. I avoid eye contact and all costs and train legs instead  why are you timid nerds always so condescending? christ  >Fucking rookies.  self awareness is not your strong suit
And yet you are slowing catching on to the problem with coaches that have direct impact on the team during gameplay. You actually pointed that out perfectly with this post.  > Every team is capable of this. You're making it sound like only some teams are allowed to have a coach and others aren't. Literally every team is capable of bringing on a coach. Most choose not to because its not as effective for everybody and its even a disadvantage for some teams that already have a competent in-game leader.  This is called a handicap. You are better so you are handicapped to get closer to the opponent. Why are you handicapped? Because you basically don't have the option to add a 6th member to your team, as said team member would have no impact on your performance.  It's about having an even playing field. And if one team requires a coach to play on the same level as another team without a coach, then the coach-less team should win. And the way to ensure that is to remove the coach from the team.  Now we have a even playing field of 2 five-player-teams. The better team will win. [SEP] > And yet you are slowing catching on to the problem with coaches that have direct impact on the team during gameplay. You actually pointed that out perfectly with this post.  Would appreciate it if you didn't approach this conversation like a condescending dick.  >This is called a handicap.   Just so I have your superior logic right: If my team performs better by having our leader in-game rather than out of game in the form of a coach, we are handicapped?  >It's about having an even playing field. And if one team requires a coach to play on the same level as another team without a coach, then the coach-less team should win.  You're showing your ignorance of how CS even works. You really think the players are just replaceable parts and hard numbers. For some reason, you got it in your head that if I add a coach to my 5 man roster, there's some stat sheet that raises X points, when that's not at all how it works.   I'm running out of ways to put this for you, but not every team benefits from having a coach. In-game leading isn't some hard coded role like you seem to think it is. It's a role that has naturally arisen through needing to call strategies. Some teams do better by having the in-game leader as one of the 5 players(GodSent, Echo Fox, SK) because some teams have in-game leaders that find it more effective to call strategies when they have the ability to move around in the game and gather information for themselves rather than from a spectators point of view, while other teams find it easier to have a coach out of game(NiP, NaVi, Liquid) because they believe they can do it more effectively when they can take a step back and see that spectators view. One has not been proven to be more effective than the other. Its completely a stylistic choice. I don't know how else i can put this for you. I mean, knowing the way you debate at this point, you're going to ignore my first half of the paragraph and say something ridiculous like "AH-HAH! SO YOU ADMIT! BEING ABLE TO TAKE A STEP BACK FROM BEING A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS AN ADVANTAGE!"
Let's say that there is indeed someone in the universe who is right about God. Should they reject the veracity of their religion simply because they happened to grow up somewhere? This is a very strange claim to make. Why would geography and cultural heritage have any bearing whatsoever on this discussion? Again, if anyone is right about this, they will have some sort of location in space and time. You seem to suggest that such particularity is scandalous and reason enough for us to reject the notion of having a thing to be right about at all.   Also, do you turn the critique against yourself? If you weren't born here and now, odds are you wouldn't be an atheist (if that's what you are). Does that mean your atheism is wrong?  [SEP] Edit: My apologies for the long post. I went a little overboard, but I didn't want to spend another post clearing up common misconceptions. If you don't hold these, by all means, disregard, but I felt it efficient to get them out of the way because they usually come up.  I don't think you get it.  Everyone else is making the same exact claim as you, and you calmly pass them off as wrong. You literally do not realize that everyone else says the same about you?  >You seem to suggest that such particularity is scandalous and reason enough for us to reject the notion of having a thing to be right about at all.  That wasn't really my point.  You are dead-set on one of the nigh-infinite conceptions of God, and you have no proof for it. You believe it entirely arbitrarily and yet you're confident that your blind guess is right, and that everyone elses is wrong.  That's the point of the geography reference. Either the fundamental nature of the universe changes every few miles, or, you're claiming that billions of people (hundreds of billions if you count the no longer living) are deluded, while your story is gospel truth. A story, which I'll add, has no supporting evidence. Only 'faith'.   That's my point: You're claiming (with no evidence) to be more knowledgeable than uncountable people, as if you personally were the only one to stumble onto the true account of God.  Except you didn't. You've never met God either; you're just as baseless as everyone else.  Do you legitimately not understand how baseless and unlikely any religions claims are? Are you too deeply indoctrinated to understand how someone could possibly doubt that the universe revolves around a random jew from the iron age?   >Also, do you turn the critique against yourself? If you weren't born here and now, odds are you wouldn't be an atheist (if that's what you are). Does that mean your atheism is wrong?  I simply reject all theistic claims without proof. I was 'raised' a Christian. I did not stick with it under the assumption that whichever cult my parents got suckered into was the one universal truth.   I would be an atheist no matter where I grew up, because I came to the conclusion on my own, without a holy book or someone preaching to me. I might have to hide it and pretend if I lived somewhere more hostile towards atheists, but I'd still not buy into nonsense.  It takes a special kind of arrogance to claim that hundreds of generations of humans were just silly, deluded, and worshiping myths.. and to then turn around and say that your own myth is when humanity finally got it right.   It's absolutely dishonest to trumpet a specific theory of God when no one has ever seen God or proved that there even is a god.  ---   Before it comes up, and believe me it always does, atheism does not imply a concrete claim that God isn't real. It means you don't believe. It means you don't look at an unexplained phenomena, make something up, and say 'case closed'. It means you wait for some actual evidence to emerge before making judgment.  And, since I expect it to come up too: No, the default position is not in between. The universe is not a 50:50 tossup between your personal religion and atheism. There are millions of other explanations; an atheist doesn't claim to support any given one, they just find it ridiculous to pick one before evidence shows up.  I don't mean to be condescending, it's just that the argument always comes up. People don't understand that atheism is a lack of a theological position, not a competing theological position, so they try and claim that it takes 'just as much' faith to claim God isn't real as to claim that he is.   My position towards God is the same as my position towards unicorns or extra-terrestrials: Don't believe in 'em, but if we find some I will revise my position. I think it's foolish to start writing books about unicorn biology before we've found any unicorns, though, and I would criticize them in the same way I criticize religion.
Listen, I get the circlejerk you're trying to shout here... But do anything complicated (especially if it's competitive) 10,000+ times and you will learn a few patterns and strategies to it. Suggesting otherwise is about the dumbest fucking claim you could ever make.  E This subreddit has an enormous bug up its butt about the supposed difficulty of this game. At 10,000 wins, if you haven't identified a few patterns, you're sub-human. You have failed to succeed at the one trait that allows us to dominate the planet. And you'd be better off running a bot. But you probably couldn't figure out how to configure it so I guess you're stuck there. [SEP] > Listen, I get the circlejerk you're trying to shout here...  That's quite a condescending approach to a legitimate comment.   While yes, practice does make you better at something, it is also possible to play something rather passively without really engaging. Playing a lot can teach you what the individual cards do, but does not necessarily mean that you learn how to use them optimally. If you do not actively question what you're doing wrong and try to improve, it can foster some bad habits that will stick with you. This can absolutely lead to people making the same mistakes for thousands of games. I can imagine this is especially true for games where RNG plays a significant role, where people might brush a mistake off as 'bad luck'.
they are completely different.  >strengthen it  no  >New headers  I think you mean heads, but again no.  there is no way to safely boost a N/A block.  if you wanted a Turbo'd impreza you should have bought one. [SEP]  >if you wanted a Turbo'd impreza you should have bought one.  A bit condescending there, Just asking a question. I wanted a wrx hatch when I was shopping. Obviously they don't make it anymore and the dealership didn't have any sedans on the lot either. So I got the practical one. Now I want more power, but still want the hatch. I'd. Rather not trade my car in.   What about an engine swap?  
Oho, now this. Dude, by absolute terms development is like perfection. You can keep arguing no country is developed in the world. You cannot prove absolute development just as you cannot attain absolute perfection. It is utopian.   You are using this stupid puerile argument to defend what you have said. Now that walrus does not come here anymore, you have started giveing pedantic arguments. Now do you realise why supersudu didnt argue and left it as you were behaving like a nut-case   TN is the most industrialised and the most urbanised state in India. That is enough indication of development for me and other sane minds, cause development is always relative and compared to other states in India TN is fucking well developed.  Fin.  Stop making pedantic arguments for saving your face. [SEP] > cause development is always relative   lol  > cannot prove absolute development just as you cannot attain absolute perfection. It is utopian.  on a scale, there would be a long and wide gap between TN and a utopia and in between would be a number of states globally that could be termed developed.   > compared to other states in India TN is fucking well developed.  read my comments again or stay deluded. long live lemuria!   > Now that walrus does not come here anymore,  i don't understand what your obsession is with him ..   > That is enough indication of development for me  well, good for you. like i said you are the idiot who stumbled on this thread and responded to a comment of mine. are you waiting for my conversion to your line of thinking? what are you trying to demonstrate, lol?  >saving your face.  lol, why would i need to do that? this is a dead thread on which i had totally forgotten about and now you showed up, triggered for some reason. I could act like i don't care but the truth is there is no reason to make attempts to save face. from you? lol, no.   you have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you are a condescending, snide, pompous idiot who I have never seen make any meaningful contributions or even a substantial comment for that matter. it has been very clear for sometime to me that I need not take you seriously. for some reason you keep constantly jerking off to this idea of an old rw redditor and maintain a stuck up attitude for no reason. At least I don't pretend like I am some sort of a knowledgeable person or that I am cool and hip and have a dgaf attitude. unlike you, I understand the difference between butthurt and stating a fact. You keep offering free advice to "stop being butthurt" and not care to random users when you are just as much of an idiot and trigger happy.   Get over yourself. You are not as "chill" as you think you are. You are a pretentious retard. I was on the border regarding whether or not you need to be taken seriously. Thanks for settling this once and for all.   have a fun time wagging your tail around on reddit. 
It makes perfect sense if you're capable of processing more than one idea at a time. While his advice is sound, that logic that he uses to give it is flawed.  His logic is that good ideas don't require outside assurance. That's his opinion, and maybe something he read from a fortune cookie at one point, but it's hardly sound advice. That's like saying "you're the wisest person in the world, if you don't think it's a good idea, it's not."  But hey, we can keep not understanding how the English language works and assuming that "but [...]" immediately contradicts and invalidates a point instead of being used as a conjunction to provide a counterpoint or argument. That's cool too. [SEP] >It makes perfect sense if you're capable of processing more than one idea at a time.   Great way to start it off, already an ad hominem attack to establish your authority.   >While his advice is sound, that logic that he uses to give it is flawed.  Speaking of "not understanding how the English language works", the word "sound" that you used means a valid deductive arguement that has true premises (source. So you've basically said that his arguement is deductively valid (meaning his premises correctly relate in a way that makes the conclusion true if all the premises are true), AND his premises are true, but somehow his logic is flawed. When talking about logic it helps to have some education in it. You may want to brush up on logical terminology such as deductive, inductive, valid, invalid, sounds, unsound, weak, strong, cogent, and noncogent if you want to keep being so condescending. It'll help you not look as bad if you actually know what you're talking about.   >His logic is that good ideas don't require outside assurance  So this actually isn't just "logic" it's an arguement, and one that he didn't make. If you disagree and think this is the point he made I would love for you to explain what made you think that, preferrably referencing the comments he made for evidence.    >We can keep not understanding how the English language works and assuming that "but [...]" immediately contradicts and invalidates a point instead of being used as a conjunction to provide a counterpoint or argument. That's cool too.  And you can keep assuming that your misinterpretation of the original comment was the poster's intended meaning despite them telling you the opposite more than once.   If troll then 5/10  If serious argument then 2/10 brush up on your logical terminology, it'll help you be condescending if you actually know what you're talking about.
Since you went to wikipedia, please do read, and comprehend, the entirety of the article not just the portion you think is preserving your narrative. E.g. you ignored the part in the article about republic, right next to the line you chose to quote, that said; "In modern times, the definition of a republic is commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch," so perhaps you could have been projecting when accusing my definition of being "dishonest."  FWIW the rule of law in this context (the US system of government) comes mainly from the "constitutional" part of things, which we were not discussing. There are plenty of constitutional democracies, ruled by law, which are not republics. Just like there are plenty of democratic constitutional republics, like France, which have a more parliamentary structure unlike the US.   Again, technically the US is a Federation of States forming a Democratic Constitutional Republic. So the point still stands; the US is both a Democracy and a Republic. Saying the US is not a republic would be as mistaken as claiming it not being a democracy.  Cheers. [SEP] Let's use a little logic on what you're saying  IF a republic is defined as a rule by law AND the constitution is the supreme law of the United States THEN the American republic was founded on the rule of the supreme law of the constitution. Therefore what I've said is true.  IF officials are democratically elected AND those officials are meant to operate under the rule of law THEN it is still a Republic, all be it somewhat democratic. Therefore what I've said holds true.  IF major changes to the law of the land are not decided by the people AND there is a body meant to interpret the law and make changes based on the interpretation of the law THEN it is not a true democracy but is, once again, a republic. Therefore what I've said still holds true.  You can't take the constitution out of the argument and you can't simply redefine the meaning of words, despite your efforts to do so. I suppose if we were to completely remove the importance of the constitution from the founding of the US then you would be right but that isn't really something we can do unless we were trying to twist things to prove a point to a stranger on the internet.  The fact that we have a constitution does make us slightly different from other republics but it doesn't change the definition of what a republic is or the how it is supposed to operate.  > The rule of law comes mainly from the "constitutional" part of things,  No, it comes from the definition of a republic, which I referenced in my previous post, which you tried to refute with your own unsourced definition of the term.  On a side note, intellectual dishonesty is unbecoming and a condescending tone is off putting.
Ugh these comments. Article after article, thousands of #metoos, and yet some people just can’t empathize enough or imagine what it’s like to be in that woman’s shoes. I’m losing hope that men will ever understand what it’s like, unless it’s actually happened to them. So, so many women are assaulted or abused and nothing can be done. When is the focus going to shift from the burden being on the woman to “how do we stop men from doing this”? (Yes, I know women can abuse/rape, too, but it’s largely a male problem and a problem with society and gender)  [SEP] >Ugh these comments. Article after article, thousands of #metoos, and yet some people just can’t empathize enough or imagine what it’s like to be in that woman’s shoes.  I don't mean to be condescending but the answer is right in front of your face. Men DON'T know what it's like to be a woman. They have no frame of reference. The information is as unobtainable as knowledge of what happens after you die. That's not a strike against men, it's just the reality of having two different genders with different physical traits. So whatever solution we come up with has to account for that.  >When is the focus going to shift from the burden being on the woman to “how do we stop men from doing this”?  That burden should be shared by other men, but it's a waste of time to try to place it on the victimizer himself because people who do that aren't worried about ruining people's lives let alone imposing on them.
The free will question simply gives me insight into the way you think.   But, going back to you "i don't know" ... correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you believed that there was nothing outside our perceivable realm. Or, do you acknowledge that there may be something there, but until you are provided proof of its existence you have no intention of putting any effort into contemplating it?  ... as for this,   >1. There are things we don't know (true). >2. There might be a spiritual connection of sorts (unfounded) >3. Therefore, we might measure spiritual connections in the future.  you are definitely close but I wouldn't make the relationship so linear. See, my interpretation is that there are thousands of potential #2s, and there is a one to one relationship between #2 and #3. Hence, for each #2 that turns out to be correct, a #3 is possible in the future. Hope that makes sense. [SEP] > But, going back to you "i don't know" ... correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you believed that there was nothing outside our perceivable realm  Not quite. I don't actively believe that there is nothing outside the realm. But I have no reason to believe that there is anything. I will remain this way until I am presented with a compelling reason to do so. Think back to my dragon example: you reject that claim until reason is presented. I am the same way about anything "beyond" our realm.  > Or, do you acknowledge that there may be something there, but until you are provided proof of its existence you have no intention of putting any effort into contemplating it?  Almost. The last part,   > have no intention of putting any effort into contemplating it?  is a bit condescending, but I'll ignore that and answer. I will give it as much contemplation as deemed necessary. I mean, do you spend hours of your life contemplating the existence of an invisible pink dragon in my garage? Of course not, because that's a silly claim that has no foundation in reality. I view your claim as such: it's baseless, no foundation of evidence, and is completely explainable by what we already know. Any time spent actively ignoring things and injecting our own preconceived notions is wasted.   > and there is a one to one relationship between #2 and #3.  Prove it.   > a #3 is possible in the future. Hope that makes sense.  I do not deny possible. You said, however, that it was probable. That's a dramatic difference.  
I only come off as a "dick" because I don't agree with you. And I do find some pleasure in coming to progun and speaking a dissenting opinion, because frankly you all need it. Your perspective is warped to the point that you can completely ignore that our country is embarrassingly violent compared to other civilized nations, and our gun culture is to blame. You sit on your forums and pat each other on the back while our life expectancy dwindles because the gun proliferation lobby is flooding our towns and cities with deadly instruments.   I don't understand what kind of a point you're making with your statistics. Each day almost 300 Americans are shot, intentionally and unintentionally. That works out to about 100k per year. And I am not sure what the point of your statistics is. Do you not realize that those rates are higher than any other civilized, Western nation? Are you proud of that? [SEP] >I only come off as a "dick" because I don't agree with you.   No, you come off as a dick because you are condescending and insult people as a part of your poorly substantiated replies. Your whole tone assumes that you are more intelligent/superior, and while this may be the case some of the time it is not true the majority of the time. If you want to change minds, give facts that are free of ad hominem.  As far as my quoted statistics go, they are given in reply to:  >The chances you'll ever be attacked in your entire life are so astronomically low, that you're actually in more danger of dying from a gun accident if you own a gun.  The statistics show that you are exponentially more likely to be the victim of a burglary or violent crime than you are to be involved in a gun-related injury. I don't know how you even came up with this assertion.   That is a really big number you replied with in regards to gun-related injuries/death. Am I proud of the number? No, I am not proud or happy anyone is harmed by any means. That is an amateurish secundum quid argument in that you assert if I own a gun then I am proud of the number of people harmed by them. There are actually quite a few fallacies in your reply, but I am pretty lit and don't feel like detailing them.  Lastly, you and the people like you need to stop blaming all gun owners for the acts of an extremely small amount of people (percentage-wise). I am a law-abiding, rational and productive human being. I have no intention of causing harm to another person. I put great effort into helping and uplifting my fellow man. When you and your ilk compare me to Adam Lanza based on the fact that he used a gun to mow down children and I have legally acquired guns, it is not only offensive but counter-productive to your cause.   If you want to make a difference, go verbally attack the people that are using the guns for illegal purposes. The majority of these people are hardened criminals living in impoverished areas, which is exactly why you don't bother with that campaign. These places are much more dangerous than your dorm rooms and parents' houses in gated communities. You and your kind are keyboard warriors and huge pussies, and don't have the gall to go after the real problem because they just might kill you. With a gun. That statistically speaking was acquired illegally.   But that's not us. You know you can attack us because in reality we pose no danger. 
I never attempted to motivate anybody.   If you read through my comments that will be clear to see.   All I want is an understanding of your justifications. I simply want to understand what is going through your heads.   > The reason none of my friends will ever try tofu is because they know a guy like you.  Nah mate. The reason your friends won't try tofu is because they hate being wrong, and when faced with the facts of the dairy and meat industries, their opinions are proven wrong and they don't like it.  [SEP] > Nah mate. The reason your friends won't try tofu is because they hate being wrong, and when faced with the facts of the dairy and meat industries, their opinions are proven wrong and they don't like it.  ... aaaand this is exactly the condescending tone that meat-eaters are put off by.  I mean, you're right, as per the excellent Oatmeal comic -- people generally don't like having their views challenged, and particularly not ones that might require them to make significant life changes in order for their sense of themselves to remain "I am a good person".  But, again, being a dick about isn't going to get you what you want.
I think your point about what people thought is probably correct. I will say that the resolution voted at the conference said > 11.A Campaign for a Charter Amendment will put maximum pressure on the City Council to deliver, but only if it is a credible and winnable initiative. We recognize that we must deal wit the specific situation of small business and non-profit in an understandable way for Seattle voters, including many workers, who will be concerned about the impacts of $15.  15Now talk about this city council strategy in multiple media accounts.  If you don't see the Seattle city council passing this ordinance, with the $15 dollar figure, with no permanent tip credit, with no opt out for any sized business, with no franchise opt-out, with COLA included at all as a victory, that is your prerogative. I personally see it as a victory, after years of no policy pushed by a socialist party adopted as legislation. I look to activists in other locations celebrating $12, $10.10, $9.50, $8 and ask, what was different? Labor was active in all those fights and they didn't push for $15, even though that was the demand of the striking workers.  > not being honest about it is really damaging to their reputation, as it is insulting to the public  I guess we will have to see. Would it have been worse to only have 15k valid signatures? Would it have been worse to say that the ordinance wasn't good enough and let Murray market this as his victory, when he was only dragged into this? Sawant and Spear mentioned using this as a tool to pressure the city council at most oportunity- When 15Now wants to mobilize people to gather signatures and there is less enthusiasm then anticipated, how to you convey this central goal without further demobilizing volunteers?   I think SA was honest, and sadly with only 1 public official we can only get our strategy across in so many platforms.  [SEP] Yeah, that resolution said a lot of things. Including, >Our goal is to collect 50,000 signatures  and the exact wording was  >but only if it has a credible chance of winning  Neither of those two statements help your case, as they both show that SA/15 Now didn't follow its own stated plan.  It was not me that said this was not, or would not be a victory. It was council member Sawant and SA leaders who were denouncing this very bill, with all its exceptions, training wages, and 3 or 4 year phase in for big business. They were the ones calling it 15 in name only. That was the point I was making.  What you did in your latest comment is a perfect example of how you seem to think the public is dumb. You just can't seem to help but be condescending. I don't have amnesia and I know what is in the bill, which has yet to be finalized. Yes, SA said a lot of things about this campaign, and if I wanted to I'm sure I could go back and find a bunch of statements which support my argument. Oh, I found some in the material you linked, said by none other than CM Sawant  >Let’s look at the proposal announced: the 4 year phase in for big business, 11 year delay, tip credit, health care deductions. I don’t support phasing-in for big business. McDonalds and Starbucks have no justification for keeping their workers in poverty for a day longer. For workers in Seattle, 11 years is a very long time to wait for a decent wage. Every year of a phase in is another year of poverty for workers.  We don't have to wait and see if what SA is doing will be damaging to their reputation, it's already happening. You can find the evidence in the comments.  Your first few rhetorical questions are only relevant to you, as they completely miss the issue. For example, who cares how many signatures you collected. There is a threshold to make it onto the ballot which you are not going to achieve, and nor are you going to make it to 50k, your stated goal. That is what matters.   I think your last question is an important one, but it is somewhat convoluted as you don't describe precisely what your "central goal" is. If I understand it correctly, you are saying that you have to tell your volunteers to move forward with collecting signatures because that is what it needed to have a credible threat. And somehow it seems like you're making the case that you need to lie to those volunteers in order to keep them motivated.  The obvious solution here, which it seems like you have given no thought to, is to not collect any signatures at all. Because the bill will be voted on before those signatures are due, because it is obvious that you will not collect enough to get the amendment on the ballot, and because a poll was already taken which showed the majority of Seattle residents support a $15 minimum wage, I can't think of any good reason why you would collect any signatures at all.   So not only are you, SA/15 Now, being disingenuous with your goals, you're lying to your own volunteers and the public for no good reason. This is what is damaging your public reputation, and this is what demonstrates a certain level of incompetence.
>where women are held to a different standard.  So much of this. He did try and talk me into us both dating women at first but I said no. I was treated like I cheated because I didn't ask for permission first, even though he never asked for permission. He tried to tell me I couldn't have sex with a guy because he had met him, even though he'd previously introduced me to a girl who he later ended up hooking up with (I only found out because I asked why she was completely ignoring me now.) He wanted me to wait so he could get a head start because it was harder for men to get laid than for women to. Tried to get me to agree to only have one night stands. So much bullshit. In retrospect it's pretty easy to see my biggest problem was that he was a misogynist, but he spun everything so it was so progressive and feminist.      You probably don't want to get me started on last name bullshit. I fucking hate that shit. I never took my husband last name, but everyone assumes I did and they won't stop using it on shit. My state government sent me me tax return check with my husband's last name. WTF? And my family has shamed me over it. Theyre still shaming me over it and I'm not even married anymore.   Marriage was awful for me. Being a "wife" was hell. I thought we could be different and go against society, but there was so much push back on it. And as soon as I got married my husband started spouting shit like, "What will they think, your my wife." I don't know dipshit, maybe you should have thought about that before talking me into this open relationship bullshit. I just hate all of it. I'm never getting married again.   >that doesn't mean its a good idea to just burn the rulebook.  I agree with this. Nothing against promiscuous women who love it, but I tried it and I think it's made me even more vulnerable to the relationship inequalities that are inherent in gender. I'm strictly monogamous now and I'm just trying to sort through the rule book to see what works for me and what doesn't.    [SEP] what a mess. I am so happy you extracted yourself from that scene, nat. the head start thing i really 'like.' I have seen this, further, framed as "this affirmative action should involve patronizing prostitutes, for males." mein fucking gott. I am so glad I never tried that when I was thinking it was an okay thing to do. (I still am fully undecided on this, but i definitely am no longer in the affirmative sex-pos camp for that. I know a sexpos radfem ex survival-sex workers and I respect her opinions a lot. and I have seen some academic stuff about this suggesting that the benefits can outweigh the costs, but anyway, I am happy I took a miss in this 'opportunity.')  >In retrospect it's pretty easy to see my biggest problem was that he was a misogynist, but he spun everything so it was so progressive and feminist.  I have seen this far more often than not in men who are spinning everything progressive and feminist. far more. among men who claim to be feminists, I think probably less than half are trying to be allies to women, and more than half are smug egalitarian 'berniebro' types. (pls notice me senpai sanders?)  >You probably don't want to get me started on last name bullshit. I fucking hate that shit. I never took my husband last name, but everyone assumes I did and they won't stop using it on shit. My state government sent me me tax return check with my husband's last name. WTF? And my family has shamed me over it. Theyre still shaming me over it and I'm not even married anymore.  nono start. I had no idea that there were like fully automated 'federally' institutionalized aspects of this misogyny. Maybe a lot of people didn't know that happens? I don't mean to condescend, but I hope you know you should be really proud to have taken that stand. There is no reason women should just lose their names. And it's.. your own goddamn family, whose name you kept, shaming you for this? correct? That must feel really special. When I said the thing about taking a "wife's" name I honestly was being lazy. I have never wanted to have a wife nor be a husband and I think the word partner says a lot more about the type of relationship a feminist should want to be in. I'm glad you learned from your experience, but I hope you don't feel any shame because it really should be the opposite you did a great thing.  I feel like participation in shame is semi-voluntary? but that could just be me.  >I agree with this. Nothing against promiscuous women who love it, but I tried it and I think it's made me even more vulnerable to the relationship inequalities that are inherent in gender.   IDK how things are now, but this is what I saw a lot of. Women who were promiscuous were thereby devalued as humans, while everyone said "Yes! this is what women must do to be powerful!!" That said, of course, ideally I support full safe promiscuity, and believe such a thing can exist.  >I'm strictly monogamous now and I'm just trying to sort through the rule book to see what works for me and what doesn't.  I think there can be so much safety found in monogamy, that that alone is a really good reason for some people to be this way, but I also think isolation is having a really awful chilling effect on humanity, and i think monogamist isolation is a part of that. people pair off and sometimes you never see them again!  It actually is my hope that poly rights will be taken as the next gay rights, because the imposition of permanent hetropatriarchal pairing by gender, or any monogamy, which is based somewhat in theologically motivated political forces, is not good for anyone, including those who choose them.                
This is true, but you also have to realize that people in cold climates often log hundreds of hours driving in icy conditions. These Southern folk here, bless their hearts, simply lack the experience of constant commuting in snow/ice. [SEP] > bless their hearts  Upvoted for correct southern use (aka condescending sympathy) of the phrase
> Still though, you first attack my ability as a player and now you're creating some conspiracy that I don't like things because they personally affect they way I play. Maybe stop it with the character assassination.  It's not character assassination. I'm trying to find why you think it's OP. Is it the counter to your favorite build? Are you low skilled and can't perform the evasions+block+pick up the weapons (that's not a knock, some people aren't good at this game and there is nothing wrong with that). [SEP] > I'm trying to find why you think it's OP.  How about you try reading the post where I outlined in detail exactly my issue with it?   > (that's not a knock, some people aren't good at this game and there is nothing wrong with that).  Do you have ANY idea how absolutely fucking condescending you sound right now? Stop being an absolute fucking prick.
> Sarcasm is a lot less funny when the person reveals they have zero idea what they're talking about.  The first mistake is assuming I think I know anything or think I'm particularly intelligent.   >You and the OP of the original pic have a lot in common, apparently.  Thank you. At least he's got a sense of humor and doesn't come off as self important and uptight.  I'm sure he realizes there is some underlying reason that they became de rigueur in Asia. I doubt he thinks the reason is because Chinese people are stupid.   It seems to me that he's just making a humorous observation about how cultural norms aren't always the most efficient or logical thing possible. [SEP] >I doubt he thinks the reason is because...  There is every reason to assume the OP made no effort to think at all, since the vast majority of people who give a shit about not being condescending or racist could come up with at least 2-3 possible reasons to answer the question. MAAAAYBE if a stand-up comedian delivered the joke in the right way you'd get people to laugh.   >It seems to me that he's just making a humorous observation...  If that was the intent, then it wasn't the best idea to title the post, "Seriously, why?"  Also, it's rather ironic to call me self-important when you're taking up a personal crusade to defend the intent you imagine the poster had.
My boyfriend told me this exactly, so next time I was upset I told him exactly why and was very calm about it. He got incredibly upset and defensive about what I said and then dumped me that night.   I will never understand men [SEP] > why and was very calm about it.  Calm doesn't preclude you from sounding nagging, condescending or the content of the issue being so trivial that the boyfriend wonders why he is even with you if you're getting worked up over pointless crap.
As you seem to keep whining with an erroneous argument, i'll copypaste my reply:  First of all, you're not right. Every person with some economy knowledge would know that. Your only argument is to use google to keep your bullshit. First, the market has almost gone back to where it was before the brexit. How is it not the point, buddy? How is it not? That's the whole claim you did, the fact that the brexit caused "enormous losses". The fact that the pound tanked. But, in fact, the pound has recovered. And the marked is fully recovering. The chart clearly shows a drop after the brexit and a steady, oingoing recovery. As you're such an ignorant kid, you can't see why your argument is wrong. The "FTSE 100" graphic, had you used your useless mind insead of google, would show you how the market is recovering instead of being a crash.   Also, you're the "ignorant smartass". Do you have any knowledge about how market share works? I invest. Do you invest, buddy?  As i told you, stop googleing. It's worthless, because the same things you link are proving you wrong. [SEP] > First of all, you're not right. Every person with some economy knowledge would know that  Except that I am, as the actual graph of the pound value and this BBC article that's 9 minutes old show:    http    http   this PROVES YOU UTTERLY INCORRECT. it shows that the pound is a whole 3 and a half squares of the graph below where it was pre-vote. You are not only wrong but UTTERLY wrong.   > First, the market has almost gone back to where it was before the brexit. How is it not the point, buddy? How is it not?  Because we're talking about the value of the pound, all this stuff about markets is some straw man bullshit you've brought in because you can't handle being wrong and desperately need to twist the argument onto something that you're not such an obviously ignorant uninformed moron about.   > That's the whole claim you did, the fact that the brexit caused "enormous losses".   it did. wiped 2 TRILLION off the global economy. In what universe is 2 trillion not an enormous loss?  > And the marked is fully recovering  not according to this graph:    http   And this 9 minute old article:   http   > But, in fact, the pound has recovered.  again, see  http  , you are wrong.   > As you're such an ignorant kid,  You're the fucking ignorant fucking moron you condescending cunt with no brains. Fuck off and die. Calling me a "kid" just tells literally everyone reading this that you are the one who is in the wrong, because nobody who is actually worth listening to has to call anyone else a kid.   > The "FTSE 100" graphic, had you used your useless mind insead of google, would show you how the market is recovering instead of being a crash.  Did I say the market was crashing? Nope, I said "the value of the pound dropped to pre-1985 levels, wiping out 30 years of its growth" (which, despite all your bluster, you have only proved correct rather than disproving), so again, nice straw man fallacy, did you learn to argue in preschool debate club? It's just about the only place you can get away with such absurd straw men outside of your comments. 
Stop being a pompous dick.  Please stop being an apologist for left wing politics.  Name a single inherently left wing position that is evidently good for the long term wellbeing of human society and the planet as a whole. Cite a specific policy/position and your academic sources. Name a single inherently right wing position that is evidently bad for the long term wellbeing of human society and the planet as a whole. Cite a specific policy/position and your academic sources.  Because I can do the opposite. In fact, I already gave you an example of evidently harmful and inherently left wing policy.  Here is what the right historically stood for: Freedom of speech, agency and personal responsibility, equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome, abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, rights for ALL rather than using the feelings of some to infringe upon rights of others, Capitalism, monoculturalism, paying for your own damn healthcare and college, universal human rights through the promotion of western culture, the free market, secularism AND religious freedom, cognitive liberty, the exaltation of intellectualism, putting cooperation and mutual over competition and hate, actual egalitarianism.  The left traditionally stood against all these things.  Seems to me like the right represents all that is good in our society and that the left opposes all that is good. If the right is wrong, it acknowledges it and improves based on the existing evidence and arguments (as it seeks to actually do what's best). The left is practically all about doing something that harms society to benefit elites, being right/wrong when it comes to society as a whole isn't really one of their concerns, often being caught hiding evidence, etc. (just look at the environmental protection or tax debates, etc.).  Left wing politics harms our society and the planet. Period.  ...see, appropriating common moral principles and attributing them to the left and also spoon feeding in garbage like multiculturalism, which has been proven to destroy societies (see Robert Putnam's study) is not effective. [SEP] > Name a single inherently left wing position that is evidently good for the long term wellbeing of human society and the planet as a whole.   I already named a whole list: Promotion of socioeconomic equality, environmental protection, abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, LGBT rights, multiculturalism, anti-imperialism/internationalism, universal healthcare, universal public education, universal human rights, anti-militarism, pacifism, anti-corporatism, secularism, anti-theism, cognitive liberty, the exaltation of intellectualism, putting cooperation and mutual over competition and hate, egalitarianism.   > Cite a specific policy/position and your academic sources.   Okay, take environmental protection and the abandonment of fossil fuels, for example.   Air pollution alone kills 5.5 million people every year.   http   Among those 200,000 Americans:  http    http    http    http    That's more than all wars, terrorism and crimes combined.   Here is an academic paper published by the White House analyzing rules passed between 2000 and 2010 and examing the benefits-to-cost ratios across various government agencies. The EPA came out on top with the highest ratios by far, with benefits from its regulations exceeding costs by an average of more than 10 to 1. If you care about well-functioning, free markets, the EPA would be the last federal agency you'd want to cut.   Here is an analysis of this paper and others:  http   Here is a study examining certain policies enacted in the EU.   >The reduction in PM2.5 concentrations is calculated to have prevented 80 000 (37 000–116 000, at 95% confidence intervals) premature deaths annually across the European Union, resulting in a perceived financial benefit to society of US$232 billion annually (1.4% of 2010 EU GDP).  In short: Environmental regulation increases the amount of available jobs, increases the GDP and has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives. The only thing it does is decrease corporate profits in the short term, which means that rich people will get slightly less quickly rich.  > Name a single inherently right wing position that is evidently bad for the long term wellbeing of human society and the planet as a whole.   Okay. Being against minimum wage.   >Cite a specific policy/position and your academic sources.  Here is a paper that constitutes a massive meta-study which concludes: "The minimum wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias, which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimum-wage effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."  While this paper concludes with "robust evidence that higher minimum wages moderately reduce the share of individuals with incomes below 50, 75 and 100 percent of the federal poverty line.", meaning that there is a positive effect when it comes to raising people out of poverty (while also having the undeniable effect that people generally make more money, which is nice).   Here is a bonus: Being against higher taxes for the rich.   There is no evidence of higher taxes for the rich harming economic growth and, in fact, taxes for the rich could be 80%+ without negative effect.   The biggest harm to economic growth is caused by inequality.  Here are two papers by the IMF about that:   http    http    Inequality reduces the incomes of the middle class, and therefore demand, which in turn stunts growth. Policies that increase equality increase economic growth. High taxes for the rich and redistribution through literally cash handouts or welfare or other programs increase economic growth.  I could go on.   >Because I can do the opposite. In fact, I already gave you an example of evidently harmful and inherently left wing policy.   No you can't and no you didn't.  Feel free to attempt and do so, though.  >Here is what the right historically stood for: Freedom of speech   No. That's what the left stood for. The right stands for censorship.  >agency and personal responsibility  True.  >equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome  No, that's the opposite of what the right stood for.   >abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, rights for ALL rather than using the feelings of some to infringe upon rights of others  Nope. False. The right stood against those things. The right stands against equality of humans. That's the entire point of right wing politics.   >Capitalism  True.  >monoculturalism  True, that's a bad thing.  >paying for your own damn healthcare and college  True, that's a bad thing.  >universal human rights through the promotion of western culture  Universal human rights != western culture.  But yes, cultural supremacism is a right wing value. Human rights aren't.  >the free market  True, that's a bad thing.  >secularism AND religious freedom  In a fucked up way maybe.  > cognitive liberty  No? The right is responsible for practically all repression in the US. Hell, they even are responsible for the genocide committed against communists under McCarthyism.  >the exaltation of intellectualism  Holy crap, no. That's really not true.  >putting cooperation and mutual over competition and hate  No. The right stands for the opposite.  >actual egalitarianism.  No, it doesn't. It stands for discrimination.  I know you believed that you were being clever trying to turn things around but it doesn't really work. Feel free to actually provide examples of your claims and demonstrate whom they fought against when taking those positions.  >The left traditionally stood against all these things.  No, from your list the left only traditionally stood against: Capitalism, monoculturalism, paying for your own damn healthcare and college and the free market.  And... there really is nothing wrong with standing against those things. Feel free to demonstrate how the left stood against the other things.   >Seems to me like the right represents all that is good in our society and that the left opposes all that is good. If the right is wrong, it acknowledges it and improves based on the existing evidence and arguments (as it seeks to actually do what's best). The left is practically all about doing something that harms society to benefit elites, being right/wrong when it comes to society as a whole isn't really one of their concerns, often being caught hiding evidence, etc. (just look at the environmental protection or tax debates, etc.).  Why would it seem that way to you?  >Left wing politics harms our society and the planet. Period.   In what way?  >...see, appropriating common moral principles and attributing them to the left   Those aren't common. Those moral principles had to be fought hard for by the left. And they always had to fight against the right. Do you seriously deny that?  Yes, those moral principles are all good and valid. That's because the left always fights for that what is good and valid for human society. It took generations for the right to understand theese things.  >and also spoon feeding in garbage like multiculturalism, which has been proven to destroy societies (see Robert Putnam's study) is not effective.  In what way is multiculturalism garbage? Hilarious bullshit claim. Feel free to cite the study in question.   Come back once you can actually respond to the arguments made instead of spamming uninspired condescending comments.
Sounds like you are appealing to emotion rather than logic (a common problem when women attempt to engage in a discussion). Nothing here has shown that they just want to hit women, yet that is your go to statement. I am curious how someone like yourself, who is a feminist, thinks it's fair for women to assault people without any expectation of retaliation? [SEP] > Sounds like you are appealing to emotion rather than logic (a common problem when women attempt to engage in a discussion).  Sounds like you're making condescending and sexist jibes. As someone else said this thread is full of guys salivating at the prospect of hitting women. The woman in the video slapped and spat at the man, which is obviously not excusable, but uppercutting her is not proportionate to that at all, and how people can say it was justified is beyond me. The retaliation was way over the line.
i'll say it again, slowly this time (speaking of reading comprehension): you're conflating the overall cellphone market with the smartphone market. they are not the same thing, at all.   perhaps you can tell me how the S5 is better than the 5S? must be that 64bit processor that samsung stuck in there - wait, they didn't do that at all. please try to stick to facts, and not opinions. when the lead designer steps down after the poor reception of the S5, that should be a clue.  [SEP] >i'll say it again, slowly this time (speaking of reading comprehension): you're conflating the overall cellphone market with the smartphone market. they are not the same thing, at all.   Take a look at the sales figures I was talking about and stop being a condescending, ignorant jackass.    http #By_operating_system  Off the top of my head I'd say screen clarity, battery life, and picture quality are all reasons to get the S5 over the iPhone.   Wouldn't you at least say that the S5 isn't some low-end phone? The same thing that happened to Apple when the PC won is happening against Android right now. Microsoft and Nokia will continue to make life a little more difficult for Apple as well.   I guess I shouldn't have ever tried reasoning with a person who says he has 85% of his net worth in a technology stock. 
>In the modern world their really is no longer any excuse for a reasonable adult to cling to religion.  This reeks of someone who doesn't understand the human psyche or social structures. The irrationality of faith doesn't absolve humanity of genetics or psychology.   >It is especially frustrating when people that seem to have some understanding of science are part of these cults.  I have neither the time nor the inclination, but given the choice between, say, respecting Albert Einstein's opinion on whether a scientist can belong to a 'cult' and your opinion, I'm going to ever so slightly lean his way.   [SEP] > This reeks of someone who doesn't understand the human psyche or social structures.  I am aware of the reasons why these belief systems developed. I am saying that in today's modern world with access to a scientific education and with the obvious amount of scientific understanding Mr. Brown has there is no excuse for him being a member of a cult.  > I have neither the time nor the inclination, but given the choice between, say, respecting Albert Einstein's opinion on whether a scientist can belong to a 'cult' and your opinion, I'm going to ever so slightly lean his way.  This comment as read doesn't make a lot of sense. You have "neither the time nor inclination"... to try to sound like a condescending douche? You seem to be making the time. Einstein was not a born again christian, what is your point?
I mean... yeah?  I'm getting a strong holier-than-thou vibe from your post - like you're the only one who's aware of colorism, colonialism, or internalized racism, and everyone else hasn't done any soul-searching whatsoever.  You've correctly identified a lot of issues that we Asian Americans face, but stuff like this:  >In my Asian feminist community I have also seen yellow fever as a way to avoid discussing the profound amount of internalized racism in our own communities  ...seems really out of touch and dismissive of others' concerns.   Like, it's important to talk about internalized racism. Great. And if women want to talk about yellow fever, we should be able to do that too without some jab about how we're "avoiding" the real issues.  >Putting white out on my own blood line is not a way to fight white supremacy  Literally no one said it was.  >I have met many white people dating "out of their race" that perpetrate racism. I especially see this in pairings with white men and Asian women.  This is starting to sound like another of those, "I'm not telling you who to date, but you should date who I think you should date" posts.  Idk. I'm just so sick of this whole shtick, like, "I'm the only #woke Asian woman and the rest of y'all are white worshipping hoes #WAKEUPSHEEPLE." Can we just discuss racism without calling other women dumb? [SEP] > I mean... yeah? > I'm getting a strong holier-than-thou vibe from your post - like you're the only one who's aware of colorism, colonialism, or internalized racism, and everyone else hasn't done any soul-searching whatsoever.  Sorry, I originally didn't intend to post it here. I didn't mean sound condescending like I didn't think people on here would know what I'm talking about. I didn't mean to sound arrogant, then again no one does I suppose. :/ I just don't think it's a conversation that people talk about enough. For me-- internalized racism is a very uncomfortable topic. If I had any intention of arrogance I wouldn't have talked about my own experience with it.   > In my Asian feminist community I have also seen yellow fever as a way to avoid discussing the profound amount of internalized racism in our own communities.  Well I did fallow it up with this,   I'm not saying that yellow fever is not a problem, rather that is not the only problem. I don't blame Asian women for struggling with internalized racism but I think it's one component of the conversation that needs to be addressed.   > Putting white out on my own blood line is not a way to fight white supremacy  > Literally no one said it was.  No one on here is saying that but a lot of the asian women who wonder on to r/hapas who are future hapa moms think that.   > This is starting to sound like another of those, "I'm not telling you who to date, but you should date who I think you should date" posts.  That would be severely hypocritical of me. I'm dating a white guy. I'm not saying you shouldn't but what I am saying is that in some relationships internalized racism is a contributing factor. Plus the media we consume can be a contributing factor in that.   > Idk. I'm just so sick of this whole shtick, like, "I'm the only #woke Asian woman and the rest of y'all are white worshipping hoes #WAKEUPSHEEPLE." Can we just discuss racism without calling other women dumb?  I'm not calling anyone dumb. Sorry. 
Most people are not properly able to distinguish between what kind of information can be taken from this kind of study vs other studies with more power. By presenting this as a potential treatment, it is likely that some people will think they can try this instead of medication.  [SEP] > Most people are not properly able to distinguish between what kind of information can be taken from this kind of study vs other studies with more power.  That's rather condescending. Also, the mental health industry, including physicians, stands on very shaky ground when it comes to treating depressive conditions. The article and professionals call for more research, you haven't provided evidence there will be panic in the streets over one article.  > it is likely that some people will think they can try this instead of medication.  That's true. It's also likely some people will decide to quit their medication without prompting at all. Do you have evidence that a single-case-study article is more harmful than simply deciding to quit taking pills one day? Or do you have evidence that suppressing a single-case-study article in a private newspaper should be done in order to satisfy your sensibility on what information people should consume?  Because it appears you may not be properly able to distinguish between the threat of a single article, and other evidence with much more power. 
I posted an image from my mobile for people to see. I'm sorry you're offended, it's only a graph. Would you prefer an involved infographic with exaggerated and out of context data to appeal to emotion? I'm sure you spend your time in reddit pursuing more gracious causes [SEP] > I'm sorry you're offended, it's only a graph.  Oh ffs get away from me with your passive aggressive condescending bullshit. NOW you made me mad a little.
The problem is that the views of the people in Iceland have almost no affect on my life (or the lives of most of the people in r/atheism who live in the states). I live in the Southern US, and I can assure you that over 95% of people I know are Christians and a large majority of them refute evolution and global warming. Now, that is not to say that all religious people deny science. I just wanted to point out the relevant information in regards to many of the people in r/atheism. That point is that a staggering number of religious people here in the US are completely illogical and irrational. The religious people here who disregard science are not the minority in any sense of the word. I suppose I should have been clearer as to my point though... [SEP] >I live in the Southern US  I think this colors a lot of the arguing about r/atheism. I live in a very liberal area of a blue state, and the people I know who openly identify as religious often get shit for it. In turn, most of the christians I know tend to be extraordinarily nice and more than willing to have totally reasoned discussions about it. The one person on my facebook newsfeed who openly praises god on facebook is my cousin-in-law, who generally just kind of gives thanks for her children; as a pretty liberal/science type myself, she's yet to post something that really rustled my jimmies, so to speak. r/atheism makes all kinds of snide comments about the intelligence of religious individuals, and generally, the people I know who are religious are not characterized by those kinds of silly, ignorant beliefs.  As someone who questions, r/atheism really turns me off to the idea of atheism in general, simply because the community seems so incredibly condescending. i realize that for those who aren't as lucky in where they live as I am, it can be extremely liberating to find and express those opinions, but they can be really grating to run into on the front page for those of us who have different experiences. 
Well the obvious difference is he's not sitting there pointing his finger at an individual, but I think it's a stupid point to argue. Sanders and Bill often display their frustration with the system (in Sanders' case) or an idea as a whole (Bill and Black Lives Matter), whereas Hillary seems to focus far too often on individuals.  [SEP] > Well the obvious difference is he's not sitting there pointing his finger at an individual  The other obvious difference is that he has a penis. Seriously had "condescending" ever been an effective attack line against a male politician?
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's crap - after all, it serves the same purpose that any poorly-conceived tattoo does. It lets you know that it's attached to the sort of person who said "Man, I want to get something tattooed on my flesh that will be there for the rest of my life that really tells people who I am - I will point to one of these pictures on the wall of the tattoo shop/get my drunk friend to do it at home/get something awful that I mistakenly think is deep or cool because I'm a fucking idiot".  A bad tattoo is incredibly useful; it's a helpful indicator that the owner can safely be dismissed as inconsequential. Which is a good tool to have in a world with so many damn people in it. [SEP] >A bad tattoo is incredibly useful; it's a helpful indicator that the owner can safely be dismissed as inconsequential.  As the owner of (apparently) "bad" tattoos (as well as some "deep" ones, whatever that really means) I think they are also useful. When someone dismisses me based on appearance and nothing more, I know they are a superficial person who can also be safely dismissed as inconsequential. After all, people who let things like the hivemind tell them what to think, aren't really people I need to spend time getting to know. I can just read the comments in reddit to know they're probably judgmental, condescending pseudo-intellectuals. It's quite the time saver!
Double reply but would it make more sense to go with gamemaker instead of construct for flexibility? I'm a little worried that the drag and drop system would limit what I can do. If i'm wrong in this anxiety lemme know, I'm gonna explore both programs (game maker and Construct). In your experience does construct limit what you can implement? Or is there drag and drop system expansive enough to implement whatever I can think of. [SEP] > In your experience does construct limit what you can implement?  I've only used it for prototyping. I'm all over the place with engines and frameworks, I'm a mess. You should ask people who concentrated on one engine or one framework for better answers. Seriously, you should!  I don't know how well it will work in a team, in terms of collaboration. But they have a desktop build now, which should help using git. I think you are able to attach JavaScript things as plugins - especially for 3rd party APIs, e.g. ad networks, Facebook, that kind of stuff. Those JavaScript plugins might be able to even more, maybe even take advantage of WebAssembly. If that's enticing, you should double-check if what I wrote is true. :-D  The other thing is: I don't know how it would be with bigger projects, lacking the experience myself. Will it slow down development compared to a programming language based engine? I don't know.  One more thing that comes to my mind: You can't write unit tests for Construct. Or can you.  -----  But let's stop here for a minute and realize two things:   1. Our human brain loves success moments, especially in small iterations. That's what you can get from an engine that helps you prototype fast (in my opinion). That's part of why Adobe Flash / now Adobe Animate as a tool was fun to use imho. On the other side of the spectrum, there's probably C code from scratch barely with any libraries to help you make your game. It will take a long time before you produce anything that looks and feels even remotely like a game. The reward-system parts of your brain will have a harder time. Would that slow you down compared to the 'instant' successes you see and you feel with an engine like Construct? You decide!  2. You don't choose only one engine for your life! Once you hit the limits of, say, Construct, you can switch to something else: MonoGame, Unity, Unreal or Amazon's Lumberyard, anything. How long will it take you to really hit the limits of Construct? 6 months? 18 months? I don't know. Play around with the free trial and make a few very small games with it, that should only take a few afternoons. And let your gut feelings decide imho.  Yes, Construct is not for free. But it's not exactly the price of a Tesla Model X, either.   ------  > Or is there drag and drop system expansive enough to implement whatever I can think of.  Try to find commercial games made with Construct. It should give you an idea of what is possible. It's line-up probably is different from the plethora of hit games you see with Haxe, Heaps (Dead Cells, Northgard), HaxeFlixel, OpenFL (Papers, Please), Monogame and FNA (Stardew Valley, Axiom Verge).  But in the end you have to trust yourself and watch your own inner visions: What are you really capable of, when will you hit your creative, artistic and technical limits? Do you really strive for technical superiority so you need Unity or Unreal engine? Or will a 'smaller engine' like Construct enable you do everything you need - and make you feel good while doing so?  -----------  > Double reply but would it make more sense to go with gamemaker instead of construct for flexibility?  Yesterday I read that GameMaker will support the Nintendo Switch in a few months. But then again, it's supposed to be hard to get there because Nintendo is an opinionated gatekeeper for their Switch console, so what are your chances to hop on the Switch train before the world jumps over to the successor of the Switch console in a few years?  I personally don't trust Gamemaker really. Their staff seems to be condescending and swamped in an ocean of bugs. Their GML language has so many legacy commands and a really awkward syntax and code style. Have a look at their forums and you'll see people regard basic programming things like 'arrays' like high technology needed to send people to Mars. And they even invented a lot of crap around the world surrounding arrays, like ds_list and all that awkward stuff - seemingly because they don't trust their own 'normal' arrays? I don't know, I just think that kind of stuff is very weird.  ------------  > I'm a little worried that the drag and drop system would limit what I can do.  How long will it take you to experience those limitations? Once you'Re there, you should rather use something like, I don't know, Unity. In my opinion.  
Oh boy, I struck a nerve, didn't I?  >You know damned well my a "I'm don't agree with X, but" doesn't mean I swing to one extreme or the other, I try and rest in a middle area. Balance is the only way we achieve progress, extremes lead to zealous bigotry or violence.   Temper, temper.  >So if I were to ask you how you felt about abortion what would you say? Would you say that it is a woman's right to decide no matter the circumstance? If the baby was just a week from its due date, would you find no problem with abortion? Is there a limit to things?  I would Say that it is wholly the right of the person in question. If a woman wishes such for herself and the child she carries so be it. She has every right to control her body and no one else.  >What about free speech? Do you believe in the right to free speech?  Yes. Note Below:  >Do you believe that the Westboro Baptist Church has every right to commit dead troops and others to hell and blame homosexuals for their deaths?  You're implying there's an afterlife. Although, they have every right to do such, 1st Amendment rights and whatnot. I doubt there's a sane man on this planet who'd agree with what they say, but I will defend their right to say it.  And after this, you kind of just started digressing away from your point. Best to keep arguments on the internet short and sweet Honey. [SEP] >Oh boy, I struck a nerve, didn't I?  Yes, yes I get it, you like being condescending to those you think you are mentally superior to and enjoy stroking your ego by making fun of them as if it is some sort of game. (I said the word damned implying I just blew up in front of my computer?)  > You're implying there's an afterlife.   I'm not implying there is an afterlife, I am simply stating WBC beliefs...  > Although, they have every right to do such, 1st Amendment rights and whatnot. I doubt there's a sane man on this planet who'd agree with what they say, but I will defend their right to say it.  I'm sure you do believe they have every right to do so. Now if they were at the funeral of one of your family members picketing them and blaming them for being a lover of homosexuals on a bullhorn, you may find yourself changing your mind in the situation.  Not to mention you completely skipped over that part about the screaming man and such...  > And after this, you kind of just started digressing away from your point. Best to keep arguments on the internet short and sweet Honey.  The rest of my post was more on point than the start of the post. The mere fact that you chose to blow it off as a digression shows me that you really don't grasp the concept Honey.  Please, explain to me why this is a digression:  >How about an example? >Say I were to ask some if they opposed gun control and they gave me this answer: >"Well, I personally think gun control is a bad idea because criminals will always have a way to get guns and they don't need to obey the laws to obtain them so punishing normal citizens is a bad idea. Now, I'm all for the right to keep and bear arms, but I do think we should limit the ability for the average person to have assault rifles. We should at least have them register or something!" >If I were to then tell him that his statement at the end was equivalent to him opposing the right to keep and bear arms completely, I think he would most likely look at me as if I were crazy and then try to either explain to me why I was wrong, or punch me in the gut. Point being, saying that I oppose women's rights (why did you capitalize this?) just because I have more moderate views of abortion is childish, misguided, and plain stupid.  I literally took your logic and used it in the same sort of instance as you did to me in an attempt to help you understand your fallacy and reply back with that nonsense?   ANYTHING taken too far is a bad thing. We must strive for balance in issues.  ... I still can't fathom why you would skip the meat of my post. It is as if you just found it to be below you and just hurriedly discerned what you believed the rest of my post was before posting your nonsensical reply.  I liked that you called me "honey" at the end. Snarky AND egotistical? Why, they go hand in hand! I do, however, appreciate your proper use of you're and your.
You’re detached from reality. Hopefully you move on to a happier place so young Quebeckers dont have as much exposure to your outdated attitudes and beliefs. So many people have wasted so much of their energy on the wrong thing. I guess not uncommon, but such a shame. You probably look back on it with fond and romantic memories, but think of where Québec could have been today had that effort been spent on something better. Maybe Montreal would still be the largest city in the country?   You’re holding Québec back. [SEP] > Maybe Montreal would still be the largest city in the country?  > You’re holding Québec back.  More condescending, colonial bullshit.  When Montréal was “the largest city in the country”, we were second-class citizens, discriminated against even though we are the majority of people. We only had access to the lowest jobs. If we wanted to have a better job, we were forced to speak a foreign language, because the bosses were too stupid to learn French.   Then we said “enough of this bullshit” and passed Bill 22 which made French the sole official language and later Bill 101, many blokes fucked-off once they realized that they were, indeed, a tiny minority (less than 9% nowadays) and they could not stomach to have to learn French.  Then, our standard of living improved TENFOLD.  We don’t give a shit about being the “largest city in the country”, because it was during the worst time in our History.
So you want a government that protects your precious feelings?So your feelings and judgement should be sacrosanct? Why do you feel the government should be your mother/ father figure teaching you morality?   I think if it isn't a call for violence then it shouldn't be policed.    [SEP] Protecting people from undue harm to their reputation is something our laws have always done. As for this case, I am totally fine that this guy was slapped with a penalty for repeatedly making fun of a vulnerable youth after being asked to stop. Entertainment is one thing, but making somebody the brunt of your public joke over and over is harassing behaviour, and while I don't expect the government to "protect my precious feelings," I'm not a callous asshole, and I'd hope that there would be a mechanism in place to ensure that you can't stand up with a microphone and mercilessly insult unwilling and innocent participants.  > Why do you feel the government should be your mother/ father figure teaching you morality?  Not the slightest clue where you got that from. Quite condescending of you to imply that I derive my morality from the law rather than the more obvious conclusion that the law in this case brought about a solution in line with my morality. But sure, imagine I'm a mindless, pathetic child crying in the corner at the scary world if it helps fuel your ridiculous narrative of the world.
As many ways as we want. Especially when this is hurting U.S. companies. We don't need to apologize for giving a shit about our future. [SEP] > ~~Especially~~ when this is hurting U.S. companies  Or  > Especially when this is hurting ~~U.S. companies~~ everyone  This isn't just about the USA. This is about everyone on the damn planet.   Edit: No condescending tone intended, I agree with most of what TreeMonger said, just wanted to emphasize the true scope of this scandal. 
> Are you going to cherrypick the part that allows you to continue holding your position or are you going to take the idea that that person put forth in gestalt, including them specifying their precise objection?  That was literally what they said, I'll even quote it for you, and bear in mind that this is his entire post:  >>I'm not talking about color-blindness on an institutional or governmental level.  >We're on the same page.  >>I'm talking about as an individual.  >We're on the same page.  >>Personally I believe that it's wrong to assume things about someone based on their race.  >We're still on the same page. >>I acknowledge that racism is still an issue in the US but I choose to still be color-blind. I don't see how that makes the racism issue worse.  >Aaaaand here is where we split ways. The reason I posted that quote, in particular, is that your life (as a presumably-white person) was molded predominantly by people and media influences which did not give significant exposure to non-white perspectives. Therefore, although what you're preaching closely resembles the famed MLK quote,  >>I have a dream that my four little children will one day be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character  >your ideology is not at all in alignment with that of MLK, because, owing to your drastically different formative experiences, you have drastically different standards for judging character.  Knickerbockers says that the reason that a white person being colorblind is racist while a black person being colorblind is not, simply because white and black people judge character differently. There are a load of problems with that sentiment, one of which being the fact that apparently colorblindness is ok only for individuals who have been hurt.  So that isn't cherrypicking, at all, I'm arguing with his entire premise.  >Empathy is literally feeling what another person is feeling. You cannot feel what someone else feels unless you understand their situation. You cannot feel what someone who has lost their child before their time until you've been through something comparable. What you're describing is sympathy. It's not the same thing. You can sympathize with them. You don't know what they're feeling. You don't understand what they're going through. It's sort of weird for you to think that you can or do when you haven't. Weird and/or presumptive.  You're wrong. Empathy is a route to better understanding a person, not the other way around. [SEP] So, you quoted this and missed that this contradicts what you're positing? That this is in fact exactly what I said it was?   > Aaaaand here is where we split ways. The reason I posted that quote, in particular, is that your life (as a presumably-white person) was molded predominantly by people and media influences which did not give significant exposure to non-white perspectives. Therefore, although what you're preaching closely resembles the famed MLK quote, >  >  >  > I have a dream that my four little children will one day be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character >  >  >  > your ideology is not at all in alignment with that of MLK, because, owing to your drastically different formative experiences, you have drastically different standards for judging character.  You glazed over the part that said, verbatim "your ideology is not at all in aligntment with that of MLK, because... you have drastically different standards for judging character". I'm not saying you're intentionally being argumentative, but you're probably either being selectively blind or trolling.   >You're wrong. Empathy is a route to better understanding a person, not the other way around.  You should probably read the things that you google, instead of attempting to be condescending by posting a let me google that for you link. First link that comes up verbatim: "Sympathy essentially implies a feeling of recognition of another's suffering while empathy is actually sharing another's suffering, if only briefly."  Empathy- "Understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself or can put yourself in their shoes."  Sympathy- "Acknowledging another person's emotional hardships and providing comfort and assurance."  And, if you'd have bothered to individually google what both words mean, you'd have an understanding that saying things like  >Empathy is a route to better understanding a person, not the other way around.   just makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about when by definition empathy is   >the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner;   Surely, you can do better than this.  
> From this:  It's an accurate statement to say that I haven't seen anyone who could be considered an advocate of social justice suggest we need to "tear white people down". That's not to say I haven't seen a lot of people try to claim that various statements are implying that ... but I've never seen anyone actually make the claim, no. Rhetoric is a dangerous business, and a lot of people are very quick to try and read into things which aren't necessarily there.  >But there are people saying those things, and there are plenty of them. I'm glad you condemn them. You tell me you're not saying these people don't exist, then you're saying... these people don't exist.  Saying I've never seen anyone say something that it's being claimed they do say is a different thing than saying that extremists don't exist. The OP was saying, and you've made several references which imply that you agree with him on it, that there's a huge number of people saying these extremist things to the point where it's "all I hear about". I'm suggesting that in regards to there being a mass swarm of extremists spouting these views ... they don't exist. Fringe extremists, sure.  Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you keep making reference to how many of them there are ... "plenty of them" and things like that. I get the impression that you want me to say that there's loads of them, and that's the part of my speech you're taking issue with. But I don't want to strawman you if that's not the case.  >You can tell yourself that, but I saw and heard a lot of booing in the video when BLM supporters hijacked the mic from Bernie at a rally. It's certainly not all one giant group that's exactly the same people as you implied.  If you've come to the rally to see Bernie, you're going to boo when pretty much anyone takes the mic off him, no? I don't think it's logical to construe that as a statement of the crowd's views on BLM.  >Its not dangerous territory at all to suggest that what someone (an individual) doesn't talk about is just as important as what they do. Especially in the context of that particular title. Especially in the context of intersectionality. The point is to view privilege on a multitude of layers. Ignoring one of, and likely the most important layer when talking about "life's lowest difficulty setting" speaks volumes about the author.  As I said, we tend to talk about social inequality and income inequality separately, for right or wrong. I say it's dangerous territory because, if I was interested in playing that game, I could turn this around on this very subreddit and talk about all the things you choose to discuss on here and all the things you choose not to discuss and draw an awful lot of unsavoury conclusions about KiA. But I'm not going to do that, because as I say I'm not interested in playing that game. And I would encourage you to also not get involved in the "you didn't talk about this, therefore that says a lot about you" game.  >If you take his statement literally, which would be understandable, sure. But if you can see that there are people saying this kind of thing or heavily implying it in the media and on social media - which is likely what he's talking about - then I have to disagree.  I do take it literally, because it's his feelings. When you're depressed, it can feel like everybody's against you and everybody's attacking you. That's why I see it as important to point out that, as you say, it's not literally true. You don't want to feed someone else's shitty feelings which say that everybody's against you. It's very not healthy, speaking from painful experience.  >It's not awful to question his experience. Emotions warp our perception of reality. What I'm telling you is that there are definitely people behaving the way he's talking about. ... There is plenty of material out there in line enough with the OPs feelings that he doesn't have to misinterpret anything to be surrounded by it all day.  But definitely not to the degree that it's 'everywhere' and all that people are telling him/you. But there is a scenario where it can seem like that, and that's if you're perceiving people talking about white privilege as a personal attack on you. Which I don't think is deniable that a lot of people do? Hell, there's other people responding to me right here who are saying I'm attacking white people for simply saying that white privilege exists.  If you view people talking about white privilege through a lens where you assume they're attacking white people ... then yes, suddenly it becomes all encompassing and so many people are attacking whites. Because a lot of people are talking about white privilege, and rightly so. The problem is that talking about white privilege isn't necessarily (and in almost all cases definitively isn't) an attack on white people.  But that's a difference in world view, I feel. I'm not going to convince someone who really believes that white privilege doesn't exist that I'm not attacking white people by talking about it.  >We live in an internet world. You choose what to surround yourself with regards to the media for the most part.  Which when you're depressed is not always a good thing. [SEP] >It's an accurate statement to say that I haven't seen anyone who could be considered an advocate of social justice suggest we need to "tear white people down". That's not to say I haven't seen a lot of people try to claim that various statements are implying that ... but I've never seen anyone actually make the claim, no. Rhetoric is a dangerous business, and a lot of people are very quick to try and read into things which aren't necessarily there.  Ok, so the qualifier to your "nobody" statement would be "nobody I've seen." Not trying to be an asshole, just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Thanks for clearing that up (not snarky, honestly).  >Saying I've never seen anyone say something that it's being claimed they do say is a different thing than saying that extremists don't exist. The OP was saying, and you've made several references which imply that you agree with him on it, that there's a huge number of people saying these extremist things to the point where it's "all I hear about". I'm suggesting that in regards to there being a mass swarm of extremists spouting these views ... they don't exist. Fringe extremists, sure.  To be clear on this, a minority of a large group can still be a lot of people. I'm saying the volume and frequency are such that its enough to become immersed in. My intent is to get you to acknowledge that these people exist (which you do, but claim to have never seen). I don't assert that they're a majority by any stretch. But I will find examples for you if you like. In fact I'd guess the people who behave this way are vastly in the minority.  >If you've come to the rally to see Bernie, you're going to boo when pretty much anyone takes the mic off him, no? I don't think it's logical to construe that as a statement of the crowd's views on BLM.  You're being pretty obtuse with your interpretation of what happened in Seattle. The BLM folks were received very unfavorably by the crowd.  >As I said, we tend to talk about social inequality and income inequality separately, for right or wrong. I say it's dangerous territory because, if I was interested in playing that game, I could turn this around on this very subreddit and talk about all the things you choose to discuss on here and all the things you choose not to discuss and draw an awful lot of unsavoury conclusions about KiA. But I'm not going to do that, because as I say I'm not interested in playing that game. And I would encourage you to also not get involved in the "you didn't talk about this, therefore that says a lot about you" game.  There's a difference in assessing this for a group and for an individual. There's a difference in doing this with a professional writer and a forum post. There's a difference in doing this for a specific topic or a very general one. There's especially a difference in doing this when you're trying draw conclusions about life's difficulty by using concepts of intersectionality. It's literally about the intersection of different types of oppression and how you can't fully assess them in isolation because they all intermingle and are all relevant to each other. Whether applying the concept of privilege with regards to 3 different spheres but ignoring one that dwarfs them all in importance is naive or intentional I can't say, but it's one or the other. Even by the standards of intersectionality, you cannot accurately assess something as absolute as "life's difficulty setting" without consideration to their economic privilege or lack thereof. Asserting a conclusion about the former without consideration for the latter is complete bullshit.  But if you can find a piece of professional writing I've made on the topic of intersectionality and want to make inferences on my position by what I've omitted, by all means feel free. Hell I'll rescind the "professional writing" stipulation.   I am not saying the desire or impetus to push for social equality is bad or evil because of what this one person said. I am saying that how this one person titled his article about privilege says a lot about his views and limited understanding about the topic. I am not extrapolating it to be a majority consensus or misunderstanding of the entire group. This person is part of said group. Therefore there exists a minority of members of this group with said characteristics. Unless the group were to decry said statements. The opposite actually happened, but even then I do not take that as indicative of the entire group or a majority of it.  >If you view people talking about white privilege through a lens where you assume they're attacking white people ... then yes, suddenly it becomes all encompassing and so many people are attacking whites. Because a lot of people are talking about white privilege, and rightly so. The problem is that talking about white privilege isn't necessarily (and in almost all cases definitively isn't) an attack on white people.  No, I don't think talking about privilege automatically equals bigotry. But it happens often enough that I don't need to think that to see what the OP is talking about either. I see concepts of privilege often used to divide people into in groups and out groups, and used to attack said out groups. I see the topic discussed with open hostility (ever heard the term shitlord, or manbaby?) and the word privilege thrown around like an accusation. I see it used to shut down conversation and opinions (again, to my original reply to yours, see mansplaining, whitesplaining). I see the people oblivious to their own privilege berating less privileged to "check their privilege" because they can bastardize intersectionality enough to convince themselves that they are truly the oppressed class. I see it used to dismiss the opinions of marginalized groups because of "internalized racism/sexism".  You can say you don't see these things happen or encounter them. That seems suspicious to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to hit you with a list of links if you don't want, but I'd be happy to provide some that leave little room for interpretation.  >Which when you're depressed is not always a good thing.  On that, we can fully agree.
Point to somewhere in the future or past. You cannot. Everything IS the present moment. This is fact. If everything is the present moment, then the idea of past, future is illusion. We only change. I know you hate me because I believe something you don't believe, but that is kind of idiotic don't you think. My goal is to help people. My goal is to open minds to new concept, otherwise you are stuck in stagnacy.  How do you think scientist find out new information? They look. They explore new directions. They don't just sit around Noping about. I want to call you an idiot and get out of my face, but I know that you are just another incarnation of the great I AM, and I should treat you as if you are me.  So I bid you adieu, wish you farewell, have a good day, see you in hell. (just kidding - but it rhymed) [SEP] > My goal is to help people.  No your goal is to be snide and condescending about some "truths" you made up, to a group of people who have, statistically, far more knowledge about the said subject than you apparently have.  > I know you hate me  I don't hate you, I don't even know you. Ignorance and arrogance combined is one of the plagues of our culture and time. And I love our culture and time. In all my time on reddit I have not come across someone who exhibits as much brazen hubris as you, and hope by pointing out how misinformed you are over and over again, I can help you start the truest path to knowledge, the recognition that we know very little.   > My goal is to open minds to new concept,  All you spout is a tired rehashing of new age philosophy. There is nothing you can't glean in your writing that can't be learned in 20 minutes from the new age section of any book store.  > Point to somewhere in the future or past. You cannot.  One of the underpinnings of arguably the greatest discoveries in modern physics hinges on the fact that time is a dimension and we move forward through it. Time is, in fact dependent on speed. Any cursory look at modern physics will teach you this. It's funny you'll embrace hackneyed interpretations of physics when it suits your new age bullshit, but will ignore other, very hard, aspects of it when it contradicts it. This is called cognitive dissonance and is epidemic among magical thinkers.
I'm not avoiding your question/concern. We just had to come to an understanding first.  On my farms, I haven't seen non-target species die off. I've got milkweeds a-plenty in my ditches, fence rows, and around the ponds. Monarchs were around, while the weather was warm. I walk/scout my fields every week (and this includes along the fence lines), looking for bug kills and weeds popping up. This is purely anecdotal, so the impact factor of my statements should be low.  Instead, give this a read. People with much more money and resources than me have a better grasp on the possible scope of pollen shed. [SEP] >I'm not avoiding your question/concern. We just had to come to an understanding first.  Not really, you clearly knew what I was referring to and just wanted to be condescending for at least another comment. Kudos.  >This is purely anecdotal, so the impact factor of my statements should be low.  Right, I wasn't looking for an anecdotal opinion.  >Instead, give this a read. People with much more money and resources than me have a better grasp on the possible scope of pollen shed.  Interesting, but this is why I said I'm okay with them as long as there is rigorous testing... It seems like a reasonable concern. 
"What are you expecting, a formal thesis with APA-style citations addressed to an audience who will never read it or take it seriously?"   I took that as you implying he shouldn't make an effort to improve his tweeting because nobody takes him seriously anyway.  Fox is the most watched cable news network and is filled with anchors who support Trump. Conservatives own talk radio. Breitbart is far more popular than it's left-leaning equivalents. If there are two sides available to choose from, that's just the free market doing what it does. Trump himself seems to love heavily biased news when it's biased in his favor, so why does he care if some isn't?  I don't remember Obama ranting on twitter about negative press either, despite Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others painting him as the antichrist. [SEP] >I took that as you implying he shouldn't make an effort to improve his tweeting because nobody takes him seriously anyway.  People take him seriously. They just don't take him charitably because they see him as an enemy to be destroyed, not somebody who can be reasoned with. It would be a waste of time to expect to hold Trump's critics to their own standards because they've abandoned much of any sense of decency a long time ago, which would be plainly obvious to anybody keeping score. Trump fights fire with fire, which is something I respect him for given that it sucks to be in such a nasty business, because at least he values results over reasons. Ignoring many of his other faults on integrity and policy, Romney would have taken the heat without dishing it back until his campaign was destroyed.   >Fox is the most watched cable news network and is filled with anchors who support Trump.   Fox News is predominantly anti-Trump because they're aligned with the Republican establishment. Even according to a recent Harvard Kennedy School survey, their coverage of Trump was about 52% negative and 48% positive. Of course, the rest of the major news corporations were ranging around 80-95% negative coverage, though CNN may begin to change their mind as their ratings plummet.   >Conservatives own talk radio.   The only radio talk show host who is supportive of Trump is Michael Savage. Everybody else was brutal towards him and any supporter who dared to call into their shows. Mark Levin, Erick Erickson, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, etc. They were all heavily paid through holding companies and given family internship opportunities during the primaries by various Republican establishment SuperPACs, and much to my expectations, I haven't seen them much adjust in tone out of embarrassment.   >Breitbart is far more popular than it's left-leaning equivalents.  Individually, sure, but that's because the left is spread out across many other sites such as Salon, Vox, The Atlantic, etc. Breitbart is still not exactly pro-Trump because it is beholden to billionaire donors who only share a lukewarm relationship with him. It also suffers from throttling and censorship on many social media websites, including Facebook and Twitter, which serves as the most important distribution channel for news on the Internet.   >Trump himself seems to love heavily biased news when it's biased in his favor, so why does he care if some isn't?  If you were defending yourself in a street fight with a thug, wouldn't you be thankful if a rival gangmember decided to settle a score with your attacker while you were under physical danger? You're assuming as if the playing field is equal when, in reality, it is heavily against Trump as I've demonstrated earlier. Not even what is typically seen as "conservative" news by moderates and liberals is against him, which is something that most conservative Trump supporters know all too well. Any positive coverage of Trump right now is balancing coverage.   >If there are two sides available to choose from, that's just the free market doing what it does.  There's at least 5 major political cleavages to market to in the United States, but only 2 sides that the establishment cares to hear. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, who represent 2 of their own factions, are not part of that selection. The only reason Fox News abandoned its totally anti-Trump stance back in early 2016 was because their ratings were dropping like a rock, so they provided a news source as an outlet for that market. But even watching Fox News attempt to cover major events is revolting. A lot of people don't trust them anymore.   >I don't remember Obama ranting on twitter about negative press either, despite Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others painting him as the antichrist.  You're right. President Obama had entranced pundits and reporters at CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, the Huffington Post, DailyKos, etc., to do it for him. When that wasn't enough, he made petulant and condescending speeches reminding people of their moral duty to support his entire agenda despite lying over 30 times about the content of his major healthcare bill and burdening middle-class America with $700-1200+ premiums. I don't believe in presentation anymore because, in an Orwellian fashion, establishment politicians have destroyed their meaning completely. If you want somebody who can be swindled by sleek presentation, then go find a kid pining for the next Xbox. 
Take it with a grain of salt... If he (or she. I'm going to go with he) wasn't allowed to read his Bible in school you can guess there was more to it than "because the Constitution."   Based on his description of himself as a bigger distraction than the class clown and being a lazy-ass prick, and the fact that we know he had a chip on his shoulder there was likely something else going on, like him making a scene out of reading the bible.   He is flat out lying when he says that the reason he brought it to school is because he had finished all the books at home. Homes stocked with books (homes that approve of reading) acquire more books when the kid tears through them, even if it's just so they can brag to everyone about how smart their kid is. You're telling me there was no library in the school or the town? Bullshit.   This kid brought a Bible to school because -assuming he is smarter than everyone else, especially the teachers- he thought it was untouchable and couldn't be taken away from him. He probably put on some little show with his Bible, pulling out quotes that were lascivious or edgy or that he thought he could use against his teachers.   I'm not a teacher, and I'm not a Christian, but I know kids, and I KNOW know-it-all kids. (Having been one, myself.) That kid's entire identity depended on his constantly "proving" that he was smarter than everyone else. I'm not the least bit surprised that his retelling casts the teachers as unjustifiable morons.  [SEP] > He is flat out lying when he says that the reason he brought it to school is because he had finished all the books at home. Homes stocked with books (homes that approve of reading) acquire more books when the kid tears through them, even if it's just so they can brag to everyone about how smart their kid is. You're telling me there was no library in the school or the town? Bullshit.  Hi, OP here. You're making a huge assumption here, and it's that we could afford books. My house did have a lot of them, but those were bought years before, in a prosper time when my father was working as an engineer in an uncle's factory. Thing is, my father was not an engineer; he was a musician who knew some things about engineering, so when he got laid off after the company bankrupted, we moved to a rural town really far from there to live under a church musician's salary. So now we were barely able to afford food, and I mean barely (we couldn't even afford shelter; part of my father's contract was that he was to live in the church's designated house for travelling pastors because they currently had a local one), so when I ran out of books, I ran out of books. I didn't know if there was a local library or where that would be, because, as I found out later, absolutely nobody ever approached that place, and most people didn't even know there was one (I was always the only one there). So, seeing how I wasn't allowed to read regular books and my teacher was very religious, I thought maybe that would be OK because I knew fuck about the constitution.  I was not a prick when that happened; I was ten and a really shy kid who didn't socialise much because I was new in town and scared of the people around me, since they were too different to anyone I knew before. I became a prick over time, when it became clear that no matter how hard I tried, I would always be held back by people who felt my effort wasn't fair. So I stopped making an effort, and started doing the very minimum I needed to get decent results. And it's worked so far; people don't expect much from me and think I try my hardest when actually I half-ass everything the day before. It brought me a crisis when I realised I can't do the same for my thesis, but besides that, it's been a sweet nine years. And yeah, I know how that sounds, but there's no way to put it without sounding like a condescending asshole (believe me, I've tried), so I eventually just stopped caring about that too.  And yeah, I'm a he.
>They do. SR deals with a flat spacetime. GR deals with a dynamic spacetime. This curvature explains the force of gravity.  That's funny, I particularly like how you fucked up GR and SR, and got it the wrong way around.   GR deals with flat spacetime, and SR deals with dynamic spacetime. SR deals with bodies in motion within the spacetime and GR deals with spacetime as created by a static body (non-moving).   And just a few posts ago you told me the GR is not about spacetime, but is about gravity! So who's getting things wrong and who does not appear to understand?   We'll I guess it is a bit complex, perhaps you are not the right person for this debate after all.   >This curvature explains the force of gravity.  So you can use your extensive knowledge of GR and SR to explain why something falls down when you let it go?  And now you are saying again that Gravity is a 'force' and therefore somehow separate from spacetime.  Obviously your understanding of the subject is poor, because when it actually comes down to explaining it you just flounder.   So it is this 'force of gravity' that explains why things in motion and static mass influence the length of spacetime? (or the length of time?) and if so how?  This brings me back to LCDM, and allows me to questions then why you require the ability to 'dial in' extra gravity so that the  'opposing force' to gravity does not cause galaxies to 'fly apart', and of course you cant explain how this other mysterious force (centrifugal force) acts like an anti-gravity force. (straight from Newton).   And why you simulate cosmic motion using Newtonian dynamics.   Why can't you measure or observe any curvature? Treating it as a curvature how do you explain the differences in the duration of time at different locations. Is it infinite geodesics or something. Does the 'worldlines' imply that this space length of time does not correspond to an equivalent length change in space?  Thus giving you your 'time like' and 'space like' curvy bits?  It appears you really do not have a strong understanding after all, but you can quote from books like a demon it appears. Now I know what you understand, and what you don't understand.   You do not understand that Relativity describes and predicts the dimension of spacetime length. Relativity describes spacetime, the properties of spacetime determines why things fall down, and why things orbit. It describes why GPS clocks measure different time, and it describes why LIGO measures changes in length (not shape).   [SEP] > GR deals with flat spacetime, and SR deals with dynamic spacetime  wrong. how embarrassing to correct someone in such a condescending way and get it wrong yourself.  >perhaps you are not the right person for this debate  no one who disagrees with you is ever the "right person for debate" for you. so far we are still waiting for a single person agreeing with you on reddit on the topic of physics. there has never been a single comment supporting anything you claim. apparently everyone is just incompetent, bar you.  >This brings me back to LCDM, and allows me to questions then why you require the ability to 'dial in' extra gravity so that the 'opposing force' to gravity does not cause galaxies to 'fly apart', and of course you cant explain how this other mysterious force (centrifugal force) acts like an anti-gravity force. (straight from Newton).    http   here's all the evidence you need for dark matter.   >You do not understand that Relativity describes and predicts the dimension of spacetime length. Relativity describes spacetime, the properties of spacetime determines why things fall down, and why things orbit. It describes why GPS clocks measure different time, and it describes why LIGO measures changes in length (not shape).  relativty works well. but the problem is that your private theory isn't relativity. it's in disagreement with relativity. all you keep claiming is that it makes the same predictions while never showing the math that it does. it's fairly obvious from the setup that it doesn't. with you not being capable of any math, i am assuming that you haven't figured out yet that your "simpler explanation of relativity" does in fact not work. which then is just sad.
No, you know what, we can't stop posting about the shit we've had to put up with. They sold us a broken product, which gives us every right to be angry, but that's not it! It has been broken for half a year! As soon as we forget about the MCC and only care about H5, we have lost as consumers. We've allowed a big corporation as Microsoft to screw us over completely.  "Oh you're going to buy Halo 5? Psh fucking idiot, I bet you sleep at night under 343's crusty ballsack. You deserve to be treated like shit."  No. That's not what we are saying. No one said that. What we are saying though is that people that preorder Halo 5 completely accept that they've been forced to pay 120 dollars for ONE functioning game. I can't say that enough. I think Halo 5 is going to be fantastic, I loved the beta, and I bet it will work at launch, but if I preorder the game it's like I've completely forgot that they made me pay for something that didn't work. They can't fix the MCC by releasing a working Halo 5.  "Umm, guys, it's a video game. If they want to spend their money on that, then that's their decision. You don't own the franchise, Microsoft and 343 do."  It's not just about a video game. It's about consumers being fucked over by large companies. It's anyones decision if they want to buy Halo 5 or not, but I will not sit and watch while others accept the fact that they are being screwed over, without saying anything.  Us complaining about this isn't even about us hoping that the MCC will soon be fixed anymore. It will probably still be broken when H5 launches. You say: "Find something else to occupy our time with while the MCC continues to be fixed."  I have waited. I have waited for half a year. I defended them the first months. Shit happens. They'll fix it, and we'll be fine soon. Then, just the other day, I realized that I've been waiting for far too long, and the reality that the MCC most likely never will see that day where it's completely fixed dawned upon me.  Believe me, we know that our shouts won't change shit. But if we, just for one moment, stay silent about it, we'll start forgetting. We'll forget how Microsoft made us pay 60 dollars for a broken product, and we'll then pay another 60 dollars for something that just might work.  "Well yeah, it shouldn't have been, but it was, so we can't really go back in time and fix anything now can we?"  You're right. We can't. That is exactly why we are shouting about it. If we can't fix it, then we most certainly can't forget about it.  " "We have every right to complain" You do, but that doesn't mean we really need to hear about it, or believe that we should be treated like shit just because we're excited about the new installment in the franchise."  You shouldn't be treated like shit for being excited by the new installment in the franchise. It's very hard to see the sad reality when it comes to something you love. I want to preorder and be overly excited about Halo 5 and buy the hell out of it on release. But I won't, because if I do, I know that I've let the big corporation win. They might earn a damned lot of money out of others, but at least I'll know that they didn't win me over.  Nobody is treating you like shit because you are excited about Halo 5. Just because they tell you that you shouldn't preorder it, it doesn't mean they're treating you like shit. They are just trying to protect us as consumers from being screwed by the big guys. They haven't let Microsoft win them over yet, and that's why they go against you. Because it's the only way to make you realize. And maybe, someday, we'll all realize what is happening. And once and for all, we will stand together, and say: No. Not again. [SEP] > No, you know what, we can't stop posting about the shit we've had to put up with. They sold us a broken product, which gives us every right to be angry, but that's not it! It has been broken for half a year! As soon as we forget about the MCC and only care about H5, we have lost as consumers. We've allowed a big corporation as Microsoft to screw us over completely.  I'm not saying to just ignore everything, what I'm saying is to just take it easy for a bit. Let 343 work on the game, and in the meantime have fun doing something different. Play Pokemon or something, watch an old movie, go outside.   >No. That's not what we are saying. No one said that. What we are saying though is that people that preorder Halo 5 completely accept that they've been forced to pay 120 dollars for ONE functioning game. I can't say that enough. I think Halo 5 is going to be fantastic, I loved the beta, and I bet it will work at launch, but if I preorder the game it's like I've completely forgot that they made me pay for something that didn't work. They can't fix the MCC by releasing a working Halo 5.  Nobody's forced to pay for anything, and who said that everyone whose buying Halo 5 bought MCC? Just because MCC is in a terrible state doesn't guaranty that Halo 5 will be terrible, that's why people pre-order. Some people don't give a shit about multiplayer and just want to enjoy the campaign. Some people have faith that 343's A-team are going to deliver. It's not up to you to judge anybody.   >Believe me, we know that our shouts won't change shit. But if we, just for one moment, stay silent about it, we'll start forgetting. We'll forget how Microsoft made us pay 60 dollars for a broken product, and we'll then pay another 60 dollars for something that just might work.  "Made us pay" Lol nobody made you do shit.  >Nobody is treating you like shit because you are excited about Halo 5. Just because they tell you that you shouldn't preorder it, it doesn't mean they're treating you like shit. They are just trying to protect us as consumers from being screwed by the big guys. They haven't let Microsoft win them over yet, and that's why they go against you. Because it's the only way to make you realize. And maybe, someday, we'll all realize what is happening. And once and for all, we will stand together, and say: No. Not again.  Yeah plenty people are attacking the people excited about Halo 5. You were on that HSC thread as well, so I know you saw people attacking others. And lol outside of Reddit, if not the internet, nobody really cares about people boycotting through not pre-ordering or not buying the game at all. You're all the minority, and honestly if you guys want to "protect consumers" and win people on your side, being rude and condescending is not how you do it.  And besides, if the game actually turns out to be fun, why deprive yourself of enjoyment just because the previous one had some issues? Doesn't that mean that they're improving by making the next installments better? If I bought an album that was shit, and the next album by that band was awesome, I'm not going to hold a grudge against them, I'm going to be enjoying the next album. 
>The issue is that perseveration doesn't only kick up when it's something you enjoy. You can perseverate with something you don't like in order to avoid something you don't like even more. (E.x. cleaning to avoid homework) >  "Doesn't only" works both ways. The issue is finding ways to interrupt it when necessary.  Perseveration, in ADHD, is usually triggered by things that stimulate a person past a specific threshold.   Using anxiety to trigger perseveration in order to procrastinate... That's a different issue. I fail to see its relevance.    >The other issue is that equating "avid" (very eager/wanting to do something very much) reader with perseveration makes it sound like reading is a choice. It isn't, because perseveration isn't a choice. Perseveration is literally doing something in excess, beyond what you actually want to do. That's not eagerness, it's compulsion and I don't think we should romanticize it. >   You talk like you think you're a slave. "Oh noes! There isn't a choice!"  That sentiment contains less truth than you believe.  You have a choice about how you respond to it, and what you do with it.   Knowing ADHD as I do now, diagnosed as an adult, all this information could have changed my life had I known it earlier, even without access to meds.  In terms of Low Arousal Theory perseveration is triggered by things that stimulate us.   Look at all the thing ADHD people do to self stim. From fidgeters to adrenaline junkies.  They're all associated with increasing dopamine levels, which means that they aren't generally associated with discomfort.  Time management is a skill. Knowing one's own ADHD is also a skill. Time management with ADHD is a very special skill (which I don't claim to have mastered, that would be a lie).   Use alarms, e.g. the Pomodoro technique, or any other method available to interrupt perseveration.  e.g. Do your reading where you know you will be interrupted if you can't afford to lose too much time to it..   Perseveration is. To use a saying I hate, "It is what it is."  You can view it negatively and dwell on how much you hate it... or you can find advantages and learn to work with and around it.    >Also, what do you mean we should be able to do "well" at something when we learn to like/enjoy it? It isn't necessarily a question of whether someone enjoys reading. I enjoy reading but I literally can't do it for an extended period of time unless I'm medicated/perseverating. Would that make me bad at reading?   Medication raises your state closer to that arousal threshold.   That's why you can (mildly?) perseverate and/or read easier on it.   In this framework, maybe you don't love reading. Maybe you're like me with maths and have issues with it (not maths phobic, but some kind of hangup).  Maybe you just don't enjoy it enough. (Enjoyment is also arousal, btw.)  Have you never found anything you enjoyed reading enough to get lost in it?   You do know that neurotypicals get lost in reading, film, and music too, right? Not usually as powerfully, but they do (and "neurotypical" isn't as well defined as people like to think it is).   On meds, I have to take extra care. Sometimes it's "improved focus" and sometimes it's mild/low grade perseveration. And it can be a fine line between.  I have alarms on my phone to warn me about break time, because I can become time blind with certain tasks.   We also have to learn to keep the larger task in focus (and not get lost wikipedia surfing, for example). This is both easier and harder on meds.    You seem to have a bias against ADHD symptoms and are determined to see them as negatives.  You will never be able to separate yourself from ADHD; it had a hand in forming you. Without ADHD, you wouldn't recognise yourself.  As contradictory as it may sound, you need to learn to accept yourself while bettering yourself.   Civilisation has not existed very long, and modern society since the industrial revolution is is nothing compared to how long our species has been evolving.  To automatically assume that the neuro-atypical is defective or "ill" is not logical. If you look at the epidemiology statistics for ADHD, we are too many to be a recent accident, it is genetic.  We were not culled by evolution. That means we must have had advantages.   Admittedly, they don't seem well suited to modern society, but you can only work with what you've got.  Are you going to work with it, or are you going to resent it?   Bitterness and anger as motivators can only carry you so far. And they rarely help one be a better person. [SEP] Perseveration in ADHD occurs due to executive functioning impairment. Task switching & properly allocating attention fall within that realm. Perseveration can also be used as a coping mechanism, to avoid stressful or daunting situations.   >You talk like you think you're a slave. "Oh noes! There isn't a choice!"  >That sentiment contains less truth than you believe.  >You have a choice about how you respond to it, and what you do with it.    Your use of the word "slave" rubs me the wrong way because it's condescending. You're addressing me as if you somehow know more about my own ADHD management than I do. I don't speak as if I think I'm a slave, I speak as if I'm someone who has dealt with crippling perseverating behaviors. I speak as if I am someone who experiences not being able to do the things I know I should do because I am compulsively engaging in something else.  Perseveration is something an individual cannot control. If they could, it wouldn't be perseveration. Something external must break the circuit yet you say I speak as if I have no choice in the matter.  It's not a question of having a choice, it's a question of having the ability to make the right choice. This isn't voluntary. I didn't opt-in.  >In terms of Low Arousal Theory perseveration is triggered by things that stimulate us.   It's interesting that you would say this now but earlier you said using anxiety to trigger perseveration in order to procrastinate wasn't relevant to the discussion. Anxiety stimulates us. Procrastination stimulates us. You seem to be saying two different things.  >Perseveration is. To use a saying I hate, "It is what it is."  >You can view it negatively and dwell on how much you hate it... or you can find advantages and learn to work with and around it.   Or I could acknowledge the reality that it sucks & move on with life. This isn't an all or nothing situation. I'm not going to romanticize compulsive behaviors, that doesn't mean I'm dwelling in negativity.  >In this framework, maybe you don't love reading.   But I do.  >Maybe you're like me with maths and have issues with it (not maths phobic, but some kind of hangup).   Nope.  >Maybe you just don't enjoy it enough. (Enjoyment is also arousal, btw.)   I love reading.  >Have you never found anything you enjoyed reading enough to get lost in it?   I never said that, but OK.  >You seem to have a bias against ADHD symptoms and are determined to see them as negatives.   I'm not determined to see them as negatives. I'm determined to live in reality. I'm not a child, so I don't need anyone to lie to me & tell me broccoli tastes like candy for me to eat it. Likewise, I don't need anyone to lie to me & try to paint a picture of ADHD symptoms as gifts for me to love my life.  >As contradictory as it may sound, you need to learn to accept yourself while bettering yourself.   I do accept myself! I also accept the reality of the situation. Maybe you could work on that too.  >We were not culled by evolution. That means we must have had advantages.   Evolution doesn't only select for advantageous traits. It selects for advantageous traits + retains neutral traits. Take the inefficient design of the human eye for example.  Besides, "hey, we didn't die out so we must be doing something right!" is a poor argument anyway.  >Are you going to work with it, or are you going to resent it?  > >Bitterness and anger as motivators can only carry you so far. And they rarely help one be a better person.  Unfortunately for your argument, I'm not bitter. It's incredibly childish to insinuate that I am just because I don't subscribe to your perspective. 
Honestly I just feel sorry for you. I wanna try and help, I could of laughed like "hahaha how pathetic is this and kept scrolling" (because people do that probably all the time) but I wanna try and just openly give some advice. If you wanna reject it in your bubble that's fine. But if you actually want advise on anything, just message me or talk it here, no skin off my back. [SEP] >But if you actually want advise on anything  I don't care what advice some condescending ass on the internet has, I already got out of inceldom by getting my mug fixed (no thanks to any of the bullshit platitudes you and thousands of others have spouted).
Let's cut this analogy even finer. If someone comes in with a wound infection, you don't simply start them on IV antibiotics. First, you examine the wound: is it purulent, traumatic, bleeding?  Giving out hormones without a psychiatric evaluation is the equivalent of giving out antibiotics without examining the wound. Is she manic? Obsessive compulsive? Depressed?  In the US, I guarantee the clinic she went to does not have a mental health professional on hand. There just are not enough to go around.   So... My suspicion is that she showed up without a referral from the therapist and expected to recieve hormones off the bat. And... In an atypical presentation (gender dysphoria presenting at 19 is atypical), the doctor wasn't comfortable starting hormones yet.  She even mentioned in the replies that she could've started hormones there, but they were "rude." [SEP] >Let's cut this analogy even finer. If someone comes in with a wound infection, you don't simply start them on IV antibiotics. First, you examine the wound: is it purulent, traumatic, bleeding? > >Giving out hormones without a psychiatric evaluation is the equivalent of giving out antibiotics without examining the wound. Is she manic? Obsessive compulsive? Depressed?  I see the point that you are making but the analogy would only be true if there were multiple causes for wanting hormones, when in reality there is basically one (except for tOCD which is pretty quick and easy to initially diagnose). Being manic has no bearing on dysphoria or hormone therapy. Being depressed is a reason to prescribe hormones quicker. Neither mania nor depression has as a symptom a desire for cross gender hormone treatment - cis people simply don't want hormone therapy, it's pretty easy to understand, as I said in another comment, do you think you'd erroneously get horrmones? Neither would pretty much anyone else.  >In the US, I guarantee the clinic she went to does not have a mental health professional on hand. There just are not enough to go around.  > >So... My suspicion is that she showed up without a referral from the therapist and expected to recieve hormones off the bat. And... In an atypical presentation (gender dysphoria presenting at 19 is atypical), the doctor wasn't comfortable starting hormones yet.  Presenting with dysphoria at 19 is probably the most typical presentation of the condition I can imagine. Almost all the trans people I know didn't go for hormones until in their twenties or later (in a lot of cases much later). I myself didn't get any dysphoria until my early 20s. I'm not sure why you are so adamant about things which you clearly are misinformed on, maybe you are gettng your info from a bad source,  >She even mentioned in the replies that she could've started hormones there, but they were "rude."  It's tough being a trans person and navigating medical professionals who (like yourself) are misinformed, transphobic, condescending, gatekeeping, etc. Until you've been through it yourself I'd say a mature thing to do would be not judge people who've been through an experience you frankly can't possibly understand. I learnt not to do that in preschool personally.
As far as I can tell, your argument is that a lot of men are just assholes to everyone, so women on the receiving end of condescension shouldnt think its specifically because they are women?  Notwithstanding that many many women will say that, in their experience, they are subject to comments that men are not.   Anyway, you demanded studies  Anderson and Leaper. 1998. “Meta-Analysis of Gender Effects on Conversational Inturruption: Who, What, When, Where, and Why.” Sex Roles 39(3-4):225-252.  Farley, Ashcroft, Stasson, and Nusbaum. 2010. “”Nonverbal Reactions to Conversational Inturruptions: A Test of Complementary Theory and Status/Gender Parallel.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 34(4):193-206.  Hancock and Rubin. 2015. “Influence of Communication Partner’s Gender on Language.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 34(1):46-64.   Kollock, Blumstein, and Schwartz. 1985. “Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational privileges and Duties. American Sociological Review 50(1):34-46   http    http    http    [SEP] >As far as I can tell, your argument is that a lot of men are just assholes to everyone, so women on the receiving end of condescension shouldnt think its specifically because they are women?  My argument is that I've yet to see good evidence for the phenomenon, and t hat an individual female mechanic has little way to tell whether a condescending customer is condescending to just her (because she's female) or is condescending to everyone (because he's a prick).  >Notwithstanding that many many women will say that, in their experience, they are subject to comments that men are not.  Yes, I addressed that: it is entirely possible that such a trend is fabricated wholesale out of confirmation and sampling bias, in the same way that confirmation bias completely fabricated the 'women are bad driver' trend. It's also possible that it's a very real trend. The point is we won't know unless evidence is brought to the table.  >Anyway, you demanded studies  'Demand' implies I'm being biligerant and unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for empirical evidence for a phenomenon that could well be as illusory as 'women are bad drivers'.  >Anderson and Leaper. 1998. “Meta-Analysis of Gender Effects on Conversational Inturruption: Who, What, When, Where, and Why.” Sex Roles 39(3-4):225-252. > >Farley, Ashcroft, Stasson, and Nusbaum. 2010. “”Nonverbal Reactions to Conversational Inturruptions: A Test of Complementary Theory and Status/Gender Parallel.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 34(4):193-206. > >Hancock and Rubin. 2015. “Influence of Communication Partner’s Gender on Language.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 34(1):46-64. > > >Kollock, Blumstein, and Schwartz. 1985. “Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational privileges and Duties. American Sociological Review 50(1):34-46 > > http  > > http  > > http   Thank you for being the first to actually provide solid information on this. You'd be surprised how outraged people were that I dare ask such a thing.
It wouldn't be wrong to consider women inferior when comparing men and women side-by-side. But the reality of things is, we cannot compare men to women even though we are all a subset of the group humans. Instead, we must judge both genders to their respective standards.  There are some qualities that are more pertinent in women than men, and likewise some more pertinent in men than women. Hence, men and women need to be judged to two entirely different standards. [SEP] > Hence, men and women need to be judged to two entirely different standards.  Because women do not meet men's standards. Your total relativism on this issue is honestly less in line with Red Pill's general philosophy than /u/Thenextprince's screed.   I can understand encouraging a younger member to move past the anger phase, but you are condescending to the point of distorting TRP's hard-nosed realism. Women mostly contribute a vagina and womb to society. In general, these are their best assets.   In countless other measurable skills and attributes men tend to dominate. Believing in some kind of magical "balance" is essentially religion. Healthy relationships between men and women will involve a strong, clear-headed man leading and a kind, generally selfless woman providing support. It's pretty obvious this is not the rule, though.   I cannot think of any objective criteria where men and women are "equal" unless you define the term so loosely that it simply means adult humans.   This doesn't mean women are evil or worthless. They provide a terrific survival benefit to the species, and in many cases are charming, fun, intelligent individuals. But this idea that men and women actually embody polar forces in harmony or something just isn't based in reality.
That's such backwards thinking. That's like questioning how many rape allegations are false. Just because a handful are made up doesn't discredit the overwhelming majority. More importantly, it doesn't discredit the actual problem of sexual harassment. [SEP] > it doesn't discredit the actual problem of sexual harassment.     like "mansplaining" and "manspreading" ?
I think there are two problems here:  1. IQ tests are a flawed measure of intelligence. These flaws range from practice effects, to cultural bias, to problems with statistical and theoretical modeling. An IQ difference of "15 points", or 1 standard deviation on one of the scales used to describe IQ, was used in the horribly racist book "The Bell Curve" to give fake validity to the claim that black people are less intelligent than white people.    (Spoiler warning: They are not.)   I have a feeling that your claim of a 15 point difference for a specific subgroup of Jews has similar problems to those of the book.   Also: "Most" IQ test? Which ones? If it really is "most", many of them will use sometimes wildly differing methods of standardization, so "15" points is absolutely meaningless. For example, some tests use a mean of 50, and a standard deviation of 10, others use 100 and 15, or 100 and 10 - z standardization uses 0 and 1, respectively. I repeat: "15 points" is meaningless, even before going into the flaws of IQ models in general.  2. Where do most Nobel Prize winners come from? Do they really come from all over the world, or only from a select sample of industrialized nations, with the necessary facilities and education systems to even produce Nobel candidates? How big is the proportion of people with Jewish ancestry in these countries compared to the proportion of people with Jewish ancestry in this, more specific, population? How big is the proportion of people with Jewish ancestry in academia?   In short: Your "statistics" have a terrible flaw: Selection bias. You need to intelligently select your sample and the population you want to draw conclusions from/compare it with to make any sense. The way you put it now, every impoverished inhabitant of a third-world country with no access to even basic education figures in on the "against" side of the argument, skewing your "results".  Source: Undergrad-level knowledge of Psychology and Statistics. [SEP] >IQ tests are a flawed measure of intelligence. These flaws range from practice effects, to cultural bias, to problems with statistical and theoretical modeling.  Agree to disagree. IQ test scores correlate with educational achievement, income, longevity, morbidity, crime rate, etc... That doesn't make you curious?   >Also: "Most" IQ test? Which ones? If it really is "most", many of them will use sometimes wildly differing methods of standardization, so "15" points is absolutely meaningless.  "When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less"(wikipedia), so there's your answer. You knew that, so this is just pedantic bullshit on your part. No need to turn into a thesis examiner, I'm not writing an academic paper here.    >Where do most Nobel Prize winners come from? Do they really come from all over the world, or only from a select sample of industrialized nations, with the necessary facilities and education systems to even produce Nobel candidates? How big is the proportion of people with Jewish ancestry in these countries compared to the proportion of people with Jewish ancestry in this, more specific, population?   Are you serious? Where do the Jews represent anything close to 25% of the population of a major western country? For reference:  US 2%, France 1%, Canada 1%,   Germany, UK, Russia, South africa, Netherlands, Brazil, Australia, Argentina: less than 1%   Rest of the industrialized world: even less  >You need to intelligently select your sample and the population you want to draw conclusions from/compare it with to make any sense. The way you put it now, every impoverished inhabitant of a third-world country with no access to even basic education figures in on the "against" side of the argument, skewing your "results".  This explains nothing, as per the above population figures. Lose the condescending attitude, undergrad-level psychologist (people brag about that, now?).
I would like to clarify a few things, and I hope my clarifications generate no animosity between us. I consider myself a pretty open minded individual and I can see both sides of the argument. But I do feel you're dealing with some misinformation, and maybe some bias in your own statement. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, I would like to be corrected. I hope we can have a friendly, and productive conversation - and perhaps we can both learn from it.   Trump proposed banning further Muslim immigration, not banning Islam, as you seem to believe. Additionally, the ban it's about securing boarders, not about hate towards a group or race of people. He has obviously taken steps towards limiting other types of immigration as well, and the reasons for this are many. However, I feel that there is a stereotype towards Islam that has only been reinforced by recent attacks in Europe, and despite those responsible being part of a small minority, people are getting scared. It's natural for people to want to feel safe, and it's hard to feel secure in an airport when the last thing you heard on the news was a report of scores of people murdered in an airport.   I have friends who were going to visit Brussels this month, but have canceled their plans. It is the same concept as your Disneyland example, but on a worldwide scale, and not hypothetical.   Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Islam is the inherent problem, there have been many instances throughout history where the teachings of a religion has been misinterpreted and led to bloodshed (Christianity, for example). But there is something off regarding the silence from the Islamic community, I feel that it would do a great deal of good if Americans saw a rising up of the peaceful majority of Islamic believers. A public outcry against the acts of violence, especially in countries where there are large Islamic communities would make a world of difference on the global outlook towards Islam as a religion. But until that happens, until there is more positive than negative coverage of Islam, this trend of stereotyping will continue to slip forward, and probably result in some pretty bad situations.   America will always be a place of free religion, as long as that religion doesn't inhibit the freedoms of others. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to exist even though they represent a truly corrosive "religion" which blatantly harbor hate and use it for their own devices. In no way will the Islamic religion, at it's core, ever get close to this level of indecency. I don't see Islam or Muslims being banned from America. I don't feel that, in my town, there is excessive stereotyping against Muslims or Islam.   A few notes on your "common factors":   Not all terrorists are Muslim. [ http   Not all terrorists are men. Being in the military, I've closely studied the tactics of terrorists and the use of woman is common, especially in war zones. [ http    Many terrorists have not killed people. If you think that every misguided Islamic follower immediately meanders off to murder someone or a group of people you would be wrong. Terrorists are not on a lower level of intelligence, they aren't mindless killing zombies. Some comb the internet, searching for converts tot their cause. Some spread verbal terrorism (words that incite hate and violence). And some sit at home and silently cheer their comrades onward. Terrorism is a movement, "terrorist" is not a status that one gains on blowing themselves up in public.  [SEP] Some thoughts:  I think /u/TLTheDougler has called out most of the points that I wanted to address but as a Muslim I think that there are some other points that I should step in and comment on as well.  >But there is something off regarding the silence from the Islamic community, I feel that it would do a great deal of good if Americans saw a rising up of the peaceful majority of Islamic believers. A public outcry against the acts of violence, especially in countries where there are large Islamic communities would make a world of difference on the global outlook towards Islam as a religion.   This is something I hear a fair bit as a Muslim and our community has done A LOT to counter the idea that Muslims aren't raising their voice against extremism. I can understand why it may seem that Muslims are kinda quiet about it but in every sense of the phrase: Muslims are very much standing up against extremism.  Off the top of my head I can remember countless examples of the Islamic community rejecting and speaking out against terrorism. To site a few significant examples of this:  Letter to Badgdadi. An open letter to the ISIS leader from HUNDREDS, literally HUNDREDS of reputable Islamic scholars, ranging from a multitude of background and academic work. Signed not only by Islamic scholars but important Muslims spokespersons, Imams, Diplomats and non-Muslim religious leaders and academics alike. I would HIGHLY recommend you read this letter yourself(To get an understanding of how we view the acts of ISIS from an academic point of view) and take a look at the plethora of signatories it has received from around the world.   Also this amazing post that was made after the Paris attacks which highlights some of the many voices that were raised in the aftermath of the attack. A prime example of the Muslim community coming together and raising their voice against tyrants and terrorists. Please also go through all the condemnations in this one.  If there is still any doubt then here is another collection of Islamic statements against terrorism. It would take you an hour to go through them all. The even greater thing is that right after that he lists a list of other sources that have also made lists of Islamic statements made against terrorism, so there's even more to read. You could go on and on and on.  Or how about this social campaign made to promote the Prophet's(PBUH) virtues to counter negative stereotypes about Islam and Muslims.  The point is, there has been a TON of voices raised by Muslims in response to terrorism. Remember, Muslims are the biggest casualty group in these terror attacks around the world. Our pain runs deep and our hatred for these ideals is strong. We were never afraid of raising our voices, it's just that we hardly ever get the stage to do so. It's really a shame that despite all these efforts some think that the Muslim community chooses to remain quiet about this glaring issue. I hope I was able to help erase some misconceptions. Apologies if I come off as rude or condescending, that wasn't my intent.
Did you read the rest of the post after that sentence where it’s explained how they’re only doing it to women, not other men? And how just about every trans person notices a huge difference in the amount of condescension they get when they transition to a different gender? You can tell it’s gender-based, not just regular condescension. Women get condescension more than men BECAUSE they’re women. [SEP] >Did you read the rest of the post after that sentence where it’s explained how they’re only doing it to women, not other men?   yes. did you read the rest of the post where I explained that men experience this being done to other men all the time? You're just using anecdotes to prove your point, but I have my own anecdotes.  >And how just about every trans person notices a huge difference in the amount of condescension they get when they transition to a different gender?  idk, what about them? every trans person? there's not that many trans people out there, much less ones who go through a visible transition.  >You can tell it’s gender-based, not just regular condescension.  how can you tell?  >Women get condescension more than men BECAUSE they’re women.  1) how do you know women get condescension more than men  2) how do you know that when women get condescension, it's BECAUSE they are women?  You know that women "womansplain" things to men all the time, right? How many commercials are on TV that depict the inept oblivious husband who doesn't know how to do X household/parenting task, where the wife swoops in and saves the day and gives her husband that pitiful condescending look of disappointment in his failure and he shrugs his shoulders with shame? How many times do women condescend men about "you don't know what it's like to be a woman" or "omg period cramps, men just don't get it" or the whole "let's make men feel the pain of childbirth to show them what we go through because they just can't understand the pain of being a woman"?  You choose to only see when men do it to women because that's what you're looking for. You will no doubt dismiss all the examples I've given as not being valid for some reason, because they don't fit your preconceived notion.
Meat industry reform is impossible given present demand, it will not happen. Reform also requires activism, most people don't particularly desire to be activists.   We hope that one day enough people decide to eat plant products instead, and animal agriculture shrinks slowly.   I don't know where you get this weird idea from that vegans feel so superior, or have some bizarre Utopian view of things.  We think animal agriculture is terrible, so we abstain from contributing to it in the way that most matters to all industry: monetarily.   It's the same reason I abstain from plenty of stuff that I think is unethical, while still realizing that I'm not some saint who is single-handedly saving the world.   Quick pedantic point: Being vegan really is cheap and easy once you get the hang of things, it's really not the expensive and difficult luxury non-vegans make it out to be, at least not for most. [SEP] > I don't know where you get this weird idea from that vegans feel so superior, or have some bizarre Utopian view of things. > We think animal agriculture is terrible, so we abstain from contributing to it in the way that most matters to all industry: monetarily.  Its because you don't see the unfortunate futility of it all given the global situation. Desire to reduce the suffering of another living creature is commendable, but many vegans don't see past the fuzzy warm feeling this idea gives them. That is where I, and many others, get the sense that you have a Utopian and sometimes condescending disposition about diet.   > It's the same reason I abstain from plenty of stuff that I think is unethical, while still realizing that I'm not some saint who is single-handedly saving the world.  I respect that, but you contribute to human suffering by countless products you use. For instance, the computer you're using as we speak. I just think that its a militant movement for its, albeit commendable, futility.   > Being vegan really is cheap and easy once you get the hang of things, it's really not the expensive and difficult luxury non-vegans make it out to be, at least not for most.  Once again, you overlook the fact that the average person already has shit to worry about: bills, job, kids, health, etc. The majority don't have the time or energy or won't want to make such drastic changes in diet. Eating is a carnal pleasure and many people, like myself, enjoy it extremely thoroughly. Its asking a lot in a multitude of ways 
Right, but that's not a wedding. $90/plate for a full, multi-course dinner meal with attentive wait staff can be normal depending on the city you live in. You'd know this if you ever tried to plan a wedding you'd be surprised how astronomical shit can be.   My wedding was under $3k but average weddings are $20k and it someone wants to spend that, it's their decision.  [SEP] > that's not a wedding  A wedding is two people getting married. The how, where, etc is up to the people getting married, meaning that a restaurant meal (or, hell -- ordered pizzas or a taco truck or a McDonald's spread) very well could be food at a wedding.  > a full, multi-course dinner meal with attentive wait staff  And that's ridiculously fancy, and not a reasonable benchmark for what constitutes an average wedding. Most weddings don't have a full multi-course meal with full-on wait staff. My point wasn't "$90 per plate is a crazy high amount to pay for an extremely nice dinner with a full wait staff." My point was that $90 per plate is a lot to spend to feed people at a wedding. And it is.   > You'd know this if you ever tried to plan a wedding  I've been involved in planning multiple weddings, but thanks for being so condescending. None of them came anywhere close to $90/plate, because the people getting married didn't feel the need to go overboard on the food.  > average weddings are $20k and it someone wants to spend that, it's their decision.  I never said otherwise, but I'd like to point out that the figure you cited is misleading. The average cost of a wedding is $26k, but most people actually spend less than $10k. (Source) Exorbitant celebrity weddings (and other super-rich-people weddings) drive up the average so that it is not at all indicative of what the average person spends on their wedding.
> Regarding your assertion that Siri's "understanding" is not the same as human understanding, of course it is not the same. They may not even be comparable. They are different systems completely.   If you accept this then I don't see how you can assert people are overestimating the competence of humans when assessing AI when you acknowledge they are different systems and may not be comparable. I guess you believe that symbol manipulation without meaning is equivalent to symbol manipulation with meaning?  > The fact that they are not the same is a non-sequitur, however, in that not being the same does not imply one has greater or lesser "understanding" than the other.  Well I believe its clear that humans do have a greater understanding than Siri of communication and the symbols being manipulated. I already provided sources of a huge body of work across multiple disciplines from philosophy to linguistics to neuroscience that illustrate exactly why humans do indeed have much greater understanding than Siri does.  I guess where we disagree is you don't think its possible to claim that humans have a greater understanding of manipulating language symbols for meaning than Siri?  Or maybe you are claiming that meaning doesn't matter in this case all that matters is symbol manipulation?  [SEP] >If you accept this then I don't see how you can assert people are overestimating the competence of humans when assessing AI when you acknowledge they are different systems and may not be comparable.   If they are not comparable, then obviously people are overestimating the competence of humans relative to AI by comparing themselves to it at all (as you do below).   >I guess you believe that symbol manipulation without meaning is equivalent to symbol manipulation with meaning?  How do you define "meaning"? Can you quantify its origin and why humans have it but Siri does not, other than by some vague appeal to your own p-zombie-candidate assessment of your own subjective experience?   > Well I believe its clear that humans do have a greater understanding than Siri of communication and the symbols being manipulated.  Here is that comparison that contradicts your earlier implication that the two cases are not comparable. Cake and eat it too?   > I already provided sources of a huge body of work across multiple disciplines from philosophy to linguistics to neuroscience that illustrate exactly why humans do indeed have much greater understanding than Siri does.  Argument to authority (which is ironic because there are authorities on both sides of the argument; I won't condescend to you by providing sources to the huge body of work showing the opposite). I'm not on reddit to debate with your nebulous conception of other people's opinions. If you have an argument have the courtesy to lay it out and I will then know exactly which points I should go out of my way to argue against specifically.   > I guess where we disagree is you don't think its possible to claim that humans have a greater understanding of manipulating language symbols for meaning than Siri? Or maybe you are claiming that meaning doesn't matter in this case all that matters is symbol manipulation?  I think that Siri is an isolated specialized program, and that if you are going to attempt a relative assessment of its capabilities it is disingenuous to compare it in isolation to the human brain as a whole, which is a collection of interconnected specialized programs. The fair thing to do is compare it to one corresponding specialized ability of the brain. Then compare another AI (say an image recognition algorithm, etc) to another specialized ability in the brain. While the brain is focused on any individual specialized task, I contend that the depth of its "understanding" is shallow indeed, sometimes even shallower than AI's like Siri.  
You literally just posted a Washington Post link that contradicted the very narrative you thought you were pushing.  Did you read the actual article?  Your article claimed that people from Carrier felt abandoned by Trump. 95% of the article talked about how people FELT about what was happening to them.  Then at the very bottom. THE VERY BOTTOM. Your own article pushing your narrative... Carrier saved 800 jobs (from what Trump claimed was originally 1,100) from going off-shores.  This of course was after your smug/disrespectful reply you gave in which I told you I had already responded to this exact post in a previous thread.  Please read the subreddit rules.   "Post only in good faith".  If you're gonna pedal fake news, can you at least like... actually review it? Please?  Edit: Yeah so I just pulled this from the link you posted:  "The Carrier deal itself prevented the plant from closing, but it didn’t stop the company from laying off about 500 of the 1,400 workers at the factory."  Do you read ANY of these articles you post daily? [SEP] >This of course was after your smug/disrespectful reply you gave in which I told you I had already responded to this exact post in a previous thread.?  You're right, I was wrong. I had no right to treat you so condescendingly. I'm sorry.
My input on this isn't really worth much, I live in Dubai so rent is insane here regardless the size.  I live in a 1,100sq ft apartment and my rent is equivalent to about 1.9k CAD.   1 bedroom, open plan kitchen, hallway (dining area) and living room with 1.5 bathrooms.  [SEP] >my input on this isn't worth much      Should've said that in the first place, you know, before giving your input in a condescending fashion
> Yes, that's the point. It's a moronic argument, synonymous to your own.   You invoked Godwin, therefore you lost the argument, by default. Move on moron.  > Untrue, unless you have evidence to support it. This is a broad generalization, with NO factual evidence.   Did I make a factual statement to be submitted to the Nobel prize committee? No I made an observation and said specifically "I suspect". This means I could be right or I could be wrong. If I am correct I don't give a fuck. If I am wrong, I equally don't give a fuck.  The person here taking the biggest offense is you, who clearly give a ton of fuck.  I suspect you are a fucking moron. This is evidence by your ignorant to the word "suspect" and your zealotry in over-analyzising a simple statement.  > That's dishonest, and serves no purpose in an argument.   What argument you moron? Go back and read the comments again, dickhead. I actually agreed with you that "atheism" has nothing to do with the initial argument.  > Your observations are unimportant, unless you are studying something, and properly handle your observations.  They are important to what I say. I'm studying the effect criticisms have towards atheist libertarians. I can observe that you are being a hissy moron. That's extremely important to my statement that you are a hissy moron.  > Trying to get a free pass to say whatever baseless shit you want by hiding it beneath "opinion" is not going to fly.  That's how opinions work son. Here is one example: In my opinion, you are a argumentative douchebag moron, who failed basic comprehension, and ignorant of the subtleties and nuance of the English language.  [SEP] > You invoked Godwin, therefore you lost the argument, by default. Move on moron.    No, you invoked Godwin. I gave an example for how silly your argument was.    > Did I make a factual statement to be submitted to the Nobel prize committee? No I made an observation and said specifically "I suspect". This means I could be right or I could be wrong. If I am correct I don't give a fuck. If I am wrong, I equally don't give a fuck.    So you don't care when you could be wrong, but you care when you are right? If you didn't care, you wouldn't be here trying to justify it.    > I suspect you are a fucking moron. This is evidence by your ignorant to the word "suspect" and your zealotry in over-analyzising a simple statement.    I didn't over-analyze anything. You made a broad generalization, and I asked why you would make such a claim without evidence. You attempted to defend your position with another generalization. If you think this is "zealous", then you have no business discussing evidence.    > What argument you moron? Go back and read the comments again, dickhead. I actually agreed with you that "atheism" has nothing to do with the initial argument.    You argued that his motivations were due to a distaste of authority. This not only had nothing to do with the discussion, but it is completely unfounded.    > They are important to what I say. I'm studying the effect criticisms have towards atheist libertarians. I can observe that you are being a hissy moron. That's extremely important to my statement that you are a hissy moron.    You are either a poor observer, or a bad liar. You should avoid holding libertarians to such standards, if you are incapable of meeting them yourself.    > That's how opinions work son. Here is one example: In my opinion, you are a argumentative douchebag moron, who failed basic comprehension, and ignorant of the subtleties and nuance of the English language.    If you feel that you have the right to express any opinion you wish, with no factual basis, then don't be surprised when you get called out for being a total idiot. If you want to represent your argument as some kind of actual evidence, don't be surprised when someone actually asks you to back it up. You've tried to hide behind a fallacy, an "opinion", and even a false definition of a word. Now this, this is evidence. From this, we can deduce several things with some relative accuracy. The issues with language suggest a younger age, or poor education. The attempted fallacy shows that you don't have any firm experience defending your position. The appeal to opinion shows that you are no longer capable of defending the fruit of your position, and wish to excuse your responsibility for making the claim to begin with, without actually living up to it. Condescending with the term "son" leads me to believe that you want to appear older, which is common among younger people. In this case, the evidence supports the theory that you are "just a dumb kid".
The original comment in this chain was a broad and baseless strawman of feminism. OP of this whole post was correct in pointing this out and criticizing the fact that it was getting up voted. Sorry I didn't think this was so hard to understand.  [SEP] >The original comment in this chain was a broad and baseless strawman of feminism  Which was edited well before you replied to my comment with a reply that had nothing to do with my comment.   >Sorry I didn't think this was so hard to understand.  There's no need to be so condescending, especially when it seems like you're the one who isn't understanding things
> try new things and/or improve their favorite builds  So we agree, adapt your build to the mechanic so you can play with it.  The whole league mechanic is about controlling your build and your damage, if you can't do that with your build, tweak it so you can do it.  But changing the way you were playing is harder than crying to force GGG changing the league mechanic. [SEP] > So we agree, adapt your build to the mechanic so you can play with it.  No we don't. Abyss was cool because the jewels enabled bad skill builds, that was refreshing to just try out skills that are in a bad spot and never used. I went with a shit build made 2 years ago and it worked decently. Bestiary disable some skills and ascendancy.  > The whole league mechanic is about controlling your build and your damage, if you can't do that with your build, tweak it so you can do it.  Have you heard about Slayer 20% culling strike ? If i don't have enough DPS to reduce from 20.1% => near 0% in 3sec after netting, i won't get the beast. In fact, for slayer, you have to get very high DPS. Ok i'll tweak the build : i don't take the culling strike node. Cool, one node is out option if i want to play the league mechanic. Great design. Well played.  > But changing the way you were playing is harder than crying to force GGG changing the league mechanic.  You can be condescendant all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's badly designed as soon as some builds are out of the mechanic. Everyone can do breach, prophecies, shaper, elder, complete atlas, hardbringer, cadiro. Every single one character can do what is in the core game. But it's normal to you that some builds are UNABLE to use the league mechanic ? Hope you liked my demonstration of your stupidness.
Culture:  > http   Ah, BreitBart, the world's #1 source for unbiased views. There's absolutely nothing in the article they write to support their theory that the police findings are inaccurate.  > http   Pretty tragic murder. Where's the evidence it - or the lack of a memorial - is related to 'culture' in any way?  Laws/Justice System:  > http   From BreitBart to [British shock tabloids] ( http  the parade of quality journalism keeps rolling on in. Actual journalistic outlets regularly [debunk the myth of no-go zones] ( http  but hey, that doesn't move copy.  > http   Another tabloid, brilliant. Okay, the Mirror is actually quoting the Independent (though curiously not linking their story) so let's see what [they have to say] ( http   - "There are believed to be dozens of Sharia “courts” operating in the UK. However, although they adjudicate on religious matters, they do not have the legal status of courts, acting more as councils or tribunals."  So... they aren't actually part of the justice system at all. A problem, and definitely one that can't be tolerated, but as usual the Mirror pumps up the inflammatory part while diverging a wee bit from the reality of the situation. Maybe use the actual Independent piece itself?  > http   A reputable source, at last! So some nutjobs go around and tell people not to go to clubs and it's somehow part of the 'laws/justice system'? I guess it's only a problem when it's done in the name of Islam, since when it's done in the name of any other religion it's just quaint.  > http   A 'dozen men in orange safety vests' trumpeting their beliefs does not mean they're a part of the justice system. Maybe you should reconsider renaming this category to 'the views of a couple dozen people in Europe' instead of 'Laws/Justice System'.  Education:  > http   From the article:  - "It said immigrant children were 85 per cent accountable for a four-per-cent increase in the number of children failing to get good enough grades in the final years of school, according to AFP."  Wow, four percent. What a catastrophe. It's almost as if refugees haven't had the opportunity to get a good education and you're judging the situation based upon a short-term problem. Exactly how is this an endemic or long-term problem?  Come on. If you're going to harvest links to prove something try to have them a) all from actual reputable sources (3/4 out of 7 ain't a good ratio) and b) actually related to the headings you put them under (0/7 on this score, sadly). [SEP] >Ah, BreitBart, the world's #1 source for unbiased views. There's absolutely nothing in the article they write to support their theory that the police findings are inaccurate.  AKA "Any source that doesn't fit my narrative is bias and irrelevant."  What you fail to realize is that Breitbart presents no opinion in the piece, only provides a summary of this police report linked directly at the very start of the article. As you clearly failed to read it, here's the relevant part, translated for your convenience:  > A survey based on interviews of 42,000 women from all EU countries, published in March 2016 by the EU's rights agency (FRA) 14 states that Sweden tops the new EU Statistics on physical and sexual violence against women, sexual harassment and stalking. The conclusion is that the result is a consequence of the Nordic alcohol culture, but also of non-traditional gender roles.  And in the simplest words possible, police attribute a steep rise in sexual and physical violence against women - which just so happened to occur when muslim migrants arrived - to Swedish culture. IE. Swedish culture is causing these incidents and must is the problem, not the migrants committing the assaults. Blatant erosion and attack on Swedish culture in the name of supporting Islamic culture.  >Pretty tragic murder. Where's the evidence it - or the lack of a memorial - is related to 'culture' in any way?  The vigil that would've been held would've been the culture. Unfortunately the family and friends of the victim were told they weren't allowed to practice their culture and hold a vigil because it might upset Muslim migrants. The culture link is that Swedes were told they could not practice their culture in holding a vigil for their murdered loved one because, their culture was disregarded in favour of the culture of the migrants.  >From BreitBart to British shock tabloids, the parade of quality journalism keeps rolling on in. Actual journalistic outlets regularly debunk the myth of no-go zones but hey, that doesn't move copy.  Once again, attacking the source instead of the content - could that be because you have no grounds to debunk the content so seek to discredit it instead? Sure seems like it.  Never mind the fact that no-go zones are also reported in:   http    http    http    http   But yes clearly the fact that a tabloid reported it means they don't exist.   But let's talk about how Bloomberg "debunked" these no-go zones shall we? Firstly, they're clearly time travelers - the article published in January of 2015 obviously conclusively states that no-go zones do not exist in Europe in May of 2016. Secondly, their idea of 'debunking' is for a politician to retract his comments after a public opinion backlash, and one Muslim business owner in Paris laughing at the premise. This is clearly much stronger evidence than Swedish police stating they will not enter certain neighborhoods.   >Another tabloid, brilliant. Okay, the Mirror is actually quoting the Independent (though curiously not linking their story) so let's see what they have to say:   - "There are believed to be dozens of Sharia “courts” operating in the UK. However, although they adjudicate on religious matters, they do not have the legal status of courts, acting more as councils or tribunals."  >So... they aren't actually part of the justice system at all. A problem, and definitely one that can't be tolerated, but as usual the Mirror pumps up the inflammatory part while diverging a wee bit from the reality of the situation. Maybe use the actual Independent piece itself?  Once again, attacking the source instead of the content.  Oh and deliberate mis-representation of the argument too. It's not an example of Muslims controlling the UK justice system, it's an example of Muslims subverting the UK justice system to enforce their own laws. The point of the example is that if this group were large enough to control the electorate, Sharia law would become the law of the UK, as evidenced by their priority of following Sharia first and UK laws second. How is ignoring existing law to practice Islamic law not Islamification?  >A reputable source, at last! So some nutjobs go around and tell people not to go to clubs and it's somehow part of the 'laws/justice system'? I guess it's only a problem when it's done in the name of Islam, since when it's done in the name of any other religion it's just quaint.  >A 'dozen men in orange safety vests' trumpeting their beliefs does not mean they're a part of the justice system. Maybe you should reconsider renaming this category to 'the views of a couple dozen people in Europe' instead of 'Laws/Justice System'.  More deliberate mis-representation of the point of the links. It's not about the Muslims being ingrained into the justice system, it's about the Muslims placing Sharia law above the law of the country they live in. It's about showcasing how Islamic culture seeks the dismantling & destruction of other cultures in favour of Islam. This is not multiculturalism, and indeed multiculturalism is disallowed in the Quran, where it states infidels and non-believers are the enemies of Islam.   >Wow, four percent. What a catastrophe. It's almost as if refugees haven't had the opportunity to get a good education and you're judging the situation based upon a short-term problem. Exactly how is this an endemic or long-term problem?  Once again, mis-representing the problem. It's not about the migrant children having bad grades, it's about the burden being placed on the education systems of host nations, in turn compromising the education received by that nation's children.   >Come on. If you're going to harvest links to prove something try to have them a) all from actual reputable sources (3/4 out of 7 ain't a good ratio) and b) actually related to the headings you put them under (0/7 on this score, sadly).  You deliberately mis-representing the point of articles you're incapable of debunking doesn't make them irrelevant. You attacking sources because you can't debunk content doesn't make the content irrelevant. You're going to have to do better than some strawmen and condescending paragraphs if you want me to take you seriously.  
It's her thread, but considering that none of the comments presented the experience of the other side, I felt the need to enlighten this girl.  > So essentially, you have roughly the same amount of actual "options" in your inbox as a man does. People you find attractive physically and mentally who will respect you.  I'm sorry but that's nonsense. I regularly hear girls complain about being flooded with messages, meanwhile most guys get crickets. I guess you can blame my pic if you want but I'm not breaking any mirrors over here lol, and my profile is just enough to indicate that I'm sophisticated. I don't even get views most of the time. I don't know what the gender ratio is on OkCupid but typically these dating sites have a lot more dudes. I know you personally can't do anything about the lameness of that reality but you could at least acknowledge that yes, dudes have a legitimate problem that only adds to the loneliness that made them go online in the first place. [SEP] >considering that none of the comments presented the experience of the other side, I felt the need to enlighten this girl  It really makes you a tool if you feel that you need to ride in to "educate the female." I don't know if you're aware how condescending/arrogant/sexist that attitude is  Also the experience of the "other side" isn't even needed here. If you'd like to talk about online dating from a male point of view, see practically every other thread on reddit  >I regularly hear girls complain about being flooded with messages, meanwhile most guys get crickets  Speak for yourself, I get enough responses to be content. Maybe you're just boring or your expectations are too high   > I don't even get views most of the time  Hmm I regularly get 4-5 a day and I've been on the site for months. What do you think the algorithm is saying about you  > but you could at least acknowledge that yes, dudes have a legitimate problem   But WHY tho. Why. Why do we need to go "well yeah women face this issue, but what about the dudes?" There's no reason to turn the conversation into one about men
It's part of the job to chastise the story. Journalism is also about asking the things the people want to know. The journalist asked the questions I wanted to know, so she did a good job.  [SEP] > It's part of the job to chastise the story.  I have to disagree. Fact checking the story, cross examining the subject, and asking tough or uncomfortable questions are what makes a good journalist. If you wanted the subject to be talked to in a condescending manner demand he "take his glasses off", and blame him when he has not yet been convicted of anything I think you are looking for reality television not journalism. 
Is it usual for squirrels to have black fur? - If so, mr kitty could have done a boo boo if it's a uncommon/rare sight in the species. - I know red squirrels are rare in UK, but don't know about this poor guy or squirrels elsewhere. :(  Anyone know?  Nonetheless, he seems to be quite the humble victor... Didn't think cats took on something as big as a squirrel without some nasty bites, hope the cat is okay though..  [SEP] >I know red squirrels are rare in UK,  I'll ship the little fucker that's living in my attic to the UK, Zanzibar or anywhere inbetween.  I might even condescend to put air holes in the box.
>Your plane anecdote is so absolutely irrelevant to the discussion and so utterly unrelatable to anything I said, if I really have to explain to you that what you are discussing here is a straw man, then I'm not the one who is trolling.  How is linking to a NASA article creating a straw man argument? How is correcting you on the SR-71 relates to anything you said?  I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of your post (or your other posts. Why did you respond several times to my same post?). I posted to prove that SR-71 has other applications than military use, which I succeeded at. You're simply making no sense unless your goal is to try to bring me into some kind of argument you feel compelled to have for some odd reason.  I am done feeding trolls today. If you want more information on the SR-71, the Wikipedia page is an excellent reading material. Here's a good video of it as well. Quite an engineering feat.    [SEP] >How is linking to a NASA article creating a straw man argument?   How do you think it is an argument?  >How is correcting you on the SR-71 relates to anything you said?  Pardon?  >I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of your post  I know you haven't read my replies, otherwise you could actually produce something of value to them. You not reading/understanding what you are replying to most likely is the reason why you babble so much nonsense.  >I posted to prove that SR-71 has other applications than military use  I know what you tried to do. It's simply irrelevant and I already explained to you why. You ignoring it is not something you can blame on me.  >which I succeeded at.   And of what purpose was that you said it?   >You're simply making no sense   You not understanding what I'm saying should lead to you asking for clarification, not telling me I don't make sense.  >unless your goal is to try to bring me into some kind of argument you feel compelled to have for some odd reason.  I'm sorry, but you entered the discussion with me. It's your responsibility to argue your points, so I can address them.   >I am done feeding trolls today.  The only person obviously failing to articulate him/herself is you, so don't continue to try to turn this around to be about me. You are unable to cite what you disagree with. You are unable to say why. You are unable to relate what you said to the discussion even after being asked several times to do it. You try to sound condescending, and the more you do that the less I take you seriously. Articulate yourself, actually produce arguments, explain yourself and your silly anecdotes like your irrelevant plane or simply leave.   >If you want more information on the SR-71, the Wikipedia page is an excellent reading material. Here's a good video of it as well. Quite an engineering feat.  Yes, what's your point? How do you believe that is relevant to anything being said? Also: Don't try to believe that I don't understand what you are trying to say when bringing up the plane .   I want you to articulate how you believe the plane relates to this discussion, so I can criticize that argument and take it apart for you. I think you trying to relate it to the discussion will already help you a great deal of understanding why I think it's ridiculous that you bring it up.
There’s was obviously a problem that’s larger than she is saying, but that’s because unlike us, she wasn’t looking at chat the whole time.   It was an issue that should’ve been handled better but there isn’t a reason to crucify her for it. She wasn’t instigating it at all and I’m sure if she saw how bad it was she would’ve done something about it.   And let’s just be honest, overall people like to talk more about bad things than good things because it’s more interesting and fun. That being said in reality the stream was extremely enjoyable and fun, but the issues that occurred are being talked about far more.   That’s just my thoughts.  [SEP] > It was an issue that should’ve been handled better but there isn’t a reason to crucify her for it.  her attitude and response is the thing that bothers me specially, so condescending and acting like poeple owe her something because she spent some money and called some friends to stream, also downplaying Fed's feeling, who she also refers as brothers.
No most rape victims are not men, most rape victims in prisons are men. Also, the feminist movement is very concerned with ending all rape which you would know if you were informed on the movement. However I see MRAs bitch about how they are being oppressed for being told not to make rape jokes and I don't see them defending male rape victims in general.  And no, the pay gap has to do with MEN AND WOMEN IN THE SAME POSITION WITH THE SAME EDUCATION where women are being payed less, stop making excuses. And I have seen the bullshit I mentioned about denying rape claims and saying women should be able to be hit so many fucking times. And no, the 'men's rights movement' is not a movement, it's strait cis white men bitching when they have no idea what oppression is really like. [SEP] >No most rape victims are not men, most rape victims in prisons are men.  My source indicates that most rape victims are men.  >Also, the feminist movement is very concerned with ending all rape which you would know if you were informed on the movement.  Please stop with your rude and condescending tone, that's not desirable in a civil discussion. Your "argument" is essentially saying "you're stupid and I'm right!".   I didnt make claims about feminism's position on rape, I stated that in the United States majority of rape victims are male, therefore rape cannot be categorized as a gender issue that affects women more (in USA).  >However I see MRAs bitch about how they are being oppressed for being told not to make rape jokes and I don't see them defending male rape victims in general.  I see MRAs talking about male rape all the time.  >And no, the pay gap has to do with MEN AND WOMEN IN THE SAME POSITION WITH THE SAME EDUCATION where women are being payed less  I don't agree with your opinion. I have discussed in person with actual reserachers on this subject (though he specialized and has written many books on the pay gap, his statistics are from Finland, but he has talked with American reseachers). It's not an excuse.  >And no, the 'men's rights movement' is not a movement, it's strait cis white men bitching when they have no idea what oppression is really like.  Now you just went full SRS. Factually speaking it's a movement, not 'movement', but you can deny facts all you want.
>It's a pity the sad character is also labelled as being fat, as that means that being fat is sad.  Okay, how did this idiot get a psychology degree if she doesn't grasp basic logic? One fat character being sad ≠ every fat person is sad. [SEP] > One fat character being sad ≠ every fat person is sad.  Look it this shitlord mansplaining the logic!
> When Davies starts talking about "minority opinions", she instantly goes on the offensive, talking about how he's a "white anglo-saxon male", and is therefore not a minority.  Its Phillip Davies, someone who doesn't think the committee should exist at all, and who associates with a group that has had a "lying woman of the month" section on their website. Its pretty obvious that she'd be defensive...  And besides, its ridiculous that Davies has tried to get on this committee, he only intends to derail it. Like he's derailed everything else he has been involved in.   As far as I know there are two other "white anglo-saxon" males on the committee already, so its not like she has anything against them being a part of the process.  > she uses the term 'manspreading' unironically  When has she done that?  > she talks about the gender pay gap in terms of sexism, and actually seems to think it can be fixed through legislation.  Where has she spoken about the gender pay gap in terms of sexism? What legislation is she proposing? [SEP] > Its Phillip Davies, someone who doesn't think the committee should exist at all, and who associates with a group that has had a "lying woman of the month" section on their website. Its pretty obvious that she'd be defensive...  Davies states in the interview that he thinks an equalities committee should exist, not a a woman and equalities. You're misrepresenting what was literally said in the interview we both just watched. Now you can argue that he's lying, and that's fair enough - but you'll have to show that before you can justify her defensive attitude as anything other than speculative.   >And besides, its ridiculous that Davies has tried to get on this committee, he only intends to derail it. Like he's derailed everything else he has been involved in.  He hasn't derailed everything else he's been involved in. He might have derailed a lot of things that you like, but he hasn't derailed a lot of things that other people like - such as the fight for men's rights. Considering men's rights are something that is definitely in need of attention (I'm sure you'd agree there), it makes perfect sense for an advocate of men's rights to be on the committee.  >As far as I know there are two other "white anglo-saxon" males on the committee already, so its not like she has anything against them being a part of the process.  So why is she opposed to Davies? Because of his minority opinions, not his race or gender. Interesting - why did she bring it up then?  > When has she done that?  My apologies, it was mansplaining and Natalie Bennett. I somehow doubt Lucas is immune from the term, but I'll withdraw the charge rather than spend hours hunting it down.  > Where has she spoken about the gender pay gap in terms of sexism?   > If you could introduce one piece of legislation to improve equality for women, what would it be? Some real progress has been made, but sadly there’s still much to be done, and we need to get some of the basics right. For example, it’s a scandal that, despite so much campaigning over so many years, the gender pay gap still exists. It’s totally outrageous that, in this day and age, women who are doing the same jobs as men can still expect to earn significantly less. It sends out a terrible message about how we treat and value women – it needs to be addressed, now.  Crucially she doesn't actually propose legislation on the issue here. I doubt she has even the slightest idea how to do it, but she does want to do it. Note this point:  > It’s totally outrageous that, in this day and age, women who are doing the same jobs as men can still expect to earn significantly less  Completely and utterly false. It's actually reversing - women earn more up until their 30s now. We're seeing the cross-over point move even further up the age scale too. Once it breaks the childbirth barrier (which, in fairness, is also moving upwards) then we'll see women just making more than men overall, across all ages. I'm not going to go into detail on the gender pay gap here, unless you really want to (I assume you've heard all the arguments before). I honestly cannot see how anybody can realistically believe that the gender earnings gap can be cured by legislation.
> No, it's not a leading question. I pointed out, "Here's what it looks like what you're doing. Do you really think...that's going to play?"  And I said that's not what I am doing. But for some reason you decided to ignore that.   > THAT was simple! Why did you dance around it forever and insist on not answering it?  Because I rejected your framing and you took that as some kind of dodge instead reading that I clarified my positions several times.  > What question do you have for me?  How is throwing out the AGG deal and changing R5 to allow some flexibility "doing whatever I want"? Are any of these changes unreasonable?  [SEP] >And I said that's not what I am doing. But for some reason you decided to ignore that.  You didn't do that.  >Because I rejected your framing and you took that as some kind of dodge instead reading that I clarified my positions several times.  No, you didn't. You said that you answered it, and then you said it was a leading question, and then you said you answered it 'in another way', and then you said you answered it several times--look, you only just answered it. It wouldn't have taken any time to even say, "This is a dishonest framing, I don't think I'm doing that and I don't defend that attitude." but you didn't...so.  >How is throwing out the AGG deal and changing R5 to allow some flexibility "doing whatever I want"? Are any of these changes unreasonable?  You didn't ask anyone after the disaster that was the original R5 change. What you wanted to do was widen the rule to let people linking to the subreddit off with lesser or no penalties as it wasn't as malevolent as doxxing or brigading.  People spoke out against that and said they didn't want that to be expanded--not just that AGG was involved, either, but that certainly inflamed the userbase--and low and behold, you've adopted the same thing that caused the clusterfuck, but you've opened it to all other subreddits instead of just one.  Which does address the potential impropriety, but nothing else, and when you get a reaction like that from people, you should take a moment to ask them if they would be open to the expansion if it was non-partial. And you didn't. When I questioned you, you said that the people who didn't like R5/AGG stuff would have left by now anyway, so I know that you know that this was a questionable change in terms of user reception.  It's fine if you just said, "Fuck it, we just have to do this in order for things to work better and batter down the hatches!" but you've tried to come at me with this attitude of you caring about user feedback and incorporating it into so much of what you do and how I never did--which is odd, considering that I have an actual track record of it and it hasn't been your responsibility for more than a week--and that's what causes me to cry foul, because it isn't true. And it's fine that it's not, but don't SAY that it is.  As far as your rules, my problems have to deal with the logistical nightmare, much like r4. Condescending things down, letting some rules go while loosening others, it's a little more efficient in some ways, but in other ways it leaves holes, and when it comes to a subreddit with this much user drama and stickies, you could have waited until everything was ready until you patched this in and took stuff out that probably wasn't ready to be.   
I mean, if you think any of the comments I made break the rules aside from the one where I called him a "specimen" (understandable enough) then I'm not sure how you haven't been just as bad in that regard.   You literally stroll up like a police officer trying to meet his quota smacking his baton in hand going "any of you fine folks lookin' to spend tonight in a cell?" Like, geeze dude. I was an inch too snide, I get that. But if you can look at how you've handled the situation and say you haven't at least met that level of condescension, then I don't think you're being honest.   Maybe I'm caring too much about this, but if me thinking you're out of line is enough to get me banned then you're only proving my points. [SEP] > But if you can look at how you've handled the situation and say you haven't at least met that level of condescension, then I don't think you're being honest.  I've just seen it too often. The people who are directly insulting, condescending or snide to a mod are usually the people that have no regard for any authority and often are a massive source of trouble, so why wait? If you're not ban worthy, then you don't get banned. If you stopped immediately you wouldn't even get a strike.  Then come the comments, then the mod mail, then the "I'll call the admins" or "My dad owns reddit", the alts, the screaming, the rage and all that. I deal with this on a daily basis, and it always ends either in their ban, a shadowban, or a suspension from the site.  > Maybe I'm caring too much about this, but if me thinking you're out of line is enough to get me banned then you're only proving my points.  Notice how I didn't strike any of the posts where you had a decent conversation with me. Only the snide remarks and condescension. If you think that I'll ban someone because of their opinion you're wrong. If you think that you can condescend directly in front of a mod, you're also wrong.  
Oh boy, the excessive wordiness comes back. Lets go piece by piece  >Cool, so we're using circular logic like the religious fundamentalists now. I hope you are not still asserting that you have thought critically about any of this.  If my entire statement had ended there you would be correct, but then I went on to spell out exactly why I believe this alleged chain of events is absurd.   >You completely ignored the quoted statement from the Department of Defense about how they would involve as few people as possible in a false flag attack for deniability. That's how there would be no leaks,  >because it was not documented or involved nearly as much as all the content we're seeing leaked by current whistleblowers, which was communicated in great detail across agencies. You've completely ignored  >this, as pseudoscientists do with evidence that contradicts their bullshit theories.  I ignored it because it more or less doesn't matter. Yeah, of course they would involve as few people as possible in it but how many people do you really think that they are going to be able to do this with 3 guys in a truck? That they would dupe not only the entire American nation but all the international ones as well? That nations such as Russia and Iran would not call us out on it? Strange that the anthro guy is trying to lecture the person with a degree in science on what pseudoscience is but you get all sorts.  >If anything, the false equivalence is coming from you purporting that the information released by whistleblowers has to be related to 9/11 to prove the existence of any false flag operations. Once again you >are trying to argue that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. Please stop relying so heavily on the appeal to ignorance. It is a documented fallacy and illustrates poor reasoning skills.  What I am arguing is that the overwhelming body of evidence that we have - in particular this thing called the 9/11 commission report - contradicts that this was some kind of false flag operation. Thats the body of evidence that I rely on, care to share what you may have that contradicts this?  >I didn't grasp at straws by questioning your (still unsupported by any evidence whatsoever) claim that the government would not kill or allow a lot of its own citizens to die to further its goals, and I used >historical evidence to contradict it. You are conducting strawman arguments with yourself. Nobody said they orchestrated 9/11. People are claiming they MAY have allowed it to happen. It's not the same >thing. You have asserted that they wouldn't do that. I clearly illustrated a time when the government was not only was okay with killing many people, but intentionally did so to more than three times the >amount of victims of 9/11. That's not a false equivalence. It is a direct contradiction of your absolutist statements about what is absurd.  So people are essentially making claims that they might have sort of allowed it to happen, or something, and that is thinking critically. Got it.  >Patriot Act Things  Cool. If they have all this power, why do 9/11. Why not just pass the legislation  >Besides being able to legally seize absolute power and control, they also gained billions of dollars in military contracts through the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The only thing absurd here is that you are so >dismissive about the pragmatic reasons a government would engage in wars.  Who is they. Are all of "them" in on the false flag? This kind of widens the small number of people you are referring to in the DoD quote right? Im not going to deny that people made some serious money off the "War on Terror" but how does this relate back to it being more plausible that it is some kind of false flag operation rather than plain old incompetence of a alphabet soup of intelligence agencies that colossaly dropped the ball dealing with a part of the world that we understood so poorly before 9/11?  >First of all what does being a backwater nation have anything to do with the invasions or covert influencing of governments? Because if you are going to invade a nation for gain, why pick one that exports basically Heroin? Why invade a country that was firmly in the orbit of our regional ally Pakistan? Why not just ask the ISI if we wanted something?  > Have you heard of Somalia, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, Guatemala, or any of the other countries that are/were considered poor backwater nations? Why did we either directly invade or send CIA agents to stage >coups in these regions?  What a ridiculous list of random countries thrown together  1. Are we talking like 93 Somalia? The UN Op to establish enough stability to try and stop genocide? 2. Libya - the bombing campaigns lead by the UK/France to try and get control of a situation across the Med from them? Also UN operation 3. Vietnam - Misguided application of domino theory. Here is an actual example of your false flag btw. One we know all about btw, unlike this ultra secret 9/11 one 4. Korea - We invaded to stop the hostile communist takeover of the Western partition, during a particularly dark era of the Cold War. 5. Guatemala - Because United Fruit company was butthurt about not making a killing anymore. Again, we know all about it.  So why Afghanistan? Why pin it on a nation that gains us literally nothing? Its landlocked so we have to route all of our logistics via Pakistan or Russia, two nations that we are not always on the best of terms with. Again, why not make it Iraqis? seems like a two birds with one stone type of deal, if we have the capability to complete a false flag operation with not a soul finding out about it would be pretty simple to extend it to make the hijackers Republican Guard or something. Hell, why not mount another False Flag to plant those WMDs we claimed were there?  >Furthermore Afghanistan is not just some backwater nation, it is a mineral rich region. As a 2010 New York Times article pointed out, "the vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was [recently] >discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists.” >If you can't comprehend the benefits of wanting access to those resources then you have literally no place debating military intervention, whatsoever.  Except that we have known about those since roughly the 70s, as have many other powers but the logistics involved have always been to great to make it worth it.   http   So take a deep breath and really think about this. Which is more plausible - the false flag "evidence of absence" stuff, or the enormous body of evidence that points the other way? [SEP] > I ignored it because it more or less doesn't matter.  Convenient we dismiss things we think are irrelevant without actually proving why we think they are irrelevant.   > 3 guys with a truck  Strawman, once again. Nobody said anything this ludicrous except you.   Also how are Iran and Russia going to call us out on something that nobody except a select few elites may know about? What are you ranting about duping people for? You are debating hypotheticals with more hypotheticals and thinking in absolutes which is not only an exercise in futility, but also ignorance.    > Strange that the anthro guy is trying to lecture the person with a degree in science on what pseudoscience is but you get all sorts.  Lol wow you are officially the king of fallacies. Now you're relying on the ad hominem fallacy to try to discredit this debate by obsessing over character details instead of the argument laid before you. Followed immediately by another fallacy. Go ahead, and explain to me how having a science degree makes you qualified to spout more bullshit, please. I love when people use as many fallacies as possible in a desperate attempt to win an argument. It's really cute.  It's also cute watching you get so condescending about the 9/11 commission report like nobody but you has ever heard of it. Here's a Wikipedia page dedicated to why that biased pile of crap should be taken with a grain of salt, at best. Even members of the commission themselves were critical of it. So now you're claiming that a document that some of the authors who wrote it even claimed was bullshit is the authoritative statement on our scientific understanding of 9/11 and the nature of false flag attacks? Way to go, Mr. Critical Thinker.    I would waste more time of my life reading the rest of this garbage but I think I've illustrated how full of shit your arguments are enough to not warrant any more of my time wasting breath on someone so biased and irrational. Good day, and good luck in all your future endeavors.      
I didn't think that I'd have to explain the most basic underpinnings of trademark law, but judging by your reliance on the completely inapposite WWP, I guess I do.  "A trade-mark only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner's good will against the sale of another's product as his." Prestonettes, Inc. v. Cody, 264 U.S. 339, 368 (1924). In other words, "[t]he Lanham Act seeks to prevent consumer confusion that enables a seller to pass off his goods as the goods of another.... [T]rademark infringement protects only against mistaken purchasing decisions and not against confusion generally." Lang v. Ret. Living Publ'g Co., 949 F.2d 576, 582-83 (2d Cir. 1991).  In WWP, this clearly occurred--one veteran's aid website used a nearly identical name as the other to co-opt goodwill, boosting its own donations at the expense of Wounded Warrior Project's. Here, there's no chance that a website called comcastroturf.com, and whose entire purpose of the website is not to solicit donations, but to name-check against the FCC database, would be confused with a company that provides telecom services.  Nowhere on the comcastroturf.com website does the word "donate," "contribute" or anything similar even appear--you have to click through to fightforthefuture.com logo, de-emphasized at the very bottom of the page, and then click through 2 more times to start the donation process. That is not trademark infringement. By the time you get to the Fight for the Future website and click through again, there is no possibility of confusion that the user would be receiving Comcast services.  Even if you're talking about a trademark dilution claim, this website would still be outside of the scope. In order to be considered "commercial speech," and thus outside of the noncommercial defense to trademark dilution, the speech must "do no more than propose a commercial transaction." Here, none of the speech on the website even proposes a commercial transaction. The website has you look to see if your name has been falsely used as a commenter on an FCC APA notice and comment procedure. At minimum, that "does more than propose a commercial transaction."  You sound like you're still in law school. Creative issue spotting, but you should always make sure that you're based in the fundamental tenets of the law before you advance a creative argument. [SEP] >I didn't think that I'd have to explain the most basic underpinnings of trademark law, but judging by your reliance on the completely inapposite WWP, I guess I do.  So that'd be a "no" on actually discussing this with a modicum of respect.  I do enjoy that in your deigning to explain, you miss that there have been some pretty substantial changes in federal trademark law since 1924.  You do know that "statutes" can change more readily than the constitution, right? And that when statutes change the "statutory interpretation" of the courts move with them? No?  Great, keep arguing that non-profits aren't subject to trademark claims.  >In WWP, this clearly occurred--one veteran's aid website used a nearly identical name as the other to co-opt goodwill, boosting its own donations at the expense of Wounded Warrior Project's  Except your argument was that trademark law does not apply to a non-profit at all. Pick the argument you'd like to actually claim is "slam dunk" legal fact and stick with it.  Either Wounded Warrior was wrong because trademark cannot apply to non-profits. Or it can apply to non-profits and you should probably apologize for being such a condescending dick while being wrong about that.  Given those options, I'm going to tend to side with the Second Circuit over... whatever credentials you're purporting to have.  >[t]he Lanham Act seeks to prevent consumer confusion that enables a seller to pass off his goods as the goods of another.... [T]rademark infringement protects only against mistaken purchasing decisions and not against confusion generally  And if you'd been smart enough to limit your argument exclusively to trademark infringement, boy would my face be red.  Fortunately for my face, if unfortunately for the appearance of your competence, here's what you've actually claimed:  > there is no trademark protection  -  >This isn't a trademark issue. If a court got a trademark case on this issue, it would be a slam dunk case  Note not "trademark infringement", you wrote "a trademark issue." So I was curious why you would cite something dealing exclusively with an infringement claim as though it definitively proves no trademark case exists.  Until I realized that since you're mostly just googling this stuff, you might not be aware that in addition to trademark infringement under the Lanham act, trademark also covers "dilution" both by "blurring" and through "tarnishment" under the FTDA passed in 1995 and TDRA in 2006. To say nothing of state dilution/tarnishment laws  Since I don't want to burden you with what is the bare minimum of competent legal research, I'll reproduce the necessary section from the TDRA:  >shall be entitled to an injunction against an- other person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury  Do you need a refresher on whether a prior court decision overrides a statute?  But let's dig a bit deeper as long as you're being both condescending and wrong. Fight for the Future (owner of the site and the organization identifying itself as a fund on the site) is located in Massachusetts. What does Massachusetts law have to say about it?  >Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under this chapter, or a mark valid at common law, or a trade name valid at common law, shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or the absence of confusion as to the source of goods or services  Note that it doesn't require commercial use (so you lose there) and doesn't require actual confusion (sorry, buddy).  Maybe do a bit more research on what exists in trademark beyond "OMG infringement" before spouting off next time.  >Nowhere on the comcastroturf.com website does the word "donate," "contribute" or anything similar even appear  Except for "fund." As in "a thing which receives donations and uses them for their stated purposes." But I'm sure you're right that the only time something can be considered an advertisement is if it contains the words "click here and buy something" rather than the name of the organization sponsoring the thing. Feel free to provide your citation for that.  If it's anything like your trademark work I expect you'll ignore two thirds of the entire topic.  >In order to be considered "commercial speech," and thus outside of the noncommercial defense to trademark dilution, the speech must "do no more than propose a commercial transaction  Which works as long as you treat an advertisement for the creator's own organization directly soliciting money on the page directly linked to as being substantially different from an advertisement for a for-profit organization also soliciting. Here's what you see on the page immediately linked to:  >Our organization works hard to organize against threats to our basic rights, please help keep up going and visit our donate page.  Which brings me back to:  >and then click through 2 more times to start the donation process  You're adding a new (and disingenuous) standard to Kremer which would include not just whether it immediately advertises but also how many clicks from the solicitation to the end purchase. That's not the standard from Kremer  >Kremer's website contains no commercial links, but rather contains links to a discussion group, which in turn contains advertising  Once you hit the advertising the chain stops. You'd like to add "once you've seen the solicitation and decided to do it how many steps is it."  See e.g Bihari v. Gross, 119 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), where the court did not include how many steps from the initial advertisement to the point of sale as part of analyzing commercial speech.  But feel free to invent new standards, it's endearing.  >Here, none of the speech on the website even proposes a commercial transaction  Right, it merely advertises for a non-profit (transactions with which can be considered commercial and under the auspices of trademark) which does.  But I'm sure you're right and an ad for Walmart would be non commercial as long as the link doesn't say "give money to Walmart" and you only see that if you click the link.  >You sound like you're still in law school. Creative issue spotting, but you should always make sure that you're based in the fundamental tenets of the law before you advance a creative argument  I'll happily throw up a month of gold betting on my licensure. /r/lawyers verifies.  But since I'm not the one who forgot "state law" is a thing and that trademark includes more than likelihood of confusion, I'd be less smarmy.  Though, it is charming that you would mention "creative issue spotting" while trying to pull solely from your ass a new doctrine of "an ad is only commercial speech if the ad itself directly solicits a transaction."  Feel free to take me up on that bet, and/or try to have a discussion more like someone with enough legal knowledge to disagree respectfully with other people rather than feel the need to "correct" them about "slam dunk" issues.  And that's without getting into your tacit admission a bit ago.
I would never give the "thumb's up". But I do like the runner's "up nod", where you make eye contact for 1/16th of a second and then nod your head up.  If I'm feeling good I give the "smile & wave" where I smile, and slightly raise one open hand. I have to be careful because, while running, my smile looks very creepy and my arm gesture looks like I am requesting medical attention. (Which I am requesting -- everything hurts and I'm dying.) [SEP] > I would never give the "thumb's up  How come? Is that condescending?
you know that electoral college votes are determined by the outcome of the popular vote in most states right? this is why only a few blue counties determine the election results of NY being blue every single election  second, as you pointed out, looking at results by county is kind of weird... you need to go by districts. Again, on the presidential and governership levels that is pointless to talk about. The only place where that matters is purple counties for house and senate seats.   Remeber though, district lines can always just be redrawn, which is why purple districts only matter for a short period of time, you can jerry mander the most purple state in the union, florida, to have a house composition that is 65.8% republican voting share and a senate with 65% republican voting share.  [SEP] > you know that electoral college votes are determined by the outcome of the popular vote in most states right?  Keep being condescending and dismissive. Keep ignoring facts and perspectives. And keep wondering why you aren't happy with the results. 
Unless, of course, you are attracted to people you can properly reproduce with, in which, in this day and age, that can very much be an impossibility with trans people. There are some trans people with their original genitalia and the ability to reproduce but many don't want to go through that because of the dysphoria (especially female to male).  Some people's sexual attraction will, in fact, boil down to the very core reason sex exists, and while not everyone wants that it can be a deal breaker for many if that won't happen.  I hate to say it (being genderfluid myself and therefore dealing with what dysphoria can do), but sometimes there are limitations and sexual differences (especially pre and in-transition) that many will not be attracted to unless that specifically is something they can be attracted to.   It's exactly the same as those who aren't racist but just aren't attracted to certain races that way. To say one is transphobic because they aren't attracted to trans people is just like saying you're homophobic because you aren't attracted to the opposite gender or saying you're racist because you aren't attracted to lighter skin.  Sexual attraction does not work that way. I'm sorry.  Edit: typo [SEP] > Unless, of course, you are attracted to people you can properly reproduce with  Show me any human that bases attraction on ability to reproduce. Like...seriously. And aside from that selecting partners based on reproductive ability is by no means trans-specific. There's no singular thing that you can be attracted to/not attracted to that is common in all trans people. Ultimately stating that you are not attracted to trans people is reducing people to their experiences and basing your attraction on that which is massively transphobic. There is simply no way to justify it.  Also considering race is nothing more than a social construct I would argue that anyone who says they aren't attracted to a specific race is being pretty racist. Like all your arguments are really disingenuous and you're acting really condescending. I keep remembering why I avoid /r/ainbow...you're all pretty quick to shit on anyone that isn't monosexual and cis.
My wife asks, "When did Tumblr spill into Reddit?" But seriously, it wasn't about misogyny, it was about that not being a default in 1996. They made a vague story about a boy going on a journey and didn't realize they'd need to give you a choice of avatar. [SEP] > But seriously, it wasn't about misogyny,  What's with the condescending "didn't know any better" then? Because you know so much better, rite? Or are you just incredibly shit at translating from danish to english?
> We get an introduction to two more Seraphs and a Dragon, who we know absolutely nothing about  Uh, I guess that's what introductions are supposed to be for?   >yet Sorey acts like he's known these guys for years  The only reason why you would feel that way is because he calls them by their names. Given that the characters don't have surnames, it makes it feel like Sorey is acting too familiar with the bunch by calling their first names (which is the only name they got).  >wants to purify the Dragon like it was his own little brother.  That's what his personality is like. Sorry, not sorry. That's the truth. It's also because it's his job as the Shepherd. He isn't totally irrelevant to the situation. It's his damn role to purify malevolence from creatures the moment he chose to be the Shepherd. If he can find a way to purify a Dragon, why wouldn't he?  You're just condemning a guy who wants to do a better job at his...job? Seriously?  >but as an anime-only viewer it was really boring watching him fight - his reason to fight didn't mean anything to me because I just met these characters.   That has absolutely nothing to do with being an "anime-only viewer" or not. It just means you hate those type of characters and can't identify with passionate characters that likes to help out strangers. It means just that. Nothing to do with whether you played the game or not.  >How am I supposed to care/feel for the loss of her brother if she herself doesn't look like she gives a shit?  I don't know. Then don't care? I mean, you just dislike the monotone characters. Plenty of people real life are like that (I'm pretty sure you discriminate against them). Expressions aren't the only to way to show emotion. If you're the type that dislikes people who don't express their emotions on their faces, then I hope that you stay away from people like that in real life. Your judgmental attitude only helps to make people feel bad. Nothing more.  >And that's not the only time her actions seemed conflicting  So you're saying that her showing a monotone expression is conflicting with her care for her brother? What? Expressions don't conflict emotions. Jesus Christ.  >she berated Sorey at least three times when he touched her (mostly because he was trying to save her from something), yet at the end she goes herself and touches his cheek. How does her personality change that fast?  She berated Sorey for touching her for too long. Did you not notice what words she used? She constantly uses "when" which is a word associated with time. This doesn't conflict with her touching his cheek at all. She wasn't even touching him for a long time. Oh, and even if she does, it still isn't a contradiction. There are people who aren't comfortable with others initiating physical contact with them, but are comfortable with themselves initiating physical contact with others. This is not a contradiction, but a normal human quality. Her personality did not change in a split second. She is just displaying different aspects of her personality. Do you think of people as one-dimensional creatures?  >Am I supposed to not question this just because "Oh, well Sorey is going to save her brother, so yeah she's lightened up".  No, and you need to stop blaming the anime. No one is saying you aren't supposed to question shit. Victimizing yourself to make a point is a shit way to argue. Not a single damn person took away your freedom of speech. The fact you are posting this ridiculous post on reddit proves that you can question anything you want, even if it's something shitty.  >More like "this is just fanservice to make people who've somehow self-inserted into Sorey feel good that they got someone who was previously cold to open up to them"  So you hate a fictional character so badly that you feel the need to twist Sorey's character as some sort of ego-boosting tool for insecure people? Seriously? Holy shit.  >which makes sense from a video game perspective since you are supposed to be Sorey (at least I assume you are)  Oh jeez, I wonder why ToZ players find the game to pale in comparison with other Tale games. I mean, they can self-insert themselves into Sorey and boost their ego by going on a journey and opening up the hearts of a bunch of people. Totally for people with no friends who wants to pretend to have friends. I have no idea why ToZ players even complain about the game's narrative when Sorey's character makes perfect sense from a video game perspective.   /s  >And then Mr. Fango AKA Zaveid starts talking about how he drank and fought together with Mr. Dragon, like am I supposed to care more? I'd rather be shown, not told, all this stuff.  Because it makes perfect sense in the narrative? He's trying to talk his bro/rival out of it after all. Should he just silently shoot Eizen while flashbacking the hell back to their times. Also, not everything needs to be shown. Some people just take "show, not tell" to the extreme and complain about every little exposition. You actually need to balance it out to make the narrative compelling.  >I understand there are time limitations, but with two random episodes in between that only advertised some other game, and with this show supposedly being split-cour (not sure if this is true)  This I agree with. There are time limitations, and that could hinder the story pacing. As of now, I'm not sure how to feel about the Berseria episodes at all. I definitely hope that it becomes relevant in the next cour (which is definitely happening because they haven't even introduced all the characters yet by EP8) so that the payoff will be great.  >I think they could've built these characters up better so that I could actually feel their emotions.  This is like the first episode that you get to know Zaveid and Edna. I don't know how much "better" you want. Also, not being able to empathize with the characters doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad writing. It could be or not be bad writing. In this case, it's not (because we haven't even got to know them long enough to judge that aspect just yet) and it's just that you don't like these character archetypes. You don't identify with them. That's just a clash of personality. Stop blaming the anime when there is nothing concrete to prove your point.  >All the characters are generic as hell, and really, the only reason I've watched up to this point is because it looks visually appealing and the OP/ED are good.  They are generic, but that doesn't make them bad characters. It still doesn't prove your point. You should seriously just say "I personally don't identify with these characters, and it's a bit difficult for me to keep on watching" instead of throwing around accusations and saying how the anime alienates "anime-only" viewers. I feel pity for you that you hate an anime so much that you think it is deliberately alienating and antagonizing you, AND all the "anime-only viewers" that you DON'T represent.  I'm one of the "anime-only viewer" who knows about the game, but never bothered to play it. I've known the Tales franchise for years, but I wasn't interested in watching Zestiria (because of a recent lack of interest in the series). I watched it because a friend of mine was hyped for it, and now I'm enjoying it a lot. I guess the only reason why I, an "anime-only viewer", would enjoy watching this is because I self-insert myself into Sorey and feel good about myself? [Insert Pepe FeelsBadMan.png]  Also, the anime is definitely flawed. It's not perfect by any means. However, everything that you have listed has to do with your personality more than it has to do with the anime. I'll list some things that are actual flaws for you:  - Not a huge amount of "animating". Due to the focus on the visuals, the characters themselves are barely animated. More than often, you would see characters being static images when not engaging in a fight. It's extremely apparent in CGI scenes where some characters would just stand and do nothing. It's not because the characters are meant to do nothing, but simply because Ufotable don't bother animating background characters.   - Uninteresting directing. This is purely subjective. However, I would personally say it is a flaw when compared to the likes of JoJo Part 4. It also has to do with the fact that there isn't much movement (less animating). Movement, sound (effects, voice acting, music), visuals (background, transitions, visual tricks), and focus is important in creating different kinds of moods. Zestiria doesn't have much visual tricks compared to JoJo Part 4 (which would do something like changing the colors of the scene, or overlaying scenes together like some manga panels). This is largely due to the fact that Zestiria's backgrounds are extremely detailed, making it hard to do visual tricks with it. Simply changing the color saturation would look bad, but recoloring entire backgrounds would also take a long time. That, and the director probably don't have much experience with doing those kind of things. So it's mostly just characters being animated with a static background in the back (which is often animated with CGI to make it look less static, but it creates lag because CGI has a high frame rate. That's why when CGI is used, the anime characters are lagging when moving (they are being animated with less frames than CGI).  That's probably it I guess. There would probably be more things to say, but I don't want to delve into it too much.  tl;dr - You are taking things too personally, and thinking that the anime is specifically alienating you + a certain group of people. However, the majority of your complaints have to do with you simply not being able to empathize with those characters. It would be best if you could make reasonable points next time. Then again a rant is defined as "to complain in a way that is unreasonable" so I guess you aren't wrong...technically.   [SEP] > Uh, I guess that's what introductions are supposed to be for?  It's funny how you broke my one sentence into two parts to make it seem like I said something contradictory. I wonder why you responded to "yet Sorey acts like he's known these guys for years" separately? Maybe so you could make it seem like you found some glaring contradiction in my post?   > The only reason why you would feel that way is because he calls them by their names.  Did you not read the rest of my post? How are you assuming that that is the only reason I felt that way? You lay a ton of accusations about me and my type of personality throughout your entire post, while you also give your own reasons as to why I thought a certain way. Hilarious.   > That's what his personality is like. Sorry, not sorry. That's the truth. It's also because it's his job as the Shepherd. He isn't totally irrelevant to the situation. It's his damn role to purify malevolence from creatures the moment he chose to be the Shepherd. If he can find a way to purify a Dragon, why wouldn't he?  Except he was strictly told by not one, not two, but three Seraphs (one of which was the Dragon's own sister) that it wasn't possible and that the Dragon needed to be killed. Yet he still went so far out of his way to find a way to purify the Dragon. But I agree with you, albeit the condescending tone you've taken (and that I have similarly taken) is disgusting, that his personality is just like that. I'm not condemning him for doing his job, it's just that I feel like his character (along with everyone else in the series) hasn't been developed enough, so even if his personality is like that, it doesn't make it more believable to me. On the other hand, if it was someone like, say Fate Series Spoilers.   I know what you'll probably say, "This dragon scene is supposed to be what develops him, so you're complaining about development?". No, I am complaining that it feels like we went 0 to 100 in terms of showing how much he cares about people.   > That has absolutely nothing to do with being an "anime-only viewer" or not. It just means you hate those type of characters and can't identify with passionate characters that likes to help out strangers. It means just that. Nothing to do with whether you played the game or not.  Dang really? I didn't know I hated those type of characters! Thank you so much for showing me the way, Mr. Arm-chair psychologist. Seriously though, it seems like I hit a nerve when I complained about this anime, and so now you feel the need to take this extremely personally and lay even more accusations on me. I already gave an example of a passionate character who I wouldn't have quarrels with if they helped out a stranger, so clearly you don't know anything and are just continuing your ad hominem attacks because I gave my opinion on an anime you enjoyed - which you can't defend so you just attack me.  There is a part 2 reply to this. Idc if you read it though.  
 There is always a good lump of high school age kids who think that they've had some liberating epiphany once they decide they don't believe in God. Like they're clever for having even considered it.     Most Catholics I know were raised Catholic and have a pretty private expression of their faith.    Also, a fair amount of the literal interpretations of violence and sexism you're referencing are not relevant to my faith, if that means anything to you.    >The non-religious are considerably less associated with Stalin than Catholics are with any really bad former pope you could point to.    Non Germans are considerably more associated with Hitler than Buddhists are with the Dalai Lama. I wouldn't automatically assume Germans today agree with what Hitler did, though they identify as German citizens in a nation that was not founded by Hitler    History of blatantly prescribed violence by Christianity pales pretty heavily compared to the historic and present actions of radical Islam. When people point the finger at Jihad, they are mostly confronted with the idea that Christians have tarnished history with the crusades. Which is true; the crusades were unforgivable (most Christians agree), but they don't really stack up compared to the history of Jihad. And comparing violence and oppression perpetrated by Catholics today to Islamic extremism would be a stretch. That info is already readily available for you.    Here is a pretty comprehensive explanation of violence justified by Christians and Muslims throughout history. Take a look if you like, but I don't expect you to.   Again though, most Muslim's I know at least are also pretty down with tenets of peace and love.    EDIT: Also, Christians believe the arbiter of how to properly follow God is Christ. That was kind of his whole deal. I'm surprised you asked me that question.    EDIT again: I am not a regular visitor of the website to which I linked you. It seems a little wacko. I just Googled the video and that's where it brought me--I'm sure a lot of people with anti-Muslim agendas love it. I am not one of those people. [SEP] > high school age kids  Alright... we get it. You want to earn cheap points for condescending people who disagree with you, painting them as young.  > Also, a fair amount of the literal interpretations of violence and sexism you're reference are not relevant to my faith, if that means anything to you.  I actually do give points to faiths that have fewer calls to violence in their holy texts, so for what it's worth, I acknowledge that yours may not be as bad as others.  > History of blatantly prescribed violence by Christianity pales pretty heavily compared to the historic and present actions of radical Islam.  I'll readily give you this point as well. Believe me - in a possible conflict that would pit Islam against the west, you and I would be standing shoulder-to-shoulder.  Now - have you ever asked yourself why the difference between current levels of violence and sexism in Catholicism and Islam? Consider that the root difference is attributable to the holy texts themselves. I contend that means that the contents of the books actually matters - therefore a lot of the bad behaviour in any religion actually can be attributable to perversions caused by the texts themselves, not just perversions of them by delinquent followers. Sure, your religion may not be as bad as others in this respect, but there's still going to be some of this going on since you're exalting a bronze-age book as the be-all end-all of morality.  Edit response to your first edit: My question on the arbiter was actually more rhetorical. I am aware that the example being followed is Christ's - but the main source for that is the Bible, so that doesn't really go against my point that people are left with only the one thing available to interpret for themselves, in whatever way they will.
You seem convinced that you know my idealolgy because I enjoy a shit posting sub with memes.   Also my husband is an underpaid federal employee so we're fine wrt healthcare (which is why he's not an overpaid contractor). I'd like to see the benefits we enjoy extended to all. But that doesn't change the fact that he will likely die far too young. I'm surprised you find it tragic, you already seem to believe I deserve both that and death without knowing much about me aside from one aspect of my Internet life.   Serious question: how do you think you'll get the average American on board with your view when you cloak yourself in layers of irony, sarcasm, shit posting, and cruelty when someone just shows up and says, "Hey, I'm a person, we want most of the same things, let's have a conversation?"   Because irony will not protect you from what's actually coming.    [SEP] > Serious question: how do you think you'll get the average American on board with your view when you cloak yourself in layers of irony, sarcasm, shit posting, and cruelty when someone just shows up and says, "Hey, I'm a person, we want most of the same things, let's have a conversation?"  There's evidence (for your evidence based policy needs) that most people find you out of touch, and I think (this is just me being off the cuff so I have no evidence for it) that part of this is due to how you guys focus more on making sure that everyone uses good manners than helping people materially. In my experience, most people who think they're being screwed over and are powerless to stop it don't mind and actually appreciate a bit of vulgarity and gallows humor in the face of it.   And, honestly, you'd be surprised how many people I've been able to start a conversation with once I told them that I might be a lefty but that doesn't mean I don't get angry when I see other people condescend to them because they are Christian/own guns/don't live in a big city/don't eat organic/aren't caught up with the latest gender theory. 
Please dont. Look i know what you are going through and i wish i could just disappear but there are alot of things you are capable of and it people actually give a shit about you and wouldn’t like hearing you dead, not even me. It would be wrong for me to say that it gets better because it isn’t getting better for me but you can always go back, start over and fix your life.  [SEP] > Look i know what you are going through  Not to sound condescending, but do you really know what i'm going through?  > people actually give a shit about you and wouldn’t like hearing you dead  Those people are my immediate family. The only one I know that wouldn't be able to handle me killing myself is my mother. My siblings and father would easily handle it and move on with their lives. So i'm just waiting for the day my mum passes away, and then i'll rope.  > It would be wrong for me to say that it gets better because it isn’t getting better for me but you can always go back, start over and fix your life.  It never gets better. I cannot change what society thinks or how society treats me. I cannot change the world.
> It's the gender-politics version of the black celebrity claiming "Slavery's been over for a century and a half. Stop blaming white people and pull up your pants!" See, e.g., Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman, whose balls are routinely spit-shined by a horde of 20-something white males.  So, you mean, the truth?  > In other words, I'm skeptical of the temptation to give cover to misogyny, or, at the very least, the moral indifference to the misogyny of others.   Well, there's your problem. You've already started from the emotional assumption that misogyny is a big problem. So when confronted with actual rational evidence that it's not what you think it is, your emotional center becomes defensive: no, no, I believe this, so this contradicting evidence must be discountable!  Now if you had solid reasoning for your beliefs about misogyny, you would not be so defensive; any evidence these new videos provide would simply be integrated with what you already know, allowing you to accept their reality and modifying your ideas about misogyny if need be. But instead of constructing a rational basis for believing what misogyny is, its causes, and proper solutions, you instead only know that it's a problem, and solutions are what "activists" tell you are the solutions.  [SEP] > You've already started from the emotional assumption that misogyny is a big problem.   Wait, so we are clear, are you implying that misogyny is not a "big" problem?   Are you saying that /u/howdypardner1's argument was based on "emotion" and therefore not rational and should be rejected? I mean, you do not try to engage with his/ her points, you just insinuate that they're baseless, not backed by "solid reasoning"--whatever that's supposed to mean.   Your whole response is just needlessly condescending, not to mention so poorly written it was vexing to read. 
Since you have clearly ousted me as an RP supporter I will shed some light on why I will vote for Ron Paul: I am sick of voting for one of two parties that both work toward the same goals while espousing their "differences".  I don't have the need to bash him on his creationism, because we live in a country where religious freedom should be upheld. He should be free to believe what he wants, and as long as he doesn't try to push his views on me we will always be square.  Saying he has no answers aside from "down with government" is EXACTLY like saying Obama/Romney/InsertFacelessCarSalesmanPoliticianHere has no answers aside from "let the federal government sort it out, sure it will get mired in bureaucracy, but they will figure something out eventually that every single citizen in the country will approve of ". Well to hell with that, the fed hasn't done anything productive in years. They spend a majority of their time quibbling with, and stonewalling each other in some attempt to remain relevant. They should be upholding the law, not perverting it as a means to reach their own ends.  How can you be so naive as to think that our federal government has your best interests at heart, or that they are protecting your freedom? Just this year we have seen more attacks on civil rights, personal freedom, and privacy than we have seen the government allot new rights to any group in a decade. In fact in the past 3 years it has become even HARDER for states to work with each other. Working in an insurance industry I can tell you, it has been no picnic.  As to your last paragraph, I won't even rebut, because it is too close to call. Drinking the MSM/AP kool-aid and throwing your hands up in the air and resigning yourself to letting a man who hasn't proved his worth to the country in any quantifiable terms have a second term seems as if it borders on apathy.   I respect you for having an articulate opinion, but I kindly disagree. I will vote for Ron Paul because he doesn't pander to whatever audience he found himself scheduled to be in front of, he sticks to his guns. I dream at night of him, sitting behind a no-frills desk, vetoing insane bills with a 8¢ Bic pen. THAT is leadership. Obama signed the NDAA with "extreme reservations" knowing full well what it entailed. A good man does what is right, ESPECIALLY when it is unpopular. [SEP] > I don't have the need to bash him on his creationism, because we live in a country where religious freedom should be upheld.   Creationism / Evolution isn't a religious debate. It's a matter of reality. You can believe any bloody thing you want, but when that belief effects the rest of us, it better have some basis to it.   And it screams ignorance and putting belief before evidence... again something I have no interest in seeing in a leader. At the very most "I don't know" is respectable... as someone who knows nothing about biology would reasonably say. To claim 'well all those scientists obviously are wrong because my bible says otherwise' is ignorant.  > Saying he has no answers aside from "down with government" is EXACTLY like saying Obama/Romney/InsertFacelessCarSalesmanPoliticianHere has no answers aside from "let the federal government sort it out, sure it will get mired in bureaucracy, but they will figure something out eventually that every single citizen in the country will approve of."  "It's just as bad" isn't an argument that lends support to a point.  > Well to hell with that, the fed hasn't done anything productive in years. They spend a majority of their time quibbling with, and stonewalling each other in some attempt to remain relevant. They should be upholding the law, not perverting it as a means to reach their own ends.  Which is a problem that would be solved how by passing choices to the states? There are huge issues with government... congress is a fucking joke at this point, a very dangerous one.... but do you think putting what is effectively a hyper-republican in the white house will fix that? Someone who wants to just wipe out any semblance of regulation and protection the system has?  > How can you be so naive as to think that our federal government has your best interests at heart, or that they are protecting your freedom?  How can you be so naive as to think Paul gives two shits about anything but his own agenda? "Oh, he just wants to follow the letter of the law", bitch please, his own views on shit like abortion/faith/finances constantly mold how he views those laws. You think if he wasn't religious that he would support prayer in schools? It's the same shit, with a different bit of food coloring thrown in.  > Just this year we have seen more attacks on civil rights, personal freedom, and privacy than we have seen the government allot new rights to any group in a decade.  And you think that leaving the states to individually chose how many rights those living in them individually will fix that? Why do I have a creeping suspicion that the southern states view the rights of others a bit differently?  > Drinking the MSM/AP kool-aid and throwing your hands up in the air and resigning yourself to letting a man who hasn't proved his worth to the country in any quantifiable terms have a second term seems as if it borders on apathy.  I'd love to see a system where you could vote in a list of choices. "I'd like A, then B, then C"... something where an informed voter could vote their personal view point without giving an advantage to groups who have few informed voters. That's not how our system works however.  I voted 3rd in the 2000 election. I live in Florida. To this day I feel like if I (and others thinking like me) had voted for Gore, the last decade may have gone differently. Call it 'kool-aid' or whatever underhanded condescending thing you want, that election cemented to me the importance of keeping the worse option out.  (edit: btw, I'm not the one downvoting your posts... I just didn't want you to get the wrong idea)
>You got any sources for that 40% number?   If your google is broken, here you go:   http   >And that's what's wrong with our country. People like you who affirm that your fellow Americans who disagree or vote differently than you are an "evil" that must be destroyed. You could not have more perfectly exemplified my reasoning that hardcore Reps and hardcore Dems are so similar, just two sides of the same coin tearing this country apart. So thanks for that, I guess.  If you think that's what's wrong with this country, then your head is up your ass. Our entire economy was razed to the ground in the last decade, it's illegal to talk about rising sea levels on the North Carolina senate floor, we're wasting billions of dollars on military activities that make our country less secure, and you're complaining about political divisiveness.  Yeah... I'm sure if we stopped this "us vs them mentality," then our economy would fix itself, our energy crisis would be over, income inequality would disappear, healthcare and education would become affordable, world peace would be realized, and cancer eradicated. Right.  But hey, if you'd like to live your life as a typical reddit neckbeard, and say things like "both parties suck, so I'm not voting for either of them," go ahead. It's definitely easier than using your brain. [SEP] > But hey, if you'd like to live your life as a typical reddit neckbeard, and say things like "both parties suck, so I'm not voting for either of them," go ahead. It's definitely easier than using your brain.  Are you for real right now? I mean are you actually serious? Do you not realize your exact attitude is exactly why Democrats lost congress last election? Because you all act like you are smarter than anyone and everyone who disagrees with you, and assume anyone who disagrees with you is a stupid redneck Christian Republican. You are so condescending and intolerant of opposing viewpoints and at the same time you claim to be the party of "tolerance" and "open-mindedness"? You blame everything bad on Republicans and believe that the only hope of our salvation is the Democrats? You have that kind of blind, bull-headed faith and devotion to the Democratic Party, and you say I'm the one with my head up my ass? Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ.
The only word that could be classified as "difficult" is cul-de-sac. Even then, how fucking lazy must you be not to google it.   By the way, this reddit culture of TL:DRs and ELI5s etc. is annoying me. Redditors are spoiled, expect to digest information quickly and without any actual brain use. You dont check if the facts are true and believe the guy that explains it most simply. Which just makes it easierfor anyone to mislead you. I mean, how many times a day is the first comment on a TIL a rectifying one?  If you expect to get smarter without actually reading what you call "walls of text," you'll be dumb your whole life. [SEP] > By the way, this reddit culture of TL:DRs and ELI5s etc. is annoying me  Then find another site. This is a place for the masses. The smart people know how to engage the masses without being condescending. The rest (like you) just end up looking like douches. 
> WTF? Did you seriously just claim that my friends are terrorists?  No. But you can convince them, they can convince others. Start a riot or two. That would be great. It is my true belief that if the Palestinians will set the example and show their love of peace, the Israelis will follow.  > Not when you backtrack on it because your community has turned on you.  What community? [SEP] >No. But you can convince them, they can convince others. Start a riot or two. That would be great. It is my true belief that if the Palestinians will set the example and show their love of peace, the Israelis will follow.  Oh wow. Could you get any more condescending? The Palestinians have made it very clear that they will settle for peace when they are given a viable state on 1967 borders. It is Israel that refuses this. The ball is not in the Palestinians' court - there is nothing more we can do short of selling out on our homeland, and none of us prepared to do this. We have already lost enough.   Your constant implying of Palestinians as somehow all being rabid terrorists who need to be brought around to their senses is very insulting.   >What community?  The Jewish community in South Africa. There are links in this thread - from YNet. You don't get media sources that are any more pro-Zionist than that.
Actually I do have statistics, though its pretty common knowledge...   http  or do i need to post 100 similar sites?  I usually don't bother to provide statistics that are known to anyone with a knowledge level high enough to add anything interesting to a topic. Usually, I use someone disputing widely known facts as someone not worth the time to discuss the issues with. On that note, have a nice day. [SEP] >  http  or do i need to post 100 similar sites?  LOL. These stats are from Australia. Are you kidding me? Did you even read the page you linked to?  Bible Belt christians are not the same as Austrailian christians, and your stats here are completely invalid. Again, if you're going to make a claim about demographics in churches in the Bible Belt, don't link to studies on Australian women.  > I usually don't bother to provide statistics that are known to anyone with a knowledge level high enough to add anything interesting to a topic.  Pretty condescending for a fucking idiot who couldn't bother to even find data from the same country that was being discussed. How does citing Aus data contribute to the conversation? I was honest in presenting an opinion, and now you are intentionally using unrelated data to support a bullshit claim you made.  > Usually, I use someone disputing widely known facts  Again, I don't follow Australian church attendance. In fact, I'm guessing you don't either, so you did a quick google search for anything that would support your claim, and upon finding something, you were so giddy with anticipation you couldn't be bothered to even verify if the information was at all relevant. All in all, pretty sad, really.  Was your attempt at disinformation ignorance or malice?
>It doesn't really seem that way, but I'll take your word for it.  I am sometimes overly bold in my debates, and so I sometimes give a disclaimer to show it isn't personal, and I'm not attacking you or your suffering, but the ideas that you are giving.  >"The core Christian teachings are inherently harmful to a gay person. I wasn't yelled at by anyone or bullied. I was made to feel worthless because that is what Christianity teaches: humans are wretched and sinful, unworthy of redemption. Toss in the fact that Christian's positions on gay people are pretty well known and clear, and you have anything but "love" being tossed around."  >So, I disagree with your statement about an idea not being able to kill. Thousands and thousands of dead gay kids would probably disagree too...if they were still here and had a voice.  So that proves my point. You were being taught by people that you were unworthy and basically a piece of crap (that's what I'm getting from what you were saying), and your reaction to this was to kill yourself.  Who tried to kill you? Yourself. You are a person, correct?  What gave you the push to do that? Well, according to psychologists, yourself again. But for the sake of argument, let's say it was the idea that you are worthless and unacceptable in life. But where did that idea come from?  A person. I don't know if that person was someone close to you, or a preacher, or a youth leader, or someone else. But it was a person. They pushed you to do that, either directly or indirectly.  And there's something else you must understand about Christian teachings and the Bible. The Bible does say that homosexual acts are a sin, yes. But the Bible also says that lying is a sin.  So who has ever told a lie? I certainly have, I would be lying if I said I never did. I'm about 99.99% certain that everyone has told one at one point or another.   So lying is a sin, and so is homosexual acts. Great, now we've established that:  I am inferring from what you said that Homosexuals are not accepted by Christians, and thus not accepted within churches. Please correct me if I am wrong for inferring that.  But if that is true, does it not follow that anyone who lies is not accepted into Christian churches? Or anyone who is a prostitute, or people who are jealous over something, or anyone who has ever stolen anything (which is probably just about everyone again, even if it was something small)?  If this were the case, then churches would be empty.  I'm not sure what denomination of Christianity you came across, but they are wrong and probably hypocrites. If they can tolerate liars in their church, then they can tolerate homosexuals. And that's what my church does. We don't teach that homosexuals are sub-human, or wretched and sinful, no. We teach that they are human, and have the rights to salvation just like the liar does.  The point isn't that humans don't deserve salvation, the point is that we don't deserve it but we receive it anyway, thanks to the mercy of God.   And, a source for this -  Matthew 21:31, Jesus himself speaking:  "Which of the two obeyed his father?" They replied, "The first." Then Jesus explained his meaning: "I tell you the truth, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the Kingdom of God before you do.  [SEP] >So that proves my point. You were being taught by people that you were unworthy and basically a piece of crap   Yes, this is the core of Christian theology. I see it reiterated on this board over and over, and even in your post that I quote later down in my response here. (Forget the whole gay thing too...I'm just talking about how anti-human Christianity is at its core.)   >But where did that idea come from?A person. I don't know if that person was someone close to you, or a preacher, or a youth leader, or someone else. But it was a person. They pushed you to do that, either directly or indirectly.  Well sure. But the ideas of humans being worthless sinners is built into Christianity. If we are really trying to get technical and play semantics (as you seem wont to do), yes ideas come from people. But how do you think Christianity is heard and spread and absorbed? Through people. So fine. People gave me the idea and people invented Christianity...it makes no difference. If you don't get the main point of why Christianity is so harmful to gay people, and you want to try and talk simply about individuals and pull the blame away from the theology, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.    > So lying is a sin, and so is homosexual acts. Great, now we've established that: >I am inferring from what you said that Homosexuals are not accepted by Christians, and thus not accepted within churches. Please correct me if I am wrong for inferring that..  You have oversimplified it and compared being gay to someone who lies. That tells me you do not understand the nature of the subject at hand. I always hear these kinds of ernest but incorrect comparisons from Christians. They say “all sins are equal” but don’t act like it and there is no burden placed on a straight person so heavy as they try to impose on gay people: “You are ok as long as you live your life alone!”   At any rate, the conversation has drifted. I still maintain (and so does empirical research actually) that calling gay people sinners for being gay is extremely damaging no more moral than calling a black person cursed for their skin color. (Remember that is how the Southern Baptists were formed BTW: As an offshoot to protect and biblically defend slavery.) Research shows time and time again this kind of rejection of the whole person (for that is what it is) leads to depression and suicide.   >We teach that they are human, and have the rights to salvation just like the liar does.  There you go again. Saying that someone lying and being gay are moral equivalents. It is a stunningly cavalier, condescending and cruel comment to make and my guess is you have never had very many conversations with gay folks over it. I could be wrong, but that is my strong suspicion. It is clear you do not understand that there is no measurable way to “hate the sin love the sinner” with regard to gay folks. It amounts “hate the person” though I know there is no way for you to understand that and you probably still wonder why we feel this way.   Any distinction you try to come up with between being gay and “acting on it” is totally arbitrary and relies on made up ideas and imaginary lines in the sand. For instance: Is a gay 5th grader with a crush being sinful for thinking fondly about his classmate or smiling when they talk to them? How about if a 9th grader falls in love with his best friend? What if they talk? Hold hands? Hug? Kiss? See what I mean? These distinctions Christians have tried to create between being gay and “acting on it” aren’t real and not accepting gay people for who we are leads to mountains of misery and thousands of dead kids. It is a scientific fact that has been measured over and over.  So, when I say “Christianity almost killed me”, in a very real sense, I mean it with all my heart.    >The point isn't that humans don't deserve salvation, the point is that we don't deserve it but we receive it anyway, thanks to the mercy of God.  Ahhh...thank you for this. This is exactly what I mean when I say christianity is anti-human and teaches that people are unworthy. You have just proved my point exactly.   I hope my position makes a bit more sense to you now. 
> she had many issues that made her look shady as fuck.  Well, Trump was shady as hell and it sure as heck didn't seem to hurt him in the end, so... The difference in standards between her and Trump for some voters will forever be a mystery to me.  [SEP] > The difference in standards between her and Trump for some voters will forever be a mystery to me.  Maybe Trump's white male base didn't like being condescended to by a pandering rich old white woman who thinks she's God's given gift to the earth?  And no, it wasn't sexism that made her lose.
What argument are you making exactly? It may not be a way of giving concrete instructions, but saying that treating Love as god I think is fairly in line with the whole "do unto others as you'd have done unto yourself," thing. But yea, I can understand how people would then just abstract "love" as much as they've abstracted god already; god is what people want him to be, and so too would love become.   Anyways, I wasn't using it as an argument to or not to believe in something or anything; it was kinda just a statement. I can feel love in the universe without having to attribute it to god, and I feel sorry for those who can't.  [SEP] Ahh, now you were doing pretty well, but then you said this:  > and I feel sorry for those who can't.  It's condescending, it's pompous, so please never tell this to anyone you know is a religious person.  And I say this as an apatheist. 
So maintaining an elaborate lie when you could have said nothing at all is.... the smart route to take here? Mmmkay.  > than to tell them to fuck off.  No one said anything about being vulgar nor rude, and it's your own short sight speaking more than anything. How about "I'm not comfortable answering that question" or "I'd rather not talk about it"? But of course rude people assume everyone else is rude. Projecting much?   SA has an article up right now about SDs that employ SBs. I don't see the issue if that's something someone wants to do. Why don't you stop telling people how to manage their work life balance and focus on your own :) Just an idea.    >Please get off your arrogant high horse because Google is a thing now in 2016 last time I checked, people can find out pretty much anything with a click of a button.  Lmfao shut the entire fuck up. First of all you don't know me and I sure don't know you, so chill with the character assassination & go sort out your displaced aggression. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing by attempting to insult me- meanwhile I'm just going on with my day unbothered. You need to go sort your problems out with the source of those problems instead of taking them out on ppl in the reddit comments, k?   Meanwhile I just googled my research assistantship and ta-da! It's not online!! Why? The internet isn't magically keeping tabs on every event of my life -.- So I re-iterate, shut the entire fuck up. The only issue is if your state records your employment, but google? Lmao oh really. Let me know how that goes for you.  [SEP] > So maintaining an elaborate lie when you could have said nothing at all is.... the smart route to take here? Mmmkay.    Who said it has to be an elaborate lie? The op is already lying, she is just not very good at it. All she has to do is refine and polish her story a bit then it's believable. If she suddenly turned into a bitch then her parents will obviously know something is up. Not all lies are bad lie, sometime it's better if your love ones don't know.    > No one said anything about being vulgar nor rude, and it's your own short sight speaking more than anything. How about "I'm not comfortable answering that question" or "I'd rather not talk about it"? But of course rude people assume everyone else is rude. Projecting much?    The context of your post is full of rudeness. Maybe you should take your own advice for once.    >SA has an article up right now about SDs that employ SBs. I don't see the issue if that's something someone wants to do. Why don't you stop telling people how to manage their work life balance and focus on your own :) Just an idea.    Taking advice from SA blog pretty much invalidate any of your "experiences" or "advices" (ill) you have given up to this point. This is the same blog that telling people when it's the best time to tell your kids about you're being a SD and when it's the best time to introduce your kids to your SB. Need I say more? That blog is just another marketing ploy SA churn out every couple of weeks, it's sad when someone who claimed be to so smart can't even see the difference.    I don't need to tell anyone how they live their life or what they do with their money but putting a SB on a payroll is the dumbest any rich-wealthy men can do with their life. A whole host of problems they will run into in the foreseeable future. You can ask pretty much any SD that and I'm sure 90% of them will say the same thing. (Unless you don't live in EU/US)    > Lmfao shut the entire fuck up. First of all you don't know me and I sure don't know you, so chill with the character assassination & go sort out your displaced aggression. Meanwhile I just googled my research assistantship and ta-da! It's not online!! Why? The internet isn't magically keeping tabs on every event of my life -.- So I re-iterate, shut the entire fuck up. The only issue is if your state records your employment, but google? Lmao oh really. Let me know how that goes for you.    Again your job is nothing special or hard to understand, just because you're working in a lab cleaning petri dishes, making agar for the next wave of bacteria, cleaning up test tubes or record the next set of data doesn't mean other people will be so oblivious to your job description.     You're so delusional it's hilarious, I don't need to get into character assassination and act condescending towards people. You're already doing a great job to yourself. I don't know who has more aggression me or you? This is coming from someone who tell an anonymous over the internet to "shut the fuck up". Last time I checked I was taking my aggression on smashing my keyboard so excuse me for not obliged to your "shut the fuck up" request and allowed me to re-iterate, what are you going to do about it if I don't? For your own sake I hope you're going to make enough money in the future to afford a good psychiatrist for your all your rage, aggression and delusional behavior.     PS: You even had to go back to edit your post to make it sounds more refine after your initial rage is quite something. 
Not eveyrone likes wasting their hard earned ammo and bandages on zombie and wildlife. People like you need to go to a PVE server so you can have fun fighting zombies/wildlife all day while the rest of us fight like real men on PVP [SEP] > while the rest of us fight like real men on PVP  This is a bit condescending and sexist. Plenty of women play pvp. plenty of real men and real women play pve, not caring for the kosfest that the old pvp became. Nothing wrong with that. 
Why did so many Indians go to California and why weren't they instead just deported back to India? [SEP] > why weren't they instead just deported back...  well that's condescending isn't it?
Thanks for making my point for me. In, you know, the present, Cuban-Americans are not voting conservative like they did. I'm glad your brain is in 1980 with all of your non-scientific assumptions. Also, your last two sentences make no sense whatsoever. This is what I'm talking about when I say I'm tired of talking to people that can't change their minds when presented with data contrary to their "beliefs."   EDIT: Oh, and I don't know what article you're referencing. That's not the one I read. [SEP] My brain is in 1980 with 65% in 2008, okay. Yes, Cuban Latinos are starting to shift their vote to the democrats, but again, that's only recently. The 'stigma' has been that they've been the part of the republican party for decades. During this election, on MSNBC, they kept talking about the impact of the Cuban Latino vote in Florida, because it's been a huge impact on the electorate against the democrats for ages.  I'm sorry your scientific research only goes so far with your data about _____, and _______.  >This is what I'm talking about when I say I'm tired of talking to people that can't change their minds when presented with data contrary to their "beliefs."  I presented you with overwhelming data that asserts that the Cuban Latino community has been a republican stronghold for decades, and you can't "change your mind" about them having that 'stigma'. I'm thrilled that they're voting republican less, and less. Who knows, in 8-12 years with the same course the GOP is going the dems might have Texas, and Florida for the foreseeable future.   Again, you first started out misjudging me with the "rule" when I was simply stating that a majority of Asians vote liberal except Koreans (in reverse). Same goes for the Latino community. The Latino community strongly votes for democrats, the exception to the rule of that are Cubans in Florida.  First the "rule" misjudgment then the conservative label. So quick to judge, huh? That's not nice.  >Also, your last two sentences make no sense whatsoever.  You were talking about North Korean expats blah blah blah you were being condescending about If I've heard of South Korea. Yes, if your crazy neighbor to the north is an extreme hardline communist regime then that polarization can create the opposite effect in South Korea.
Agree to dissagree my friend.  On timber mill (an wow this is your example for the longest map?) there are so many spots where you can cover; the uper left and right sides of the point where there are 2 levels one on the roof and one below; where you are COMPLETELY COVERED from kinessa unless she moves out of position.  And if you andro took 3 enemy people ur team isnt camping the point; unless they are retards; if ur point is secured, you should be moving ahead to keep enemy off the point; you should always start by backing up your tank not ur flank;   Once you take control over the point the team will naturally move to keep the enemies off of it with someone in the back capturing it (unless you play retard and have the whole team sit on point waiting to get fked, given ur logic that wouldn't surprise me)  Like I mentioned; there is loadout card for hp so wasting a legendary on Soul Colector is senseless; and mortal reach is extra range you don't need; you can POSITION yourself all maps have covers; EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM!  And whats with this: "Some maps are longer than you think"? I have more than 400 hours playing this game what kind of an argument is that?  And yes you can use Shadow Travel to avoid flanks which has a 14 second cooldown and keeps you safe for 4 second after which you are completely vulnerable; OR get agony and secure the kill on that flank yourself on a 10 Sec cooldown;  Agony is also great for stunning enemy champions (again you mostly heal and not fire; but it takes 4 shots to get a stun and w the heal cooldown or before the fight begins its easy to blanket the point with ur orbs);   Nando wants to shield? you stun him and his shield is on cooldown; which also work makoa an other tanks who can be disabled in the middle of a skill w that stun. But somehow range is better? Are you serious?  AND FINALLY; for that HUGE counter; is it bad if your team is getting resilience to counter ur stun when that means he is getting no damage reduction against your team with either Haven or Blast Shield?  I wasn't mean to that "other guy" I was expressing a point. If you are a wimp go cry on twitter about it.  Playing with shit flanks who complain that they get no heal is annoying and characters who won't flex (ex. Nando gets on point and activates shield so his job is done and he should just get masters?) looking at the healer like we have to fill the void for the team while they suck? [SEP] >Agree to disagree  >Go cry on twitter Perfect!   Soul Collector isn’t senseless. Buff her health card to maximum then you’ll realize that your health will be 3400, like barik. Also, your damage will increase from 200 to 250, like Torvald, except you get no falloff damage.   >I have about 400 hours 400 hours, in Gold, and you think the legendary card countered for 200/400/600 is the best? I hope I fight with you when you get to plat and diamond and you use Agony so I can show that CC gets deleted early to mid game.   >What kind of argument is that Uhh.. That I also position myself and some maps aren’t an instant-brawl like Frog Isle. examples, since I continue to give proof:  • ice mines on the pushes • timber mill literally anywhere  • snowfall junction (also always has snipers;p) • complete opposite sides of magistrates • serpent isles is long • jaguar falls on the sides  • stone keep has its moments • brightmarsh on pushes, healing from door • frozen guard has long paths • splitstone quarry, another sniper heaven (that’s three maps with lots of sniper coverage and long ranges) and ultimately proving a lot of use for mortal reach.  >shield  Yes, agony can delete shields. You’re saying this as if I didn’t play her with this specific legendary card for months. Something important to note is that if the tank was not smart enough to shield elsewhere or when he didn’t have your soul stacks appearing on screen, then he deserves to be punished and can probably be punished without a stun.   >And yes you can use Shadow Travel to avoid flanks which has a 14 second cooldown  Hold on. You’re acting as if that’s meager. Nobody in the game has a set escape for four second straight. Moji is two seconds, zhins billow has to be increased, as well does grohks. Seris turns invisible and invincible. You can adjust her cards to heal and increase speed in shadow travel so when you come out you’re in a completely different location. Not to mention, a healing card she has allows her channel to reduce shadow travel for a certain amount per second. I usually do this as 1 second reduced per 1 second channeling restore soul. Pretty beneficial to make that 14 second cooldown disappear and then you have another shadow travel ready in half that time.   > AND FINALLY; for that HUGE counter; is it bad if your team is getting resilience to counter ur stun when that means he is getting no damage reduction against your team with either Haven or Blast Shield?  Beautiful. You know you’re pretty much right, they are not reducing any damage taken. But what if your team lacks DPS and you went agony because you thought you would be a better flanker and position yourself so well you can heal at the same time too? They buy resilience and your stubs are useless, your 200 damage an orb is too slow to chip damage away, and you aren’t healing enough because you’re trying to fight! Resilience is an answer to Agony and once you leave Gold you’re going to find that out the hard way.  > Playing with shit flanks who complain that they get no heal is annoying and characters who won't flex (ex. Nando gets on point and activates shield so his job is done and he should just get masters?) looking at the healer like we have to fill the void for the team while they suck?  Didn’t I go over how I felt about this part last time? And for some reason, no matter how polite anyone is, you always give off a condescending retort as if you know more. sigh  Tldr; I was more of an asshole this post because you consistently prove yourself to be an asshole. Play more competitive, get more hours, and then please tell me how you demolished a team of mic-using, coordinated masters with a stun legendary.  Tldr2: seris as a CHAMPION is shut down in higher ranks. cauterize cripples her and her abilities don’t match that of maldamba. using agony makes you even more counterable since it starts off taking 200 credits.   I’m not here to shit on the legendary but I’m just here to spread facts :) Toodle loo!
And you're qualified to judge her parents on what basis? I wasn't even telling OP she shouldn't be having sex. Simply defending her parents and their parenting. Her parents not agreeing with her does not make them bad parents. They only want what is good for their girl. They're simply asking her to abstain until she's mature enough to make better judgment. I'm a single parent of a young girl and I'll definitely be teaching her that. Things like sex means absolutely nothing at their age. Especially when all it brings is stress.  [SEP] >They're simply asking her to abstain until she's mature enough to make better judgment  Asking a teenager to abstain from sex is fine. It's completely futile, but I don't object to a parent doing that.  Here are some of the things they did wrong: (1) The letter is extremely condescending. Aside from the fact that this is just rude in itself, it's also more likely to alienate her than anything. (2) They're punishing her, which is pointless and again, more likely to alienate her than anything. (3) The mother blew up at her when she first found out, and then stopped speaking to her. (4) They're not communicating any genuinely useful information about how to stay safe - this is what teenagers really do need to hear from their parents. (5) They're shutting down the possibility of any dialogue on the matter.  Here's a different approach. Explain your feelings on the matter - explain the moral view you have of sex and why you think it's the right approach to adopt. I don't have any problem with this, and as I've said elsewhere, on this point I agree with her parents. But you have to accept that she's 16 - she may not be an adult, but she's not a little kid anymore either - and there's a good chance she's going to have her own opinions. Rather than moralizing about sex, what you need to emphasize are the facts about the risks and how to keep safe.  Are her parents bad people? Probably not; I'm sure they care for her and have done a fine ob of bringing her up. Did they approach this particular issue in the right way? No.
Wow, that's an awful long reply to the statements:  You: Fruit doesn't rot on the ground! It gets made into jam!  Me: Yes it does rot on the ground.  Do you get tired of moving those goalposts all the time?  > I.e. the farmer cannot afford to ship the food to market.  Meaning fruit rots on the ground, contrary to your baseless assertion.  > Do you want farmers to go out of business?  Where did I say that? The video I posted explains exactly that, without judgement. This is why fruit rots on the ground. That's pretty much my point: capitalism means that often it's not worth it to make that fruit into jam.   But we've gotten off track, I thought you said fruit doesn't rot on the ground at all, it gets made into jam so no suffering farmers! [citation needed]  > In any case, what happens to the food? Just perfectly good fruit just sit on the ground rotting? Nope! >> entire fields of food may be left unharvested and plowed under. This is not a complete loss, as nutrients are returned to the soil.  Still on the ground (but eventually in the ground), still not jam.  >> A farmer who saw that 70 percent of his carrots were going to waste because of irregular shape or size decided to sell “baby carrots.” After cutting the irregular carrots small, he was able to sell them for $.50 per pound compared with $.17 per pound for regular-sized carrots. > That's capitalism.  One crop, limited application, my source. Still waiting on yours.  > It's almost as if you just googled the phrase "food waste farms united states"  Oh snap, you caught me and I thought I hid the search so well...  Your jam sources are still lacking. Waiting...  You're pretty heavy with your criticisms and pretty light on your own "all leftovers get made into something else" sources.   It's much easier to pick apart someone else rather than put up your own stuff. That's not only douchey, but cowardly. Or completely disingenuous.   > Does it exist because capitalism is evil?  And where did I say that? You said there was no waste or field rot because capitalism uses up everything, I merely brought up that it's not the holistic system you seem to think. And you went to a lot of effort to prove that for me and backpedal in your post. Not to mention the namecalling. The goalpost moving and name-calling usually indicate someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on.  Awaiting your sources that show that farms use/sell all of the crops that they grow in some fashion rather than letting some of them rot on the ground.  Remember, this is what we're discussing:  You: Fruit doesn't rot on the ground! It gets made into jam!  Me: Yes it does rot on the ground.  Try to stay on point.  I'm obviously not holding my breath. [SEP] This a lot of text but there's almost zero content here. So let's condense it down into the salient point:  > You're pretty heavy with your criticisms and pretty light on your own "all leftovers get made into something else" sources.   You made a claim. I asked you to back it up. You had an opportunity to have a conversation but instead decided to flap your ill-considered fever-dream of an ideology, got condescending and, sensing an opportunity to flaunt you intellect in front of an audience of strangers, you attempted to be an internet badass and did a shitty google search about a subject you know nothing about. And your failure was so complete that you posted a source that supports my points and not yours.  So there is nothing else to say or do here. This is like starting a fight with someone and continuing to mouth off while you punch yourself in the face so...while you continue to fail, I'll just...let myself out.  I say good day.
wow, you're really rude. OK, you can into thinking that you is of relevance little england-ball. I hope knowing that only morons don't recognise the supreme military relevance of the UK helps you sleep easy. [SEP] >wow, you're really rude.  Exactly what I think of you.  >relevance little england-ball  Not English, keep up the condescending crap ;)  >I hope knowing that only morons don't recognise the supreme military relevance of the UK helps you sleep easy.  'Oh look I can put words in peoples mouth, I'm so smart.'  Now go lick your American masters boots, I'm sure he's proud of you.
This place is called DebateAnAtheist. What that means, implicitly, is that it's a place FOR theists. It's a place for them to engage atheists with ideas and see what happens. Usually what happens is intellectual conflict because, well, our ideas conflict.  What this means is that, inherently, us atheists aren't going to "like" their ideas. We're always going to find their arguments fallacious, unsatisfactorily sourced, etc. That's the nature of the interaction we are offering to theists. But if we cite disagreements as reasons to downvote posts by theists, then they'll only ever get downvoted. Suddenly this isn't a place to engage with atheists anymore, it's a place to get dogpiled and shit on by atheists. Anything they post will get downvoted to hell because we, by definition, don't agree with what they're saying. So why should they post it in the first place? And then the subreddit dies because noone feels welcome to post anything.  I think things should only be downvoted if it's low effort. If they've taken the time out of their day to post 10+ sentences and cite their sources, thats the standard of engagement we want, and we shouldn't punish that with downvotes because we don't agree with what their saying (since that's the whole point of them posting it really, that we won't agree!) [SEP] >This place is called DebateAnAtheist.[...]  Do you really think that I do not know what this place is called or is this just you being condescending? This place is called DebateAnAtheist. What this means, implicitly and explicitly, is that it's a place to debate with atheists.  >What this means is that, inherently, us atheists aren't going to "like" their ideas.  I don't care about liking or disliking ideas. You may have noticed, if you read what I wrote, that I didn't mention disliking ideas as a criteria for downvoting. But I guess that it's good for you to waste your time tilting at windmills, but I do hope you eventually realize that they are not the giants you incorrectly assumed they are.  >I think things should only be downvoted if it's low effort.  That's great for you to think, and I'm glad that through all that condescending preaching and useless information that you provided in this response to me, that you were eventually able to express a useful thought. Good for you.  >If they've taken the time out of their day to post 10+ sentences and cite their sources, thats the standard of engagement we want, and we shouldn't punish that with downvotes because we don't agree with what their saying (since that's the whole point of them posting it really, that we won't agree!)  Not as a rule, no. Again, being verbose and linking to something is not in itself worthy of an upvote or unworthy of a downvote. Let's take your first two paragraphs for an instance, they were completely useless as a response to my post, because they didn't address anything I said. Which means you were not engaging with me, and were instead preaching at me, which to me, is worthy of a down vote. Not to mention the condescension throughout, like saying "This place is called DebateAnAtheist." Unless you earnestly and erroneously thought I didn't know to which forum I was posting. Either way, it reflects badly on you, and worthy of a downvote.  People are welcome to post here, but being condescending, preaching, linking without context, and not engaging, are not welcome to me. What I will and do upvote, even if I disagree with them, are respectfully delivered ideas that are free of condescension, that actually engage opposing ideas, that are not preachy, that cite well, and that appear to be earnest. And isn't that the point of debating? You know, people actually engaging with people who have opposing ideas instead of talking past them? 
First, sorry for the mess in bestof. The mods there tend to be... thorough in relation to "dramatic" things. I think they take it a little far sometimes (like I'm not sure why they decided to ban you as part of it), which can just end up making the situation worse.   > Why are votes suddenly being counted if soft-capping has been in effect.   I think you're still understanding the capping to do something different than it actually does. It doesn't make votes stop counting when it's in effect, it just changes the score to be something more like a "relative popularity" number, instead of being an exact reflection of the vote counts. The announcement just didn't have much voting activity for the last couple days, but your post brought some attention back to it again, so it started moving again.   You're not going to get banned for disagreeing with the change. People have been banned for doing things like creating many accounts to spam the admin inbox, not just for complaining about it in general. We really are interested in feedback, and have multiple things in progress to address some of the most common issues with it.  [SEP] > We really are interested in feedback, and have multiple things in progress to address some of the most common issues with it.   See, if that was what you said from the beginning there wouldn't be half the shitstorm there was. You came across as arrogant and condescending (because you were) so the community is witch-hunting you. 
I know we're mostly Oregonians here and love to do parochial nonsense like losing our shit about sales tax or having to pump our own gas when traveling, but a quick look at a little place called THE REST OF THE FUCKING COUNTRY will quickly demonstrate that listing taxable goods as [$pre-tax] instead of [$pre-tax + (pre-tax tax-rate)] is bog standard in the US.  So, that answers the first question. If my octogenarian grandma in Boca Raton can understand that tax is added to the price of a sweater from Talbot's, then so can you.  The answer to the second question is really an extension of the first. Walk into Calyxes and take a look at the menu. The menu displays the prices of the products. Medical users are taxed at 0%. Recreational users are taxed at 25%. In what way is this confusing? The menu shows the price of the item. It's just like going over to Vancouver and buying a TV from Best Buy. The advertised price is the price of the item. If it's a product that requires tax, it's taxed at purchase.  So, to Portland dispensaries:  Please change nothing. Your clientele is capable of learning basic arithmetic, and you would be doing them a dis-service by pandering to their laziness.  [SEP] Don't wear out your thesaurus bro.  >It's just like going over to Vancouver and buying a TV from Best Buy.  When I go buy POT in Vancouver Taxes ARE included in the price. Your attitude is very unhelpful and condescending. People want convenience in their lives. Do you understand why they would want convenience?   There are tons of stores and options like Deanz Greenz that do include tax in the price and they become a better option.  You come off acting like the store owner shilling it up in a public forum defending your lazy business practices. Either the store can set the prices fairly and up front with the customer, or they can force every customer to guess or calculate the tax on every purchase. It comes off as shady even though it is legal.  Enjoy being an Anglophile. I bet you love standing in line as well.
> Yea and those spots with high population density have high violence now don't they. Without guns London is passing NYC in murders.   No they don't you ignorant fuck. The EU has a murder rate 535% times lower than the US.  And regarding London, oh wow one of the most dangerous European cities had more murders for a few months than one of the safest American cities, that must mean EU has "high violence".  The most dangerous British city has a murder rate 3157% times lower than the most dangerous American city.  > Tensions breed violence and the countries that are pointed to as gun free heavens are 90% mono culture.  What are you talking about? there are more cultures, more languages, more ethnic groups, more diversity etc in Europe than in the US, how ignorant are you?  > They don't have school shootings and we don't have acid attacks. Different problems.   Yes the problem is that your mass shootings kill way more than acid attacks [that btw are basically only in the UK, are you forgetting the other 30 countries?]  You are brainwashed, I am sorry for you.   Sources:  - eu average murder rate: http   - US murder rate:  http   - St. Louis murder rate:  http   - Manchester murder rate:  http  [SEP] > No they don't you ignorant fuck. The EU has a murder rate 535% times lower than the US.  EU also doesn't have a drug war involving the countries with the highest murder rates in the world you dumb fuck. And they also have better systems for dealing with mentally unstable. And yet the high pop density areas have more murders then lesser dense areas now don't they you condescending dipshit. And that's if you ignore a history of fucking genocides across the continent.   > What are you talking about? there are more cultures, more languages, more ethnic groups, more diversity etc in Europe than in the US, how ignorant are you?  Oh Europe is one single country now is it? I guess all those boarders are just for show. Having free travel doesn't mean you're a melting pot. We are a nation of immigrants and that can cause friction.     • European countries are ethnically homogenous. This is, to me, one of the most interesting trends in the data. A number of now-global ideas about the nation-state, about national identity as tied to ethnicity and about nationalism itself originally came from Europe. For centuries, Europe's borders shifted widely and frequently, only relatively recently settling into what we see today, in which most large ethnic groups have a country of their own. That developed, painfully, over a very long time. And while there are still some exceptions – Belgium has ethnic Walloons and Dutch, for example – in most of Europe, ethnicity and nationality are pretty close to the same thing.  http   > Yes the problem is that your mass shootings kill way more than acid attacks  No shit moron. But living disfigured isn't exactly a win. My point was that different areas have different fucking problems. Mass shooting also kill more people than kangroo attacks. But we don't ban kangroo's and take credit for stopping attacks that never happened. I know this is hard for you to get through you skull but Sweden doesn't have to deal with Colombian cartels quite as much. The UK's NHS does a bit better job of the dealing with the mentally ill, which you should look into, than our system of nothing. The over all point was that when there were threats to soft targets, they took actions you deemed crazy. And that was on top of their gun laws. Our school shooting problem is a culture problem. It's a people problem. And dumb fucks like you that think there are one size fits all solutions are a progress problem.   This thread was nice and cordial having a decent discussion about an important topic until you showed up to drop some vitriolic turds. I'm sorry your life fills you with so much anger that you have to be an asshole to people on the internet. 
According to the way you talk French I suppose you're not French, sorry I just assumed you were sinced the music in the video is actually French.  My point is that Indila is heavily critized here and you'll more likely hear it sung by 13 years old girl teens in the subway... It's surprising to hear it in a PlanetSide 2 video. I don't know equivalents of that kind of popular music in the USA but it'd be pretty much like using Anaconda from Nicky Minaj. In a serious way.  BTW, I personnaly don't like your video that much but just because I don't think parkour suits PS2 well, apart from that your vid is nicely done. [SEP] > don't like your video that much but just because I don't think parkour suits PS2 well, apart from that your vid is nicely d  Yeah my french skills are poor. The person who asked me to reduce my frames did so in a condescending tone. His request was not unreasonable but you could tell he didn't expect me to actually be able to pull it off. I deliberately used music which was borderline annoying (and incredibly girly) in response to that... I think it worked the song has reference to movement and fit the bill for what I was trying to accomplish.  Ultimately this is how I move around in the game. I'v encountered hate for it, and also allot of curiosity. I don't mind explaining things but I do tend to troll sometimes. In this case its kind of like a half troll, I followed through with the request, but sometimes its more fun to prove someones wrong with a little bit of sass. 
I told you all the important things, Take communal defense and shattered aegis. If you cant figure it out from there You should learn your class more my friend. :P  Ill give you a hint, its Dragon hunter/ zeal/ Valor (<- you are taking this traitline basically just for communal defense)  If you are still having troubles Feel free to pm me ingame @dinotoss.4810, But play around with it a bit first and see how you like it. [SEP] > You should learn your class more my friend. :P  That's a pretty condescending thing to say. 
I take the demolition number as spurious since it's never been sent to bid. It's there "best guess" - and just so happens to be pretty close to the 100M number? Like something that costs 49.99! I mean why pay 60M when you can pay 100M!   Also, let's do a thought-experiement: you pay me $40,000 and I'm gonna put in a stage and have acts and it's gonna be so cool - and don't worry about the revenues - just think how cool it will be? SO when can you cut me a check? Of course you would say NO! Because you want to have some assurance that you would get your money back and that you are making a smart decision.  But lo and behold, when it comes to tax money, somehow we forget, as in the example above, that it's the exact same thing! [SEP] >Because you want to have some assurance that you would get your money back and that you are making a smart decision.  Grammatical errors and silly use of caps lock and exclamation points aside. Anywhere during your condescending and ignorant rant did you stop to think that maybe assurances like that are involved in the proposal process to getting this approved? This is a proposal, it isn't approved yet. 
is there any tips you could give for drawing faces and expressions?  i remember seeing something like this about how to draw faces and stuff more realistic, and it was about a bunch of CATS but I can't find it anymore :(  thanks!  edit: nevermind found it here.  http   i googled facial expressions cat and it was the first link. my google-fu is strong today :o [SEP] >i remember seeing something like this about how to draw faces and stuff more realistic  PRACTICE FROM LIIIIIIFE.  Seriously. We're not saying this to be elitist or condescending. It's just... if you copy someone's style, without knowing how is it stylized and what are the underlying principles, you'll end up making the same mistakes over and over.  Drawing from life helps you understand why something looks that way, and how are certain rules broken.  It's like... let's say you want to do a portrait. You know how eyes look like, how they're supposed to look like. But GASP that person has non-generic eyes, and you keep drawing and drawing and it looks nothing like that person and you're confused. Why doesn't it look like that person? Because you're drawing what you think you're seeing, as opposed to what you're seeing.
You're only 16 calm you tits. That feeling of wanting to be dead may linger but it's not gonna be so dramatic like it is right now. Plus your hormones are making you crazy. When they balance out you'll feel better. Might not be till you're around 20  [SEP] > You're only 16 calm you tits.  If you tried really hard it might be possible to be a little more condescending and dismissive.  edit  I've never known anyone who was calmed by an order to change their emotions. If you think that 16 is young to be answering this question that's a fair enough opinion but it ought to be possible to express it without also conveying that you think someone falls below the threshold for basic courtesy. OP has wished they were dead.
No, they are mutually exclusive. I tried to soften the explanation because I didn't want to call you a fucking idiot for not understanding what the word "probably" means. I was clearly too polite. Now if you'll stop stroking your reddit argument boner with cliches like "moving the goal posts" I'll tell you exactly how you embarrassed yourself.   If you use the words probably and only, it means you know enough to demonstrate what you assert is a near certainty and that there is a clear causal relationship between the the interference and the electoral college outcome. I asked for that proof/argument. That's when you shifted to I don't really know. You can't say you don't know why if you also assert something is probable unless you're too fucking stupid to understand that possible and probable aren't synonyms. And you certainly can't say that only interference could deliver the win if you don't have any explanation for how that causal relationship would work.   Understanding this doesn't require more than basic knowledge of the English language. Basic knowledge means that you have to be old enough to use a dictionary and understand very simple sentence structure. If you're older than 13 you should ask your guidance counselor for some remedial help.   I am hoping, again I'm being charitable, that your last message was the result of you being embarrassed by your own ignorance and trying to find a way to "act out" to make yourself feel better. I'm sorry if that didn't work out for you. You write like a slow preteen and have the maturity of someone a good deal younger than that. [SEP] > I'll tell you exactly how you embarrassed yourself.  Says a guy arguing about the word "probably" on an Internet post critical of Trump.  > You write like a slow preteen and have the maturity of someone a good deal younger than that.  Says a guy that writes nothing but condescending insults that aren't even technically accurate.
No, not entirely. And I never said I did. I've been talking about the importance of representation this whole time, I never even mentioned the Oscars until you brought it up, and when I did I supplied evidence to prove that minorities are grossly under represented in lead roles in film. I've also never specified myself to be talking selectively about Black Americans, but repeated that I'm speaking about minorities multiple times.  In future, try actually comprehending what's being said to you before responding. You'll find it a lot less embarrassing.  [SEP] >No, not entirely. And I never said I did.   So what the fuck is the point? Honestly. You go on and write these condescending, 8 paragraph lectures about diversity and you don't even believe that real racism is occurring out there.  The Oscars is an example of what we're discussing.  Minorities are the minority in film because they are - spoiler alert- minorities.   >In future, try actually comprehending what's being said to you before responding. You'll find it a lot less embarrassing.   In the future, try not to come off as a completely condescending, pandering, race-baiting male-feminist, ultra-sensitive pansy and maybe somebody will take you seriously.  In the meantime, I'm going to go see Deadpool this weekend and not wonder if the lead villain is a 1/3 spanish, 1/3 black, 1/3 native American transgender albino to calm your SJW erection.
>Not that it matters, but she has given her reasons  To the extent that she is not breaking up with someone who has brought up (and clearly wants) marriage, it does matter a great deal. This is an example of a couple clearly trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. That's fine, it is their relationship. But, if it is ever going to be a healthy one there needs to be understanding going both ways. I have no clue how this has anything to do with "societal norms". This is a relationship (for now) between two specific people with individualized wants and needs. [SEP] He didn't just "bring up" marriage, he proposed to her in public, in front of all her family after she expressly told him she didn't want to get married to anyone ever. It's a little insulting to OP to assume that she didn't give him the full picture as to why, especially as it doesn't matter. "I don't want to be married" should be enough for a person to make their mind up on whether they want to continue a relationship, which is what OP's boyfriend did when they had the discussion seven months ago. He chose to stay.  >I have no clue how this has anything to do with "societal norms".  I've just realised I mis-quoted you, apologies for that. I was referring to your, "do you even know them yourself?" comment, which is super condescending and insinuates that OP has limited understanding of what she wants because she's not conforming to societal norms. 
But you're only 17, right? So you're still a kid who hasn't really lived yet and didn't have to live through difficult circumstances. So it's easy to have a simplistic black-and-white view of things. It's okay, I was narrowminded like that as well when I was that age. The more you grow up, the more you'll realize that's not the way the world works. [SEP] >But you're only 17  That information is two years out of date. I am 19, as of tomorrow.   >. So it's easy to have a simplistic black-and-white view of things   IF you cheated then you can go and fuck off into a desert, I have no sympathy for you & you're an awful human being. There is no nuance here. You either do it and be a cunt for the rest of your despicable life, or you don't, and be a decent fucking person.    Take your condescending attitude and go fuck off. 
My solution for this sub was to stop playing games that they hate.   - Even you must agree that makes sense.  Your solution for me was to leave this sub because... i commented exactly that, on that one guy?  - yeah, no sense at all. [SEP] Holy cow.  > i commented exactly that, on that one guy?  No, you spent 6-7 hours being condescending in your replies and complaining about people complaining in this sub. You realize everyone can see timestamps on your comments, right?   Again, I suspect you're being contrarian just to be contrarian, but I'm going to take you at face value -- take your own advice and leave it well enough alone.   If people complaining about ea bothers you that much that, hours after your initial comment you'd still be hanging around, maybe don't hang around those threads. 
Your post whining about people not using the FAQ is actually 37 characters longer than the information contained in the relevant portion of the FAQ.  The FAQ is poor quality. If OP's question is novice enough that he needs to consult the FAQ, then the FAQ probably isn't going to help: either it will lack necessary information, be poorly sorted, links to pertinent information will be broken, or it will be written above his level. I tried to use the FAQ when I first started and found it to be almost completely useless. The most good I found from it was figuring out what I should google elsewhere or look up on other fora.  Unfortunately I'm still a novice myself, because if veteran users spent half as much time improving the readability, usability, learning curve, and depth of the FAQ as they spend bitching at people to use it in every thread, we'd be able to greatly reduce the amount of time the rabblers and whiners have to spend rabbling and whining about people not reading the FAQ. [SEP] We get comments like yours all the time, but none of you ever offer any suggestions on how to improve it.    >either it will lack necessary information  If the info isn't in the FAQ, we don't direct them to it. Only two regular users here do that, and those ones aren't veteran users for that reason. Those two are usually downvoted anyway.  >be poorly sorted  Theres a table of links that takes you directly to whatever header you click on..... And even so, if you think you have a better idea, just fucking tell us.  >links to pertinent information will be broken  Just checked, didn't find any.  > or it will be written above his level.  We can only dumb it down so much before it becomes condescending and/or ridiculous. There's also our glossary, and a link to a positions glossary in the training guide.  In regards to depth, one of the main problems people have is being overwhelmed by all the information. Adding more won't help.,   But like I said before, tell us how you think we can improve it rather than just bitching about it. 
Yeah. Thought you'd do that. :)   Saudi Arabia - Not treason and we both know it. You aren't being much of a lawyer. I'd love to see the looks you would get trying to bring that in to court. There's no wikileak connecting a specific businessman with specific support for al queda. There is the well known fact that factions in Saudi Arabia (even within the house of saud) support al queda and a well known fact that the US does business with Saudi Arabia. 1) No one needed a wiki leak to know those facts. 2) That does not constitute treason, just a shitty world with a necessity for real politik.   Spying UN international law - As you will happily be told by anyone with knowledge, there is no constitutional requirement to obey international law (well, customary international law. Ratified treaties are enforceable under US law). Espionage is also a normal part of statecraft. It is not remotely unconstitutional.   Cluster bombs - this is a UK internal problem concerning a treaty to which the US is not a signatory. Not unconstitutional.   Bombing of Yemen - authorised by Congress through the Authorisation of the Use of Military Force Resolution. Non remotely unconstitutional. You can look through this thread for other commentary on that (ctrl+F AUMF) or just google. The fact that the US is letting the Yemeni government take credit/blame for it is not unconstitutional.   Kidnapping - This was the one I agreed with. Everything about extraordinary rendition and detainment without trial is likely in violation of the constitution. We hardly needed Wikileaks to tell us about this though. Al-Masri was in the Los Angeles Times on 2008 and it's a matter of public record.   You want to find constitutional violations so you are bending the law and the facts to fit what you want to see. I have the advantage of not caring. I'm just looking at the facts on the ground.    [SEP] >Not treason and we both know it  How condescending of you to note.   And you don't think a specific case could be brought against those in the US government who continue to fund elements in both Saudi Arabia and ISI despite widespread knowledge about hostile use of our contributions? We'll have to disagree. The practicalities of such a prosecution can be debated, but any person continuing to conduct business with an entity funding a hostile fraction is giving comfort and aid to the enemy.  And as you will be told by anyone who isn't simultaneously extremely arrogant and possessed of the notion that their interpretation of law is the only correct one, there is a constitutional requirement that the US obey law ratified by Congress as defined by Article VI (that bit you put about ratification shouldn't have been in parentheses. Parentheses are for qualifications of data, not for making assertions which contradict sentential points). The unconstitutionality of the act doesn't lie in the mere acquisition of information. The NSA's unauthorized wiretapping of US citizens has already been ruled unconstitutional, so the application of existing precedents regarding constitutionality of any wiretapping outside of Headquarters depends on any surveillance of American staffers working for the UN (particularly the UNAEC). DNA samples and financial information are a different beast entirely and may be covered by Federal Criminal Code anyway. But the real catch is the illegality of any activity that took place on the grounds of UN Headquarters. As you'll find, the UN Headquarters Agreement was ratified by the 80th Congress and explicitly prohibits, under Article III Section 9 (among others), US agencies from performing official agency duties or seizing personal property on Headquarters property without the consent of the UN. There are also other specifications for diplomatic immunity pursuant to agreements at Vienna.  So for all your arrogant condescension, you seem to have missed the fact that the conventionality of espionage in "statecraft" does not imply legality.   You're correct about the Cluster bombs- some of the rhetoric by US politicians against Israeli use of cluster munitions mislead me into thinking the US had signed the CCM treaty.  Actually, Section 2 of the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution specifies that nothing within the resolution supersedes the War Powers Act. Which is why the US Congress had to authorize the use of force in Iraq past 90 days despite the Executive's classification of Iraq as a "terrorist state" prior to the assault. This required adherence to the War Powers Act is why international observers have noted that the US's continued armed presence (by nonmilitary agencies, I might add) in Pakistan and Yemen is legally problematic.   Glad to see that we agree here. However, there is one very real difference between your position and mine- Al-Masri's kidnapping is judicially covered by State Secrets, which effectively means that government employees don't have to give away any evidence which might lead to self-incrimination. So we essentially had no admissible official evidence regarding Al-Masri at the time. The Wikileaks documents, on the other hand, constitute official confirmation in a variety of ways.   Your claim to a higher standard of objectivity by "not caring" is contradicted by the very presence of your post.   
I'm a gun owning Obama voter. We do exist. Let me explain my approach:  I don't affiliate with either party. I see 2A rights as a civil rights issue. I sit left of center on most issues, but can't bring myself to vote for Republicans on the federal level for the following reasons (among others):   The party is in the middle of an absurd voter disenfranchisement effort.  The party has backwards stances on a whole slew of women's rights issues.  The party believes in corporate personhood.  The party has backwards stances on a whole slew of environmental issues. This includes global warning and more tangible issues like exempting fracking companies from clean air & water act regulations. (Nixon created the EPA, btw.)  The party opposes Obamacare and does not offer any viable alternatives. Lack of access to health coverage is a real issue. Let's also remember that poor people get a "free" ride at the ER because of the Republican patron saint, Ronald Reagan.  ...and the general "fuck you I have mine" attitude.  Both parties are corrupt and I think Obama has been a terrible president (NSA spying, bad domestic leadership, non-existent foreign policy, etc.), but he's miles ahead of McCain and Romney. [SEP] > and more tangible issues like exempting fracking companies from clean air & water act regulations.  Not to be a prick, but this is why people not in the super liberal cities like you in NYC, hate you big city liberal bullshit.  Growing up in a very rural area, that powers your city, it's a big case of NIMBY. I've suffered through orange rivers, shitty drinking water, and grey snow, all so you can turn on lights. It pisses me off so fucking much that people who watched gasland have such a condescending view on gas production, when it is way more environmentally safe than what we are currently dealing with.  You watch a stupid movie, and see that people have methane in their water, like many parts of the country do, and you claim that this practice needs to end. Then you lobby your fucking congressmen to stop the horror, then you make it worse for the areas that actually produce your power, by putting fucking bullshit regulations that make it worse.  Did you know, that because of NY and MD politicians, my state of PA can't build anymore water treatment plants to dispose of fracking water, despite fracking being allowed? So now we have to send the exponentially growing water to only 4 treatment plants, that are fucking up the rivers they are on because they are so overburdened, when we could of just built more plants to handle the waste?  The problem is with NIMBYers like you, who reap the benefits of other places, while dictating what, when, and how they can do things, then bitch because their prices go up, or whatever. It's fucking ridiculous. That's like saying that your fucking politicians in NY and CA can dictate what guns people are allowed to have, or how big their mags can be to the other 48 states. It's fucking insane if you ask me.  This is coming from someone who spent most of their adult life in the cesspool of NY and NJ.  But, hey, I'm really glad you bought into propaganda disseminated by middle eastern countries and Russia, so that we can spend our money there and make them richer, while we fight in our own country.  That's not even touching your other stereotypical, generalized, extremely uninformed and bigoted views. I bet your the type of person that hates Wall St., financial institutions and the 1%, while championing Obamacare that now forces you, by law, to now do business with those same companies, propping up their stocks, and making the 1% even richer.
Everyone is giving you the exact same response and advice: delete the games. But why? You say you become addicted really fast, why not give yourself a time window to play in (let’s say daily from 1800-2000). This way you don’t have to go cold turkey on your addiction.   I don’t have kids. I do have a gf and my own place. Chores first then gaming as usual, do everything you need to do in the house before you start gaming. Speak with your wife about how long she “allows” you to play games.   For the record: I play up to 20-30hours a week. I work full time too. [SEP] > Speak with your wife about how long she “allows” you to play games.  By all means find something that works for both parties (I do), but this "what women allow their men to do" shit has to stop.  It's both condescending and common as hell. Men don't "allow" women to do anything, the reverse should also be true.
If you connected 2 neurons before typing, you would've tried to replace "more" with "less" and see that it made sense in the overall post.   Edit: There was a typo but like I said, it was obvious. Btw if you're coming at me on maths level/degrees, you're going to be disappointed...  [SEP] > If you connected 2 neurons before typing  condescending and unnecessary
I think it would be great if we had a public debate about US policy towards Latin America, and I am confident that if Americans had a better understanding of the political history of Nicaragua, they would generally be supportive of the Sandinistas. Discussing these sort of things is what is supposed to happen in a democracy. [SEP] > and I am confident that if Americans had a better understanding of the political history of Nicaragua, they would generally be supportive of the Sandinistas  This is why Clinton supporters condescend to you guys so much. It's just impossible to take you seriously at all most of the time
If you're serious, he means Delaware. [SEP] > If you're serious  Do you know all the abbreviations of German states off the top of your head? No need to be rhetorically condescending.
Nice. So as SWTOR gains a couple thousand subs a week it bleeds tens of thousands. No wonder the game is growing.  Of course you prolly believe the game still has 1.7 mil subs and has stayed at that number since January because Bioware says so. how adorable [SEP] >Nice. So as SWTOR gains a couple thousand subs a week it bleeds tens of thousands. No wonder the game is growing.  That's not what you said. I was addressing what you said, not what you meant.   >Of course you prolly believe the game still has 1.7 mil subs and has stayed at that number since January because Bioware says so. how adorable  Well that's certainly out of left field... never said, implied, or even approached that subject.  Don't try to be condescending when you're using logically fallacious arguments and assumptions... it makes you look like a bit of a cunt.
A contributing factor is a large addition of adjunct grains (rice or corn in that beer's case). They add simple, highly fermentable sugars with a very flavor-neutral flavor profile. Pair that with a very restrained hop bill and you've got yourself a glass full of "drinkability".  And both are a lot cheaper than malted barley. [SEP] >And both are a lot cheaper than malted barley.  Though oft-quoted by beer geeks, this "fact" isn't always true and doesn't really have anything to do with the choice to include adjuncts.    EDIT: didn't mean for this to come off as negative and/or condescending. Everything except the last line of your post was spot on. 
"I'm too broke to move" is a pretty flimsy excuse. If you don't want to leave because of family or work or general anxiety, then own it. Otherwise, start saving up and making your plans.  Your best bet is to get away from her and move somewhere with a deeper dating pool for you. A bigger city would be better for both purposes. [SEP] >"I'm too broke to move" is a pretty flimsy excuse.  You must be writing out paychecks and handing them out? This attitude always pops up in these threads. It is extremely condescending.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist.  I wonder if you would say the same thing about how we should constantly worry about crime every day in and out and talk about it on reddit. "Crime is everywhere, we need to create scientific tools to predict criminals before they act" instead of simply accepting that there will always be a minimum of crime.  There will always be a minimum of unemployment but someone out there might be saying "it's solvable, we can have 100% employment, we just need to make up stupid jobs for everyone."  These kinds of mentalities of expecting perfection can have its own set of consequences which you fail to realize.  I also can't seem to figure out why you've delved into a British accent and a woman fetching tea.   Do you think we can also have 100% fuel-efficient oil engines? Perhaps you should waste your time looking into that while we worry about creating new green technologies and electric engines. Everything is an investment in science, why would you invest your time and energy thinking about how "power and corruption is terrible" when you could be doing something more productive and simply acknowledging that this is a problem that won't have a real solution. There will always be governments or authority-figures and there will always be corrupt individuals (who we will reduce with time and education).  [SEP] >You sound like a conspiracy theorist. I wonder if you would say the same thing about how we should constantly worry about crime every day in and out and talk about it on reddit. "Crime is everywhere, we need to create scientific tools to predict criminals before they act" instead of simply accepting that there will always be a minimum of crime.  You sound like a denialist.  I wonder how you suppose crime rates have gone down so dramatically in tandem with 24/7 news?  >it's solvable, we can have 100% employment, we just need to make up stupid jobs for everyone  Why make up jobs and require people to do them when you could just pay them, directly, enough to live and that way they could do something they care about with their time, instead?  >These kinds of mentalities of expecting perfection can have its own set of consequences which you fail to realize.  You're doing such a good job of enlightening me with all those vaguely ominous, condescending sneers...  >I also can't seem to figure out why you've delved into a British accent and a woman fetching tea  Oh dear! Was the concept of a comedic vignette too complex and nuanced for you? Goodness! That must be dreadful. Oh I do say. Simply dreadful.  >Do you think we can also have 100% fuel-efficient oil engines?  Why would you specify oil engines? Do you think we can have 100% efficient systems of any sort?  >Everything is an investment in science, why would you invest your time and energy thinking about how "power and corruption is terrible" when you could be doing something more productive and simply acknowledging that this is a problem that won't have a real solution  Government has an effect on the real world. Therefore we can study it, understand it and do science with it to improve its functioning to suit our interests.
> Again, are Baptists members of a cult?  My words "Your links MOSTLY referenced cults."  > How do you know that your experiences are vastly numerically more than the many personal experience I've had and that have been shared with me over several years.  Lol. Because I've BEEN a Christian. I've known hundreds of Christians. I'm involved in multiple Christian organizations. There's simply no way you've had more experiences with Christians than me. it's statistically so unlikely.  > How about you go to the atheism subreddit and see for yourself?   That famous place where people write things that reflect reality. Hahahahaha. [SEP] Do you really think that someone who is willing to be deceitful in converting another person is going to admit to it in front of other Christians?  >That famous place where people write things that reflect reality. Hahahahaha.  No need to be condescending. Lots of atheists post stories about things that have happened to them, one of them being attempts at conversion by nefarious means. Are you insinuating all atheists are liars?  And you still haven't answered my question. Are Baptists members of a cult?
Took a word right out of my mouth. The game was nothing but underwhelming since launch, honestly, I thought people who loved it were desperate for the sci-fi shooter (fake) MMO. I'll just keep my eyes on it without hype. [SEP] >I thought people who loved it were desperate for the sci-fi shooter   Well that's condescending.   Maybe people loved it because it was a fun adventure to have with friends?   No, that can't be it. We must have been "desperate" to enjoy it. 
> How was he not even slightly OT? When did the thread become about traveling in Asia? The topic was about a stupid play that was demeaning to gamers. It was never "how many countries have you been to?"  ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? ARE YOU ACTUALLY?   INB4: hurr durr so mad write with caps.   A guy said "life is boring". The guy responded: "no life is good if you do stuff". That's it. That's not off topic. That's not bragging. You and the losers who upvoted you and went on my page to downvote everything I have written are fucking pathetic. Fucking living your lives through fairytales and video game characters. And that is fine. You have a right to be pathetic. But I also have a right to say that you are.  >You can't even address any of the points I made because you've been completely dismantled.  You serious though? You haven't made any points. You talk about fucking genetics and "well doesn't matter because Asia and America all have the same people you know there is no difference, and I should know because I've been to 4 whole countries!!". I don't even know what to say about stupidity like that.  >All you can do is resort to insulting my (wonderful) wife  I never did.  >Trust me, kiddo  And again, being condenscending. Anyone who disagrees with you is a kid. Right?  >I can see how hard you're projecting your problems on me.   Do you know what that word means? I am not projecting anything.  >I mean who has such an emotional tantrum and puts on such a shamefully childish display simply because people don't share his opinion.   Are you trolling me? Are you actually retarded? You are actually retarded. You have responded to every message I have made in this thread, even ones not directed to you because you are so mad that I think that life is good. And that the world is nice. Talk about not liking different opinions.  >If you have an aneurysm every time someone goes "Well I disagree and here's why"  It isn't even close to "Well I disagree and here's why". It's more like "I have really fucking stupid opinions like that the world and real life is shit and I am gonna downvote anyone who says otherwise and say that they are bragging".  >you won't make it far in life.   Condenscending again. Implying I haven't made anything of my life. Teach me sensei. Teach me how to be as well travelled as you are. Teach me how to play vidya games as well as you do. I envy your life so much. [SEP] >This trip costed about $7000 U.S. dollars. Took me around 10 months of working 30 or so hours a week to save for it. Also became a divemaster while I was out here, which costed a bit more than I had intended to spend. Probably could have done in for 6k, including flights and everything.  >That's absolutely true, and I'm glad I was able to make this happen for myself. But, I think you are overestimating how difficult it is to find that time and money. 6 months costed me around $7000 including flights and the costs to become a divemaster, which was about $2000. I could have done it much cheaper. I know a guy who was traveling for about $300 a month by sleeping in a hammock and hitchhiking everywhere. As far as time goes, as long as you don't have kids I really don't see a reason you couldn't find even a month or 2 to go traveling. It might cost you more because you might have to pay for your car to be parked somewhere while you're gone, or because you have to pay your rent for those months you are gone, or even be able to make your student loan payments while overseas, but it's doable. If you are one of the very small amount of people that absolutely in no way can find the time or money to see the world, then I am very sorry for you. You are missing out on a lot.  >In the span of 6 months I have met hundreds of people, and have made lifelong friends from something like 20 countries. I have been bungy jumping, became a divemaster, have had taxi drivers try to sell me opium in Laos, and saw the effects of the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia first hand. I had such a strong happy brownie in Siem Reap that I actually blacked out and had to be carried back to my hostel by my friends. Then I had to wake up at 4am so I could see the sunrise over Angkor Wat, which is probably the most impressive complex of ancient temples in the world, not to mention where tomb raider was filmed. I've been on an island with a population of about 75, and I've also been to an island that fit some 50000 people on to one beach and partied the night away. And that's just the beginning of what I did. If you can read all of that and say that the world isn't an amazing place, then there is no point in even talking to you because you'll just never understand.  >India is definitely major leagues for traveling, but most of Asia is really easy. Anyone you absolutely need to talk to has atleast enough English to get their message across. Scams are really only prevalent in major cities in my experience. Once you get out to more off the beaten trail type of areas you really get to see what these countries and people are like. I went to a village in Laos on my way to the biggest cave in southeast Asia and it had no internet at all. There was only 1 guesthouse and 2 "restaurants" in town. Both restaurants were basically converted garages with just a family running it. In one the 8 year old kid would come out and take your order, the mom would cook it, then the dad would take your money. To get to the toilet you had to walk through their living room where grandma was sewing clothes together. Sorry kind of got off topic there but i never felt like more of a traveler or like I was seeing more of the real side of a country than I did then.     How is this not off topic? You really do have trouble with the most fundamental strings of reasoning, don't you?  >You serious though? You haven't made any points. You talk about fucking genetics and "well doesn't matter because Asia and America all have the same people you know there is no difference, and I should know because I've been to 4 whole countries!!". I don't even know what to say about stupidity like that.  Why are you acting like this is literally the only thing I've said? How about you address the fact that most if not all people downvoted your comments and the other guy's comments because he was simply wrong to ever imply reality is objectively more interesting than video games when "reality" for the majority of adults is to wake up, work, piss, shit, eat, sleep. That people have responsibilities they have to take care of before they can indulge in weird hedonistic adventures. Or touch on the point I made about how hypocritical you're being for insulting all those people for downvoting comments they disagree with when you're doing the exact same thing.  And how about you address the fact that despite pointing this out for you so still some how felt the need to insult and belittle these people simply because they disagree? You haven't replied or touched upon any of these things because you have no rebuttal. After reading the comments where I made this and many other points, all you could do is insult my family and me and that's all you'll be able to do. It's the sign of a very immature adult incapable of forming his emotional writhing into a coherent thought.   >I never did.  >I am honestly flabbergasted that a woman was desperate enough to have your children.   And there were a couple more but this does the job I think.  >And again, being condenscending. Anyone who disagrees with you is a kid. Right?  I've explained this to you before, it's not an insult or used in any condescending tone. I'm deeply apologetic if you found it to be so. I call everyone I talk to who's younger than me "kiddo". It's a custom around here.  >Do you know what that word means? I am not projecting anything.  It's a clear sign that someone is projecting when they have absolutely no basis in reality to make such broad and insulting assumptions about a person. The fact that there was literally no indication at all that warranted what you said and the fact that you have such a shameful outburst of insults when people disagree with you would bring anyone to the obvious conclusion that you're projecting your (emotionally unstable) problems.  >Are you trolling me? Are you actually retarded? You are actually retarded. You have responded to every message I have made in this thread, even ones not directed to you because you are so mad that I think that life is good. And that the world is nice. Talk about not liking different opinions.  Stupid straw man I don't even have to address but I will just so you get the picture. I didn't respond to you because I disagreed with your thinking that life is good. You're incorporating a lot of stupid fallacies in all your arguments. This one is called a false dichotomy. I agree with you that life is amazing. I'm not mad at that point and furthermore, that was never your point. All I did was scold you for being so childish in the way you responded to people who like different things in this amazing life. Then you started saying stupid shit like "I'm angry at their downvotes not their opinions!" so I talked about that too. Then I responded to your response that I was idiotic and pathetic for holding the opinion that people really are all the same. So then I did what any adult would do, I presented some objective reasoning as to why I hold the opinion. But, like you did for every point I made, couldn't for a single second debate any of them and instead resorted to your now established comfort zone, ad hominems.  >It isn't even close to "Well I disagree and here's why". It's more like "I have really fucking stupid opinions like that the world and real life is shit and I am gonna downvote anyone who says otherwise and say that they are bragging".  And you can't understand why I can't speak to you like an adult? Interesting.   >Condenscending again. Implying I haven't made anything of my life. Teach me sensei. Teach me how to be as well travelled as you are. Teach me how to play vidya games as well as you do. I envy your life so much.  It has nothing to do with being condescending. This is a simple fact in life. If your brain can't handle people holding different opinions than you, you won't make it in life. I never implied you haven't made anything of your life. You're only 23, would you disagree you have a lot of progressing to do? Why would I teach you to be well traveled? First I never claimed to be, second why does being well traveled = wise? Some of the smartest monks never left their monastery. And another funny thing is is that you probably play and enjoy video games more than I do. I mean you yourself admitted that video games are your interest and why would you be on this board? Don't insult people for doing the exact same shit you do, it's hypocritical.  
> when we refuse to make a strong distinction between rape and sex  There isn't one. Rape is a type of sex: non-consensual sex; oppressive sex.  > we only have ourselves to blame when a majority of rapists do not believe that what they did was rape.  The problem of rape culture arises from confusion and ignorance surrounding the concept of consent---which this insistence on a rare and unusual usage of words isn't helping with. And it creates whole new ambiguities that never existed before. For instance, if 'sex' is taken only to mean 'consensual sex' then there can be no such thing as 'sexual assault' by definition. As a victim of sexual assault, I, and I expect many others, find this term to be the best description of what happened to me. I suppose I should have to invent a new term and stop using this convenient and accurate one that's already well established?  > language evolves. if it bothers you so much, you can hide in a hole and lament the fact.  The language isn't evolving in the direction that a tiny minority of people are trying to shoehorn it into. In the absence of any real reason or utility to adopt this unorthodox usage, the word 'rape' will continue to carry the meaning that most people (including healthcare facilities and rape counselors) employ with it: non-consensual sex.  Attempting to correct people away from using normal language, without offering any compelling reasons to do so isn't going to alter this. It accomplishes nothing but condescension.  [SEP] > Attempting to correct people away from using normal language, without offering any compelling reasons to do so isn't going to alter this  "human psychology is affected by language. when we refuse to make a strong distinction between rape and sex, we only have ourselves to blame when a majority of rapists do not believe that what they did was rape."  And you call me condescending  
> i am talking about desktop composition, not the special case of fullscreen composition  As am I. Do you not read the things I write?  > However i have not seen it being done (for desktop composition) in any OS  I've listed Mutter, Weston and Android. Mutter only uses a primary plane for scanout but switches the buffer which is scanned out when a window is full screen. Weston and Android are using all available overlay planes to composite as much as possible on scanout.  In fact, Keith said (and you can see it on one of the slides) that he wants to try to do exactly that for Xorg.  So again: Why do you think exclusive fullscreen has any advantages here?  > are composed during the scanout (if this is done in a previous step on the video memory or on the fly during the scanout is not important, the important part is that what is sent to the monitor is whatever is the current state of the buffers - even if some applications were in the middle of updating them).  sight. Yes it is important. If you render into a framebuffer the order in which the pixels get updated is not guaranteed. Tiling, compression, scheduler, tests and more will make sure that when you actually render to a framebuffer that is being scanned out that the result on the screen is garbage.  The only way to avoid this is to finish rendering and then swap buffers or use the scanout engine to do the compositing.  I'm sorry, but that's reality.  > Also FWIW i'd always prefer tearing and a bit of flickering here and there (assuming it isn't massive and constant) to the latencies introduced by vsync.  Seriously? Do I now have to explain why that's completely stupid and makes no sense at all?   People like you are the worst. You know too much to be ignorant and too little to actually understand what's going on. [SEP] > I've listed Mutter, Weston and Android.   You listed, but i haven't seen these myself (well, i've seen Android but i cannot judge how performant in terms of latency a touch screen is, i need a mouse :-P). As i've repeatedly wrote, i am talking from my experience and you cannot really convince me about something i have experienced otherwise myself. You made a guess that this might have to do with Nvidia's drivers, which can be a valid guess and Nvidia being a black box that doesn't let me peek inside is something that makes me consider buying an AMD GPU next. At that point i'll probably reevaluate my stance against compositors (i do not expect that it'll change because they are still middlemen between the application's output and the GPU, but we'll see).  > Why do you think exclusive fullscreen has any advantages here?  Excuse me? I've been writing from the very beginning that i am skeptical about the advantages of using DRM lease for exclusive fullscreen access. But since the mention of "optimizing compositor" i am not talking about this subject at all but about compositors in general.  > If you render into a framebuffer the order in which the pixels get updated is not guaranteed. Tiling, compression, scheduler, tests and more will make sure that when you actually render to a framebuffer that is being scanned out that the result on the screen is garbage.  Yes this can happen when updating the content of a buffer using the 3D hardware, i was mostly thinking about dumping pixels however since GUI toolkits seem to do everything on the CPU these days and dump pixels on buffers (i do not really like this approach and i suspect it comes from Wayland's core spec that only defines shared memory surfaces, but whatever, this is how it is done).  In this case you'd probably need some sort of double buffering though, but that shouldn't affect things much as long as the rest of the process isn't also buffered - otherwise you'd get what i wrote previously: an old image made using older images with the output that the user sees being several frames behind.  > The only way to avoid this is to finish rendering and then swap buffers or use the scanout engine to do the compositing.  Yes, this is why i wrote several posts above that in my opinion the best compositor would need to be done during the scanout.  > I'm sorry, but that's reality.  > Seriously? Do I now have to explain why that's completely stupid and makes no sense at all?  > People like you are the worst. You know too much to be ignorant and too little to actually understand what's going on.  People like you are annoying to discuss with because they tend to assume that they know way more than what the other person knows, mainly because they make zero effort to understand what the other person is saying, and this supposedly superior knowledge gives them license to be condescending and arrogant which ends up making any sort of discussion with them a chore.  I always try to ignore any signs of arrogance when discussing technical topics, but i draw the line when namecalling and personal attacks enter the picture. I'm sorry you cannot stand me and find what i say stupid and the worst, i'll relieve you from discussing with me.
Do you think people want to be doing these service jobs? When you say "it's somebody's choice" - it's not really much of a choice when it's this, or make no money for his/her family. Anyone who stands two feet from a gas pump all day long in 45+ degree heat will always be a "poor bastard" in my books and I'll do whatever small things I can to make the job a little easier for them. [SEP]  >I'll do whatever small things I can to make the job a little easier for them.  Good you understand that. It's recommended.    >when it's this, or make no money  So you understand that yet you want to act condescending and label them a "poor bastard". You can go stuff your sorries in a sack.  What a stupid mentality. 
But I think it's a big mistake to interpret Tim's post as a "character assassination"; it's just pointing out some of the issues with women's participation in the community. (And let's face it, on this count Haskell does poorly even compared many of the other the overwhelmingly male-dominated open-source language communities.)  And I don't see what was so scary about the ensuing discussion; again I think we handled it pretty well all-in-all, and I believe it was a positive thing for the community. [SEP] >But I think it's a big mistake to interpret Tim's post as a "character assassination"  Really? The speaker said nothing wrong, or objectionable, or even questionable. And you feel this was an appropriate response:  "exactly the kind of comment that tells women that a space is unsafe for them."  "saying that women are valued for how they look, not for what they do"  "And because many women see spaces where they are targets for the male gaze as spaces where they will be targets for more than just men's gazes, it's a comment that carries the underlying message that the computer science conference under discussion is not, in fact, a place where a self-protecting woman ought to be."  "ones that limit women's choices, careers, and lives."  "alienating to any non-heterosexual men"  Ok, I'm only half way through and he's already accused the speaker of limiting women's careers and lives, alienating non-heterosexuals, saying women are only valued for how they look, telling women that ICFP is unsafe for them, and implied that women will feel likely to be assaulted because of the speakers statement. The statement I must remind you was "make the meetings more attractive for both". I do not see any way anyone could reasonably interpret that statement to have any of the absurd effects Tim made up, much less all of them. How would you characterize telling the world that someone limits women, alienates homosexuals, and makes spaces unsafe for women if not as character assassination?  >And I don't see what was so scary about the ensuing discussion  The overwhelming desire to jump on it as though there were some merit to the absolute nonsense complaint? The condescending and patronizing dismissal of anyone who dared to suggest that maybe, just maybe, saying that making meetings attractive actually meant making meetings attractive. Do you really think "shut up, you are a man so you can't talk" is appropriate discussion? Nevermind that it is hypocritically being tossed out by men who are being offended on behalf of women who didn't find it offensive.  "and oh boy do guys always want to have opinions about gender issues"  "Why are men so sensitive?"  "You may want to stop mansplaining."  "If you think that even one woman needs to be condescended to in such a treacly way about the basic facts of her daily life, you need to have more conversations with actual women."  "Yes, it's the school of "make it from one end of the month to the other without being assaulted, intimidated, or made to feel uncomfortable simply for who you are". Be glad you didn't have to go to that school."  I mean, seriously? That's the kind of shit that the haskell community takes pride in?
>None of these sources give us any information about Jesus' life or his deeds, other than that the figure existed and was executed by the state - something which I never denied in the first place.  >Uh, yes you did. This is your exact quote "By the Roman time period, historians were rather prevalent. Emperors, governors, criminal records...these exist and can be pinpointed to almost exact dates. Yet, none exist for Jesus of Nazareth."  I meant that there are no records which record anything specific about Jesus. All that we loosely know is that he was a radical preacher who started a movement, perpetuated by Paul, and that he was crucified by the state. I did not deny the existence of Jesus, if you go back to my original post which started this thread, it reads:   >Well, to be fair, the general academic view of the Jesus figure was just a miracle working radical apocalyptic preacher who focused a lot of energy on the poor during a politically unstable time. Each Gospel had its own agenda and its own target audience. It's unlikely that Paul ever actually met the man. But, with so little historic data on Jesus, we can't really know what he actually stood for.  You have misinterpreted much of what I have said and have attacked everything. All that I meant by the original thing that Q is the best we have is that those sayings are probably the most accurate to being what Jesus really stood for, since they appear more than once in almost identical language. That was it. I wasn't trying to throw it out there because I think it sounds cool, or whatever you think my intentions were.   The conversation has still been fun, I always enjoy this subreddit's religious discussions more than the atheist subreddits, but I really dislike your personal style, so I'm just going to leave it at that. I dunno if you are extra abrasive because I am an atheist or if you always talk like that, but it's very offputting.  [SEP] >All that I meant by the original thing that Q is the best we have is that those sayings are probably the most accurate to being what Jesus really stood for, since they appear more than once in almost identical language. That was it. I wasn't trying to throw it out there because I think it sounds cool, or whatever you think my intentions were.  No matter how many times you repeat this, its still not going to make any more sense. Mark's words appear in 3 Synoptics. Heck there are even some portions of the Gospel sayings and narrative that are in all 4 Gospels. Q's sayings don't make themselves anymore special for being in 2 Gospels than any of Jesus' other sayings that appear in more than 1.   >The conversation has still been fun, I always enjoy this subreddit's religious discussions more than the atheist subreddits, but I really dislike your personal style, so I'm just going to leave it at that. I dunno if you are extra abrasive because I am an atheist or if you always talk like that, but it's very offputting.  I don't care if you're an atheist or if you're a Christian. I don't care if you're posting on Reddit or on a Christian forum. When you say silly things about subjects you're clearly unfamiliar with, expect people to question if you know what you're talking about. I would expect the same from anyone else if I started saying things about subjects I don't now a whole lot about.   Instead of owning up to the fact that you were wrong, or mistaken, you dug yourself deeper. When I confronted your error again, you went into a victim routine. When I still wouldn't back down, you started insulting me, calling me a smug condescending dick. Along the way you threw up Red Herrings and Strawmen. And in the end, you still can't bring yourself to admit that your original post was written in ignorance.   Now you're asserting that I was giving you special treatment because you're an atheist, while attempting to lay on a guilt trip about how special this forum is compared to the atheist one. Dude, I don't care where you post. When people act like authorities on subjects they're obviously not, expect a challenge. You may not know this about yourself, but you're a manipulative bully. Before you go around condemning other people for how they post, for asserting that they're smug, pull the plank out of your own eye.
No response is the clearest message you can get that they don't walk to talk to you. A verbal "no thanks, good luck on your search" is rejection and confrontation that is easily avoided by simply not responding.   And its very easy to see who you have messaged: Its called sent messages.  [SEP] >No response is the clearest message you can get that they don't walk to talk to you.  I would say that "No thanks, good luck" is much clearer than no response, but if you feel like that rejection is more real than the rejection of hearing nothing back at all, more power to you.  >And its very easy to see who you have messaged: Its called sent messages.  No need to get condescending, I would prefer to get a polite "no thanks" rather than have 4 different messages out to people I haven't heard back from.  Like I said, I understand not wanting to send a message, I just don't understand not wanting to receive one. 
Short answer: I'm young, reckless, and it will probably be fun.  Longer Answer: I find not having the memory of something I have done interesting. Not to mention there will always be pictures and videos, I can't remember one of the most fun nights I have had because of alcohol but my friends remember it. There were videos to prove it happened and we all had a good time so that's good enough for me. An experience is still an experience even if I can hardly remember. It's something I can say I have done and something my friends have been a part of. I also wouldn't make a habit out of it the same way I wouldn't make a habit out of drinking. I just don't see an issue with having a wild night every once in a while [SEP] > I'm young, reckless, and it will probably be fun.  Sorry if this sounds condescending, but I wasn't exaggerating by calling such blackouts "recipes for disaster". I'd suggest reading several trip-reports about benzodiazapine blackouts; many of them are highly amusing to read (why do so many people become kleptomaniacs?), but it's typical to wake up from such amnesia with truly horrid consequences to deal with.
So the point of consent is not that someone is capable of saying yes but that they are competent to say yes in an ongoing process. Capable and competent are extremely different things.  Competent includes a much broader collection of issues than whether someone is sufficiently conscious to utter the word yes at some point, or a thought experiment about what they really wanted and the alcohol made happen. It means if they are in more or less complete control of their actions, aware of their current circumstances, and possessing a reasonable knowledge of the consequences of those actions.  Competency within a legal framework is usually the simplest way to instruct on it since there are uncontroversial examples to use. Someone is not competent when being blackmailed because they are not in control of their actions. A contract cannot be valid when the participants have hid salient details of either one participants current situation (someone not telling a mortgage dealer they are in debt), or the consequences of the contract from each other (hidden fees or misleading claims).  Assuming OP is telling the truth about their alcohol consumption:  Someone who is so shittered that they snap into consciousness unaware of who they are being fucked by (not having sex with, since they are an unequal participant) is not competent to provide consent in that situation.  If she is drunk to the point where she is not in full control of herself (blackout), she is not competent to consent.  If she has unconscious she is no longer competent to consent.  That is his problem with judgement, not hers. Since it's usually really easy to tell if someone is drunk to the point of lacking competence (they'll tell you, smell like it, or be clearly incoherent), he is either a deliberate predator, or an accidental one.  As to your concern about a bright line, there is a bright line: all sex in which one or more partners are not competent is rape. If you doubt the competency of your sexual partner, don't rape them. If you enter into an agreement before hand, while competent, and continue sex where one or more partners are no longer competent, you must acknowledge the risk and you shouldn't do it unless you trust that person not to press charges against you. If you think normal sex involves incompetent people, you need to reevaluate your definition of normal sex, not ask a legal or feminist framework to jump through hoops to accommodate your predatory behaviour.  As an aside, none of this is controversial or new. Instead of sitting idly on the internet hoping someone will change your mind, do your curiousity a favour and actually investigate these questions. The world is a lot less terrifying when you actually investigate it, and that includes sex within the radical new world of not raping people... [SEP] > As an aside, none of this is controversial or new. Instead of sitting idly on the internet hoping someone will change your mind, do your curiousity a favour and actually investigate these questions. The world is a lot less terrifying when you actually investigate it, and that includes sex within the radical new world of not raping people...  I was hoping to avoid being condescended to. I’m here to have a discussion because you know what, I have thought about this, and the answer is unclear to me. 
You really were just skim reading what I posted to feel good about yourself from a holier-than-thou position weren't you?  One year as in the final year of high school. I like how you just infer I was a lifelong shit student. I had no accommodations made for me. I over achieved the year before by taking extra classes + extracurricular things and gave myself the buffer zone.  In Canada, even high school is divided into semesters. If you had accommodations made for you, that's your deal. I didn't, I got zeros just like any other student. I was allowed to write tests if I wasn't there that day but so was any other student.  If you're able to attend half your college classes and pass with stellar marks I am genuinely impressed by you because that's more than I could pull off.  Also theres a huge disconnect here because you're comparing your time in university to mine in high school when the very premise of my original statement is that they're hardly comparable.  I hope I dont ever need your professional services. [SEP] See, when you say this:  >If I managed 33-45% attendance in each of my classes (health issues)  and very little homework done [literally less than 10 times throughout all of high school] (again, health issues) and managed to graduate with nearly a 4.0....  And then follow it up with this:  >For ONE year, one, I didnt attend often.  >One year as in the final year of high school.  You're either talking out of your ass, or your illness didn't really hinder you all that much in high school. So why bring it up to begin with? Are you trying to garner sympathy points, or to make it sound like you did so well despite having both hands tied behind your back? You didn't attend "33-45%" of high school, that was only one year (allegedly). And the homework thing is obviously bullshit, unless you actually meant to say "throughout the one year of high school that my illness actually affected me." Either way, it doesn't excuse your shitty, condescending attitude.   >You really were just skim reading what I posted to feel good about yourself from a holier-than-thou position weren't you  On the contrary, I actually read every word you wrote, which is why I have such an issue with it.
Not with your attitude you're not. If you stopped to actually think you'd realize why your opinion is downplayed.  Hint: it wasn't just Riot's decision. Mindless anti-Riot mouth-frothing doesn't make you look too smart. [SEP] you dont know jack shit about my attitude. all you got is how i act when im insulted and talked to like a baby. im sure youd appreciate that just as much.  >Hint: it wasn't just Riot's decision. Mindless anti-Riot mouth-frothing doesn't make you look too smart.  hint: this isnt the first time a riot run league has chosen this format.   hint: this isnt the first time a decision concerning competition was doen, not with the best format for competition in mind, but rather with the best format to make money.   hint: this wasnt even the first time a questionable decision was made by riot, and its very likely that it was at least in part riots doing to change the format.  hint: the rain is the thing that makes you smart. i know it must hurt when you use it, but its like an unused muscle. youll get used to it, and eventually youll be able to use it without the pain.  ---  non condescending bottom line:  riot is in a very large part for the leagues related to their product, and they are very involved in pretty much every decision made. it is naive to think this was not riots idea to begin with, even if kespa was willing to move this way as well for their own benefit.  at the end of the day, riot could have done things in a better fashion, to ensure high quality games in the future. they decided to make things better for western teams by reducing the competition in OGN by making it a fucking league format; they decided to reduce the number of teams in the league, reducing the competitiveness again.  the only positive changes i can see are that now you have more games to watch, even of the weaker korean teams, so theres more variety. it changes nothing about quality in a positive fashion. all it does is further riots agenda of promoting their game.  pretending that riot did this for any other primary reason is naive, some (like myself) might even argue idiotic.  ---  back to condescension:  do with this what you want, but dont pretend that riot does whats best for esports, or even for the competitive aspect of league. they only care about this aspect in so far as it acts as a very good marketing campaign, some might even argue one of the best marketing campaigns one could imagine.  if you dont see that, then im wasting my time here (which is what i think im doing).
>And why QUAIL?  >Every human has a drastically different series of sexual experiences. Saying that there is a clinical correlation between human cocaine use and high risk sexual activity...well there are a LOT of things out there that correlate with increases in high risk sexual activity. Humans almost never use just one drug, they do it at different times and in different amounts. In order to really determine how cocaine specifically impacts sexual behavior, you need to reduce the variables, which means you need a model. Drugs of abuse like cocaine have similar brain effects in various species, so you have your pick, but in this case, quail is a very good choice. While there aren't as many established studies in quail as opposed to, say, rats and mice, quail have a VERY stereotypical mating pattern.  >>The males in particular are highly motivated to mateguard and to mate with female quail. They demonstrate mateguarding by sitting near a female quail and they will do this for hours, even days. This is part of their natural sexual behavior pattern. It is relevant to human behavior in the sense that some drugs, including cocaine, enhance this behavior, thereby modelling the enhanced sexual motivation that occurs with humans during drug use.  >Not only that, while rodents are very strongly influenced by olfactory cues, quail are visually oriented, which makes them, in this way, more similar to humans (though there is some evidence for olfactory cues, and there's some evidence for that in humans as well). You can train them to work with visual cues, and look at motivation to mate using those cues. The scientists have already trained quail in these studies to 'mateguard' in response to a cue signaling a female is about to appear, and have shown that cocaine makes this behavior more difficult to extinguish. These studies can help to show what aspects of sexual behavior are specifically targeted in quail given cocaine, and help us to translate these studies to humans further down the line. The scientists also intend to study both male AND female responses. This is another good reason to use quail, while females do not mateguard, they do "squat" to show receptivity, making changes in female sexual response much easier to see (compared to rodents, for example).  Source: The article you apparently didn't read [SEP] >Source: The article you apparently didn't read  My question is literally from what you just quoted back to me. You condescending prick. 
>I fucking sure can.  Enjoy being willfully wrong, then. You're free to do as you please.  >The democrats don't give a fuck about me or my future so fuck them. Let it burn. They brought this shit on themselves. Good riddance  "If I don't get what I exactly what I want, then fuck you!"  Okay. This mindset is any different than what the GOP and Dems are currently doing, how?  You have to be willing to make concessions from time to time. Progress is slow. This type of rhetoric is only hurting our platform. [SEP] > The democrats don't give a fuck about me or my future so fuck them. Let it burn. They brought this shit on themselves. Good riddance >  >  >  > "If I don't get what I exactly what I want, then fuck you!"  Naw its more like being a fucking human and wanting a better future instead of this fucked machine rigged for special interests. Pretty clear n cut to me. I mean that is how Obama lied his way into office right? Hope N Change? So at least Bernie gave an attempt to continue that progress. Hillary was nothing but fake, condescending, and 2 faced.  > You have to be willing to make concessions from time to time. Progress is slow. This type of rhetoric is only hurting our platform.  So then the establishment democtratcs should grow a pair, take some accountability and make some concessions to the new party faction but they didnt and they continue to act like children. Why the fuck would any labeled "democratic" be okay with this behavior? I'm not. Theres a whole bunch of us thats not okay with it and it showed on election night when we decided to stay home. We are moving on with or without the label "democrats". 
That's great for your little circle of friends.  I know plenty of people who are still playing the "I'm voting for a WOMAN PRESIDENT!!" card.   [SEP] > your little circle of friends  That's quite condescending. Not the OP, but I have a large group of friends - feminists, even - and I don't know one person who is voting for Hillary through your reasoning. Not one. 
I'm still confused about this "narrow minded worldview" you're talking about. Who cares if an MTV ad that targets the US specifically has a US-centric worldview. That's OK, isn't it?    I'm not sure how you have access to the intent of the video. That said, I agree that it's clumsy, and that while it may not mean to, it does tend to inflame white guys with what appears to be an ad hominem stereotyping.    But then, as a white guy, why should my reaction be to be dismissive of the video? And more to the point: why on earth should I be angry or think that the message is "idiotic," which the title of this post seems to suggest? [SEP] > Who cares if an MTV ad that targets the US specifically has a US-centric worldview. That's OK, isn't it?  Not when it addresses an issue that applies to all of humanity. It's like someone making an ad saying we should pull funding from renewable energy and put it into other areas just because where they live it's always snowed every winter.  > I'm not sure how you have access to the intent of the video.  You get to know these people after a while.  > But then, as a white guy, why should my reaction be to be dismissive of the video?  Not dismissive, but you should certainly care about these sentiments gaining mainstream acceptance. The more accepted it becomes, more more prominent it gets and the more they see how far they can push boundaries.  I also don't think you need to be the race or sex targeted in order to care about it. I don't think I would be wrong in assuming you find sexism towards women wrong or racism to ethnicities other than white people to be a bad thing.  > And more to the point: why on earth should I be angry  Angry? No, but at the very least I think it's a bad thing to be apathetic towards bigotry and hate.  > or think that the message is "idiotic,"  I covered it above in regards to "mansplaining and manspreading".
I'll ignore that reality dictates words and not the other way around for a bit to make this comment, doing as much as you think is required because at a certain point living up to your impossible standards becomes too hard does not make a very good moral system.  You say to someone who eats meat that you do more than them, so you are morally superior, but as soon as that is said of you, it becomes impractical. Said another way, I am more morally superior than people who go around killing and eating other people, so my position on eating animals is just fine.  Also, whose to say that "as far as possible and practicable" is with eating no animal products? People have caused themselves harm while doing a vegan diet correctly, so for them, eating meat is their limit. [SEP] >You say to someone who eats meat that you do more than them, so you are morally superior  I didn't. And I can see that any conversation with you will be pointless, because you assume the stereotypical vegan caricature is what all vegans are.  Spend some time talking to vegans without being a colossal, condescending dick, and maybe you'd learn something.
Let's stop with this who and where question. It was used to great effect all summer to dismiss people. Let's not look out side, lets look in.  Giroud is not the best striker on Earth. Anyone who thinks he is needs their head examined. If you accept that as a reality then you accept there are better strikers out there. It's not my job to find them, all I can do is look at my team. We have no backup for said below top notch striker, that too is a deficiency.  Jenkinson, Bendtner, Monreal...all players that are not good enough. As back up to top talent? Fair enough, apart from Bendtner, he really needs to go.  Could we, like Chelsea did to us, send out a second team that could possibly hold their own if not defeat the league leaders? Hell no. But you still don't believe we need more players? Seriously?! [SEP] I'm not dismissing you at all. I was genuinely curious to what you were suggesting. Agree with pretty much all of these points. But when it comes to our midfield we're absolutely stacked. We could do with a striker I agree, although I really rate Giroud, but he's not the best striker in the world. Aside from that, our back up is fairly strong. Could do with another back up CB and maybe another top winger. So we could do with 2 big signings. But say we do that and it fails, what will we complain about then? I think we may need to totally rebuild the squad. If our core is not good enough, then 2 signings might not make that extra difference. It comes to a point when maybe it's just the team is not good enough and 2 magic signings won't push us over the edge into success. You keep saying we're not good enough. Maybe it's not that we just need 2 more signings. Maybe the team is just not good enough. Maybe Ramsey, Arteta, Wilshire, Walcott, Podolski, Ozil, Per, Koscielny - maybe they're all just not good enough.  I never said we didn't need more players.  >But you still don't believe we need more players? Seriously?!  Honestly, to put it very bluntly, I agree with you on a lot of things and have got a lot of time for you, but you're really a bit of a condescending cunt when it comes to all things Arsenal. I really find it hard to grasp what your genuine gripe is; you just want a few more marquee signings right? What makes you so convinced that will be the answer? Look how much Madrid have spent and they haven't won very much at all. It's not a magic solution. It's a fair proposition, a fair point, but this attitude you've got, where you know what the scores are going to be and who's going to win the league. It's just not very realistic. You make some fair points, but you talk as if you're predictions are set in stone. It's not a realistic approach at all. For all you know we could possibly win the league; it's a funny old game. But to build your analysis upon future results based on your own predictions, is just totally flawed. We could do with a couple more signings I agree. But implying people are blinkered because they think we will beat Chelsea is just silly IMO. In fact, it's ridiculous. We're the clear favourites for the game. How you can write off general public opinion in such blasé fashion, for predicting a different outcome to a future event as yourself, just seems totally deluded to me. I could understand if you were saying, I strongly believe we are going to lose. But to openly criticise others for making a different prediction to you, just seems a bit mental tbh mate.   http 
Until you've got a candidate on the Federal ticket in all 50 states you're just a fringe group.  And a nut-filled one at that. [SEP] > Until you've got a candidate on the Federal ticket in all 50 states you're just a nut-filled fringe group  Gary Johnson who achieved his name on 47 state ballots, was challenged by the GOP in the other 3 states and couldn't make those ballots. Even if he made it to the other 3 states ballots, I seriously doubt the Libertarian Party would have exited its "fringe group" status.  Both Jill Stein and Johnson were on ballots in enough states to have at least obtained federal funding for their respective parties or at most win the election (the latter being certainly extremely unlikely), but neither of them received any attention from cable news during the entire election season, and Stein was even arrested for raising awareness of the plight of third parties (whether you think they are 'nut filled' or not...there are major problems with third party voices impacting the mainstream narrative...this is what the Ron Paul^TM Liberty movement or whatever you want to condescendingly refer to it as demonstrated: that even within any of the two major parties you cannot bubble up certain third party ideas)  So you are cool with the other two parties collaboratively chasing out third party candidates from entering the mainstream narrative as long as you interpret said party to be "nut-filled"?  Is everything that libertarians do and say truly "nut-filled"? Or is some its criticisms of government (endless wars, war against drugs, war against whistleblowers, erosion of civil liberties, etc) something of tremendous value?
Oh. I had no idea that you didn't know that physical contact between people is something special and private.  I couldn't imagine that you didn't know that concept.  Well then. When you feel close to someone, sometimes, you want to make physical contact with them. This part of a relationship is intimate, meaning that it is only between those two people and not shared with the world. Physical contact is a special thing that typically is done in somewhat private situations. Kissing is an example of a physical contact that might be done in public. Some people sconsider a quick kiss to be appropriate and even cute, while the same people wouldn't openly french kiss in public, because that is displaying an intimate part of a relationship in public.  Some people are exhibitionists and want to be seen, some are not.  Those few exhibitionists don't have much public in day to day life. Some voyeurs might want to see them, but these are few and far in between.  Since intimate physical contact between two person is mostly done in private, most people external to the couple don't want to see this intimate contact seen in public. It puts them in an uncomfortable position because such contact is intimate and is seen as private.  Some people think that this private and intimate contact should be forced upon others when they don't want to see it. The keyword here is "forced" and I use it in an extreme manner. Of course those exhibitionists don't think that they are forcing their public, merely doing something extremely personal in front of others that could "look away".  Since the vast majority of people understand that being in a closed room with other entails actually not offending others (or making them look away), they will refrain from public displays of affection.  Now the workplace. Most workplaces have multiple people coexisting under various circumstances, most of which include sharing enclosed spaces with people which are not friends or family. 100% of these people are there in order to gain a salary.  Making various types of people work together is a complicated thing. Physical and moral limits have to be put in place because surprisingly, some people don't want to "fit in" and take their coworkers limits into consideration.  Most would agree that physical displays of affection are a private thing, only shared between two very close people.   The very intimate action of touching a loved one can put other at unease. Some of those could be uneasy because they recently have had their heart broken so there suddenly is emotional turmoil when they're trying to work, preventing them from focusing on work, the reason they are there for.  Other uneasy people might be people that have received unwanted physical contact in their lives and since about 1 women in 5 have had to go through this at one point or other in their life, it's quite easy to see why intimate and private physical contact might disturb them.  Most people would agree that "minding" their coworker's limits and desires is an intricate part of having to work together.   Still some people believe that their own viewpoint trumps collective agreement. Does people then are seen as inconsiderate of others.  They don't want collective limits put in place. They can't conceive that their own desires are not accepted by people around them. no matter which way you are trying to explain to them that private and intimate physical contact should not be forced upon their coworkers, they don't give a damn. They want the world to spell out to them each and every way that other people ARE offended. They cannot conceive that some people might be inconvenienced without asking them about it.  Some might even think that it would be a good thing that their personal limits should apply or be debated. They are so close minded that people with different standards to them are "assholes" and "stupidly offended".  Those people are assholes.  To prevent those people from causing chaos and trouble in the workplace, we have to put rules in place to force these people to adhere to a reasonnable amount of social limits that pleases most.  [SEP] >Oh. I had no idea that you didn't know that physical contact between people is something special and private  Wow, it's almost like you couldn't wait to be completely condescending, good on you!  And actually, it really isn't. Despite your wall of text, you start with a flawed premise. Hugs are far from private, intimate contact. I would hug a friend if I saw them on the street. I would hug a stranger on the street (or pretty much anywhere) if they were sad and said they needed a hug. Ditto a pat/rub on the back. Not so for a kiss, a grope, or a quick shag.   And the main point of contention here is where that line is drawn. You seem incredulous that anyone would think that handshakes should fall under this, that would just be crazy! But you won't even brook any possibility that maybe you're in the minority in being made uncomfortable by a hug or a rub on the back.  Despite all that, you actually managed to make a halfway decent point!  >Some of those could be uneasy because they recently have had their heart broken so there suddenly is emotional turmoil when they're trying to work, preventing them from focusing on work, the reason they are there for.  This is a decent point, but still not one I'm particularly convinced about. For instance: My father just died, and I get some significant emotional turmoil from hearing about people going out and spending time with their fathers. This is kind of an understandable thing, and I've asked my co-workers if they could refrain from talking about their dads (as much as possible), and they've been accommodating for the most part.  What didn't happen, was that there wasn't a rule put in place that talking about your family in the workplace was no longer allowed.  I actually, despite your delusions to the contrary, fully understand that I need to make modifications to my behavior when I'm out in public, and that what concessions I do and do not make reflect upon my character.  What I am disputing is the need for blanket rules, to the point of firing someone for something as innocuous as a quick rub to the back during a stressful time, between a couple or even between friends.  What I am saying is that if someone is triggered emotionally by normal human behavior then it's on them to make reasonable accommodations and talk to their co-workers.  What I reject is the blanket notion that touching someone at the workplace is always inappropriate, because it's just not.  There are tons of other ways that this could be dealt with.  I would, and have, hugged co-workers who normally worked remote goodbye as they left, if that was their preferred greeting/farewell gesture. Again: this isn't a universal thing, and your self-assurance that it is, and ignorance to counter-examples is frankly baffling.
> It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the population.  So tiny that traces of cocaine now shows up in the water supply of the UK. To me its all walks of life i go to, friends i grew up with, friends i went to university with, friends from work ( i do work in television so that might have something to do with it), my parents friends do it, i used to work in a pub where i would regularly catch people doing it, it seems normal to see a queue of people waiting to do coke in most bars i go to. Its more than just 'my bubble'    Source on the water supply claim;  http   [SEP] > Its more than just 'my bubble'  Not to be condescending or anything, but I don't think you're really the person who decides what is part of your bubble and what is part of the bigger picture. Yes, a lot of people do coke, probably way more than we think, but it's very, very far away from "normal". You sound like you're part of a whole community with prevalent drug use, but those communities will always exist and they are not representative of the whole world. Where I live, the far-western part of the country has a significantly higher rate of drug use than the rest of the country and when you go to a pub there and see all these people doing speed, it's very jarring. To those people it's normal, but to everyone else it's pretty distressing.
Except it's a specific thing done by men to women BECAUSE they are women. Whether you like it or not, the issue IS gendered. [SEP] > BECAUSE they are women  Perhaps some fraction of the time... but you can't really know that or prove that. Some people are just condescending. If they happen to be men and happen to be talking to a woman then it's this specific term that makes you feel good because you can be outraged by equating it to sexism and how the whole world is against you?
Whoa whoa whoa, let's not get upset about it. Like I said, I'm not bashing it. I said that I don't relate to almost everything on here, which is why I called myself an "alien". [SEP] I respect you, but I find comments like  >Whoa whoa whoa, let's not get upset about it.  really condescending. 
>The arguments assume that the subject is incapable of empathy, and is actively attempting to hold to these 'privileges' and keep them away from everyone else. That's simply not the case.   Except that's not the argument at all. The argument is that privilege is difficult to recognize because it's based on deeply ingrained assumptions about race, gender, etc., and that if you possess privilege you need to be conscious of it.   >black men don't need to lock their doors when they roll through the ghetto, women aren't seen as creepy when they ask someone out - good, why is this a bad thing? In an ideal world, everyone would feel safe walking or driving in any part of town at any time, and no one would be treated as a creeper for expressing interest in another, and so forth.  The first isn't true and the second isn't an example of privilege. It's not exclusive; if you wanted you could do the same thing. It doesn't really give women power in the sense that's meant when people talk about privilege. I have never known a woman who called a guy creepy just because he asked her out. I would argue that if you asked a woman out without at least some kind of engaging conversation under your belt then it would be pretty creepy. And anyway, doesn't a woman get to decide whether or not an advance is creepy?  >This isn't an ideal world - that may suck when situations where we don't have such 'privilege' are encountered, but that's life.  Being able to say privilege is 'just a fact of life' is an example of privilege.  >Worse, these arguments require, by necessity, the outlook of a societal parasite. Rather than working to change things or make their own situation better, these people want to shame others for what they themselves don't have.  What exactly is parasitic about, for example, wanting people not to think your natural hair is weird? Or, not having to justify having a "funny" name?. Or, being able to get hired despite having a "funny" name? Or, asking for proportional attention and context to be given when discussing issues that are used to dismiss all of the problems in your community?  You seem to think of privilege as some kind of interpersonal welfare, when really it's about calling attention to the blind assumptions that reinforce harmful power structure. And contrary to your point, when people point it out they're assuming you're a good person who can change their behavior and think and act more fairly. The rhetoric gets inflamed sometimes, but frankly some people are tired of having a one in ten chance of being murdered. And anyway, rhetoric gets heated for any subject; why is it only an issue when the discussion is over privilege? [SEP] > privilege is difficult to recognize because it's based on deeply ingrained assumptions about race, gender, etc.  Which presumes that I, or anyone else, is incapable of empathy. It is, itself, short-sighted, callous, and condescending.  > if you possess privilege you need to be conscious of it.  Except not. There is no reason whatsoever that I should consider being me anything special as regards other people. I am not a snowflake.  > The first isn't true   Your link isn't exactly relevant. I didn't say anything about gentrification or home invasions - I'm talking about not being afraid someones going to rip your car door open and pull you out into the street. But I'M not even talking about that, these are examples other people have used of 'privilege' that I don't buy into.   > And anyway, doesn't a woman get to decide whether or not an advance is creepy?  Only to a degree. They're free to make their own judgment, as any person is, but shit talking and shaming people for showing interest is childish, disgusting, and frankly inhuman. If I spent a day with someone, enjoyed it, and asked her out - suddenly I would go from friend to creep, with a whole plethora of assumptions about my motivations. Suddenly the rest of the day would be thrown out and assumed it was an attempt to get in her pants, even if the interest only sparked 10 minutes earlier. Not that this is the case in every instance or even a majority of them, but that's the viewpoint of that particular 'womens privilege' argument. They're ALL built on these ridiculous use case scenarios that the majority DON'T fit. For women, it's not safe to walk down the street alone at night because if they see me, the automatic assumption is that I'm going to rape them. Well, it sucks that they think that, but they've gone from trying to remedy it to making it a dogmatic belief.  > What exactly is parasitic about, for example, wanting people not to think your natural hair is weird? [snip, etc]  Nothing's wrong with wanting people to not treat you like shit. HOWEVER, it is incredibly wrong to attempt to shame an entire class of people for being who they are. Call out race issues, call out gender discrimination, but don't try to shame all men for not being afraid to walk down the street alone at night.   > You seem to think of privilege as some kind of interpersonal welfare,   Sorry if I gave that impression. I think it's a disgusting rhetorical tactic in, if anything, class/race/gender warfare. And it is war, because rather than taking a stance of support it takes a stance of assault.  > when really it's about calling attention to the blind assumptions that reinforce harmful power structure.  Except it's not. The implication is that X class of people is exempt from the standard, and should be subject to it. It's the "I don't have X, so I want you to suffer and/or to take it from you" mentality.  > when people point it out they're assuming you're a good person who can change their behavior and think and act more fairly.  How does applying an offensive hasty generalization through an appeal to emotion - a logical fallacy double decker - offer a logical recourse to correct a problem? In short, address the fucking issue, don't cry about it. The 'privilege' argument can be made in a logical manner, which goes a little along these lines: "Well, you may not realize, but a lot of black people have to put up with people acting like their hair is strange." Calls attention to the assumption without placing blame. Blame is for children and paper tigers in middle management.  > why is it only an issue when the discussion is over privilege?  There are many other bad rhetorical tactics, this is just one. And this one is bad because it tries to place guilt where there should be none. "You should feel bad because you can walk down the street alone at night" is a different argument from "You should consider that women are afraid of being raped if they walk alone at night."
Have you read the passage? What parts of it do you believe tell Christians that they need to maintain the status quo? [SEP] > Have you read the passage?  Yes. Don't be condescending. People disagreeing with you doesn't automatically mean they didn't read the text.  > What parts of it do you believe tell Christians that they need to maintain the status quo?  The part where it tells slaves to obey their masters and tells masters to treat their slaves properly. The author didn't care about abolition, he wanted Christians to show they were a positive, non-disruptive presence in the Roman Empire, and he instructs them to show that by maintaining the status quo: obedient slaves and diligent masters.
Yes, Helen Keller did mention that her deafness had more of a negative impact on her life than her blindness. If I remember correctly she said that this was because deafness was the more isolating of the two: it kept her out of the company of other people and inhibited her from a totally free expression of her thoughts, and understanding of others'. (Though I'm not sure how she could fairly imagine what it might have been like to be only deaf or only blind, so it must have been difficult for her to accurately answer which one was "worse" for her.)  What bothers me isn't that she's seen as a famous or inspirational figure, but that most people don't know of her beyond the fact that she was deafblind. Helen Keller was also a suffragette and a staunch pacifist. Her political leaning was radically socialist (especially for her times), she advocated for women's rights (particularly with regard to the availability of birth control), was a founding member of the ACLU, traveled widely, and was highly educated. She wrote about a dozen books and even more essays... and yet most people gloss over those contributions entirely.  Yeah, she was close friends with AG Bell, and yeah, you can certainly pull quotations out of the context of her life and her experiences and view them as an indictment of the Deaf community. She wasn't shy about sharing her opinions, that much is certain. But from what I've seen? The people who really hold her up as a role model are hearing, able-bodied people who are too focused on the "supercrip" storyline and don't actually know that much about who she was or what she stood for. [SEP] You have some very good points.   >(Though I'm not sure how she could fairly imagine what it might have been like to be only deaf or only blind, so it must have been difficult for her to accurately answer which one was "worse" for her.)  I've been thinking about it for a little while, and I honestly think that the catch is, it's not that hard for even the "most" deaf person to break free from social isolation in Western nations -- but, sight is so so very important to even 'only' the moderately HoH.   Think about it -- hearing aids and CIs are pretty good tools for most of us, but without reading lips or other visual cues, normal human speech could as well be drunken words or grey noise to our ears. So, if Helen couldn't do something as relatively simple as bring a notepad and pen to a hearing person unfamiliar with signing, it's no surprise she'd think that.   (Also, quite frankly, I'd imagine that blind people back then might've been nicer and more tolerant than their deaf counterparts. Even today we can get pretty... cliquey and very "us vs. them", and that's not what Helen would have wanted.)  Lastly, it really annoys me too that hearing people find her so fascinating simply because she lost two of her five senses, and managed to get past society's designated ideas of deaf-blind people as senseless beasts. It's certainly encouraging for us who are deaf or blind (in that we know it's possible as well to get out of society's condescending, ableist clutches), but in the end, she always had that potential regardless of disability or not, and it's silly to see her as deaf-blind first and smart, empathetic, accomplished, driven, successful second.   It's funny, really. They might be inspired by her, but the majority of them wouldn't have been able to do as well as her anyway no matter what. Talent like that can't just be acquired, and you don't "have a bigger chance to be like Helen Keller" just because you can hear/see. (Talking about general you here) Like, goddamn, she wasn't perfect but other than her biased view of the Deaf, she was very close to it. (Fuck AG Bell tho)  /rant 
Lol, go to Italy and ask recent graduates about residency. Recent grads in Italy, France, Spain, Greece( to name a few) are basically told to leave the country to get a job.  The US is more diverse than Europe, its an immigrant nation constantly becoming more diverse.  There is an entire generation of lost Europeans who will never be able to live the life their parents did.  You need to travel more before you embarrass yourself anymore.  Edit: for the down voters who can’t handle any criticism of the EU. Youth unemployment is at 18.1% in the euro area   http   It has been high for a decade. Lost generation is definitely a sensible term here.  Edit 2: Why does this anger so many of you? How many of you know a person who had to leave you country to get a job?  [SEP] >You need to travel more before you embarrass yourself anymore.    I downvoted your comment not because I disagreed (which I do) but because you're being condescending.
It doesn't directly. That's not the goal. The goal is just to promote the way Google thinks these things should work, and plant the seed in people's minds in terms of setting expectations.  That's what they have been doing. It's part of the reason why we're talking about how Verizon and all the others are screwing their customers with exorbitantly expensive plans instead of beating our chests about how the US is the best at everything like we were doing 5 years ago.  I don't think you're quite aware of the marketplace and how it's changed based on this exchange so far so what I'm saying might not be making sense to you. We are still in the era where companies like Verizon literally write their own regulations, but at least people now generally recognize it as being a bad state of affairs and not the way it's supposed to work. [SEP] > That's what they have been doing. It's part of the reason why we're talking about how Verizon and all the others are screwing their customers with exorbitantly expensive plans instead of beating our chests about how the US is the best at everything like we were doing 5 years ago. > I don't think you're quite aware of the marketplace and how it's changed based on this exchange so far so what I'm saying might not be making sense to you.  Don't condescend people if you're so young you think that's the way things were only five years ago. And as for it not putting pressure on Verizon directly, that's correct because it doesn't put any pressure on Verizon at all. 
Well no because eating tacos on "taco Tuesdays" is just a vanity for fun as you said. Reducing meat and dairy consumption is actually important, unlike whether you eat tacos on a Tuesday or not.  [SEP] > Reducing meat and dairy consumption is actually important, unlike whether you eat tacos on a Tuesday or not.  So... if something is important, you aren't allowed to have fun with a catchy label that gives you some motivation, sense of inclusiveness, and you should do what - just read about the benefits or call it nothing and sit with a straight face and eat your kale instead? How do you know someone who does "meatless mondays" doesn't also read the science and understand the impact? What's the point of being condescending and calling them simple minded?
Um, there were some rather famous court cases in the US & EU in the 90's.   http   The cases touched on predatory pricing, strong-arming OEMs, vender lock-in, monopolistic bundling of products to undercut competitors.  Microsoft threatened OEM vendors who attempted to offer (cheap) Linux chrome books and aggressively locked out browser / word processing competitors... so now cheap options for the 3rd world / low income areas. Their extend & lock out strategy of web standards and formats was a huge issue.  Microsoft had a 20-year stranglehold on the industry, and it's really only within the past decade has MS been a reasonable entity (and that's only due to Apple / Google / Amazon / Linux rising up). Millennialis with no memory of or interest in leaning this stuff is infuriating :)  This is a widely acknowledged by anyone who wasn't in diapers in the early 00's.   http  [SEP] >This is a widely acknowledged by anyone who wasn't in diapers in the early 00's.  Can unconfirm, was not in diapers in the early 00's, haven't seen all the sources, despite having heacd of it. Plobably because there are roughly 16 years between diapers ending and giving a shit about business news than doesn't directly affect them.  Also, no reason to be so condescending.
Thats utterly false. I'm sorry man.  Any well trained police officer would have handled walking into this situation the same way. The filed report, based on the article you cited, states that these men reportedly pulled a fire alarm, were causing damage and were potentially armed with a small knife. The police were told to arrive "right away".  Any "good cop" would have done exactly what these officers did: entered closed quarters with two potentially armed and dangerous men ready to protect themselves. Their fingers were not on their triggers and they were clearly telling the Lewis brothers to get on the ground and neither of them complied.   I can't see the pepper spray in this video, so I can't comment on it.   Absolutely zero police brutality in this video.  [SEP] >Thats utterly false. I'm sorry man.  Nope. And don't condescend when you're wrong, man.  >Any well trained police officer would have handled walking into this situation the same way. The filed report, based on the article you cited, states that these men reportedly pulled a fire alarm, were causing damage and were potentially armed with a small knife. The police were told to arrive "right away".  I know. That's what the hotel worker told 911.  >Any "good cop" would have done exactly what these officers did: entered closed quarters with two potentially armed and dangerous men ready to protect themselves.  Nope. A good cop would have assessed the situation, keeping in mind that the 911 report they've been given could be completely wrong, and often are. There is no need for them to enter closed space with a "potentially armed and dangerous" man. The best protection the police have from a knife is space. The only reason the police needed to even consider using force was because they CHOSE to go into the room with the suspects.   Police going into a scene like this and failing to assess whether there is an actual threat or whether the information from 911 is false is what gets people killed needlessly.  >they were clearly telling the Lewis brothers to get on the ground and neither of them complied.   It's called shock. One minute they're laughing and talking and the next there are 2 cops with guns pointed at their faces.
I saw this post on facebook yesterday and immediately scrolled past its shitty click-bait headline. But seeing this post on /r/TrueReddit? Are you fucking kidding me? Fuck that noise, this article is shit and the author makes an extremely poor argument.  The author is lamenting the poor souls who are pigeon-holed into the often made up hop- tastic epicenter of craft/micro brews. Oh woe is them! Hops have such a pungent taste and odor, and these weary patrons are forced to imbibe only the IBU-est of concoctions.   Give me a fucking break. I know this article was written in 2013, but seriously, what a joke. Oh, you're friend doesn't like hoppy beers? It must be impossible to find beer from the puny list of barleywines, blondes, browns, wheats, porters, stouts, wilds, creams, spiced, fruit, smoked, Belgian strongs, dubbels, trippels, quads, saisons, wits, lambics, goses, guezes, English sweet stouts, imp stouts, dunkels, Berliner Weiss, weizenbocks, kolschs, scotch wee heavys, pils, bocks, zwickels, scharz, viennan, Asian rice lagers, and steams. What's that? That list is longer that you thought? Well that's because you can't think because you're a fucking moron.  There are now more than 3,000 breweries in the U.S.. You know how many existed just 30 years ago? Around a fucking hundred. 1 0 0. There is more choice and variation now than there ever was. Oh, but what about the 4,000 breweries that existed before in the 1800s? Yeah, did they have access to the giant multitude of hop varieties that we have now? What about the crazy yeast strains we're able to cultivate? Fuck you. Beer now is exponentially more varied than it ever was before. Can't find a beer you like? Either you're not looking hard enough, or you don't like beer (sucks to suck!).  Oh, and calling a beer "hoppy" is also fucking stupid. Hops can be tropical, juicy, aromatic, flowery, lemony, minty, and a million other fucking things. None of those are "bitter" (which is what I think the author is getting at). Don't like hoppy beers? Well then I guess you also don't like your beer to gush with an overflowing juiciness that is only rivaled by Zebra Fruit Stripe gum. What's that, you do like that sensation? Well then, isn't your face fucking red.   Don't like IPAs, Stouts, Sours, Lagers, Ales, etc.? THEN DON'T DRINK IT! It isn't some arduous task to find a quality, affordable beer in the U.S. anymore that fits your most likely limited scope of preferred taste. While introductory brewers might jump to adding more hops to a beer in the hopes of making it better, true craftsmen hone their skills toward yeast cultivation, wood and barrel aging and other things that require a lot more chemistry knowledge. The beer industry should not cater towards your palate at the expense of others. There is more than plenty to choose from, so don't knock the other guys because it doesn't jive with your own god damn preferences.   TL;DR: Go fuck yourself, drink something else.   [SEP] While I agree with the sentiment, you're really just mad that someone was talking shit about craft beers.  > that fits your most likely limited scope of preferred taste  This line says it all. I mean yeah, find a beer you like, but don't condescendingly imply that people who like craft beer have better taste, because I find that shit disgusting. I also happen to live in Germany, where good beer is around every corner.
I think what lazyslacker may have been implying is that you rely on the thesaurus too much. When you wonder "what's another word for ____" you're missing out on VALUABLE, subtle connotations which change the flavor of what you're saying.   First, I want to thank you for sharing your experience on Reddit, not many will do that. I'm not trying to come at you from a harsh angle, but I think your writing needs a lot of work. In this piece you shared, your writing is really...verbose. Wordy, uselessly flowery for what you're trying to convey. You "lifted your weary skull from slumber?" All we need to know, in this story, for your purposes, is that you woke up in the middle of the night. You are not telling a Christmas Tale, you are not writing a classic. "...to face a most blinding and startling predicament" - people do not actually talk like this! You know this! "Muffled by the noxious billows about the atmosphere" - People don't get "noxious billows" - they get "smoke." If you want to spice up "smoke," then call it thick smoke, black smoke, suffocating black smoke. "Noxious billows" is the definition of verbose. You are saying words you have no reason to say. Again, you have no reason to say "atmosphere" over room.   It goes on like this, over and over. You leave really clear tracks have you've just been abusing the fuck out of your thesaurus. I don't mean to tell you that simple writing is necessarily always better writing. But your style here is totally inappropriate and really...unrefined. Just because you use pretty words does not give your writing quality. "Infernal vicinity"? I'm not saying you without a doubt used a thesaurus here, but your writing at points sounds like it was created by Chinese-to-English Google Translate. Your writing sounds nothing like how English speakers actually communicate (in any context, low brow OR high brow).  Holy fuck. Dude. I know I'm just some random guy on the internet, but if you truly want to progress as a writer, please take what I'm saying to heart. No one in their right fucking skull says "the seventeenth anniversary of my birth" over "my seventeenth birthday." Do you think you are Sir Toppingtonhatsfordshireworth?   I'll back up. As a writer, you want to convey the immediacy, the pain, the harsh reality of this traumatic event to your reader. You want to make a clear path from you, to your reader, through your words. What you have done is thrown huge, unwieldy, awkward words and phrasing in that path. You are obscuring you meaning, you are obscuring your story. You need to go back to the beginning, tell us what happened. If you want to tell your story richly, use simple, rich words.   I know this probably sounds very harsh. But...I just had this need to tell you there's something very wrong going on here. Again, thanks for your contribution to Reddit.  edit: I want to reinforce how important this story is. Your last paragraph is great, you have something really important here. I just think the mechanics could be much improved... [SEP] You start out with this:  >I'm not trying to come at you from a harsh angle  Then follow with this:  >In this piece you shared, your writing is really...verbose.  And this:   >Wordy, uselessly flowery for what you're trying to convey.  And this:   >You are not telling a Christmas Tale, you are not writing a classic. "...to face a most blinding and startling predicament" - people do not actually talk like this!  And this:  >I'm not saying you without a doubt used a thesaurus here, but your writing at points sounds like it was created by Chinese-to-English Google Translate.  And this:  > You are saying words you have no reason to say.  Then, in a flash of blinding hypocrisy, you say this:  > It goes on like this, over and over.   ...even as you say the same thing over and over again. Oh, and this:  > You leave really clear tracks have you've just been abusing the fuck out of your thesaurus  And a pretentious exclamation:  >Holy fuck. Dude.  And this:  > But your style here is totally inappropriate and really...unrefined.  And this:  >What you have done is thrown huge, unwieldy, awkward words and phrasing in that path.  And last but not least:  >I know this probably sounds very harsh. But...I just had this need to tell you there's something very wrong going on here.  I understand a direct, kind bit of criticism, but...you pedantic, hypocritical douchebag. It's not harsh because you're criticizing her. It's harsh because you said the same thing OVER and OVER and OVER (You have a zit on your face. I can't describe how much of a zit you have on your face. This isn't how people are supposed to look. YOU HAVE A ZIT ON YOUR FACE. Do you even wash it? It's big, bulgy, and red. Holy fuck. Dude. I know this sounds harsh, but...I just felt like you should know that you have a big, ugly zit on your face. See what I did there?) What she supposedly did with verbosity, YOU did with useless, insulting repetition. Kind, constructive criticism is succinct. But what you're doing here looks like ugly, insulting harassment.  And in case you're wondering, this wasn't intended to be kind, constructive, or correct criticism. This was intended to convey the fact that you're an asshole by doing what you're doing. Oh, and you seem to have fullfilled Muphry's Law by utilizing insultingly repetitious criticism, disjointed clauses, sentence fragments, condescending overuse of exclamation marks by using them in two sentences in a row ("You know this!"), and leaving the "r" off "your" in "you meaning" in the third-to-last paragraph.    >But...I just had this need to tell you there's something very wrong going on here.  Why? Why this socially retarded, obsessive-compulsive diatribe? Get some treatment for that Asperger's syndrome. You really need it. 
Extremes exist on both sides, what you call activism in I consider bullying, going after a mans livelihood for having different beliefs or opinions is repugnant. As always you resorted to name calling instead of discussion, you don't know me at all so keep your insults to yourself. I came here with no real expectation of actual discourse since your side is incapable of it without so called "intellectual" high brow condensation. It's ok keep on beating those drums. Worked great in 16. [SEP] > I came here with no real expectation of actual discourse since your side is incapable of it without so called "intellectual" high brow condensation.  Do you hear yourself? We're sitting here actually talking. If this was your little echo chamber, I would have just been silenced and discarded like any dissenting opinion. Jesus fucking Christ have you no self-awareness at all? > As always you resorted to name calling instead of discussion  I was responding to a comment that contained NOTHING from you but an insult ("condescending as always"). I at least gave you the courtesy of explaining why I have literally no respect for you.  >you don't know me at all so keep your insults to yourself.  I took a look at your posting history before I accused you of anything. I can cite your comments to back up my claims about you. If you find them insulting, you should examine the way that you interact with people, and the behavior that those whom you support espouse  >what you call activism in I consider bullying, going after a mans livelihood for having different beliefs or opinions is repugnant  Okay this is the part of your whole argument that I struggle with most. Let me try to break my viewpoint down for you:  For decades, Sean Hannity has been a successful media personality. I've not always agreed with what he believes, but I've always respected his right to believe it. With regards to the lunatic conspiracy that has him in trouble currently, he is continuing to persist on a story that a) his network, b) the 'investigator' that some crackpot hired, and c) law enforcement have all either disavowed their statements on (with regards to a and b) or have never found anything more than a tragic botched robbery in (with regards to c).   It is this persistence to pursue a story that literally no one believes has substance anymore outside of those who believe in lunatic conspiracies like pizzagate that has him losing the support of his advertisers.  Let me be clear-- his advertisers would likely stick around no problem if he behaved in the manner of someone like Tucker Carlson (who I also disagree with but have immense respect for). Instead, he is sounding increasingly deranged, pushing baseless conspiracies, flying in the face of the wishes of his family, the finding of all experts, and ignoring the beliefs/statements of his own network.  It is not unreasonable at all that people are upset that this man continues to essentially harass the Rich family about this story in the national media. No one is pulling their advertising because he's conservative, but because HIS behavior is 'repugnant'.  
Look, unless there is some underlying assumption that blm or black peoples in general are wrong, don't understand, etc because of their skin color, it isn't racist. And don't get me wrong, I think there may be an element of that in some people attitudes towards blm, but you can't just decide that the a comment is based on racism.  I think Bernie would be the best candidate for black people because of his long and solid record on civil rights. Absolutely nothing racist about me saying that. If I was stubborn and didn't want to engage anybody (not my style, I am always open to other views) that wouldn't or wouldn't listen, once again, not racist (unless I refused to engage over something related to skin color).     [SEP] > Look, unless there is some underlying assumption that blm or black peoples in general are wrong, don't understand, etc because of their skin color, it isn't racist.  Here's the thing:  There are completely different levels of "racism", and I think that you're missing one or more of them in your "racism" definition.   In fact, based on how strongly you're defending the BLM/Sanders thing as "not racist", I think you might not have much more than one single level of racism in mind, and it's this one.  What I mean is, somehow, "racism" and "racist" have turned into this absolute for a lot of people. That is, if you do racist things, you are a racist, and if you're a racist, you're not much better than the people in the photo above. People that share this belief therefore tend to see "racist" as an attack to be defended against (as you are doing, which is why I think you might feel that way).   There is, however, a difference between being "racist" and "a racist", between being "racist" and sometimes doing things that are racist, and even between being actively racist and accidentally racist.   Like, well, almost everything in life, racism (and all forms of bigotry, really) are on a spectrum.  Racism is not limited to using the word "nigger" casually and burning crosses. It's not even limited to thinking other races are dumber/uglier/otherwise worse than your own. In this case, it's something as simple as a bunch of white people (and I will freely admit, I was one of them for a short period) getting frustrated because a group of minorities wouldn't just get in line and support the white guy that we know is best choice for them.   The idea of knowing better than someone else "what's best" for that person is intrinsically condescending, as it's something usually said in the context of how a parent acts on behalf of their child, who lacks the agency, experience or intelligence to decide for themselves what is "best" for them.   Using that phrase when discussing an adult is degrading. Using it when discussing a whole race is ... I think you know.  Our society legitimately needs to pump the brakes on the idea that "racist" is this horrible insult. On both sides, frankly. Far too many people use "racist" as an insult, which just propagates taking it as such. We all have some racism inside of us. It is threaded so tightly into our society, it's all but impossible not to. That's not good, but it's a fact of life.   Getting defensive and trying to hide behind claiming that something we did isn't racist doesn't change whether or not it was; it simply prevents us from learning and growing. I get it. If you consider yourself a good person, and consider "racism" to be this black-and-white "evil", it can be uncomfortable as hell to be confronted with the idea that you did something "racist". In actuality, unintentional racism (and being informed of it) is an opportunity for us to fight societal racism on an individual scale.   Anyway, good chatting with you. Thanks for keeping it civil, despite our difference of opinion. I've gotta get back to work now. :)
>This will not happen. / If anything, our economy (generally speaking) has been performing extremely well.  I love when people show up and say "it will not happen" with certainty and then point to the fact that it hasn't happened yet as evidence. You realize we're only a few months into this shit, right?  >His approval rating overall has little bearing on our economic state and future.   What the fuck are you talking about? The lower Trump's approval rating, the more GOP will have to jump ship in order to save their own asses in reelection.   >This election opened up the realization that we weren't taking political polling well or fairly (NYT projected a Clinton victory by over 80%).  For fucks sake, this again? Do you not understand the difference between polling current opinion and trying to predict the future? Ask a bunch of people in a room if they approve or disapprove - there's your approval rating. Ask them who they think they'll vote for in a month - that's obviously subject to change. If you think inaccurate prediction models somehow cast doubt onto approval ratings, then you have a severe misunderstanding of the basic underlying concepts. [SEP] Damn first off, you need to calm down lmao. Especially with the empty insults.   > I love when people show up and say "it will not happen" with certainty and then point to the fact that it hasn't happened yet as evidence.  Usually you have to prove that something will happen when you make such a claim, the burden of proof is on the guy I'm replying to if you're a stickler for that.  > For fucks sake, this again? Do you not understand the difference between polling current opinion and trying to predict the future?  Polling current opinion is exactly what political polling was, it was "who are you voting for?" which is a present-tense question. This comment is oddly stupid, but I guess for a dude throwing wild insults around condescendingly, I can't be too surprised! You poll current opinion to cast prediction on future turn out. Basic concept right there.  Let's say, sure, the approval ratings are accurate. Let's go further to say some scandal against Trump comes out totally, irrefutably true. That won't spiral an entire political party, and it certainly won't collapse an economy. Hell, look at Watergate, where was the economic fallout during that time? Sure, we would take a hit, but not even close to the hit our economy took during the total dumbass setup that lead to the mortgage crisis.
Ahhh one of my favourite Moodyman tracks... Shades of Jae a close 2nd.  The RBMA Moodyman interview is worth a watch if you can find it.  Refreshing to see non-crap music here in r/electronicmusic :) [SEP] > Refreshing to see non-crap music here in r/electronicmusic   Thanks, I have taken it upon myself to try and post a few bits of proper stuff, hopefully educate a few people away from crap trance and commercial rubbish. If that doesn't sound too condescending and superior. I don't know if it will work though.   I was going to post some Theo and a bit of Omar if this went down well. I will also check out the interview, so thanks. 
> I have seen nothing like that for Hillary.  Yeah, you didn't see anything like that in most states Hillary wins. Because the people Hillary wins with are older people and Democrats, not younger people and independents that Sanders win.  I also live in NJ and I know many people that are going to vote for Hillary in the primary. It just depends on who you know. [SEP] >Because the people Hillary wins with are older people and Democrats, not younger people and independents that Sanders win.  and that's the general election liability Hillary brings to the table. Heaven forbid the independents and youth vote rebel against the Party on account of perceived mistreatment. It's bad enough Clinton and her proxies have been condescending toward them.
Your smug is showing. You can disprove their claims without lowering yourself to the level of condescension and name calling. It only detracts from the message. If you call her out, fine, but there is no need to talk down to her. Even if you can't reason with her to get her to understand the false nature of her claims, being an asshole won't persuade her or others towards your point of view. You just look like an asshole. [SEP] >Your smug is showing.  His isn't but yours is coming through in droves. Talk about condescending. A snake oil peddler got called out on her scam and was met with hostility. Fucking excellent. These are not the sort of people anyone wants in a decent society and not tolerating her bullshit demonstrates this effectively. These prey off the weak, the feeble minded and the grieving and they should be met with as much welcome as a plague.  High horse, remove yourself from it before you fall.
You lack perspective. One is a man asking questions regarding multiple incidents with copious amounts of evidence that he eventually admitted to. And those questions are about as sedate as could be ask, given the situation. The second is a man angry about what he believes is a bullshit charge attempting to smear his good name. And given the complete lack of evidence, lack of remotely clear memory of the one charging, some questionable as fuck statements from the same person, and obsoletely nobody corroborating her story. And in fact the only evidence, as odd as it is, are his calendars, SNL jokes aside. I would say he has a right to angry. But stay blind to the things that are presented to you, toe your chosen party line and continue to be part of the problem that dumbasses on both sides cause. I mean hell, your comparison of the two incidents is spot on for the magic land you want to inhabit.  [SEP] > You lack perspective  Ooh, is this the "mansplaining" I've heard so much about? Do go on!  > And those questions are about as sedate as could be ask, given the situation.  Oh, really? Is that why none of the people questioning Clinton chose to do so?  You think in the mid-'90s it was "professional" to ask a sitting president whether he fingered an intern? Instead of what they did, which was ask more broad questions about an intimate relationship?   I think you've spent too much time in the era of Trump, to ever consider those kind of questions "sedate".   > And given the complete lack of evidence,   Based on what? Right now, it's he said/she said, only "she said" there was another boy in the room (who suspiciously has laid low, until now), plus more people in the house (WH doesn't want them questioned), and people she told at the time about it (friends). You think she told her friend 30 years ago so that, one day, she could derail his SCOTUS hopes?   > lack of remotely clear memory of the one charging,   Nope--that's not even remotely true. She remembers who was in the room, that he pushed her from behind as she was heading in some direction in the house (I don't remember, but she does), and she remembers both thinking she might die b/c he covered her mouth and the laughter (and then all of them falling off the bed b/c of Judge jumping on them). Are you listening at all?   > and [absolutely] nobody corroborating her story  Except that's not true, is it? Because, again, she's named names, and so far Judge has said, at best, he "doesn't remember", but we don't know if he'll remember when he's questioned by the FBI, will we?  And on top of that, at least one friend at the time she told. And--that aside--we have multiple people from his HS and college who not only dispute his lies about drinking, and his lies about what certain terms in his yearbook meant, but who absolutely believe he's capable of such actions (setting aside the second woman, from his college).  We have an ex-GF from Yale who said he was lying about drinking, and lying about his sexual experience.   The real question is, why is it so impossible for you to accept a rich, white boy from all the "right" clubs and private schools and wealthy parental connections could have done this?   He's literally the movie bad-guy cliche from the '80s, but you think it's a load of bollocks? Ok then.
not a homophobe at all, in fact, i commend chris' work on LGBT equality in the NFL and acceptance of gay rights. However, based on the things I've heard him say and do since his retirement and his treatment of certain other individuals, I have valid reasons to hold negative sentiments of Chris Kluwe. He is not a nice person. [SEP] Nah man you just must be a homophobe/racist/islamophobe/someotherSJWbuzzword.  >He is not a nice person.  Just about sums it up. Which would be fine, lots of people aren't nice people. But Kluwe is such a condescending, arrogant, self-righteous prick.
So, nobody owned the land before, but that "nobody" will be compensated with a land swap? The Palestinian people are not "nobody", and just because there was not a Palestinian person standing in that exact spot when construction started does not make it legal. Even a 5 year-old would have less flaws in his logic than you, but at least he would have some basic human decency. [SEP] > So, nobody owned the land before, but that "nobody" will be compensated with a land swap?  "Compensation" is the wrong word to use. It's not that one side stole land from the other and wants to pay up for it; it's that the land was legally considered 'disputed' and because Israel started building there before the boundaries were finalized, Israel is offering some of its own land to make up for the difference.  In other words, it's not that Israel stole land that belonged to the Palestinians; it's that Israel built on land from the mutual pot that was waiting to be divvied up between Israel and a future Arab state. There's an important distinction. There was no theft. No state lost its land and no individual lost his land, so calling it "stolen Palestinian land" is simply incorrect.  By the way, going on a condescending, emotional rant does not get us anywhere. Let's stick to the facts and history here.
For me that’s about suspension of disbelief. They showed that the hardcore response team were unaware of what they were up against, that tactically Dolores and co. were a step ahead of them. That the less-qualified response teams were wiped out isn’t hard to accept. Honestly, I detest the phrase ‘lazy writing’ - it’s a term you only read on forums. As a fully paid up film critic, it’s not something I’ve ever written, or indeed seen a colleague write.  [SEP] > Honestly, I detest the phrase ‘lazy writing’ - it’s a term you only read on forums.  That feels a teeny bit condescending.
It's not the touching that is a problem. It's the clear spite and hate you can see from all the pics...   What's Paul going to do? Become president...  You'll just remain an idiot [SEP] >It's not the touching that is a problem. It's the clear spite and hate you can see from all the pics...  > What's Paul going to do? Become president...  Wow, spite and hate? You got that from his condescending position? He's talking to Ron Paul like Ron Paul deserves to be talked to -- like a child.  But okay, what's Ron Paul going to do WHEN Putin is all up his ass and around the corner?
I can tell you don't have a clue about current immigration politics other than a few cliches you heard on the mainstream media. I can barely make heads or tails with your badly written comment. Here is a simple fact: before the 1960s immigration was limited to Western-white nations. The nations that limited immigration this way were all very liberal, with more freedom of speech, and without the hateful labels you use to target critics of immigration.  [SEP] >I can tell you don't have a clue about current immigration politics other than a few cliches you heard on the mainstream media.  Why are the most ignorant right wingers so condescending?  >I can barely make heads or tails with your badly written comment.  Because you're a fucking moron who's bought into the myth of literal ~~race-based immigration policy prior to the 60s~~ even worse than that, you've bought into the myth that brown people just weren't allowed in point blank period.  >Here is a simple fact: before the 1960s immigration was limited to Western-white nations.  I have the easiest job in the world right now, all I have to do is prove that people with brown skin could legally migrate to the three countries I'm about to mention prior to 1960. I already know you're American, because only an American could believe something this fucking stupid, but let's look at some other possible nations first.  The UK. Here's a right-wing source for you as well. Many Sikhs were admitted during the 1950s, and immigration was more heavily regulated but there was no ban on 'Non-white immigration' as you claim.  Onto Canada, where the source is a lot simpler to explain. Without just copy-pasting the whole thing, some important points are:  The 1901 Canadian Census:  >Census.(1) Of the 5,371,315 population in Canada, 684,671 (12.7%) were immigrants (i.e. born outside Canada). 57% of the immigrants were male. About a quarter of the immigrant population had arrived in the previous 5 years. 57% of immigrants were born in the British Isles, 19% in the U.S., 5% in Russia, 4% in Germany and 2.5% (17,043 people) in China. There were 4,674 people born in Japan, 1,222 people born in Syria, 357 people from Turkey, and 699 born in the West Indies. The only African country listed was South Africa (128 people). Of the 278,788 immigrants who were "foreign-born" (meaning born outside the British Empire), 55% were naturalized citizens. However, only 4% (668) of the Chinese-born were citizens. In terms of "origins", the census counted 17,437 "Negroes" in Canada. 42% of the population was of British origin, while 31% was of French origin. There were 16,131 Jews and 22,050 Chinese/Japanese (given as one category). 96% of the population was of European origin.  Those 22,000 Chinese/Japanese people did not fall out of the sky, nor were slaves. This proves that immigration was allowed prior to 1901.  1906/7  >c. 4,700 Indians, mainly Sikhs from the Punjab, arrived in Vancouver. Arrivals of Japanese and Chinese increased (more than 2,300 Japanese arrived in B.C. in 1907). Reaction by white British Columbians was described by the Minister of the Interior as "almost hysterical". An "Anti-Asiatic Parade" organized by the Asiatic Exclusion League ended in a riot, with extensive damage done to property in Chinatown and the Japanese quarter.  It isn't all sunshine and rainbows though. In 1910 the Canadian government effectively stopped Black Oklahoman farmers from migrating to Canada and the official reason given was:  >"any immigrant belonging to the Negro race, which race is deemed unsuitable to the climate and requirements of Canada."  That's one of the most genuinely racist things I've ever read, it's actually hilarious that about a hundred years ago this racist shit actually passed as mainstream discourse.  1911 Census  > Census. The population of Canada was 7,206,643, of which 22% was composed of immigrants (i.e. born outside Canada). Only 39% of those born outside Canada were female (2% of those born in China, representing 646 women). 49% of immigrants were born in the British Isles, 19% in the U.S., and 6% in Russia. 223 were identified as being born in Africa (outside South Africa), 211 in the West Indies. Of the 752,732 immigrants who were "foreign-born" (meaning born outside the British Empire), 47% were naturalized citizens. 9.5% (2,578) of the Chinese-born and 22.5% (1,898) of the Japanese-born were citizens. In terms of "origins", the census counted only 16,877 "Negroes", 560 fewer than in 1901. 54% of the population was of British origin (up from 47% in 1901), while 29% was of French origin. There were now 75,681 Jews, 27,774 of Chinese origin, 9,021 of Japanese origin and 2,342 were classified as "Hindu". 5% of the population had German origins and 1.8% Austro-Hungarian. 97% of the population was of European origin.  The number of non-whites is growing.  >Census. The population of Canada was 8,787,949, of which 22% was composed of immigrants (i.e. born outside Canada). 44% of the immigrant population was female (but only 3% of the Chinese and 32% of the Italians). 82% of immigrants had been in Canada for 10 years or more. 52% of immigrants were born in the British Isles, 19% in the U.S. and 5% in Russia. 1,760 immigrants were born in South Africa; Africa is not otherwise listed as a place of birth. Of the 890,282 immigrants who were "foreign-born" (born outside the British Empire), 58% were naturalized citizens. The number of naturalized Chinese-born had decreased from 2,578 in 1911 to 1,766 (representing 4% of the Chinese-born). The number of German-born naturalized citizens had also decreased (from 23,283 in 1911 - before the war - to 21,630). 33% (3,902) of the Japanese-born were citizens. 44% of the immigrant population was rural (but only 40% of female immigrants). In terms of the "origins" of the total population, the census counted 18,291 "Negroes" in Canada, 126,196 "Hebrews", 39,587 people of Chinese origin and 23,342 of Japanese origin. 55% of the population had origins in the British Isles, while 33% was of French origin. 97.5% of the population was of European origin.  The number of non-whites is growing still. It's important to point out that although the percentage of those who are of 'European' origin is quite high, and increases, the number of non-European is also increasing. All I have to prove is that immigration from Western-white nations was allowed, and that's clearly proven here. Feel free to skim through the '31, 41' & 51' censuses to see this continue.  Before we move onto America—on the second page of that source from the year 1961 we see this:  >71,689 immigrants arrived - the lowest level since 1947, and a reflection of the economic recession.  So from 1947 to 1961 at least 71,000 immigrants arrived each year. Some of those were Jews, who aren't 'White-western'—some are Russian, who aren't 'White-western' and obviously you have brown-skinned people as well.  Onto America. As I understand it, the genesis of this 'Non-whites were banned from migrating to western white nations' bullshit originates from America and Americans, and it originates from the 1965 immigration act. That can be found here.  So in reading about this, the first you'll notice is that it replaces a 1952 act, which can be found here and the 1952 act was a bit of a footnote to the 1924 Act found here.  In simple terms, for America during the 1900s to 1965 there was a quota system which allowed legal immigration. The quotas were sometimes hilariously small, however, legal immigration was still allowed. The 1965 Act removed the smaller, per-country quota system and replaced it with a per-hemisphere quota system allowing 140,000 & 170,000 skilled workers.  Your belief that immigration was 'Limited' to Western-White nations is bullshit on all fronts. There was immigration from Asian nations, from non-western white nations, from African nations, from India. A primary reason for the quota system was to prevent immigration from:  >The law was primarily aimed at further decreasing immigration of Southern Europeans, especially Italians; and, to a lesser extent, immigrants from countries with Roman Catholic majorities, Eastern Europeans, Arabs, and Jews.  So prior to 1924, one would assume that these groups could immigrate more freely, and after 1924, with the quota system, some still could—just in smaller numbers.  tl;dr, Don't get your immigration history from a mix of Breitbart, the dailystormer, Black Pigeon speaks, Molyneaux or anyone who argues that Liberalism is anti-immigration.
"Saints Row has been a poor man's GTA"  I personally believe if you even say things like that you're not fan. Open World Modern Game involving gangs? GTA Rip-Off! Cheap Version! GTA Clone!. I guess Mafia is a Poor Man's GTA III and Scarface was a Poor Man's Vice City.  This game has the skins aspect, whch could easily be refered to as the Overwatch part of his argument.  [SEP] > I personally believe if you even say things like that you're not fan.  I would guess he's one of those "fans" that came in when Saints Row the Third got popular because he heard you can wack people with a giant dildo bat in it and play as an obese green sassy black woman with a beard and tutu.  But really, I just hate commenters that sound that damn condescending.  > you come across as someone who hasn't rally played Overwatch to draw that comparison. Not even the same genre.  > Saints Row has been a poor man's GTA for a while,
I'm well aware of what was in the clue, I simply cited Rameses as an example because that was the name that Peter used.  I'm also aware that there are multiple propositions for who was the "pharaoh of the exodus". None of those change the fact that the exodus itself is pure mythology.  I'll concede to being wrong about "no named pharaohs". However, I'll also point out that the books in which those pharaohs are mentioned are historical rather than mythological. [SEP] >None of those change the fact that the exodus itself is pure mythology.  So we're right back where we started: you're not adding anything to the discussion. Your point seems to be "There is a bunch of research into the matter, but I don't accept any of it."  Okay. But that's not saying anything. Doing it in a condescending and confrontational manner is the icing on the down-vote cake.
Lol yes! Of course it is. It's Reddit after all. Plus it's a temptation that's there that could be better managed I guess. You could tell by the people asking for it so fervently that it was going to get used for wrong. It's a good feature, it's just too powerful and too easily manipulated. But again, as I said...single player game, do whatever you want I guess [SEP] > It's Reddit after all.  Can't argue against that. I've seen people get condescending over less.
>This is a reverse of the "gender gap doesn't exist, because it's explained by choices women make" . It's wrong there too. That may be a part, but seriousness of the attempt includes looking for information that will make the attempt successful. Choosing les effective methods reflects on lower will to succeed.  No, it's not. Men don't choose more immediately lethal methods because "that's the manly way to do it", and same goes for women. Further, there is no evidence to support the idea that the choice of method is related to a rational decision based on "effectiveness" or "seriousness" of the attempt. The decision is the result of several other factors.    http   >This isn't a 20% increase. 7 men die to suicide for every 3 women. Men are disproportionally dying to suicide, and you're too caught up in the "but let me explain why women have it worse to even admit that it needs action.  Men are be disproportionately dying to suicide as a result of disproportionately choosing more lethal means of committing the act. Just because this is a fact doesn't mean it is pertinent to discussios of inequality between the sexes, or I'm arguing it shouldn't be addressed.   >This does not mean that the disadvantages that affect the less disadvantaged group should be ignored. Your point dismisses those disadvantages without consideration beyond "well, women have it worse". It's not a fucking competition! Groups being shit on is wrong! Whether that's women being more at risk of sexual assault, or men being vastly hit harder by the courts.   >Be against it all. Because feminist leadership is EXTREMELY dismissive of the male perspective on issues that men feel marginalized or ignored about. Media is also. Society is.  I'm not dismissing "disadvantages" faced by men, or arguing we should ignore a less disadvanteged group. And you're right it's not a competition. However, that doesn't mean the more disadvanteged group needs to share the spotlight, nor that both groups deserve equal attention, nor that every concern held by either group is valid. And to be frank, the "male rights" activists can be just as hostile and dismissive as feminists can allegedly be. Shouldn't they be faced with the same criticism?  >But for fuck's sake, we will never come together while we quibble over who has it worse like it's some form of oppression olympics.   There's part of the problem. Sometimes just acknowledging one group has in fact had worse upsets the other group. How can you expect either group to find together if they can't acknowledge one group may actually have it worse? [SEP] >No, it's not. Men don't choose more immediately lethal methods because "that's the manly way to do it", and same goes for women. Further, there is no evidence to support the idea that the choice of method is related to a rational decision based on "effectiveness" or "seriousness" of the attempt. The decision is the result of several other factors.   So then, you're arguing women are less competent at it, due to failing to self educate on motherhood lethality?   Ability x desire = success rate. Every factor falls into skill or will.  >Men are be disproportionately dying to suicide as a result of disproportionately choosing more lethal means of committing the act. Just because this is a fact doesn't mean it is pertinent to discussios of inequality between the sexes, or I'm arguing it shouldn't be addressed.   Yes. It absolutely does, when the disparity is 1000% and there is almost no discussion on again and counseling for suicide victims. Regardless of the reason, male suicide attempts are FAR more successful than females, so every male attempt we prevent through counseling is as effective at reducing the suicide rate (statistically) as preventing 9 to 10 female attempts. So why aren't we assigning special effort to male education and counseling, like we assign special effort for female victims of domestic violence? The numbers support such an approach. Society doesn't.   >I'm not dismissing "disadvantages" faced by men, or arguing we should ignore a less disadvanteged group. And you're right it's not a competition. However, that doesn't mean the more disadvanteged group needs to share the spotlight, nor that both groups deserve equal attention, nor that every concern held by either group is valid. And to be frank, the "male rights" activists can be just as hostile and dismissive as feminists can allegedly be. Shouldn't they be faced with the same criticism?  But you are, because you addressed that, in place of even acknowledging the point.  You are right. MRAs can be just as hostile. I am not an MRA either, though I emphasize with some of their views. Both groups are 40% good points, 60% bullshit.  >There's part of the problem. Sometimes just acknowledging one group has in fact had worse upsets the other group. How can you expect either group to find together if they can't acknowledge one group may actually have it worse?  That didn't make me upset. I can acknowledge that women, by and large, have greater societal disadvantages. I AGREE with that point.  I just don't agree with using it instead of addressing a problem advocated by the other side. That's dismissive. If people opposed injustice where they found it, then those that endured the most injustice would naturally see the most support.   My issue is that male issues get almost no consideration, and most consideration they DO get is couched in some buzzword variant of "ManBad" (mansplaining, patriarchy, toxic masculinity, etc) as the actual problem.  There are millions of people like me who feel powerless and voiceless. That's a dangerous combination for cooperation, and it is far more easily solved by acknowledging our pain too.  Yes, women have it shitty. Yes, there is a place for advocating for addressing issues which uniquely or disproportionately affect women. And I can even do it without making up words that have negative connotations and feminine prefixes.  I just want to feel that society as a whole values a man's life as equal to a woman's. And it doesn't. The old notion of "women and children first" hasn't been eradicated, and while chivalrous, it represents a societal view that all the woman lives should be saved from certain death, before a single man should. Within that context, the expectation is kinda dehumanizing.  I want to be in the discussion. And too often, it's the feminists that deny that voice.  Yes, there is space for a movement that advocates women's issues. But feminism, as it exists today, isn't that movement. It's become more about power than equality, and has grown corrupt within its leadership. 
> and old school sexism  There is nothing OK and "old school" about the sexism happening here. It happens in every facet of our lives. Work, school, etc. It is not exclusive to auto racing.  This type of behavior will never die out because people are sick and for lack of a better term extremely socially awkward. As a male, and male racing fan I would never treat another motorsport fan this way and I have had very intellegent conversations with women about racing and it was never about "HAA DUUR YOU SO PRETTY".. It probably doesn't happen very much but everyone is acting like it happens all the time. [SEP] > There is nothing OK and "old school" about the sexism happening here.  I don't think the commenter was suggesting it was in any way "OK". As far as old school... condescending sexism tends to be more associated with older men as opposed to the edgy "red pill" MRA weebs you see sprouting up these days. So yeah, "old school" sexism.
Well they seemed to imply that  -> moratorium on "Financial Abortion" -> Not caring about men's issues.  I clarified, for the benefit of people who might be unfamiliar with financial abortion, that the concept itself is effectively a shutting down of the conversation, and thus we feel it's not an appropriate topic on a discussion board where child support reform ought to be discussed. Barring one specific topic so that dozens of others can be discussed.  I know to some ppl the concept that some speech can actually inhibit other speech is absolutely mindbendingly difficult to grasp. Don't hurt yourself trying to. [SEP] > Barring one specific topic so that dozens of others can be discussed.  Because everyone knows the space on any sub is limited. Let's never, ever let the community decide and organically up or downvote subjects. Better to have mods who take the thinking out of the equations for the subscribers.  > I know to some ppl the concept that some speech can actually inhibit other speech is absolutely mindbendingly difficult to grasp. Don't hurt yourself trying to.  Wow I followed this comment chain expecting you to be a condescending asshole but not so fast and so strongly.
Of course it doesn't claim there are none; where are you getting this?  I'm not saying that no one would "waste" UBI money. I'm saying - and so are all the UBI proponents - that the amount of "waste" that occurs is acceptable in such a system, because it's far outweighed by the good it does and the value it puts back into the economy in the forms of both money spent that would not otherwise be spent, and people increasing their own value and earning power by getting out of debt or buying education or what have you.  Also, there are thousands of people in my city, right now, who don't work because there are no jobs available to them. They - the people, that is - can't afford education to do the jobs, or transportation to get to where the jobs are; and even if they had those things, there still aren't enough jobs for everyone. That situation is only going to get worse. Is it your opinion that when there isn't enough work to go around, those who lose the job lottery should starve? [SEP] >Of course it doesn't claim there are none; where are you getting this?   http   "She also found that the money was not squandered on frivolous products such as drugs and luxury goods."  She's either 100% wrong or didn't look anywhere near hard enough.  >I'm not saying that no one would "waste" UBI money. I'm saying - and so are all the UBI proponents - that the amount of "waste" that occurs is acceptable in such a system, because it's far outweighed by the good it does and the value it puts back into the economy in the forms of both money spent that would not otherwise be spent, and people increasing their own value and earning power by getting out of debt or buying education or what have you.  We have no concrete data about the amount of waste. But we do know about human nature, shoot, even animal nature at that.   >Also, there are thousands of people in my city, right now, who don't work because there are no jobs available to them.  Then they should do like me and countless others have done and still do; fucking move where the jobs are.  >They - the people, that is - can't afford education to do the jobs, or transportation to get to where the jobs are; and even if they had those things, there still aren't enough jobs for everyone. That situation is only going to get worse. Is it your opinion that when there isn't enough work to go around, those who lose the job lottery should starve?  On this point, I agree with you a bit. The problem is in venues that create opportunity. There are a set of laws across this country that severely limit opportunities to earn a living, while at the same time demanding that you must earn a living. An example of these opportunity muting laws are laws that forbid private sales on public property, like street vendors.   I had a personal experience wanting to open an arcade that would create 6-12 jobs, but the amount of hurdle-jumping, fees, red tape and hurdles was just too unbearable (an example was that I had to pay a certified architect $10k to draw up plans of the place just for me to get started). Well, now there's no arcade for me, jobs for 6-12 people or fun contests for my would be arcade.   So, these laws are what I call the Job Funnel. They block or hinder most opportunities to earn a living except through employment by someone else.  You people want to alleviate poverty? Don't give me a condescending handout, give me opportunity so I can go get some. Instead of fighting for a law that forces the government to steal from others, fight for laws that force companies to require listing any and all available jobs, that require the applicants from being anonymous to prevent prejudice and favoritism. Fight against laws that limit our ways and means to earn a living, fight for opportunity, not handouts, not entitlements, reparations, free money, etc.  Stop teaching useless shit in government schools just to keep useless teachers of useless subjects employed. Do teach how to job hunt, how to find opportunity, how to do taxes, how to write stuff off, how to run a business or corporation, how to use our legal system, how write a program, etc. Fuck Shakespeare and literature, fuck anything higher than basic algebra, fuck advanced grammar, fuck advanced science, fuck advanced P.E., fuck anything that's not likely to open opportunities for you. Fight for that!
No, many recent immigrants still retain the culture of their previous homeland. Assimilation usually takes a generation or two. This neighborhood is filled with recent immigrants and this type of behavior may in fact be less reprehensible in their former homes. Still appalling I am sure but not national news appalling. Many South and Central American countries have much higher levels of personal violence than the US. Sometimes that culture comes with immigrants.   Where in the US if some teenager gets sick it's a gross shitty thing to happen, in some other country where these folks are from it may be a deep personal insult for someone to A) throw up the liquor they were given and, B) foul up a child's room or nursery. This may be such a great insult it requires immediate retribution.  Get out of the internet for awhile, the whole world is filled with different people, beliefs, and morals and it does not all revolve around US politics and Sarah Palin. [SEP] You don't seem to understand. THIS IS AMERICAN CULTURE. Just because these people come from someplace different than where you come from doesn't make them any less American. America is a nation of immigrants, and regardless of what you think, you don't get to point to a group of people and dismiss them as irrelevant. They DO represent the american culture, because they live in the same country you do.  > Get out of the internet for awhile, the whole world is filled with different people, beliefs, and morals and it does not all revolve around US politics and Sarah Palin.  Go fuck your condescending self.   
Funny, because I feel kind of the same way (minus the abortion thing. It's not a woman's issue to me. It's a common sense issue)  I am a Paris Hilton loving, reality tv watching, circumcised cock loving size 6. I feel like that kind of personality type is ripped on a lot.    My main beef with this subreddit (despite the fact that I do love it) is that sometimes, so much focus is put on positive body image that people forget about positive bodily habits. For example, with the whole "heavy is the way to be" thing that seems constantly projected here, it seems like people forget that the only reason developed nations are becoming so fat is because we stopped eating well and moving around. Given how rare genetic diseases are that force you to become overweight, there are pretty high chances that overweight people are not taking care of themselves, and I don't think that it should be something we celebrate and idealize just because it's the opposite of what the media likes.   I mean; if you love being fat, more power to you, but I think it's kind of silly to over justify being overweight like some many people on XX do like its what we all should be doing.   I really hope that reddettiquite is taken into consideration and this isn't down voted into oblivion. Im sure it will rattle someone's chains.  [SEP] >I really hope that reddettiquite is taken into consideration and this isn't down voted into oblivion. Im sure it will rattle someone's chains.  Your post is reasonable and not personal invective, why would I downvote it? ::winks:: Upvote. That besides, I have no problem with your tastes. Honestly I recall upvoting nearly every post of yours I've seen, and oftentimes because I agreed with you.  That said I do not agree with how you're interpreting the size issue and I will respectfully disagree:  >but I think it's kind of silly to over justify being overweight like some many people on XX do like its what we all should be doing.  I've never seen anyone try to say that I ought be fat or put on some weight, nor have I see anyone here suggest that or impose that on anyone else.  What I have seen is some of the heavier women here defend themselves against sanctimonious or condescending lectures which I felt was perfectly justified of them. That's not an imposition, that's just them saying that they have a certain set of experiences that should be respected and to stop stereotyping them as someone with their hand permanently shoved into a Cheetos bag.  That's what I got out of it.  >and I don't think that it should be something we celebrate and idealize just because it's the opposite of what the media likes.  Two things to point out here:   This isn't a zero sum game, just because we don't condemn does not mean we 'celebrate' or 'idealise' it in any noticeably group-oriented way.  It's not that the media likes thin people. If you look at some of the threads Anutensil has posted about the fashion industry you'll discover how utterly absurd it gets in promoting an image of thinness. Using photoshop to make thin women even thinner being one of numerous over the top examples.  I've never been told by anyone here or anyone else I should be ashamed to be thin. All I do is return the favour to those who aren't.
I think the issue has a lot less to do with Megapurple itself and a lot more to do with how the industry treats its customers.  But there is some clarification to be done here: Concentrate is not all sold under the "Megapurple" brand. Megapurple is a concentrate targeted to help increase color. But you can buy concentrate in almost any variety from many regions of California, and a lot of it has nothing to do with the color, it's about adding glucose in fructose and acid in a proportional way.  I think the issue is this, and I've bloviated on this many, many times. The wine industry as a whole is markedly dishonest with its most loyal consumers. I think the reaction to things like Megapurple have more to do with consumers feeling like they're not getting the whole story from an industry where the story is very, very important.   Morevoer, I think that there is a reasonable amount of negativity around a product like Megapurple because the product isn't spoken about honestly and in a straightforward way. I still think there are plenty of reasons to be negative about it, but I think having an open discussion about how it's used would help clear up a lot of myths.   BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I can tell you for a fact that not EVERY wine under $20 uses concentrate. We make quite a few $20 and under wines, we've never released a single wine with concentrate. I can also tell you that I know of many other winemakers who make plenty of wines under $20 that don't use concentrate either. So while it is certainly a practice you might find, it's far less common amongst smaller producers (and I would venture to say it's not "common" at all, with the exception of rained out or otherwise weather-busted vintages (this being one of the reasons to chaptalize noted above)).  EDIT: …and at some point you have to start asking yourself how you feel about any and all products and techniques that can be used to make wine. If you wanted to have an "ethical" stance on whether using those products and techniques was okay by you or not you'd have to start carrying around a spreadsheet with you. The bottom line is this: do you like the wine? Are you interested in how it's made? Are you more interested in ranking the "authenticity" of a wine than you are in the "enjoyability" of a wine? Are those different pursuits entirely? Are they discussions of quality or just difference?  I'm not pretending to suggest I have the answer to those rhetorical questions, those are personal and everyone will answer them differently and nobody is wrong. But it's worth the thought experiment. [SEP] > The wine industry as a whole is markedly dishonest with its most loyal consumers. I think the reaction to things like Megapurple have more to do with consumers feeling like they're not getting the whole story from an industry where the story is very, very important. >Morevoer, I think that there is a reasonable amount of negativity around a product like Megapurple because the product isn't spoken about honestly and in a straightforward way. I still think there are plenty of reasons to be negative about it, but I think having an open discussion about how it's used would help clear up a lot of myths.  Thank you! Thank you! It means a lot to hear this from a winemaker. You have essentially summed up why there are consumer movements towards "natural"(sic), biodynamic, organic, small estate wines. All approaches are inherantly flawed. But the industry has been tone deaf and condescending to calls for more transparency. Everytime the issue comes up, some industry appologist marginalizes the wine buying public who seek transparency. How about a movement for honest wine?
I agree that some people are going to kill, no matter what; that doesnt explain why more and more people want to see the United States harmed, and why more and more people cite our foreign policies/intervention as their ispiration for terrorist acts against us.  You should really read up on why these people are doing what they're doing, you might actually see it from their perspective and understand that we are killing a lot of innocent people in other countries. [SEP] >I agree that some people are going to kill, no matter what  Good. I don't understand why you were being so condescending towards me when you agree with what I was saying.
>It seems to me your post is making the flawed assumption that the Zen texts accurately or literally describe the behavior of Zen Masters in real life.  I don't think so. I think I am poking fun at the pre-conceptions people bring to Zen, so I might have actually been on especially good behavior here in NOT bringing my own pre-conceptions.   For example, this is a preconception here, of yours:  >Zen texts are meant to point to seeing true nature. They are not a source of information on what is or is not Zen, or how masters behaved.   I guess there are some texts that I would call zen texts, but I think I said "texts that contain the sayings, stories, cases, and koans" of folks that are recognizable within the tradition folks like Watts saw as zen. (I still have to repeat that just because an academic says so an so "is Zen", to me there has to be a pattern of self mockery or humor, or poking fun at doctrine or poking fun at practice, or some reference to the ineffable, etc. that is characteristic of zen. If they are Sanskrit translators or preach a bunch of flowery doctrine with double adjectives, that's a dead giveaway. Zen was surely not imitating the Indians.)   Why not talk about what shows up as Zen within any given text. With the scarcity of "zen texts" we might have to grab the zen where we find it to some degree, even if the text includes other stuff. Most of these texts were collaborations of more than one person over a period of decades or even centuries. Most of the sutras can be dismissed out of hand, so that mostly leaves a few books that were anthologies and some books that were "sayings of" kinds of books. Either way, are we not just talking about some sayings, some cases, some stories, some koans? Where is the zen doctrine? There isn't any. If you are looking at doctrine, you are looking at something else, as far as I can tell.  Now, when you read a case, there might be a commentary as well. But most of the time, case, commentary, it leaves one either speechless in the case of someone who came to it empty, or in the case of the Buddhists, they are going to have to drown out both the case and the commentary with about half an hour of interpretation, smoothing it over until the balls are sucked right up into the torso. So it may not be a source of information, but then, where is that source of information? Its the world you live in. The cases are just about seeing. They are often examples of seeing that might be recognized. Or maybe if you don't cut it off, they can show you something, get your own eyes moving. Pointing is not pointing with significance like a Moses would point at the commandments. Pointing is sharing an invitation with no expectation or guarantee.  >You really believe they're sociopathic lunatics?  Put that way, no. But the question behind that is "do I believe that stuff really happened". I am sure some of it did, and some of it didn't. Which did and which didn't? Here, the question behind that: "Would it make any difference if it did or didn't happen?" No. NOOOOO?!!!!? (I hear swearing?) No. Obviously, it happens all the time that someone figures out that humans are suckers for words, names etc. and see for a bit, or for a lot. It doesn't depend on zen texts. So obviously some of that stuff like Joshu having a three legged chair actually happened, dude, in real life man!!!! And some of it was probably made up, or at least the names of the participants was changed, that is provable in textual examples. But if you read a case, and you get it, I wonder if you knew if it was made up or if it was real would make a difference in zen. I would in Buddhism I bet. One last thing, back to what the cases do: they can show a way of asking, and a way of answering. Without it becoming a generalization, or a summary, or a description. That's pretty cool. It's an example of how zen can work, and what is NOT zen is also shown. You learn to tell the difference between black and white without being instructed, just by going along for the ride. Life is like that. Zen is life.  Now, in today's world, you don't hit people too much, not even dogs, like that is sooooo NOT pc. Are you going to let a little thing like that cloud your view of reality? Do you realize just how violent humans have been over time, do you have a friggin clue? Seriously, disemboweling, drawing and quartering, decapitations, hangings, lynchings. Even in China, a broken leg or a cut finger or a kick or hit with a stick was really NOTHING in comparison with a red hot iron rod up the ass to the throat. Which is what we here in the US were doing to people we didn't like just five generations ago. Get over the labels man, and read a little history to put these stories into perspective.  Now the lunatics part, that's a little more fun. One definition of sanity is an integrated mind/word system that complies with social convention. Probably a good Buddhist would be the epitome of sanity. Such that if they declared someone to be crazy or high, whatever, that would carry some significant weight. But guess what happens when you jump ship on words? Social convention is no longer your reference point. What is? Seeing. Perfect seeing? No, seeing whatever the eyes present. Not supernatural. Prone to error. No guarantees. Wow. What a disappointment. No. Not. Exhilarating? No, probably not all the time. Alive? That. That right there. [SEP] > For example, this is a preconception here, of yours:  That's actually your preconception. My conception is not a preconception because it was formed after reading them.  > to me there has to be a pattern of self mockery or humor, or poking fun at doctrine or poking fun at practice, or some reference to the ineffable, etc. that is characteristic of zen.   What makes you think so? I would think they could act however they want.   > If they are Sanskrit translators or preach a bunch of flowery doctrine with double adjectives, that's a dead giveaway. Zen was surely not imitating the Indians.)    I really don't know about that. A lot of the dialogues in the suttas sound remarkably similar in how shakyamuni talked and behaved to masters in zen texts. Obviously, it's taken to the same extreme as chan texts, but some of the suttas can be deliciously irreverent. Even the dhammapada has choice passages that distinctly resemble Zen.  > Most of the sutras can be dismissed out of hand,   What makes you think that is so?  > Where is the zen doctrine? There isn't any. If you are looking at doctrine, you are looking at something else, as far as I can tell.  Aren't those statements in and of themselves doctrines? What about the gilded four lines of Zen?  > Now, when you read a case, there might be a commentary as well. But most of the time, case, commentary, it leaves one either speechless in the case of someone who came to it empty, or in the case of the Buddhists, they are going to have to drown out both the case and the commentary with about half an hour of interpretation, smoothing it over until the balls are sucked right up into the torso.   The suttas have similar narratives within them, often with no commentary at all.  Besides, whats wrong with a lot of commentary and interpretation? Its not like you have to take it on faith.  > The cases are just about seeing. They are often examples of seeing that might be recognized. Or maybe if you don't cut it off, they can show you something, get your own eyes moving. Pointing is not pointing with significance like a Moses would point at the commandments. Pointing is sharing an invitation with no expectation or guarantee.   Isn't this precisely the preconception you just accused me of having?  > Put that way, no. But the question behind that is "do I believe that stuff really happened". I am sure some of it did, and some of it didn't. Which did and which didn't? Here, the question behind that: "Would it make any difference if it did or didn't happen?" No. NOOOOO?!!!!? (I hear swearing?) No. Obviously, it happens all the time that someone figures out that humans are suckers for words, names etc. and see for a bit, or for a lot. It doesn't depend on zen texts. So obviously some of that stuff like Joshu having a three legged chair actually happened, dude, in real life man!!!! And some of it was probably made up, or at least the names of the participants was changed, that is provable in textual examples. But if you read a case, and you get it, I wonder if you knew if it was made up or if it was real would make a difference in zen.   I completely agree with you on all of this, but why would you assume differently about me, or Buddhists in general?   And what makes you so sure the pali canon is that much different from the literature you're describing? If you read Zen literature it's an entirely genius collection of dialogues illustrating Buddhist logic and principles.  > I would in Buddhism I bet.   Lol, thats a pretty lousy bet my friend. Personally I strongly doubt shakyamuni ever actually existed. It makes absolutely no difference to me at all if shariputra or ananda ever existed. The texts still resonate with what I experience in my own life. It just sounds like you've got some preconceptions of your own, sir.  > One last thing, back to what the cases do: they can show a way of asking, and a way of answering. Without it becoming a generalization, or a summary, or a description. That's pretty cool. It's an example of how zen can work, and what is NOT zen is also shown. You learn to tell the difference between black and white without being instructed, just by going along for the ride. Life is like that. Zen is life.  I completely agree with just about all of this, but I don't think works of literature or scholarship should be considered the sole authority on what is or is not Zen, which is exactly what it sounds like you are doing.  I have studied Zen literature, and I believe no amount of experience, study, or insight can make one able to say that anything is Zen or not Zen. I fundamentally disagree with your black or white view. I'd say one of the keys to Zen is learning to see the shades of gray.   > Now, in today's world, you don't hit people too much, not even dogs, like that is sooooo NOT pc. Are you going to let a little thing like that cloud your view of reality? Do you realize just how violent humans have been over time, do you have a friggin clue? Seriously, disemboweling, drawing and quartering, decapitations, hangings, lynchings. Even in China, a broken leg or a cut finger or a kick or hit with a stick was really NOTHING in comparison with a red hot iron rod up the ass to the throat. Which is what we here in the US were doing to people we didn't like just five generations ago. Get over the labels man, and read a little history to put these stories into perspective.  You are amazing how presumptuous and condescending you sound. I descend from a line of people that were absolutely brutalized at the hands of another. I have studied history my whole life. I work with diagnosed sociopaths in my line of work. You needn't try to impress me with how violent humanity is.   What makes you think I'm hung up over labels? what makes you think I haven't put these stories into perspective? I'd seriously like to know.   > Now the lunatics part, that's a little more fun. One definition of sanity is an integrated mind/word system that complies with social convention.   That's one definition alright, but it's definitely not the one used by mental health professionals. Much more useful clinically is to define psychosis as the presence of hallucinations and/or delusions.  > Probably a good Buddhist would be the epitome of sanity. Such that if they declared someone to be crazy or high, whatever, that would carry some significant weight. But guess what happens when you jump ship on words? Social convention is no longer your reference point.   How is what you describe different from tantric Buddhism?  > What is? Seeing. Perfect seeing? No, seeing whatever the eyes present. Not supernatural. Prone to error. No guarantees. Wow. What a disappointment. No. Not. Exhilarating? No, probably not all the time. Alive? That. That right there.  And you believe this is not Buddhist, why?  Time to step up to the plate, brother!   You have a lot of apparent misconceptions to explain.
Why did any of this get down voted? Theres no secret to abs...it's about not having a bunch of fat on your gut. Your gut, on almost all people, is the last place to let go of its fat...so it takes determination and dedication, but it's not magic. [SEP] >Why did any of this get down voted?  Lack of specificity and an overall condescending response.  "eat less, move more. it's not complicated" in response to being asked how he can lose his gut. That advice will not make him lose his gut. If he eats one less slice of toast per day and takes the stairs instead of the lift in work he'll lose his gut? No. It's not that simple.  It's not as simple as "eat less, move more" and that kind of cocky response is what caused people to downvote you. OP was clearly looking for somewhat detailed advice, evident in displaying a list of current advice he has been following.
That might be true. I'm just posting to inform others about an issue that will most likely occur to spark some intelligent conversation on the issue. Apparently most people don't want to converse about the long term survival of OWL as an esport. [SEP] > Apparently most people don't want to converse about the long term survival of OWL as an esport.  Well...if your post was this poorly received, you can't just put it on everyone else. Know your audience. r/competitiveoverwatch exists for a reason. If you want an in-depth discussion about the long-term success of OW as an esport, you're probably posting your thread in the wrong place.  Also, consider rewriting pretty much the entire post. It comes across as very, "I'm right because this is my opinion". I can't help you with the overall tone...but I would recommend getting rid of your LoL vs CSGO part. Just because you, personally, have issues watching LoL...doesn't mean others do as well. It seems like you're saying that consistency over time (CSGO) offers a better product in the long run. But...so much of that conclusion lies on your personal preference and not on the fact that both CSGO and LoL have had an incredibly popular esports scene for years.  As an awkward side note...  > That might be true. I'm just posting to inform others about an issue that will most likely occur to spark some intelligent conversation on the issue. Apparently most people don't want to converse about the long term survival of OWL as an esport.  ...try not to talk like this. It comes across as really condescending. I hope you didn't mean it to...but people don't respond well to the "No one is intelligent enough to understand why what I'm saying is so important" mentality.
Whoa, someone is easily-provoked.  First, I couldn't give a shit if playing video games was socially acceptable. Another thing that comes with age is a complete lack of caring about what other people think of your hobbies. You'll be able to play all the yu gi oh in public all you want in a few years! I sit on my couch at home and play a bit, maybe rarely have the gang over to play with some wobbly pops. What people down the street think of this is the last thing I could care about.   Second, get real. If you're into gaming, you ought to know the basics. I wasn't alive in the 40s (believe it or not), but I know about Citizen Kane, Casablanca, etc. You should respect the medium and learn some basic history about it. I'm talking broad strokes. [SEP] You were needlessly condescending from the get-go. Don't play coy.  > Another thing that comes with age is a complete lack of caring about what other people think of your hobbies.   Yes, your ripe old age of 30-something.   >Second, get real. If you're into gaming, you ought to know the basics.  The basics...of what? Game history? That's PONG, my friend, not Super Mario Bros.   >I wasn't alive in the 40s (believe it or not), but I know about Citizen Kane, Casablanca, etc. You should respect the medium and learn some basic history about it. I'm talking broad strokes.  Did you know Casablanca is only considered a classic because of how often it was rerun on television? And that, at release, it wasn't nearly as popular? And that Citizen Kane is a famous movie because of the techniques it combined (but not invented) to make for a modern movie, rather than any sort of superb storytelling and characterization? Not that it matters if you say you do, because you can just look it up or lie or whatever.  Knowing the names of those movies doesn't mean you know anything about them or know what makes it important. And if it's just the names you think are important...god, that's even more hilariously useless and pointless to be condescending about.  Regardless, no. It's a hobby. You don't know to know about movie history or famous movies. And you don't need to know about gaming history, or famous games. 
That's not the best angle to see that challenge from is it? Zoomed out from behind. There's a better angle showing him winning the ball,  http  I think that was a penalty because despite getting the ball he knocked Firmino over.  I really don't want to carry on doing this with you. You're really indignant about what was clearly a debatable call. You disagree with a professional referee's opinion. I don't know what else to say, you're right [SEP] Sorry I could have done with a better replay, thanks for providing it. It shows even more so that I was right in the respect that it was a careless challenge, coming in wrongsided and with his weaker foot at chest height and caught Firmino, not a shadow of a doubt that that was the right call about it being a penalty.  I'm not indignant about it, more so that I see everyone going fucking apeshit over a decision that if it would have gone against us everyone would have been doing the same.   > I don't know what else to say, you're right  If you don't want to debate it that's fine, no need to be a condescending cunt about it though.
I definitely don't care about a fish :-(. Sad huh. You're very intelligent, I'm impressed! The vegan world is lucky to have you. I wasn't necessarily trying to say I am right, but certainly that I would prefer a cat to be adopted rather than die. [SEP] > I definitely don't care about a fish :-(. Sad huh.  It's not really about calling people sad or criticizing how people feel or think. I'm really concerned with actions. Like I said before, I certainly don't care about all animals equally either. It's kind of arbitrary how we feel: I like dogs best, probably because I like how they look and act and I've had pet dogs for a long time. It's very easy to empathize with them and see them as individuals. If I read an article about abuse to dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc it really affects me. If I read about abuse to pigs, I just don't feel the same.  We don't have to act purely on our emotions. Even though I don't feel the same about the pig, I can recognize intellectually that any reasons to care about the dog also apply to the pig. I can take steps to compensate for my bias, and how we act is what causes effects not necessarily how we feel.   You went vegan, so presumably you're already doing this to some degree. It's definitely a thing that's easier said than done, but it is possible and it gets easier with practice like most things.  > You're very intelligent, I'm impressed! The vegan world is lucky to have you.  Thanks for the kind words! Really, it's more experience and time than intelligence though. This is something I've been thinking about and debating with people for a pretty long time.   > I wasn't necessarily trying to say I am right, but certainly that I would prefer a cat to be adopted rather than die.  Hopefully it doesn't seem condescending, but I strongly believe that we shouldn't argue for things unless we're very confident that they are valid.   I can understand that you'd rather a cat to be adopted rather than die. Honestly, my practical goal for engaging in these conversations is to get people to seriously consider the idea of vegan pet foods and to refrain from turning others away from that idea. Contemplating intentionally subjecting a family member to a risk is a pretty hard thing to do, even if it is justifiable overall. 
> So leave  That's such an American attitude and silly argument. It's practically a cliche. "You have criticisms of our country....get the fuck out!" Like there is no more to consider when leaving your home and family.  Not too hard to find other places  Or how about one that is at least a full democracy.    [SEP] > That’s such an American attitude  LOL, you can condescend to me all you like; at least I don’t make generalizations about other nations based on a single example from that country.
How does this make it to the front page? Is ESPN.com down?   Not that I watch or care about sports, but is this game somehow a big deal? [SEP] > How does this make it to the front page?  Because   >Not that I watch or care about sports  This isn't the majority opinion. People like discussing football.  Your condescending attitude is why people are downvoting you. 
Interestingly you just described 2/3's of the gun stores I have ever been too.  We as customers need to do a better job of walking away when this is the way a shop likes to treat its customers.  I know it took me a good long while before I found a shop I am comfortable with...and now I have a strong relationship with the owner/staff and would not dream to go anywhere else. [SEP] >I know it took me a good long while before I found a shop I am comfortable with...and now I have a strong relationship with the owner/staff and would not dream to go anywhere else.  I got lucky. The first gun shop I'd ever been to treated me like gold. I was a noob and they took the time to educate and enlighten. The other shop I go to, which is on the way up to my hunt camp, isn't condescending so much as "we're really busy here, know what you want and get moving". The first shop has gotten pretty much every extra penny I've had over the past five years. 
Jim doesn't watch other comics and still (poorly) attempts to do specials.   Jim is not insightful or educated and still (poorly) pontificates about shit he has no clue about.  Jim drank half a can of Miller light, made a prank call and went to rehab, now he's a spokesman for AA.   Jim is an idiot. A quickwitted funny motherfucker, but an idiot nontheless. So I'm not really looking for logic in his actions.    [SEP] > Jim drank half a can of Miller light, made a prank call and went to rehab, now he's a spokesman for AA.     I get douche chills hearing him pontificate on alcoholism. I was listening to one of their shows the other day where they were talking about near beer and some guy who said he was a recovering alcoholic said he drinks O'Doul's and Jimmy got condescending and all knowing about being an alcoholic. I had to turn it off, I couldn't listen to his holier than thou attitude, it was sickening. 
I love reading above all, and that's why I can't stand Trails. The dialogue is shallow, repetitive, robotic, and completely devoid of personality.  I never once felt like the world or characters came alive because there's no depth to anything. There is no complexity.  I mostly play games for the story, and I am an avid reader of books, so this smug condescension that anyone who doesn't like it doesn't like story is misguided. I dislike it because I love reading. [SEP] > The dialogue is shallow, repetitive, robotic, and completely devoid of personality. >  >  >  > I never once felt like the world or characters came alive because there's no depth to anything. There is no complexity.  Did we play different games? I don't mean it in a condescending way, I really can't understand how you would feel that way. I've played literally hundreds of JRPGs and quite some Visual Novels in the last to and a half decades and within the gaming medium I can't find anything that comes close in terms of writing. Perhaps some VNs...  Just out of interest: What JRPG would rank as your personal favourite in terms of writing then? I just try to understand you point of view here.
When it says 'Switch to tab', hold Shift as you press Enter to make it Duplicate the tab.  If it's driving you insane then you should totally use the extension, but if it's not something you run up against often, it's handy to know that you can do it without.  Unless I've totally misunderstood, which is always probable. [SEP] > When it says 'Switch to tab', hold Shift as you press Enter to make it Duplicate the tab.  Have you tried this? On what version of Firefox? Because pressing shift there (w/o the extension installed) opens a new window, not a new tab. That's a different feature.   There are several reasons why this entire "switch to tab" mullarkey is a very bad idea from start to finish, and why fixing it is very welcome:  1. The "switch to tab" misfeature overrules user intent. It clearly shows that whoever developed that misfeature firmly believes that users are idiots and that they, the develper(s) know better than the user, and that they thought they could make Firefox know better what the user wants than the actual user. That's both condescending and massive hubris.  Any competent user actually wanting to switch to a tab that's already open would simply do so, directly. A user who bothers to type an address anew in a newly-created or existing tab is a user who intends to open that URL in that tab. That's the established paradigm. Breaking the UI pattern by changing the behaviour of only certain URLs (the ones already open in another tab) just to give users another way to do something they already can do (switch tabs) is not just breaking a rule, it's needlessly changing things to be less consistent, for no good reason.  The "switch to tab" feature assumes that the user is a blithering eejit who wouldn't know what tabs they have open if they stared them in the face.   2. Without the "Switch to Tab no more" extension, it is very hard to avoid the unwanted second-guessing and to actually open the same URL as another tab without switching to it. Not even about:config can rescue competent users from the unwanted intent-hijacking misfeature being rammed down their throat.  3. Security updates and feature changes should be distinct. On Linux systems in particular, it's terrible how a user who just wants the latest security fixes from the update repositories to ensure his system is fully patched keeps getting ambushed with far-reaching feature changes, which in the case of the introduction of the "switch to tab" misfeature changed the way the UI worked.  4. The introduction of this new "switch to tab" exception to an established UI behaviour pattern breaks a rule and thereby increases complexity, both for the user and the developers and code base. Just because you can add a certain feature doesn't mean you should.  5. Never force people to change ingrained behaviours and to have to relearn and adapt anew to your application unless there's a compelling reason for changing things. Is there something to be gained? Really? And how beneficial is that, especially in light of the cost?   6. We've already established that competent users are more hindered and annoyed by the "switch to tab" misfeature. But it's actually worse: Because the sudden change to some other tab is also very confusing to new, less-than-competent users. "Ooops, now suddenly I'm on a different tab. How did that happen?" So this is not a case of power users being asked to suffer for the benefit of novice users. This is a case of Firefox insultingly second-guessing and thereby pissing off power users just in order to do something that will mostly only confuse novice users, just on the off chance that some of them are nincompoops who've forgotten that they already had that URL open elsewhere and might prefer to switch to that tab (and won't mind being second-guessed).   Suffice it to say, if I were a benevolent dictator in charge of Firefox development, I would withdraw commit rights from whoever came up with that switch to tab misfeature.
Well consider this, if someone who is a chronic alcoholic is given a kidney transplant, and subsequently does not enter into rehabilitation, that alcoholic will then require another kidney later on , thus depriving two other people from receiving the transplant than if the original was given to someone who would assuredly take care of their health.   [SEP] It sounds like a distopia not because tough decisions need to be made, but because the government is the one making them. Same reason I am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-marijunana, etc...  >if the original was given to someone who would assuredly take care of their health.  How would you go about monitoring that one? You think it is assured?  I know I'll get down voted, and I apologize for being condescending in my previous post. I just feel strongly about the subject because I have a friend that died on a waiting list (he had CF and I would imagine Arizona wouldn't even have given him a chance - at least he had a chance on a waiting list).
> Then he leaves Scully with superficialities...so patronizing. Like, a similarly aged Mulder only gets a sheepish glance at himself in the mirror but Scully's age leads her to a midlife crisis about her looks and some yearning for a baby and fears about Mulder finding someone else? Meanwhile, Mulder gets to play it cool?  Honest, sincere question: Wasn't Mulder's own, personal "mid-life crisis" already explored quite thoroughly (in more than one instance), though? ...And, in those situations, didn't Scully get the opportunity to "play it cool", as well?  More specifically, throughout the Season 10 episode "Mulder and Scully Meet the Were-Monster", Mulder is shown to be quite depressed, frustrated and saddened about his current position/role in life, and how his life has turned out, in general. (He was also shown to have been experiencing similar depression and frustration in "My Struggle", as well as in other episodes.)   Scully responded to Mulder's personal crises in a rather cool, glib and lighthearted fashion, in those scenes, with lines such as, "Mulder, have you been taking your meds?", too.  So...well, would it have really improved this episode to have Mulder once again reflect upon his mid-life issues? Or, instead, did the reversal in positions add to the overall feeling of "balance" and growth between the characters?  Personally, I thought that the latter was true -- and that things might have become too repetitive, if Mulder were to have rehashed all of the issues that he had previously mentioned. Also, as a woman, I actually found the writing of Scully's character to be quite realistic, in this episode. Nearly every single human being on this planet experiences doubts, regrets and insecurities, at some point in their lives (especially as they grow older); that's a perfectly normal experience, and not something that should be looked upon in a negative or judgmental light. So, why can't Scully be shown to experience doubts, regrets and insecurities, as well?  In addition, the character of Judy really got into Scully's head, so to speak, and deliberately played upon her personal insecurities for malicious reasons. Wouldn't it have been more "bland" if Scully didn't react to this trickery, at all, and wasn't susceptible to the same self-doubts that the majority of people, in real life, are?  Your opinion is totally valid, of course, and I honestly don't mean to sound dismissive or disrespectful; I just find the comments about Scully and Mulder's crises to be very interesting, really. Some fans have mocked Mulder for his mid-life crisis, and others seem to be implying that Scully shouldn't be experiencing such a crisis, at all. Perhaps it's more of a reflection of people (in general)'s subconscious unwillingness to face the fact that, no matter how perfect and well-adjusted they are, they will likely have to struggle with severe self-doubt, insecurities and regret, at some stage in their lives? That one day they, too, will have to look back upon their lives in a way that they were never forced to, before -- and that they might not be thrilled with what they see?  I don't know if that's the case, but it's been intriguing to read everyone's reactions to how Mulder and Scully, as characters, are personally coping with the aging process...    [SEP] I appreciate your thoughtful response. Admittedly, I forgot about Darin Morgan's episode from last season -- that story just evaporated in my memory for some reason. I'm not so sure having one character fret while one character plays it cool is best. I don't think that's the solution, regardless of who is fretting.   Perhaps it would have been a tad redundant to have Mulder demonstrate his own insecurities in this episode. I do think Mulder's concerns could have reemerged in the recent episode without seeming derivative. In either case, neither character's concerns were substantively investigated. Mulder's placid manner set against Scully's fretting just didn't achieve much interest and there was an air of condescension to the writing. Mulder came across as obnoxious and I don't think that was the intent.   >severe self-doubt, insecurities and regret, at some stage in their lives?  These words suggest a level of depth that I didn't quite see in Carter's script. Anderson and Duchovny brought more weight to their lines than Carter probably imagined. Good acting, to be sure. However, some elements seemed beyond saving. Scully's line about how "a woman thinks about these things," for instance. That bit seems to suggest her insecurities are a gendered phenomenon rather than something more generally applicable. I don't mean to collapse genders here, or suggest there aren't distinct worries, but that line seemed sloppily conceived and it felt like Carter's patronizing and stereotypical attempt at envisioning a woman's problems. Adding Mulder's seeming nonchalance about his own appearance didn't contradict this condescending vibe.  I found Carter's conception of a woman's midlife crisis to be so cliched. The emphasis on her appearance and motherhood, I mean. This is not to say that such issues are not valid concerns, or credible parts of the process of growing old, but it was a bit uncreative, and has been shown in so many other films and shows (including this one).   So, yeah, it seemed like Carter was sleepwalking through that part. None of it quite distinguished itself through new nuance or perspective. Alas, this stuff also follows a premiere in which Carter reduced Scully's agency in ridiculous ways while turning Mulder into a man of action. I just don't think he's been giving her character a lot to work with lately. 
> Existence of the self is a philosophical question,  Thats silly, I can touch and feel myself, therefore my experience tells me that I exist.  If you want to argue that we don't know that we exist, then I'll argue that you don't know that we are anything but a thought in someone else's mind and therefore evolution doesn't exist for us. Nothing about existence can be proven if you can't prove that you yourself exist. Thats a twisted web you've woven here.  > Theories are not made up of proofs.   All theories have a basis in a logical proof. namely that a hypothesis (true) if A + B. For example, the theory of gravity is true if I drop an apple and it falls to the ground.  > Let's start with "something initiates everything".  If I throw a ball, it travels through the air. That is my experience.   I don't have to cover for every instance you can conceive of, because if you did, then you can't prove that evolution works prior to the big bang either. Neither of our theories hold true. Debate on both theories is therefore still open.  > I also take issue with "the initiating catalyst is termed god".   In my experience (i.e. empiric data point), when people talk about the initiating catalyst to existence, it's framed as god. If you want to call such a catalyst something else, thats fine, but evolution in that case doesn't have to be called "evolution" either. You call the initiating catalyst asdasfqewf and I'll call evolution saqsdqfd. [SEP] >I can touch and feel myself, therefore my experience tells me that I exist.  But that doesn't mean that you do. What if I'm the only things that exists, and you're just a figment of my imagination? We assume existence because it makes the most sense, but the underlying question is one of philosophy.  >All theories have a basis in a logical proof. namely that a hypothesis (true) if A + B. For example, the theory of gravity is true if I drop an apple and it falls to the ground.  I don't mean to sound condescending, but you clearly have no clue what a scientific theory is.   What you've just described is the law of gravity. The theory of gravity is the explanation for why gravity works the way it does. This theory is supported by evidence. We say "we think gravity works because of X, Y, and Z", and then we test situations that we've never seen before, but which are predicted by the theory. If our test confirms our predictions, then we say that the theory is validated. Theories are never, ever, ever proven, though. You can only validate or disprove theories.  >I don't have to cover for every instance you can conceive of, because if you did, then you can't prove that evolution works prior to the big bang either.  I've mentioned this before, but it seems like you completely ignored me. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. Why do you keep bringing the big bang into the discussion of evolution when the two are not related at all?  I keep bringing it up because your argument is about the creation of the universe. My argument, however, is about evolution, so the big bang stuff is irrelevant to my side of the debate.  >In my experience (i.e. empiric data point)  That's not what "empiric data point" means. A data point is something that you measure, not just something that you experience. But I'll let it slide for now because there is more interesting stuff to address.  >when people talk about the initiating catalyst to existence, it's framed as god.   So? That has nothing to do with anything. The question is about what actually exists, not what lots of people think exists. Empirical data concerning this topic would require that you measure god him/her/itself. Empirical data is about things that exist, not things that people believe.   If your argument were "lots of people believe in god", then your data would be relevant. But your argument is "god exists", so you need empirical data about this god entity itself, and not about what other people believe about the entity.  I'll say this again, and I'm honestly trying not to be condescending, but your comments have made it clear that you don't really know what the theory of evolution is, and you don't even really know what a scientific theory is. You should probably do some research on those topics before attempting to debate them.
I’ll be honest with you here - your posts are absolutely captivating me. The content isn’t really interesting since you’re saying the same thing repeatedly, but the dichotomy between your mastery of English writing and wildly inappropriate use of adjectives is impressive. Someone makes an opposing point and they’re “hysterically arguing,” you find an issue with something they say and you find it “disgusting.” Solid writing skills, but no one would ever accuse you of giving a measured response.  As far as the issue at hand here, I strongly dislike chest gambling so I avoid it. I think $3-$5 for a digital skin (4-600 gems, depending on the quantity you bought) provides HiRez with a more than reasonable profit over 10,000 or so buyers (probably on the low end). I do find it pretty (watch my use of appropriate adjectives here) interesting when players of all sorts of games argue that chests, a clearly anti-consumer system, are a reasonable approach to content delivery. And yes, it is possible for companies to sustain themselves without resorting to unfair practices - more than one way to skin a cat, if you will.  [SEP] Unfortunately it's not up the customer whether the profit margin is reasonable. If a game is by all measures healthy, why would they eliminate chests (that aren't doing any harm other than people being upset they can't buy ~~certain~~ many skins) and sacrifice significant revenue?  Ultimately this boils down to the fact that the game is supporting itself fine, players are not being driven away by chests (certainly some are deterred from buying, but likely outweighed by whales/completionists), so the business practices are supporting the game even if the skins aren't being sold in the friendliest way possible.  > Someone makes an opposing point and they’re “hysterically arguing,” you find an issue with something they say and you find it “disgusting.”  Heh, couldn't think of a better word on the spot. I originally wanted to say unfair argument techniques but that didn't feel right. More of annoying argument, but that description felt weak. I used hysterical because it suited how I'd imagine this conversation taking place in real life (unrealistic assumption, probably). Instead of discussing reasoning behind their position, they   restated their original point in a condescending way - "um...letting people buy the skins they want individually?"  borderline strawman - "Are graphics not part of a game? Sound? I can play smite without sound, does that mean it is not part of the game play?"  "if you don't agree with me you're corporate shill, ignorant or dumb"  Authoritative - "To say otherwise is factually incorrect"  Disgusting, yeah... idk, maybe not the right word. Disappointed is closer, still doesn't give the connotation I want. The whole sentence was phrased backwards, passive and was too long anyhow.  I'm disappointed that he has the gall to act from a position of authority and claim objective truth when his entire argument was baseless claims and anecdotal accounts, and show no consideration for the needs of supporting a free-to-play game.  How's that
You're way behind the times.   http   You should really try to do something about your anger. A good start would be to stop reading the Orange Papers. The more you feed it, the more it grows. I hope you find some kind of serenity soon.  Here's another good read for you.   http #comment-160   [SEP] I now stand corrected. There is now one line in all of the AA literature that states "it is possible to be an atheist on matters of the supernatural but still have a spiritual awak- ening and reap the rewards of the A.A. program of recovery.” Which is contradicted throughout the rest of AA literature.   That is a step in the right direction, but hardly a pamphlet that was being requested. I particularly love how you blew past the entire history and facts and truly accepted what was being expressed. Your open mindedness, empathy for others who experience the world differently than you, is truly remarkable.  >You should really try to do something about your anger. A good start would be to stop reading the Orange Papers. The more you feed it, the more it grows. I hope you find some kind of serenity soon.  Since you want to engage in ad hominem condescending comments: Bless your heart. I am so happy that the bubble you live continues to make it easier for you to deal with your life, sobriety and reality. It must be wonderful not to have to consider anything beyond your personal little world. Hopefully, when you get stronger, you will have the courage and strength to take your head out of the sand and truly live by the principles of the program. It must be awful having to carry around all that hypocrisy. Courage is not easy to come by. Keep coming back. It works if you work it.  
Jesus christ, I know you have the best of intentions and all, but the volume of naivety in this subreddit can be flooring sometimes. Let me get this clear -- your grievances with the U.S. are (among other things) "healthcare, finances, the politics are a mess" so you want to move to Argentina and raise cattle and grow weed?! Have you opened a newspaper lately? Do you realize that Argentina is a country with a history of crony politics, fiscal irresponsibility, economic volatility and police corruption? How would you even begin to care for yourself, much less a herd of cows?! You also don't speak the language and would be entirely dependent on your significant other. You're not still in high school, so please don't tell me you don't believe there's a chance that something might happen during such a life changing transition that ends your relationship. What are you going to do then?  My favorite part is that you don't want to live in the city, where you could find an expatriate community to lean on for support. No, you want to live in the country, where fewer people speak English and your potential support network is even harder to reach.  But of course, you have experience living abroad. For one year. In the UK, studying archaeology. And you're getting unsubstantiated advice from strangers over reddit.  Nevermind what I said before, you got this. [SEP] Thank you for your obviously well chosen and kindly written words.  >...your grievances with the U.S. are (among other things) "healthcare, finances, the politics are a mess" so you want to move to Argentina and raise cattle and grow weed?!  As I said, "...the politics are a mess, the religious nuts are out to take over everything, there's so many laws everybody can be convicted of something. The list goes on and on." Now then, if I'm not moving to Argentina to raise cattle, then it'll be somewhere else. I never said that I would grow anything if it were illegal, just that I would like to were it to become legal (probably not very well said). But farming and getting out of the corporate world is in my future.   >Do you realize that Argentina is a country with a history of crony politics, fiscal irresponsibility, economic volatility and police corruption?  And the US isn't? Have you been watching the news lately? Now political instability is something that does concern me, which is why I wanted to reach out to people that might be in the know regarding this issue. Strangers yes, but people in the know.  >You also don't speak the language and would be entirely dependent on your significant other.  I do speak some spanish. It's nothing I use on a day to day basis, but I can get by. Given a year, I'll likely be fluent again. And if I'm farming, then I don't exactly see that as being dependent upon my wife. I see that as the second income.  >You're not still in high school, so please don't tell me you don't believe there's a chance that something might happen during such a life changing transition that ends your relationship. What are you going to do then?  With all things there is a chance that something could go horribly wrong. There is also a chance that something could go right. I know my wife, I trust her. I'll take that knowledge and trust over the unknowable and untrustable future any day.  Finally you may want to look down to kragensitaker's post for a lesson on how to write and get your point across in a polite manner. She described the positives and the negatives of the country with no judgement or condescending tones. It was word for word far more informative and useful than what you wrote, and the style of government and society that she's (he's?) describing does not sound all that bad, and even sounds like it may be a bit more fluid on a positive scale that the US. Violence against minorities though is concerning, but we've had state sanctioned violence against minorities here.  Edit: BTW, I think it's rather funny that you call me out on looking for advice from strangers, when you've got these links submitted:   http    http    http   Something about your attitude just screams former Digg user who has no idea how to politely hold a conversation online. Either that or a recent college graduate who has yet to actually do some traveling or actually work in the professional world for more than a decade. There's a very cocky and elitist tone that suggests the latter. One or the other, which is it?
> Do not accept casual accusations of abuse, OP.  seriously. This is a tactic to keep you from mentioning any problems you're having. [SEP] > This is a tactic to keep you from mentioning any problems you're having.  Any problems she ever has about any topic. How fucking preposterous.   "You're mad or upset that I condescend and talk down to you about (X), something you're much more informed on than I am? And you bring up that the way I talk to you is condescending and insulting in a reasonable and rational way and you'd like it to change? YOU'RE BEING DRAMATIC AND ABUSIVE, HOW DARE YOU?!?!?!?!"  Pretty fucking good way of shutting down any complaints OP ever has about anything and ensuring that difficult topics are only discussed if and when BF wants to discuss them.   He's taking away her agency to be upset when he says upsetting things.   edit: one dumb letter
That's just the recycling of certain parts of beings, it doesn't somehow flatten the food chain as if it never existed. [SEP] >That's just the recycling of certain parts of beings, it doesn't somehow flatten the food chain as if it never existed.  /facepalm  food = source of energy  chain= a connecting link that connect to other links creating a chain   The food chain does exist, it just is not a hierarchy top down model. It completes the full circle of life. Another example of how it is not a hierarchy is this example. "A bird eats ants but when the bird dies the ants eat the bird." The food chain is a natures way of recycling if that helps you understant it better. If you are still having a hard time understanding (trying not to sound condescending but..) i recommend you pick up an 3rd - 8th grade science book and turn to the section on biology.
Ah yes, the word "voluntary".   Suppose I tell my boss to keep this job and shove it. I quit and go on my merry way. Meanwhile, my former boss is still barking orders to the poor saps who continue their employment (it commonly takes money to eat). See, me quitting didn't de-archify the boss.  I'm curious, are you really having trouble understanding these things, or do you think that because it's a justification for theft, that you can't accept any of it? You can recognize the archiness of capitalists without thinking it's okay to seize the means of production. You can accept that wage-slavery is real without also wanting to do something about it. I know plenty of wage-slaves who feel this way. They're aware of what's going on, but aren't stirred to action.  Have you ever had a shitty job? A shitty boss? It's okay to admit it. [SEP] >Meanwhile, my former boss is still barking orders to the poor saps who continue their employment (it commonly takes money to eat). See, me quitting didn't de-archify the boss.  Is it the responsibility of your boss that random people can eat instead of having to work for him? No  They can quit just as well as he can start a business.  >I'm curious, are you really having trouble understanding these things, or do you think that because it's a justification for theft, that you can't accept any of it?  I do think it's a bit condescending of you to assume that my stance is based on misunderstanding, but fair enough  Yes, I have a very big problem with outright theft, no matter who's stealing from who, just like I have a very big problem with violence, fraud and anything else that hurts one for the gain of someone else. I wouldn't have a problem with stealing from someone who I thought had earned his money through fraud. The problem is that I don't think YOU understand what it is to be a business owner. I recognize that there are some people, some business owners, who are literally scum. What it seems like is you not recognizing that millions and millions of business owners are far from this. I don't think it's right to steal from them, and I don't think it's right to make them out to be the bad guys when they are, whether you like it or not, the ones who are providing everyone else with the opportunity for stable incomes.  >You can recognize the archiness of capitalists without thinking it's okay to seize the means of production.  Seizing the means of productions is bullshit. First of all, if you were to go out in practice and "seize the means of production" you could be overtaking a factory or you could be stealing my personal screwdriver and you'd have no way of knowing the difference. Secondly, FAR FAR FAR from all means of production have been acquired through means that are non-moral. Third, I don't see why you couldn't acquire your own MoP instead of insisting on stealing them from others. Fourth, I believe it would lead to a total collapse of productivity if such a revolution was to happen.  >You can accept that wage-slavery is real without also wanting to do something about it.  I don't accept the concept of "wage-slavery" at all. Slavery implies someone being able to own others as property without them being able to withdraw from the agreement. It's a bullshit term  >They're aware of what's going on, but aren't stirred to action.  Or maybe they're aware that you sound more like a snake than someone who wants the best for them  >Have you ever had a shitty job? A shitty boss? It's okay to admit it.  Why would I think it wasn't okay to admit it? I've had a few different jobs - I didn't like my boss particularly, and I quit after about 10 months to do other things. I've made as much money through freelancing and finding my own customers as I have through having jobs as well. I don't like working the jobs I've had and have - currently I occasionally work in a factory, and it sucks ass. What is the point of you wanting me to "admit" that?    
offensive? you mean naïve. OP's naïveté is hilarious, poor kid disregards religious gals because of his misguided ideas that religious gals don't put out. clearly he needs an intervention to get some. who better to address this than those who know raja beta the best, his mummy-pappa. [SEP] So you're saying religious girls put out as much as atheists? So there's no girl who'd cite her religion as a reason to not put out?   > who better to address this than those who know raja beta the best, his mummy-pappa.  You know that's condescending. People rely on that usually when they're offended and need to put the other person down. Hence my question stands.
Organizations like the CIA don't give money away without asking for something in return. If the Dalai Lama is on the CIA/NED payroll that would mean he is working for the CIA/NED. If he wasn't concerned about numbers in his bank account why would he accept $180,000 in his personal bank account every year from them? That's a lot of numbers! If Gandhi had been taking money from the CIA I don't think he would be so highly regarded by supporters of nonviolence. [SEP] >Organizations like the CIA don't give money away without asking for something in return. If the Dalai Lama is on the CIA/NED payroll that would mean he is working for the CIA/NED.  No, it simply means that the US government has decided that it's worthwhile to provide aid to Tibet. Do the leaders of Israel work for the CIA?  >If he wasn't concerned about numbers in his bank account why would he accept $180,000 in his personal bank account every year from them? That's a lot of numbers!   That's really not a lot of numbers...$180,000 is very little when it comes to the expenses of the Tibetan government-in-exile year to year. Monastic vows prohibit the handling of money anyway - what do you expect that he does with that money? Buy a vacation home and spend the rest on hookers and blow? The dude spends most of his waking time promoting compassion and nonviolence, answering letters from practitioners, and meeting with world leaders; and then he manages to spend another few hours each day in sitting meditation cultivating wisdom and compassion within himself... He sees himself as nothing more than a simple monk; he understands that to concern himself with the numbers on a bank account will only bring himself and others further suffering.   It's hard to explain these things to people who haven't practiced meditation for a while (I don't mean to sound condescending), but accusations of greed and malice against someone who has spent his whole life cultivating compassion and loving-kindness would almost be laughable if it weren't so dismaying.
I understand your want for it to be that simple, but experience has taught me that "truth" in science is sorely tainted by funding.  Did you read the NY Times article I provided? I thought it was put together well and addressed many issues in depth that were not addressed in the official Monsanto document.   In the NY Times article "Monsanto scientists and others cite research that has found that mineral deficiencies caused by glysophate can be mitigated with soil additives." I don't know how many soil science majors you've known but it is a pretty common field of study where I am from and most I have known will explain the drawbacks of soil additives and their collective effect on weakening soil nutrition. [SEP] >I understand your want for it to be that simple,  Don't be condescending.  >but experience has taught me that "truth" in science is sorely tainted by funding.  Sure.   But here's the thing. The petroleum industry has trillions of dollars. Monsanto is a company roughly the same size as 7/11. So I find it hard to believe that they can completely buy off enough scientists to forge a global scientific consensus when the oil industry can't budge research.   >Did you read the NY Times article I provided? I thought it was put together well and addressed many issues in depth that were not addressed in the official Monsanto document.   Yeah, I read it. It cites no research outside of one paper and relies heavily on anecdotes.   >I don't know how many soil science majors you've known but it is a pretty common field of study where I am from and most I have known will explain the drawbacks of soil additives and their collective effect on weakening soil nutrition.  Once again you're going to personal anecdotes instead of real science.   You're getting awfully close to the line of thinking used by anti-vaxxers. You have anecdotes and are skeptical of science because of big money. You rely on firsthand accounts and popular reporting instead of hard research.   
You're nuts. Safer with Bellerin? How? Pace pace pace. Is that all anyone ever talks about around here? What good did it do him when he got burned on the wing? We needed someone to cover when Bellerin was overmatched, which is what good teams do anyway. Debuchy is unquestionably our starter, his place is guaranteed right now. [SEP] > You're nuts. Safer with Bellerin? How? Pace pace pace. Is that all anyone ever talks about around here?   Condescending nonsense. Debuchy is just as attacking as Bellerin and his positional sense isn't even significantly better.  > What good did it do him when he got burned on the wing?  When has he been 'burned'? In his matches after Stoke, I've seen very little happen on the right which can be blamed on Bellerin (in before you make a laughable claim about how he had a poor game against Spurs when Ozil and, to a lesser extent, Welbeck were to blame for our defensive issues).  > Debuchy is unquestionably our starter, his place is guaranteed right now.  Which relies on the assumption that a player who has been injured for much of the season (and wasn't exactly world class during his time fit) will slot back in and play at full capacity consistently for the rest of the season.
>Strangely enough I've seen Loki players pay more attention to minions than hunters/mages.  Placing your decoy on a wave to instaclear it requires no effort or skill. Much like playing Loki.  >No, it is what Arena has always been. It's just that people who rarely if ever play Arena come into the game mode and think "I'll just try out new gods" and that it's "just Team Deathmatch"  Because that's exactly what it is, a team deathmatch. You're playing a game where a single hunter, mage, or even a warrior can instaclear a wave with one ability or 3 basics.  Feel free to pretend Arena requires any skill or game knowledge, but in the end it boils down to constant teamfighting with occasional breaks to get buffs while parts of your team spend five seconds rotating to base and back to pick up their items.   When I'm learning the mechanics of a new God, of course I'm going to play him in the most braindead, mechanically focused gamemode instead of conquest, where I'd drag the entire team down if I lose my lane because I'm not entirely comfortable with the mechanics of a new God.  [SEP] > You're playing a game where a single hunter, mage, or even a warrior can instaclear a wave with one ability or 3 basics.  Yes, but right before you say   > Because that's exactly what it is, a team deathmatch  And since everybody seems to have that mentality, going "Eh I just want fights and kills, someone else will kill the minions for me", everybody expects everybody else to to kill minions, so nobody will.  I never said Arena was as complex as Conquest, but you have quite the condescending tone with statements like "Feel free to pretend Arena requires any skill or game knowledge". Arena is about killing minions as much as it is about killing gods.  But sure, you keep thinking that Conquest is the only "true" mode and everything else requires no "game knowledge" (which by that I guess you mean no knowledge of Conquest). I'll just keep playing other modes and know that every mode has an objective, no matter how simple or complex it is.
I'm not defending Factory's behaviour on this thread but his right not to trust women, any woman, ever_. Even his right not to respect women.   He has the right to do these things. He has the right to say 'women have to paint the moon purple before I'll respect them' because Factory, like every man, has an absolute right to his feelings.   Respect and trust are impossible to provide unless they are provided freely.   http  [SEP] >I'm not defending Factory's behaviour on this thread but his right not to trust women, any woman, ever. Even his right not to respect women. He has the right to do these things. He has the right to say 'women have to paint the moon purple before I'll respect them' because Factory, like every man, has an absolute right to his feelings. Respect and trust are impossible to provide unless they are provided freely.  I agree with you 100%. My only issue is when he (or another MGTOW advocate) attempts to convince women that they are untrustworthy and when MGTOWs become verbal, condescending bullies.  >I may not agree with what you (factory) say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  Edit: This is why the mods of /r/LadyMRAs are loathe to ban anyone.
> Again, empathy and help are beneficial, but they are not forms of power,  I have the power of choice. I can choose to allow people to do things for me and it be socially acceptable because I'm a woman or I can choose to be independent and decline help because that is socially acceptable too. I can also choose to be right in the middle and have the best of both worlds. Feels pretty powerful to me.  I consider myself to be extremely powerful because of all the privileges I have as a female. When people help me, they don't "treat me like a vagina" in the sense you define, they don't help me because they think I can't do it myself, people tend to help me without being asked because it's assumed I deserve more help because I'm female and people (mostly male but also female) do it to be nice. I tend to go out of my way to "help" men in ways that are generally reserved for women/females and the reaction tends to be along the lines of "this is new/novel but enjoyable."  [SEP] > they don't "treat me like a vagina" in the sense you define  I didn't define it like that. I was pointing out that his phrasing was unnecessarily hostile, not that people being helpful is somehow cruel or condescending.  >Feels pretty powerful to me.  I think getting help when you need it is great, but I guess we just differ on the meaning of the word power. I wasn't powerful when I was 4 years old and skinned my knee. People were helpful and kind and that's wonderful! But I couldn't wield that power in any meaningful way, and for kids, it's obvious how easily overridden that power is.   When I skinned my knee, I didn't have the option or refusing or reclaiming my independence- adults got out the bandages regardless of my wishes. The "power" of people wanting to help you cannot be leveraged the way other forms of power can be. When I help someone else, I don't think they've gained power somehow at my expense, and helping them didn't cause me to loose power somehow. I'm being helpful because I want to. Power is kinda weird to define I guess, but to me, getting helped out doesn't make me feel powerful.
Is this not the Christian subreddit? Do the people on this subreddit believe in what the Bible says or do they not? According to it being "Christian" that means a few things. That means that the Bible is true and there is no questions about what it says. Period.  How are these things debatable? On this subreddit homosexuality is sin and there should be no debate about it. Those who do try to debate things that are not debatable, obviously don't know the bible. So therefore their input is of no value and they should not be listened to.  You can only debate Scripture with Scripture and as homosexuality is concerned there is no debate to be had. I don't understand how it happened that homosexuality inside the church is considered okay... We are called to be in the world but not of the world. So homosexuality has its place in the unrighteousness of the world but the world hold no value and no righteousness inside the church..  These things are cut and dry. They are not to be debated they are not to be questioned. If the bible says something that means it's true and is therefore of no value to be debated. [SEP] > How are these things debatable?   If you're ignorant about this and genuinely want to know, you can ask. There's no need to act so condescending.   > I don't understand how it happened that homosexuality inside the church is considered okay  That's because people translate and interpret those verses on homosexuality differently than you do. It's not really that hard of a concept to understand.  > If the bible says something that means it's true and is therefore of no value to be debated.  Sure. The bible says that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. So who are you to question that?
If you want to go into semantics "there is next to nothing to be learned by average players"...   Also why has this turned into a critique of me and my alleged willingness to learn or not, I am merely recounting my experiences from the last months of Trials with different kinds of players. I take away a lot from most matches so please stop implying I am unwilling to learn.  [SEP] >If you want to go into semantics "there is next to nothing to be learned by average players"...  Well "nothing to learn" and "next to nothing to learn" from playing really good players are two very different things.  >Also why has this turned into a critique of me and my alleged willingness to learn or not,   It hasn't. My comment was in regards to you saying this:  >There is nothing to be learned for an average player by being stomped 5-0.   Again, I'll repeat what I said earlier, that statement just isn't true.  >I take away a lot from most matches so please stop implying I am unwilling to learn.  And that is awesome that you are doing that. Keep it up. If I "implied you were unwilling to learn", it was because you said "there is nothing to learn from XYZ", which sounds a LOT like someone with a fixed mindset.  Apologies if my original comment came across as condescending, that was not my intent.
Shut up and stop insulting the people you asked for help. Go to the fucking dota subreddit if you act like this. It looks worse than childish as you fabricate insults and insinuations and respond in the most immature and hostile way possible.  What the first guy said is true. Even in shit tier dota, keeping your mouth shut and minding your own game, occasionally saying the words push, back, etc. you are very unlikely to run into massive dickheads unprovoked. It is more than likely you with your negative, harassing attitude snapping at people for coughing or sneezing.  No one likes to be spoken to like that, thinks your funny, or is even thinking of the things you're talking about. You're doing it to yourself. Don't believe me? Try playing dota without saying a word to anyone for the next ten games. See if you have the same results. I'd bet a thousand dollars it's you and your passive aggressive demeanor. [SEP] > Shut up and stop insulting the people you asked for help  I have never insulted and am not currently insulting anyone who helps, you fucking moron.  "Oh, people prioritize ruining the game personally for you over winning it? It must be entirely your fault!". Great fucking help here. Condescending, victim-blaming, self-congratulating garbage! Vomit.   I won basically every match lately, even with heroes I have no idea how to play, by utilizing Slacks' advice. He has a lot of key points, but "you're the captain of SS Dumbfuck", "keep your idiots alive" "identify who on your team is a complete moron and just let him die" are indispensible advice that is far better than "Haha, you le deserve your MMR, such as the memes" from some kid who got carried.
We are a democracy. It's completely possible to be a republic and a democracy.  So why should relatively partisan states be forgotten instead? That isn't any more reasonable.  As an aside, a little less condescension would probably be appreciated by people you're discussing things with. Just a quick tip. [SEP]  >We are a democracy. It's completely possible to be a republic and a democracy.  We're not one though as it relates to the President. The only people we elect directly are the members of Congress, and that's even relatively new (for the Senate)   >So why should relatively partisan states be forgotten instead? That isn't any more reasonable.   I didn't say that, and personally I think this is more of an issue with the two party system and the extreme partisanship it breeds  >As an aside, a little less condescension would probably be appreciated by people you're discussing things with. Just a quick tip.  That's a pretty condescending thing to say, and I notice that you attacked my writing style instead of addressing what I said
Rift owner here:  It's not babying, it's a borderline necessity to prevent motion sickness in the average user... which, if you're anything like me, you wouldn't fully understand until you actually had a headset on.  Minecraft doesn't use node/teleport, it uses analog stick locomotion. The first few times you play it will be nauseating because you have to move the camera with the right stick in order to adjust your movement direction. Your brain tries to reconcile the fact that your vision and your movement don't feel even remotely natural and causes nausea as a result. Ripcoil, a free game that combines pong with disc jammers, is the worst culprit I've experienced so far with motion sickness, as you need to "lean" at certain degrees to move your platform from side to side.  Two of the killer apps for the Rift:. Robo Recall, and Superhot VR (feels like a whole new world compared to the regular version) bypass this motion sickness issue by using a teleporter, which thematically makes sense in RoboRecall, and Superhot VR confines you to a room for each section but puts more emphasis in physically dodging, ducking, and throwing items.  Star Trek Bridge Crew is also awesome, but intentionally confined to a chair.  I still need to play The Unspoken, Lone Echo, Echo Arena, and Wilson's Heart. [SEP] > Minecraft doesn't use node/teleport, it uses analog stick locomotion. The first few times you play it will be nauseating because you have to move the camera with the right stick in order to adjust your movement direction.  Wireless headsets can't come fast enough, because that sounds silly but unavoidable. When I was trying out my shitty google cardboard setup I actually used a swivel chair (and a lot of trial and error tinkering) to approximate 1-to-1 camera movement with the phone's accelerometer.  I should have been less condescending on how people have different tolerances to motion sickness, sorry. But I am curious if there are tools for those of us who can handle asynchronous movement.
> Here's a question: Say once again there was someone who thought like you but was more competent/intelligent. How would you feel if they wrote you off as not worthy of their time? How would you react going foward knowing their thought process? Would you be able to work with them?  Since their opinion would be worth paying attention to, I'd instantly try to see what it is that scared them off and try to file that down until it is no longer an issue. I'd be able to work with them because ultimately I'd focus on their competence and capabilities rather than what they think of me.  >All this to say, I believe that intelligence without compassion is a dangerous thing. It becomes too easy to dehumanize others, become arrogant/insufferable, and close yourself off to new knowledge. And if you generalize that type of behaviour (e.g. eugenics), you put yourself at the mercy of others who think similarly. You could easily find yourself on the wrong side of a very arbitrary line.  Our entire world is run by people like that. It's the norm, because it works. Your logic would apply if I wanted to do the best I possibly could for the society I live in, but why would I? I can't think of a single logical explanation as to why I should be caring for anyone other than my siblings, girlfriend, and eventual kids. [SEP] > Your logic would apply if I wanted to do the best I possibly could for the society I live in, but why would I?  Prisoner's dilemna, I suppose. Everyone would benefit from everyone trying to do better. Personally, it gives me purpose in life to try to make the world a better place. All other goals, be it wealth, fame, power, or "success" generally, feel profoundly empty. Sure they give short-term rushes, but they leave an existential void. I know I'll taken advantange of at some point, but c'est la vie.   Also, since I've made the choice to do better, there must be others who have made this choice as well. Meeting these people is very gratifying. I guess it could be a similar feeling to meeting an intellectual equal. But the difference is that I can be open with these people and not worry about them stabbing me in the back.   Finally, people who do want to make the world a better place may avoid your company, leaving you with the false belief that the world is filled with only self-interested people. This self-reinforcing bias will only encourage more self-interested behaviour as you battle it out increasingly selfish people. Not a pretty picture.   >Since their opinion would be worth paying attention to, I'd instantly try to see what it is that scared them off and try to file that down until it is no longer an issue.   But this person isn't scared of you, they don't respect your being -- you are stupid to them. They micro-manage your tasks, double-check all of your work, remind you of deadlines, make condescending remarks. Your successes are downplayed and your mistakes highlighted. You do improve, but this person expects much more than you can reasonably provide and their expectations are every changing. What do you do?   I'm not looking for answers that sidestep the issue (e.g. get a new job, speak to HR, sabotage the boss). I'm trying to reflect how such behaviour is counter-productive. No one wins. All the boss is doing is building a wall around themselves with their (fagile) ego, which sycophants will exploit.  Anyways, thanks for you time!
sigh The commenter made a point that the drug is sometimes necessary for people who have a condition for reasons beyond old age. I guess you missed that. [SEP] Sign...what the fuck is that you passive aggressive piece of shit.   >The commenter made a point that the drug is sometimes necessary for people who have a condition for reasons beyond old age. I guess you missed that.  Oh you mean the part where he called it a vanity drug for fat people? Is that the part I missed you condescending dipshit. Fact is I got that but I can also read into the subtleties of him insinuating who takes it. He did NOT address some of the very REAL medical reasons some men take it. So fuck you, you arrogant asshole.
No offense, but you're a 15-year-old teenage girl. You don't know what love is. You just barely hit puberty, so be a little real with yourself.  [SEP] >No offense, but you're a 15-year-old teenage girl. You don't know what love is. You just barely hit puberty, so be a little real with yourself.   When is advice like ever helpful? Even if it were true (and it's absolutely not), it's completely condescending. Condescending to people is not how you get strangers to listen to you. It's how you get them to shut you out and ignore whatever comes out of your mouth.
> Because no one would ever write "I need a good book, some music, and a nice glass of wine. Or maybe a beer" if they didn't mean "these three things or this one thing."  I notice you've completely ignored my argument that it doesn't make logical sense that they would be combined since one would not need to come to a deep understanding of your opponents principles if you plan to simply brutally murder them all. Instead you're debating against an imaginary linguistic argument that I never made. Since we've reached the straw man point of the evening I don't think anything productive can be gained from continuing this.  No where did I disagree that they took half measures. I have time and time pointed out, that full measures mean brutally murdering everyone. Not punching someone in the face. Not shouting at them. Not some street scraps. If you're going to follow Hitler's advice your two options are Hitler level brutality of absolute widespread murder until they are annihilated (which I thought we were above, maybe I misjudged everyones crazyness level) or simply ignoring them. Anything in between just makes them stronger according to his argument.   This really isn't that complicated, you're trying very hard to find disagreement where there is none accept what is considered misquoting. I just went back and looked at the original, and there's added words and completely different sentence structures. It's not a case of missing ellipses, you're just purely incorrect because it's a complete misquote before you even get to the dishonesty of changing "There's only one Option, A. Or B" to "There's only one option: B".  If someone said "There's only one option if you're pregnant, have the baby. Or, alternatively, have an abortion" and they were quoted as "There's only one option if you're pregnant: have an abortion" I'm pretty sure you'd call that a misquote not simply missing ellipses. [SEP] >I notice you've completely ignored my argument that it doesn't make logical sense that they would be combined since one would not need to come to a deep understanding of your opponents principles if you plan to simply brutally murder them all. Instead you're debating against an imaginary linguistic argument that I never made. Since we've reached the straw man point of the evening I don't think anything productive can be gained from continuing this.  I agree, at the point you have resorted to "that reading doesn't make sense because I wouldn't have written it that way", we're not doing anything useful.  >No where did I disagree that they took half measures. I have time and time pointed out, that full measures mean brutally murdering everyone. Not punching someone in the face. Not shouting at them. Not some street scraps  Regardless of whether we take Hitler as an authority on the subject of how to stop fascism, we can (ourselves) try out a level of intolerance somewhere between brutally murdering them all and "slaps on the wrist."  How is it you think Germany has managed to avoid this resurgence of nazism? Not by murdering them.  >Anything in between just makes them stronger according to his argument.  Only if you take the concept of annihilating their movement to mean the annihilation of every member of it. Which, huh, speaking of "one would not need to do X to do Y" (your logic, remember) would mean that if he meant that every member of the Nazi party would have needed to be murdered, he would have written that.  >you're trying very hard to find disagreement where there is none accept what is considered misquoting  Do you mean "except"?  I don't want to misquote you while pointing out that if you're going to be engaged in pure semantic argument, you should double-check your paragraphs.  Especially if you're going to be a condescending dick while doing it.  > I just went back and looked at the original, and there's added words and completely different sentence structures. It's not a case of missing ellipses, you're just purely incorrect  You realize that the book was written in German, right? Which would mean that the translation of "only one thing could have stopped our movement" could be equally valid as "only one danger could have jeopardised this development", right?  The rest is exactly word-for-word, save for a pair of ellipsis:  "if our adversaries had understood its principle... and... from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement."  You can argue that both options should be expressed (as Hitler expressed them) as coequal options. But since neither you nor the original comment did that, neither is more correct than the other.  >before you even get to the dishonesty of changing "There's only one Option, A. Or B" to "There's only one option: B".  I've already granted that treating the two options for dealing with fascism as anything less than coequal is misleading.  If you'd like to take your bolded "see, he meant that nonviolence was better" inanity, I'll happily say your post was more correct.  >If someone said "There's only one option if you're pregnant, have the baby. Or, alternatively, have an abortion" and they were quoted as "There's only one option if you're pregnant: have an abortion" I'm pretty sure you'd call that a misquote not simply missing ellipses.  Except that those two options do not seek the same end (one results in a child being born, the other does not). That's not comparable to "there is one option to achieve the goal of ending this movement, you can do X, or Y."  Which, come to think of it, was just bad writing.  But recall that you didn't present both options as equal either:  >the full quote in context suggests doing the exact opposite as the best method, and the modified quote you posted is listed as an alternative which given the continuing context is supposed to be obvious is neither realistic nor possible  Which is no more found in the text than the alleged misquotation.
 http   > Even more frightening to Europe are the strategic implications of a Trump presidency. Mr. Trump is rarely clear about his political beliefs, but it is clear that he has a long-held disdain of NATO. He views the Atlantic alliance as a kind of international racket in which the members have to pay the American mob leader for protection.  > Mr. Trump has a point: European nations should be doing more to expand and invest in their militaries. But his critique of NATO misunderstands the role of the United States. The alliance functions because his country, the world’s superpower, leads by consent and example, not by threat. Moreover, his repeated suggestion that he would not come to the defense of the Baltic States if they have not “been paying their bills” is an open invitation to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.  > Of course that shouldn’t be a surprise. As Europeans have noted with a sense of dread, Mr. Trump seems perfectly comfortable with Russia’s president. He seems to be bothered neither by Mr. Putin’s authoritarian rule, nor his aggression against the international order, nor his meddling in Western democracies. Many worry that Mr. Trump will be willing to strike a grand bargain with Moscow, dividing the world up into spheres of influence. Needless to say, this would divide the Continent and betray the democratic states in Eastern Europe and endanger their newly found independence.   > Mr. Putin’s aim is to enhance Russia’s power by undermining and destabilizing Western democracies. He seems to have succeeded in the United States. People in Europe will be watching anxiously to see if the new American president is really Mr. Putin’s useful idiot and if he actually governs along the lines he laid out during the campaign — in other words, if this really will be the end of the West as we know it. [SEP] > The alliance functions because his country, the world’s superpower, leads by consent and example, not by threat.  Okay, I gotta ask, as a non American. Doesn't this sound a bit condescending? The big and mighty USA, leading those silly Europeans into the light. Is it just me?   
> Poe is one of the most respected members of the Resistance, Holdo should have found a way to focus Poe and utilize his strengths.   This is an extremely desperate time for the Resistance. Not time for Poe hand holding and learning. Poe needs to act like an adult/responsible officer during this time and listen to what Holdo says - stick to his post and await orders. It’s what everyone else on the ship seemed willing to do. [SEP] >Not time for Poe hand holding and learning  It isn't about hand holding, it's about being a good leader. Holdo's passive aggressive and condescending leadership style, which you so elegantly capture in your "hand holding" comment, is the worst type of leadership, and it can be a catastrophic leadership style for commanding officers to employ during combat situations. 
This is silly. There is such a thing as freedom of the press in The United States. There's nothing stopping two subsidiaries of the same holding company from having widely different world views and catering to different audiences. Fox News and The New York Post, for instance, are controlled by the same company, but are positively adversarial in their reporting. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping you from going out and starting your own media organization--that's what freedom of the press is about. This MSM, 'fake news' bullshit is getting really fucking old. Grow up. [SEP] >There's nothing stopping two subsidiaries of the same holding company from having widely different world views and catering to different audiences  Of course not but there is also nothing stopping the parent company from preventing any general story from gracing the page of either publication.  The concern is and always has been censorship and with the wave of new allegations and "fake news" as a term to discredit smaller known media companies that report stories the big ones do not pick up then you have a very effective trap. Namely why are no media companies from the large organizations speaking out against war and the fact that President Obama (winner of Nobel Peace Prize) dropped 26k bombs in 2016 before leaving office. Where is the dissent involving or against the MIC?  Yet you post condescending bullshit at other people for bringing up relevant information. You dismiss opinions outside your worldview as fake/bullshit then have the audacity to call other's out for it. LOL
> I was just mimicking you, giving you a taste of being called "boy" by a total stranger  Wasn't referencing that at all, though.   Again, you're a pedant because you totally understood what I meant, yet the man I replied to made no sense at all and I wanted him to clarify.  [SEP] >yet the man I replied to made no sense at all and I wanted him to clarify.   From the downvotes youre getting on your initial comment, maybe youre the one who need to up your reading comprehension game. Just maybe.  >Again, you're a pedant  Theres just something ironic to be said about a person who critized someone else's english condescendingly and then calling another person a pedant...
>I believe the best approach here is then to poke holes in the statement using whatever definitions you would find appropriate rather than asking me to define terms you think I'm misusing. You do that elsewhere, and I think that's more productive to the conversation.  You fail to recognize that what motivates you to continue this conversation need not be well aligned with what motivates me to do the same, and thus what counts as “productive” with respect to my motivations need not necessarily seem “productive” with respect to yours.      Some more physical/logical criticisms…  …on the theoretical implications of causal locality  >I haven't seen this anywhere other than you saying this here….  You also haven’t looked very hard, so I don’t really see why this should matter…  >"might" != "will"  So what? If you compute a long-term prediction but have to admit at the outset that you don’t know how long it will actually remain accurate because you can’t possibly know whether or not there is anything that will eventually become relevant that has not been accounted for in the computation, it seems rather silly to imagine that prediction as a “perfect” one.  …on the pitfalls of waxing quantum with only a cursory, popsci-level comprehension of the subject  >…if there is non-local variables influencing variables faster than relativity allows, then that would seem to indicate an informational process that could likewise be exploited to achieve the same speed…  I don’t know where you got this idea from. It is well-established that the nonlocal behavior associated with quantum theory cannot be harnessed to exchange information at superluminal speeds.  > What did I misrepresent? If the uncertainty principal represents a limitation of nature and I measure the spin, the velocity and location cannot be measured precisely (or in other words are to a point unmeasurable as I put it before). What am I missing here?  Well, for one thing, the mathematical structure of the uncertainty principle applies to specific pairs of noncommutable variables (e.g. position versus momentum; spin up versus spin down; etc). There is nothing in the uncertainty principle per se that directly precludes the possibility of simultaneously measuring, say, spin and momentum.  (A bonus tidbit: it also pre-existed quantum theory, and is tied up with the mathematics of Fourier transforms)      Some more conceptual criticisms  >… my original wording was I think quite precise  Here’s the thing, though: It doesn’t matter how precise you think your wording is, because regardless of how precise you personally think it is, many (read: most) others will not be able to understand it what it means, even after spending some time thinking on it to try and figure out what you’re trying to say.  For its apparent precision (from your perspective) derives from the way the implicit reasoning that underlies the intuitiveness of its structure is all wrapped up and twisted around an implicit inefficiency of thought of which you seem, paradoxically, to be proud.  To clarify what I mean by this, note that you’ve repeatedly paid this possibility lip service—that your intuitions may well simply be false. Yet just as repeatedly you shrug this possibility aside as if insignificant to the dialogue. Problem is, that mode of approach only serves to increase the probability that the possibility in question is indeed an actuality, and it does so in a manner that hinders efficient dialogue.  >I wasn't attempting to even look at the various implications and extrapolations scientists and philosophers have come up with over the years, just the mathematical inequality principle itself.  In your efforts to “[not even attempt to] look at the various implications and extrapolations scientists and philosophers have come up with over the years,” your words suggest an underlying assumption that you actually are looking at “just the mathematical inequality principle itself.” However, you would have to (at minimum) actually understand the mathematics involved in the principle in order to be able to do that.  Since you clearly do not yet possess this understanding, what you have actually wound up looking at is your own superficial interpretation of the uncertainty principle, not the uncertainty principle itself. In other words, your conceptualization of this “mathematical inequality principle“ is far too intimately tangled up with your own particular notion of its “implications and extrapolations” to justify calling that conceptualization a conceptualization of the “principle itself”.  > If you want to use calculate loosely and thus apply to more semantic predictions, the idea I posited still holds.  Why would you ever want to do that? This is a prime example of your willingness to distort a concept in whatever way allows you (implicitly) to sustain your own particular and peculiar preordained conclusions.      A challenge: Spot your own conflations—2000 points per  >Several lines of your reasoning, for example, read almost like those of a Tegmarkian disciple who takes everything that exists to be “mathematical” or “computational” in nature. > >Which lines are those?  I don’t have any inclination to sift back through your previous comments and pick them out. That’s an exercise for you to complete if you’re up to the challenge. Consider it a sort of Where’s Waldo search for conceptualizations conflating overtly mathematical sentiments with overtly physical ones. Tell ya what, though, I will quote one line from your last the give you a head start:  >“Is measurement error not a byproduct of calculations?”  Ready? Okay, on 3. 1... 2... Go! [SEP] > You fail to recognize that what motivates you to continue this conversation need not be well aligned with what motivates me to do the same, and thus what counts as “productive” with respect to my motivations need not necessarily seem “productive” with respect to yours.  How should I expect to know what your motivations are? I can only speak from my own point of view, though I generally approach each conversation with the desire for mutually beneficial knowledge gain. Unfortunately as is often the case, and indeed seems to be here, if one party becomes overly condescending and confident in their own knowledge or views, it becomes a rather unidirectional spiral of attack/defense. I was trying to avoid such a scenario, but appear to have failed.   > So what? If you compute a long-term prediction but have to admit at the outset that you don’t know how long it will actually remain accurate because you can’t possibly know whether or not there is anything that will eventually become relevant that has not been accounted for in the computation, it seems rather silly to imagine that prediction as a “perfect” one. …on the pitfalls of waxing quantum with only a cursory, popsci-level comprehension of the subject  Your confidence and condescension is such though that I feel I could gain little from arguing further here. I'll simply say that, as I've hinted or directly posited many times, I would not expect a full understanding of how the universe interacts to yield a situation where we "can't possibly know" when a non-local variable can come into play. I interpret our current gaps in understanding as incomplete not foundational, which is the whole point of the argument.   > I don’t know where you got this idea from. It is well-established that the nonlocal behavior associated with quantum theory cannot be harnessed to exchange information at superluminal speeds.  Again, the proposition I'm proposing is that what nature does technology should likewise be able to do. Yes we have no way to communicate faster than light (though I'd caution you against speaking as though actively developing theories and experiments are "well established"), and indeed that may be the natural barrier it appears to be. If this were the case, then we wouldn't expect non-local variables to be able to violate this law. Hence technology could perfectly predict nature, in theory.   > Well, for one thing, the mathematical structure of the uncertainty principle applies to specific pairs of noncommutable variables (e.g. position versus momentum; spin up versus spin down; etc). There is nothing in the uncertainty principle per se that directly precludes the possibility of simultaneously measuring, say, spin and momentum.  This seems more of a nuance than a game-changer concerning my original propositions, but thanks for clearing that up. It was a misrepresentation (not a "gross" one, but now who's playing semantics...). With that correction, how should my view change? This still speaks to an epistimological barrier no?  > Here’s the thing, though: It doesn’t matter how precise you think your wording is, because regardless of how precise you personally think it is, many (read: most) others will not be able to understand it what it means, even after spending some time thinking on it to try and figure out what you’re trying to say.  Do not think that simply because we cannot find a middle ground to meet at it is all my own misguided intuitions, for to do so would be to make the very mistake you're accusing me of.   > To clarify what I mean by this, note that you’ve repeatedly paid this possibility lip service—that your intuitions may well simply be false. Yet just as repeatedly you shrug this possibility aside as if insignificant to the dialogue.  This appears to be one instance communication breakdown. I always entertain the idea that I might be wrong. Always. That doesn't mean I assume that I am, or stop making an argument, or stop entertaining ideas, or stop attempting to figure out the specific ways in which I may be wrong. I have varying degrees of confidence about different things, never at 100% and never at 0, and always enough for me to venture out into making claims and get them verified or shot down or sometimes both. On this particular subject of whether there are epistimological barriers in the universe, I'd settle on a flat 50/50, or perhaps 55 or 60 in favor of there not being any.   Should this possibility end the discussion? Sure if you want to. Very few discussions are impervious to such a qualification.  > In your efforts to “[not even attempt to] look at the various implications and extrapolations scientists and philosophers have come up with over the years,” your words suggest an underlying assumption that you actually are looking at “just the mathematical inequality principle itself.”   This is fair. I don't have a good enough understanding directly of the mathematical inequalities to speak of the principle itself, so I shouldn't have used that phrasing. I was using what I've read physicists have written about it, not the principal itself. Still powering through to my original question, noting my "preferred reality" is just "reality," what is the other options besides: a) a particle has a partially hidden or undefined velocity when you measure its location or b) we don't yet know how to measure the velocity and location accurately?   > Why would you ever want to do that? This is a prime example of your willingness to distort a concept in whatever way allows you (implicitly) to sustain your own particular and peculiar preordained conclusions.  No it's an example of me trying to overcome semantic humps to discuss the thing that I wanted to discuss. My point wasn't to distort the concept, it was to specifically illustrate how no matter how you may interpret the concept (because again I can only speak for myself, so I'm trying to avoid communication barriers) it has no impact on my conclusions, which are far from "preordained" as I have given plenty of indications and explanations for why I have reached them.   > I don’t have any inclination to sift back through your previous comments and pick them out. That’s an exercise for you to complete if you’re up to the challenge. Consider it a sort of Where’s Waldo search for conceptualizations conflating overtly mathematical sentiments with overtly physical ones.   I was asking you because I think you're mistaken and overly dismissive. I'm supposing you're referring to my propositions about calculating a future state of the universe, or my supposition that things being un-computable speaks to a gap in knowledge. I don't think I'm conflating anything, I think you're failing to see the links. What should we expect not to be computable? The other principals we've talked about (Halting problem, uncertainty principle, incompleteness) speak to limits in computation specifically, not concepts that have no basis in computation. So where do we find things that have no basis in computation and would expect to never be able to? To avoid confusion let's use the wikipedia definition of computation.   Also to reset here if you're willing since we've dug into a rather deep hole of semantics (or as you put it earlier perhaps we are wandering in an overgrown field of thistles), my line of inquiry is whether or not there are epistimological barriers in the universe, centered at the beginning of this discussion around whether math is discovered or invented. I see your problems with the verbiage of those sentiments, and I think you likely draw a greater distinction between mathematics and physical sciences than I do (mathematical and physical models often use the same language to make computations (see wiki link above) which is an important note I think).   I don't think that matters much to my argument though. You can define the terms however you like (note that's however you like, not me saying you have to define them how I want to achieve a certain viewpoint), and so long as you don't say Math is intrinsic to the universe (unlikely given your apparent distaste for such a notion), the answer still comes to a point where I can see at least the possibility that apparent barriers are actually simply incomplete conceptualizations. I think you could make the argument that mathematical relationships are intrinsic to the universe (using whatever definitions thereof you think are correct), which would point to epistimological barriers, hence the question at hand. Or perhaps it's not as simple as either of those, and the answer lies somewhere in between depending on the perspective you take, as you alluded to sometime earlier, though this viewpoint is less clear to me.   My understanding of some of these subjects is certainly novice, or perhaps barely qualified journeyman, so it could be I am simply not understanding something very basic and am in no way qualified to make the claims of possibilities I am. If you'd like to leave it at that by all means, I'll continue to learn where I can and may very well change my views as I become more well-versed. If, however, there is a particular reason you think these barriers are likely to be built into nature that I'm obviously missing, or a specific definition I've obviously got wrong that would invalidate my viewpoint, please point me in the right direction.  
>>I am. I go to a lot of politcal events. $300 is cheap! > >Wow, I sure wish I could just blow $300 on seeing a speaker I don't even like.   I don't like pence either, but why judge him for spending his money? People had spend more on stupider shit. Some people can afford to throw away 300 to listen to the vice president of the United States speak. Also, I'm pretty sure the 300 is basically donation to the GOP. If he was willing to do that to begin with, the only thing he's spending is his time.   Hell I don't care about sports either and people spend hundreds on tickets, sometimes for teams they don't support. Who am I to make sarcastic remarks about that?  [SEP] >but why judge him for spending his money?  The guy is effectively bragging about how he's so rich and enlightened he's willing to blow what for me is almost a week's pay to see a speaker he doesn't even like. That's petty, excessive, and condescending. Of course I'll fucking judge him for that. 
>I'm not particularly interested in being unoffensive, but I wasn't trying to shove anything down his throat.  Do you not see the contradiction here?  >I was obviously asking leading questions, because those are the questions I'm interested in the answers to.  You can ask the same questions without implying that you want a specific answer. But that seems to be a bit out of your reach at present. [SEP] >Do you not see the contradiction here?  There is no contradiction there. You can not be trying to shove something down someone's throat and also not care if you're being offensive. I have no idea how you concluded otherwise.  >You can ask the same questions without implying that you want a specific answer. But that seems to be a bit out of your reach at present.  I wasn't looking for a specific answer. When you start a question with "How do you reconcile the fact that..." you're HARDLY looking for a specific answer, but I agree that my questions were hard to answer.  Also, you're extremely condescending for someone who's so quick to dole out advice on how to be inoffensive.  I know you never said anything about trying not to be offensive yourself, but I think I can infer as much from "that seems to be a bit out of your reach at present.", a pretty ironic statement about how much better you are at forming polite rhetorical arguments packed in an extremely (and intentionally) condescending sentence. I'm not going to claim that's a contradiction since you never explicitly said you generally debate people in a more polite way, but it's a lot closer than what you claimed to have been a contradiction, which was a complete misread.
I've been accused of speaking pretentiously, and it's really not intentional. That's just how I talk. I always just assume that if I come across that way to someone, they must be insecure about their vocabulary or diction or whatever. I understand what you're saying, and I agree that there are certainly people out there who intentionally speak in ways that they'll be perceived as more intelligent than they might be. There are some of us who use SAT vocabulary words in regular speech just because that's how we think, though.  [SEP] >There are some of us who use SAT vocabulary words in regular speech just because that's how we think, though.  This is the condescending line in what you've written. Nothing else up there is out of the ordinary.
> Says the person who just argued with a Strawman I said I'd post so they would have something tangible to argue with rather than just make believe.  Dude, you said he's a christian because he says so and he has followers several times. This is just pathetic. Claiming some victory is really, really sad. I hope you don't act like this outside of Reddit. [SEP] >Dude, you said he's a christian because he says so and he has followers several times.  Among other things. You then proceeded to argue with me as though my only argument or criteria was Pat's word. That's a Strawman. Since you seemed so set on doing that I gave you the real thing so you could actually argue it.   >I hope you don't act like this outside of Reddit.  Condescending:)
Feel free to play, but expect to not come home a huge winner.  View the money as a fun-category expense. [SEP] > feel free to play, but expect to not come home a ~~huge~~ winner.  Edit: Agreed. Poker is never going to be a game that people can beat without experience or study. It sounds harsh and maybe condescending, but every beginning player needs to realize they are going to lose or break even before they win. 
I mean they aren’t comparable in all situations, but I wasn’t trying to debate, just curious. There are a lot of possible reasons people have — difference in intelligence, difference in species (ie they aren’t part of our “group”), or religious reasons, so I was just curious what your specific reason was.   No worries if it’s hard to explain, I understand it’s one of those gut instinct type things that can be hard to verbalize for some people.  [SEP] > No worries if it’s hard to explain, I understand it’s one of those gut instinct type things that can be hard to verbalize for some people.  And there's that subtle condescension I knew I could expect. Reason people ignore all vegans. We don't disagree with you, and you aren't wrong, but tell me that wasn't condescending? First I get compared to literal serial killer, than you go "it's okay if you're not smart enough to use your words". Why would anyone listen to someone talking to them like that about any subject?  And then vegans wonder why people make fun of them. It's attitudes like yours.
Fans contribute views, Sponsors contribute money. And your wrong about it being boring. It's different and they don't understand it. In basketball, fans used to think a "slam dunk" was show boating and distasteful. Now it is glorified and shown in highlight reels. Fans change their mind when a new understanding of a strategy is explained.  [SEP] >It's different and they don't understand it.  That's awfully condescending. Most fans know that lane swaps happen because they're inherently safer than gambling with standard lanes. That doesn't mean that fans have to think that they are interesting.
> Would you say then religion is good for most of the people in it, ... and for a few folks atheism works just fine for society?  Absolutely. And I have no problem with atheism.  I do have a problem with atheists that make assumptions about my ability to reason (which tends to be their biggest negative assumption).  > Are you saying that it doesn't matter if what you have faith in is true?  That's not what I was saying with that quoted line. I was saying that even an atheist will have faith in something. [SEP] > I do have a problem with atheists that make assumptions about my ability to reason  Whoa there. That's not a tenet of atheism. There are many atheists out there saying, "Stop acting like condescending jerks to religious people." Dawkins and Harris are on one side of the spectrum. I don't think I (as a non-diety-believer) have ever asserted that you lack an ability to reason.   This debate was originally about whether non-faith based beliefs would be better for humanity, and you said, basically, "No because anti-social tendencies like greed, corruption, and power would run rampant", and I countered, "Atheism can engender pro-social tendencies more than faith-based, false religions". I'm sorry some atheists are jerks, and I try very hard to be reasonable and polite. My point of that question was just to make sense of your worldview.  > I was saying that even an atheist will have faith in something.  What is your definition of faith then? 
I do not know your sex or gender, so I do not know how I could be policing it. (S)He was being emotional (in this reply to me you are being emotional as well), so I told him and you to chill out, and hopefully, reread the comment with less of a knee-jerk reaction.  [SEP] > so I do not know how I could be policing it  Telling someone what or how they are allowed to feel is policing their emotions, and also acting as some sort of arbiter who determines that emotions are somehow bad. Both are forms of manipulation. The fact that you can't even see it or how it's bad means that you're part of the problem.  >reread the comment with less of a knee-jerk reaction.  I did. It's still condescending and assholish. My reaction is perfectly justified and not knee-jerk in any way. Your reaction to my comment is very telling though. You basically doubled down rather than even trying to examine how your attitude is a problem in the first place.
> I disagree obviously. Why aren't per attempt numbers good for the playoffs? That's the whole point of per-play metrics, they're good anywhere. And no, I don't agree that consistency matters all that much. What if your defense gives up 40 points that day? You still want the guy that'll throw only exactly 2 TDs?  For the reasons I said and will reiterate:   1. Consistency: Who cares if a QB goes off in the Wild Card round only to choke later? A QB that plays well every game gives his team the best chance to advance into the playoffs.   2. Stakes. A pass in the Wild Card simply doesn't have the same weight as one in the Super Bowl. If they were, then the playoffs would just be an extension of the regular season and championships wouldn't matter.  > So Peyton is better in the WC and AFCCG, while Brady is better in divisional games and the super bowl. I don't see how any reasonable person can look at this and say Brady is much better in the playoffs?  Again, overall QB rating is simply misleading. Brady's overall Wild Card rating is significantly worse than Manning's. Yet, if you split it by game (of which Brady's only played 3 to Peyton's 7):  Year | Rating | Result -|-|- 2006 | 116.4 | W 2007 | 101.6 | W 2009 | 49.1 | L  So, Brady has actually had a higher percentage of good games played and therefore a higher chance of advancing to the Divisional round from the Wild Card round relative to Manning. That Manning played so much better in his 2 WC wins doesn't really matter in terms of reaching the next round of the playoffs. He had 5 other games of mediocre to bad performances, and so has a 3-4 record.  Peyton also has a higher rating in the AFCC round than Brady, but not significantly so (6 points), certainly not enough to cover the disparity in Super Bowl performances (18 points, 4 vs 7 games), which many consider the most important game of the season. Because Peyton has played better on average in the AFCC, he has a higher percentage to advance to the Super Bowl as reflected in their AFCC records (4-1 vs 7-4)...but of course, Peyton would make it to the AFCC more if he didn't lose so often in the earlier rounds.  Of course, I looked at the Wild Card round on a per-game basis to make Brady look better even though Manning had a better overall rating by 18 points, so it's only fair to look at the Super Bowl round on a per-game basis in case Manning actually looks better:  QB | Super Bowl QB Ratings (best to worst) - | - Peyton | 88.5 (L), 81.8 (W), 73.5 (L), 56.6 (W) Brady | 110.2 (W), 101.1 (W), 100.5 (W), 95.2 (W), 91.1 (L), 86.2 (W), 82.5 (L)  In this case, the overall Super Bowl passer rating is fairly representative of their records. Brady went 4-0 in games he played at least decently (95+), and 1-2 otherwise. Manning did not have a single good outing in the Super Bowl, and went 2-2.  Let's come back to consistency, something per-attempt stats simply don't measure. Consider that together Peyton and Brady are 17-1 when they have a passer rating over 100. Brady accounts for 12 of those in 34 games (35%), Peyton 6 in 27 games (22%). Brady has 1 game with a passer rating below 50. Manning has 3.   As another measure of consistency, let's consider how many times they've had multiple TD's vs 0 TD's and multi-INT vs 0-INT:   Note: Units are in games, with percentage of games in parentheses  QB | multi-TD | 0-TD | multi-INT | 0-INT -|-|-|-|- Brady | 20 (58%) | 4 (12%) | 9 (26%) | 15 (44%) Manning | 10 (37%) | 6 (22%) | 7 (26%) | 12 (44%)  They have similar INT-count probability distributions, but Brady has a higher chance per-game of throwing multiple TDs and a lower chance of laying an egg. Simply put, on a game-to-game basis, Brady has a higher probability of playing well and a lower probability of playing like crap, and that consistency is extremely important in a single-elimination tournament like the NFL playoffs.  So while looking at per-attempt playoff stats stripped of all context, you may wonder why people think Brady is better than Peyton. But me, I wonder how anyone could think otherwise if they actually watch the games.  And we didn't even get around to Peyton's surrounding offensive talent and how that might relatively inflate his numbers. [SEP] > For the reasons I said and will reiterate: Consistency: Who cares if a QB goes off in the Wild Card round only to choke later? A QB that plays well every game gives his team the best chance to advance into the playoffs. Stakes. A pass in the Wild Card simply doesn't have the same weight as one in the Super Bowl. If they were, then the playoffs would just be an extension of the regular season and championships wouldn't matter.  1) Like I said, you've given no reasons or evidence as to why consistency would help you win more games. Is there any evidence that Brady (or any QB) is more "consistent" than another and that this helps a team be better? Just thinking consistency helps as a concept isn't good enough. It's not like that is common knowledge.   2) Okay, but this doesn't explain why yards/attempt, NY/A, and ANY/A are bad? Why not just use those metrics for each round if you look at performance broken down by round? It makes no sense to use an inferior stat like passer rating (or volume stats) even if you want to give different rounds different weights (which I completely disagree with, BTW. Logically, there is no difference between each playoff round. They are all single elimination, same pressure. Comparing each playoff round is NOT like comparing playoff games to regular season games. Playoff games matter more than regular season games. Divisional round games do NOT matter more than wild card games, super bowls don't matter more than conference championship games, etc...because like I said, the pressures of the games aren't different)  > Again, overall QB rating is simply misleading. Brady's overall Wild Card rating is significantly worse than Manning's. Yet, if you split it by game (of which Brady's only played 3 to Peyton's 7): Year Rating Result 2006 116.4 W 2007 101.6 W 2009 49.1 L So, Brady has actually had a higher percentage of good games played and therefore a higher chance of advancing to the Divisional round from the Wild Card round relative to Manning. That Manning played so much better in his 2 WC wins doesn't really matter in terms of reaching the next round of the playoffs. He had 5 other games of mediocre to bad performances, and so has a 3-4 record. Peyton also has a higher rating in the AFCC round than Brady, but not significantly so (6 points), certainly not enough to cover the disparity in Super Bowl performances (18 points, 4 vs 7 games), which many consider the most important game of the season. Because Peyton has played better on average in the AFCC, he has a higher percentage to advance to the Super Bowl as reflected in their AFCC records (4-1 vs 7-4)...but of course, Peyton would make it to the AFCC more if he didn't lose so often in the earlier rounds. Of course, I looked at the Wild Card round on a per-game basis to make Brady look better even though Manning had a better overall rating by 18 points, so it's only fair to look at the Super Bowl round on a per-game basis in case   Huh? You're cherry picking what's important in this argument to help Brady. He had an absolutely terrible game in that wild card and this somehow helps your argument because it was terrible enough? Okay.  Why not just look at their performance in each round as a whole? I mean, that's already cutting the sample size down ridiculously, now you want to focus on the "consistency" of these players over a 4 or 5 game stretch?  > In this case, the overall Super Bowl passer rating is fairly representative of their records. Brady went 4-0 in games he played at least decently (95+), and 1-2 otherwise. Manning did not have a single good outing in the Super Bowl, and went 2-2. Let's come back to consistency, something per-attempt stats simply don't measure. Consider that together Peyton and Brady are 17-1 when they have a passer rating over 100. Brady accounts for 12 of those in 34 games (35%), Peyton 6 in 27 games (22%). Brady has 1 game with a passer rating below 50. Manning has 3. As another measure of consistency, let's consider how many times they've had multiple TD's vs 0 TD's and multi-INT vs 0-INT: Note: Units are in games, with percentage of games in parentheses QB multi-TD 0-TD multi-INT 0-INT Brady 20 (58%) 4 (12%) 9 (26%) 15 (44%) Manning 10 (37%) 6 (22%) 7 (26%) 12 (44%) Interesting, they have similar INT-count probability distributions, but Brady has a higher chance per-game of throwing multiple TDs and a lower chance of laying an egg. Simply put, on a game-to-game basis, Brady has a higher probability of playing well and a lower probability of playing like crap, and that consistency is extremely important in a single-elimination tournament like the NFL playoffs. So while looking at per-attempt playoff stats stripped of all context, you may wonder why people think Brady is better than Peyton. But me, I wonder how anyone could think otherwise if they actually watch the games. And we didn't even get around to Peyton's surrounding offensive talent and how that might relatively inflate his numbers.  Once again, I get your point: you think Brady has performed better because he has been more consistent, despite Peyton being better as a whole.  My question is this: Do you have any proof, evidence, or reasons for how consistency helps a team? If you went through all that trouble, why not just calculate their standard deviations? That would be a much cleaner way of looking at variance of performance rather than picking scenarios and a game here and there that helps each players argument.  EDIT: I also wanna ask, are you gonna keep using things like TD/INT ratio and passer rating? Why don't you want to use DVOA, NY/A and ANY/A? Is it because it hurts Brady or do you legitimately believe they are better for measuring a QBs performance?  Also, I didn't see your little shot at Peyton at the end there. I guess Peyton should be punished for having a couple good receivers yet Brady and his numbers aren't helped by having Belichick right? LOL.  And nice try trying to insinuate that I don't watch the games. You don't even understand why you can still use NY/A and ANY/A in each playoff round and why the metric doesn't fail when you want to do splits like you think it does, yet you still are trying to be condescending. Hilarious.
What you stated on free trade is right, but none of that is in regards to the TPP, except maybe the IP. However, as we have seen, greater control over IP means higher costs for everyone. Dont believe me? Look at the IP abuses seen here in the USA.  There are plenty of tax loopholes to fix, such as allowing money to be gathered overseas for US based businesses, such as investor loopholes... none of that has done what it was supposed to do.  As for the tax credits... what companies actually hire based on that? No company says "we wont hire more people because we dont have a tax credit"... they hire people when they need to. If they are doing well, they will hire, if they are not, they will not. That is what drives hiring and firing, not Tax credits... Want proof? Look at Kansas.  Read up on this for the SSDI raiding  As for the wealthy fare share.... did you know when the economy was healthy, it was up to 95% tax on wealthy income? How about we try it at 50% and see where that takes us.  There is no rhetoric here, just lack of knowledge. Discussion and discourse brings out this information and thus, allows us to grow as a society.   [SEP] > What you stated on free trade is right, but none of that is in regards to the TPP,  Well, considering what I originally said was free trade, I went with what I actually wrote.  But since I also addressed the TPP (the whole point of ISDS is to allow for enforcement of non-discriminatory regulations) you might want to read it better.  >Look at the IP abuses seen here in the USA.  Like what?  Again, nice soundbite, no substance. You should be on the Bernster's staff, you'd fit right in.  >There are plenty of tax loopholes to fix,  You've named one so far. And $50 says that with a gun to your head you couldn't point to where in the tax code it discusses overseas revenue.  And your point is still farkakte because it's not U.S-based businesses. They're local subsidiaries. Your compliant is equivalent to complaining that the profits of Nintendo of America are taxed in America rather than Japan.  >such as investor loopholes  Such as? What? The lower tax rate on capital gains? That's not a loophole.  >As for the tax credits... what companies actually hire based on that? No company says "we wont hire more people because we dont have a tax credit"... they hire people when they need to. If they are doing well, they will hire, if they are not, they will not. That is what drives hiring and firing, not Tax credits... Want proof?  There we go! I mean, at least you're trying.  So you want to end the deductibility of labor-related business expenses? You want it to be that if my company takes in $100,000 but pays its employees a total of $75,000, it is still taxed on the full $100,000? That's ballsy.  Does Bernie agree with that? Are you speaking for his campaign officially?  Incidentally, if you're going to be as ridiculously condescending you should know the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction.  >As for the wealthy fare share.... did you know when the economy was healthy, it was up to 95% tax on wealthy income? How about we try it at 50% and see where that takes us.  I did!  Did you know that when the economy was healthy during the post-War period the minimum wage was the same or lower than it is today?  Did you know that per-capita spending on welfare was significantly lower as well?  I mean, if 1955 was the optimal year for the U.S economy we should bring back all of those policies.  You might want to look up the concept of a "confounding variable", since you seem quite unclear about the difference between correlation and causation.  >There is no rhetoric here, just lack of knowledge.  I agree.  It's just sad how many Bernsters throw out stuff like "OMG tax law" when they don't know a tax credit from a tax deduction.
Oh so you are one of those don't trust doctors people. Good to know.  > When someone says something that is demonstrably false  Nothing I have linked is demonstrably false. You may disagree with it but it's not false. You may think there are better ways to do it but it's not false. Sorry if it doesn't jive with your world view but nothing I have said is false. [SEP] The assertion that circumcision is a necessary medical procedure in all but a few cases is, in fact, demonstrably false. It's falsity is demonstrated by the countless numbers of people who are uncircumcised and doing perfectly fine.  I can't help but feel that you're being deliberately obtuse here. It's not a difficult concept: there is a marked difference between "this is medically necessary" and "this provides a minor benefit that can easily be gained via different methods".  > Oh so you are one of those don't trust doctors people. Good to know.  Again, this has the feel of a deliberate misinterpretation in order to "score points" by being condescending. I assume you're aware of the "Argument From Authority" logical fallacy? The one that states that an assertion coming from a source of perceived authority is not, in itself, valid evidence toward the truth of that assertion?  I trust doctors just fine, when what they say isn't directly contradicted by what I know to be true. I wouldn't trust a doctor who told me that circumcision was medically necessary in most infants in the same way that I wouldn't trust a doctor who told me that removing my left hand was medically necessary in order to prevent my left pinky from ever being broken. The most cursory viewing of the information at hand shows both assertions to be untrue, so obviously the doctors in both cases are either woefully inept at their jobs, or deliberately attempting to convince me to accept an unnecessary procedure in order to be able to charge me more for their services.
"to my knowledge they do not."  Consider yourself educated: the MPAA has already threatened to sue public schools for using short clips from movies in the classroom setting.  "there is a giant gaping difference, etc. etc."  To YOU, maybe. To the RIAA and the MPAA? NO. [SEP] >Consider yourself educated  and this is where i stop reading. i'm not in the mood for condescending at the moment.
Why is it only in the GPU market that people think company A making tech that only works on company A's other hardware anti-competitive? Do we scream at Apple for not letting Android have iMessage, or iCloud? Do we scream at Google for not letting iPhones have MicroSD support?  God, learn how the fucking market works guys. [SEP] All of your examples are not representative of what Nvidia is doing with G-Sync. I'll start at the top though:  > Why is it only in the GPU market that people think company A making tech that only works on company A's other hardware anti-competitive?  I think it comes down to market share. Because Nvidia has the majority of market share (upwards of 75%), any practice that forces consumers to remain Nvidia customers is inherently anti-competitive.   Now to the examples you provided:  > Do we scream at Apple for not letting Android have iMessage, or iCloud?  Two problems with this one:  1. Apple has the minority of the smartphone market share. This means that forcing customers to stay Apple customers only encouraged competition.  2. People who use Android can still text people who use iPhones. iMessage (and therefore iPhones) isn't required for communication like an Nvidia GPU is required for G-Sync. For iCloud, there are services that can transfer the data to a more open platform, like Google Drive. The equivalent of this is an unofficial driver for AMD that supports G-Sync.  Now to your second example:  > Do we scream at Google for not letting iPhones have MicroSD support?  This is simply not true. Apple can have MicroSD all they want, it's an open standard. It's like FreeSync, where Nvidia (Apple in this example) can implement FreeSync (MicroSD) in their drivers all they want without giving AMD a dime, it's just that Nvidia (Apple) refuses to do so.  > God, learn how the fucking market works guys.  Look, if you gave proper examples and a strong argument as to why Nvidia's behavior is not anti-competitive, I would have possibly changed my mind. Instead, you end up sounding condescending and misinformed. So please, try to be more respectful next time. I'm not a market analyst and I haven't studied macroeconomics, but I'm not an idiot either.
After a few hundred, it stops carrying any meaning other than "One step closer to my next publication."  Keep at it! [SEP] > "One step closer to my next publication."  Honest question, and not trying to sound condescending. This legitimately confuses me: How does this work?     I mean, I always assumed that a form rejection meant back to square one. I always assumed that once a "no" was received, it was one door shut. Sure, there may be other doors, but that one door shutting doesn't affect the ability for the other doors to open unless there's constructive feedback, and even then one publisher's feedback could end with you making something another publisher hates.     Again, not trying to be insulting, but how does rejection bring you closer to publication?
I want to be annoyed, but I'm not. (edit: I think the only reason I would be annoyed if the page was overrun with fluffy kittens or something...and even then...)  Sure, it's a blatant attempt to market towards women..but is that so bad? Nothing on the page seems disrespectful or sexist..and if you look further they've even got a laptop skin line with MLB tie in that appears to be aimed towards males.    [SEP] It's cheeky and I love it!  >Sure, it's a blatant attempt to market towards women..but is that so bad?   That was my first thought, and it isn't offensive to me. In past decades, a high tech device would only be marketed to men. Wow, who'da thunk us women folk could learn to use computers?! I don't find the ad/nail polish color options condescending. Women and men are equally being offered the same product here.   Capitalism at it's best. Decades afer joining the workforce and having independant buying power, women are beginning to be treated equal to men as consumers.
Only an idiot could possibly conclude that french fries, which are a preservative-filled starch fried in fat and covered in salt, can be considered vegetables. I realize that fast food is made in bulk and it's quite cheap, but there's no excuse whatsoever for students, people not yet old enough to vote, drink, (many) drive, or live on their own to "choose" to eat nothing but fried salty starch full of preservatives for lunch. It's negligence, pure and simple.   You know what schools can also get in bulk for cheap? Brown rice. Whole oats. Lentils. All of these can be shipped en masse all over the US and can be made into cheap, healthy, and filling foods.   Edit: in fact, all you need is brown rice, a bit of soy sauce, and perhaps some ginger and garlic to make something kids would actually eat. How could that possibly be more expensive than peeled, cut, processed, freeze-dried potatoes fried in oil (even the cheapest oil being fairly expensive).  [SEP] > How could that possibly be more expensive [?]  You could factor in preparation time/cost, and the fact that french fries can be largely machine processed at the factory and then prepared with minimal effort at serving time (dump fries into hot friolator, wait, remove fries, serve). Plus the frozen fries will keep in this nearly-edible form for a very long time without perishing, unlike fresh ginger or garlic.  Not saying one is necessarily more expensive than the other, just saying there's a lot of factors in cost, and the lower total cost option is not obvious.  Also I felt obligated to respond because when someone starts their argument with "Only an idiot could," I have to point out that their condescending snark indicates they wouldn't possibly conceive of alternatives to their own opinions and makes me want to discount everything they say straightaway.  So... don't do that.
Let me make this really simple. You work at UPS. Revenue is down because people stopped buying your services as much. UPS is not a charity that prints money from thin air, so they have to let you go. Or the migrant workers start spending money buying stuff. This benefits UPS since they sell stuff the migrant workers buy. Now UPS has enough money to not let you go. [SEP] > Let me make this really simple.   OOOOO this is gonna be good, a child condescending to me.   > Now UPS has enough money to not let you go.  Oh, you're not trying to prove anything you're just making up a hypothetical and claiming it as absolute truth.... that's really disappointing I was hoping for an actual argument.  Do I get to come up with a hypothetical to justify myself too, or are you alone allowed to prove yourself right with totally invented circumstances?    
> It's amazing how being hamstrung into using the previous coach's playbook and injuries decimating an already thin roster have affected people's perception of Mel Tucker in one year.  I disagree. Tucker went from the Browns to the Jags to the post-Lovie Bears where he shat the bed as guys got hurt. I'm not blaming him for 2013, but there's no doubt in my mind that he isn't going to get that defense back to greatness.   He was DC for one year with the Browns, and they didn't keep him. Here are his defense's rankings 3 years in Jacksonville:  - 2009: 4.1 YPC (11th), 67.6% completion percentage (31st), 27th in passing yards, 96 passer rating (30th), 14 sacks (32nd), 7.0 net adjusted yards per pass attempt (30th), 7.6 YPA (27th) - 2010: 4.7 YPC (28th), 65% completion percentage (28th), 28th in passing yards, 98.5 passer rating (31st), 26 sacks (30th), 7.5 adjusted net yards per pass attempt (32nd), 8.3 YPA (32nd) - 2011: 3.8 YPC (5th), 63.5% completion percentage (29th), 8th in passing yards, 83.7 passer rating (16th), 31 sacks (25th), 5.5 adjusted net yards per pass attempt (25th), 6.9 YPA (13th)  And then PPG:  - 2009: 23.8 (24th) - 2010: 26.2 (27th) - 2011: 20.6 (11th)  Tucker had one average season in Jacksonville (2011), and I would say some of it had to do with the offense sucking (15.2 PPG in 2011, 22.1 in 2010, and 18.1 in 2009) and opponents going conservative sooner.  >The reason they couldn't stop the run was a lot of things, like Peppers giving up when Lovie was canned. Like having an OLB playing end in McClellan, a DE playing DT in Wootton, and a practice squad player playing NT in Cohen. Tucker couldn't change any of these things.    I'm not arguing that the Bears 2013 defense was Tuckers fault. That shit was a dumpster fire due to injuries. What I am saying is that Tucker has never been involved with a winning NFL team, doesn't know what it looks like, and has never produced a top ten defensive unit. And now he gets to deal with a post-Lovie defense, players like Peppers who respected Lovie but not Tucker, aging veterans who know the old system, young guys who need to get up to speed in the NFL, and FAs, and all of them need to come together under a new scheme. That's a tough job for anyone, and I don't believe Tucker is an above-average DC. [SEP] > He was DC for one year with the Browns, and they didn't keep him.   Not trying to come off as condescending, but the Browns firing a coach after only one year? That is unprecedented!   But I agree, Tucker has never produced an elite unit, and it has Bears fans worried as hell. But the guy has never been given much, CLE and JAX were far from being filled with elite talent.  But Tucker built a reputation none the less. There is no denying he came to Chicago well respected and as a hot DC candidate. Sure the Bears could have taken a chance on an up incoming positional or college coach, but critics were few and far between when the Bears hired him.   Now he a talented (ish) roster and no head coach imposing on his scheme (Crennel, Del Rio, Lovie). This is the first time in his career he has been set up to succeed, and I have faith.
> I'm okay with allowing the tech community to decide what's worth talking about.  Do you understand the concept of rules in a subreddit and pointing to a more suitable sub? If the people like a stunt driver jumping over 16 cars that doesn't mean that it should be upvoted in /r/aww. Upvotes show the interest in a topic, not whether it's even in the right sub. You understand that right? [SEP] /r/tech isn't a default sub. To subscribe to it, you'd have to search it out or stumble across mention of it in a thread.   I'm assuming the people subbed there have a better idea of what should/shouldn't be upvoted than the whole sub base of /r/technology due to the fact that was a default sub for quite awhile.   > Do you understand the concept of rules in a subreddit and pointing to a more suitable sub?  I've had a few posts removed from various subs without a single notice to me that it would be more appropriate for a different sub. Meanwhile, I've also posted some that I later removed myself after receiving comments from regular users that it would fit in better elsewhere.   There's no need to be condescending.  It's amazing how difficult it is for people to just downvote and move on. 
The stance you're taking on the matter is too much of a technical one, understandable seing your background. However, you can pretty much assume, as long as not proved otherwise that people don't understand/don't care about the technical point and exactitude of the terms they use in a contexte such as this one.  The conversation never went from a design perspective to a technical one, because when OP said "play test", he point out consequential flaws, which were brought from the conception of a character, and went through the whole development process, inception of the character and his kit, to the release of the game.   Which is why I was so adamant about "why does it matter to know about those fields?", at this point, it's irelevant.  The intricacies of the development does not really matter to the final consummer, but then again, I can understand and empathise with you and your stance on the matter.  The last point I'll make is that you treat this situation as something that should be respected because you know the work that have been done behind them, while OP and me treat it as a concientious decision that went through all these steps as written above, and yet fall flat once in our hands. For me at least, this isn't about dragging them in the mud rather than my (former) surprise at your reaction to OP's post. Those mecanics are what they are, and ought to be treated accordingly (and, I might add, they DID treat them accordingly), and at some point, the way you dismissed the conversation without trying to understand where OP came from really struck a nerve with me.  I apologize for my short temper, I misjuged the way you posted at first, and I rather appreciate that you came with a well formulated answer explaining clearly where you're coming from. I hope I did the same with this answer. [SEP] > I apologize for my short temper, I misjuged the way you posted at first, and I rather appreciate that you came with a well formulated answer explaining clearly where you're coming from. I hope I did the same with this answer.  Water under the bridge. I also apologize to anyone who read this comment chain and found me to be condescending...I think I tend to "over-explain" when writing on the Internet to try and make my point clear, but I end up just rambling and making the situation far worse, and not obvious at all! Also my initial response about development was unnecessarily curt and probably should have just walked away. 
Posts that criticize the infallibility of the SEC usually get a good share of downvotes on r/cfb and I distinctly remember looking at this subreddit the day after that game expecting a flood of posts of disappointed viewers to match all the hype posts leading up to it but there wasn't much of anything.  [SEP] >Posts that criticize the infallibility of the SEC usually get a good share of downvotes on r/cfb  I rarely downvote that.  It's smugness, bigotry, and condescending attitudes that get my downvotes.
Well if we use your math, 50% to get one that i already have, and i already have 10, how on earth do i get 3 times only one from the 10 i already have? And it happens to be just the same gun others are complaining also:   http    http   I'm not good at math, but what are the percentages now? Unreal :) [SEP] TLDR: You can only use statistics to measure the past, and use that to guess an approximate future. But statistics can't guarantee the future.   > I'm not good at math, but what are the percentages now? Unreal :)  Alright, let me explain then. I'll simplify it with coins since you've stated you're not good with math. (Edit: not intending to be condescending, simply for simplicity sake)  I have a coin in my hand. I've flipped it ten times so far... and each came up heads. 10 heads in a row! that's a 1 in 1024 chance of happening. Pretty slim huh?  11 heads in a row is like 1 in 2048... What are the chances I'll get heads on my next flip?  If you answered 1 in 2048, you're totes wrong.  It's still only 1 in 2. This current flip has only two outcomes. Heads... or Tails... 1 in 2.  It doesn't matter what happened in the past. The past is set in stone and has no say in what happens next. It doesn't matter if you flipped 10 heads in a row, 10 tails in a row, alternated perfectly between heads and tails.  Statistically speaking, if you took a coin and planned to flip it 1000 times a good guess would be that you'll have around 500 heads and 500 tails. But at 500 coin flips you check and have 350 heads, and 150 tails, that doesn't mean that the next 500 flips will be 350 tails, and 150 heads, it would be more accurate to assume you would be in the 600 heads to 400 tails range. Since you're predicting the future, there's no static numbers.
> Well, in my experience, citing data is how one structures and supports an argument. Is this not how you do things?   Of course it is (is the condescension really necessary?) but the Casina citation doesn't really support the argument any more than the Trinummus example earlier, at least, I didn't think it did when I made that post. > Are you stating that there are no instances of AcI without overt esse?   No, of course not. I was saying that there are some instances of AcI with the "esse" present, so if "ecce" took an AcI, I would expect that there would be at least one instance of "ecce" and a non-implied infinitive. But you're right about this: > There are only a couple of instances in Plautus, so that's the data we have   That makes sense.   > The conditional has to be governed by something; there is no overt verb; given the parallel construction, and other syntactic trends I've already mentioned, taking ecce as a de facto verb is the most elegant, most credible solution.   Fair enough. You're probably right.  > Sic quidem viri; sed ne qui sexus a laude cessaret, ecce et virginum virtus: una ex opsidibus regi datis elapsa custodiam, Cloelia, per patrium flumen equitabat.   I recalled another instance of a clause dependent on a phrase with "ecce". Would you say that ecce is functioning as a de facto verb here as well? [SEP] > Of course it is (is the condescension really necessary?) but the Casina citation doesn't really support the argument any more than the Trinummus example earlier, at least, I didn't think it did when I made that post.  I didn't mean to be condescending— I genuinely didn't understand what you were asking, and was too quick in my response. (I've been told elsewhere that my default debate tone is "asshole".) I apologize—this exchange has been very interesting.  > I recalled another instance of a clause dependent on a phrase with "ecce". Would you say that ecce is functioning as a de facto verb here as well?  Hmm... Florus is significantly later than Plautus; another commenter noted that the behavior of ecce appears to change from Cicero onward, in that nominative complements become much more common with it. It's not something I've looked at myself, so I'm depending on remarks in the scholarship. If I am reading the Florus lemma right, ecce here strikes me more as a genuine interjection, and the virginum virtus as a coordinated subject (et) with a laude cessaret. Or, alternatively, a new but parallel subject that implies a similar verbal construction. The fact that et follows ecce tips me toward this, since et when used as a clausal coordinator tends to mark the boundary of the clause in question. But, the placement of interjections in clause structure can be funny.
>>She also didn't mention role playing, bondage, or anal play.  >Right. And role playing, bondage, and anal play are not the equivalent of blowjobs.  The only equivalence that matters is satisfaction. Some people don't like oral play. Anything the other partner wants is relevant.  >>Who are you to say what should be important to her?  >Where did I say what should and should not be important to her? Quotes please.  "Interesting how blow jobs are an important part of sex but cunnilingus is not. Hmm."  >> It is rank sexism to say that she needs to enjoy certain activities b/c she has a vagina.  >When did I say that? Quotes please.  You implied that cunnilingus should be important to OP solely on the basis of her sex.  >>Or to assume that her BF isn't interested in meeting her sexual needs b/c he's a man.  >When did I say that? Once again, quote me please.  You implied that she should value cunnilingus and that her BF wasn't providing it.  >>And I am quite calm, thank you.  >Then stop with the childish insults.  What childish insults? Quotes please.  >>As calm as I can be after reading your blatantly sexist claptrap.  >Sexism? I don't see any.  Reading comprehension clearly wasn't emphasized at your finishing school, was it honey?   [SEP] >The only equivalence that matters is satisfaction. Some people don't like oral play. Anything the other partner wants is relevant.  No, the equivalent of oral sex is oral sex. Stop trying to draw false equivalencies between the two.  >"Interesting how blow jobs are an important part of sex but cunnilingus is not. Hmm."  Right. I think it's interesting that society considers blowjobs to be an integral part of sex, but not cunnilingus.  >You implied that cunnilingus should be important to OP solely on the basis of her sex.  No, I never once stated that she has to enjoy certain activities because she has a vagina. That is a straw man argument.  >You implied that she should value cunnilingus and that her BF wasn't providing it.  So once again, that's not what you originally said, and that's not what I said. Where did I say that her BF isn't interested in meeting her sexual needs because he's a man?  >What childish insults? Quotes please.  Telling me to grow up because I made a note of how she completely ignored cunnilingus in the realm of oral sex. Condescendingly calling me "honey" and insulting my reading comprehension, even though you are the one who's making up false arguments that I never made.  >Reading comprehension clearly wasn't emphasized at your finishing school, was it honey?  Clearly it wasn't at yours, considering you are literally making up imaginary arguments. I never once said that her boyfriend isn't interested in meeting her sexual needs because he's a man, but for some reason you imagined that and started attacking me for it.
You're only person here so far who's indicated having read my entire post.   I'd define Reddit as a discussion forum, which is quite fundamentally different than a social network. All that you can ascertain about a Reddit user are his/her username and some article or pictures he or she likes. You don't know what the person looks like, where they live, who their friends and relatives are, what they do for fun, and so much other personal information that you can find from a social network -- like where people went to school, where they've traveled, who they've dated in the past, and other stalkery things. But Facebook IS a big part of er life. It's not just a passive thing, like (analogously) a guy watching sports on TV all the time. If I were to be connected to her on there, I'd then have all these freakin strangers knowing about me, and surely she will be interested in their reactions. This sounds idiotic, sure, but you can see from other comments on this page that not being a Facebook user is actual a strong enough statement as to merit being called a "hipster," which is a more or less an absolutely anti-modern-technology person. THAT'S how embedded it is in modern life!    [SEP] > This sounds idiotic, sure, but you can see from other comments on this page that not being a Facebook user is actual a strong enough statement as to merit being called a "hipster," which is a more or less an absolutely anti-modern-technology person. THAT'S how embedded it is in modern life!  No, you refuse to see what people are saying. No one, literally no one, gives a shit if you use facebook or not. It's your condescending and arrogant attitude that people are taking exception to. 
> Canada can't regulate aviation emissions from international carriers.  Did you not read my post? I said a lot of our emissions come from flying in the Quebec-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton corridors. That's where most of our population is. We can certainly reduce that amount by moving a lot of that traffic to rail. Done right, we could even shift some driving over. I'm not even sure we need High Speed Rail. Something like this would be more than sufficient:   http   Again, the point isn't so much that these will make drastic cut to emissions. What they will do is help us economically, while also cutting emissions.  > building codes - not federal jurisdiction.  Should have said "work with the provinces". Lost in the edit.  > That said, 80% of canada's electricity is hydro, and they don't need storage.  Are we sure we won't have a Duck Curve problem when so much of hydro is base load?  Also, grid adaptation is not just storage. When every house needs 50 amp service to charge their EV, we're going to have issues with neighbourhood transformers. I'm talking about the "last mile" problem.   http    > Lots of NGOs and think tanks have done studies on subsidies for EVs.  Again. Did you read my post? Or did you just see "Tesla" and jump to talking points about EVs. I specifically talked of electrification of trains and buses. Not EVs. Electric vehicles are a situation that will sort itself out in due course with economics. What we can do is help transit authorities electrify faster. See GO Transit's Electrification project as an example. [SEP] > Did you read my post? Or did you just see "Tesla" and jump to talking points about EVs.  Why so unnecessarily condescending. EV = electric vehicle which includes buses and trains ( http  Their point was that according to the studies the $s invested in EV subsidies yield low reductions in emissions relative to other measures, so if you have limited resources and your goal is to limit emissions, this would be low on the list. 
 >You are a racist.   >Do you have any idea how stupid it is to say that people in Cambodia for example are more "priviliged" than you, an American? The richest country in the world.   I have no idea where you're getting this from. Are you taking my general claim that Asian people are privileged in regards to education and, ignoring the common sense answer that I'd be talking about the US or UK, assumed I obviously meant Cambodian people are doing great? Lol dude wtf. Great start.  >How did OP, the abused orphan, have better access to anything than you?  Did ya miss the "tend to" bit? It's literally statistics. Stop being offended by facts.  >What are you even talking about? This drivel literally makes no sense.   If you get a better education you'll get better grades. Simple - good teachers, resources, etc, leads to better results than shit teachers. If you require the exact same from people with shit educations and people from great educations, you give the latter group an easier ride, which isn't fair.  >What are you trying to say? Now you have completely abandoned race and USA and gone to UK and state schools vs. private schools. It doesn't even have anything to do with your country and you don't even know what the article is talking about.    That people from less good schools (state schools) with X grades - the entrance requirements to universities - perform better than those at better schools (private schools) with those grades. And I'm from the UK, broski. I think in your rage you're comically misunderstanding me.  >If you think all white people in UK go to "private schools", you are sorely mistaken.   Oh no, you got me. I didn't realise all white people didn't go to private schools. I thought literally every white person went to private schools, despite me using the words "tend to" and "generally" throughout and being white myself and going to a terrible state school.  >In my country, we accept doctors based on their credentials, not their skincolour.   Is this the UK? Did you know a lot of universities have contextual entry requirements that account for the quality of your school? Hell, I'm applying for jobs as a solicitor now, and a lot of them use RARE, which compares your grades to the average for your school, rather than setting a strict boundary.  We basically do affirmative action on a much more precision scale, my dude.  [SEP] > I have no idea where you're getting this from. Are you taking my general claim that Asian people are privileged in regards to education and, ignoring the common sense answer that I'd be talking about the US or UK, assumed I obviously meant Cambodian people are doing great? Lol dude wtf. Great start.  This literally means nothing. You aren't saying anything of substance.    No, people from the continent of Asia are not privileged compared to you in any way. Asia is a continent that you have probably never even been to.    Americans are in insane mode.    > Did ya miss the "tend to" bit? It's literally statistics. Stop being offended by facts.      You have actually cited no facts. There are no sources for any of your racist bullshit.     > Oh no, you got me.    Yes?    > I didn't realise all white people didn't go to private schools.    How did Americans come up with this aggressive shit?    > I thought literally every white person went to private schools, despite me using the words "tend to" and "generally" throughout and being white myself and going to a terrible state school.   Do you have lead poisoning? What is it that makes Americans go on gibberish rants like this?    > Is this the UK?    You literally linked to as Guardian piece about UK to defend your racism in USA.    UK is known as the Alabama of Europe. How is Alabama privileged in US?     > Hell, I'm applying for jobs as a solicitor now     You are a privileged American.      > We basically do affirmative action on a much more precision scale, my dude.    This again literally means absolutely nothing. You are just stringing random words together in an effort of being condescending.      
Sorry OP but you must not understand the tactics because Ramsey is playing fantastic at what he supposed to do. I know you are a little kid but that is no excuse. Ramsey and Arteta have dictated the game, they have done what they needed. Per fucked up the offside, Monreal didn't track his run, both times the outside defender needed to pressure the ball, either Per or Carl and neither did. You could argue that Ramsey or Arteta needed to be there in support but they are man marking through the middle, that leaves responsibility to Per, Carl, or Walcott on those times and none of them did it, don't blame Ramsey blame the defense. [SEP] >Ramsey is playing fantastic at what he supposed to do  Ramsey lost the ball leading to one of the goals and did little more than an average squad player would (again). Fantastic? Just because he's a hustle player doesn't mean he's playing well--pretty sick of this distinction being overlooked and repeatedly explained away by his "role". Also, your condescending tone towards someone who has a different opinion than you is bs. Go ahead and have your up votes, but Ramsey DOES NOT have the quality to be a an arsenal starter if we want to compete with top tier teams.
From what I've learned over the last few years, a good chunk of Christian scientists aren't Christian at all. They say they are to please the public to a certain extent, and reap benefits that Atheists can't attain, due to general condescension. But regardless, to solely rely in the one literature that IS the Christian religion, in lieu of a personal explanation, just doesn't sit right with me. [SEP] >From what I've learned over the last few years, a good chunk of Christian scientists aren't Christian at all  Wat. Look, I don't know where this is coming from, but its absurd. Christianity and science have had a long and fruitful history. In fact, modern science was almost exclusively built by Christian thinkers who loved God's creation so much, they wanted to analyze it empirically. My chaplain co-founded the Society of Ordained Scientists. I also recommend you take a gander at the list of Christian thinkers in science in the 21st century, which isn't even including the Christians in other academic fields. If anyone in the scientific community is condescending, its the pop-scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson, who try to push philosophy when they claim to be teaching science.    I am sorry, I hope you don't think I'm ranting at you. I do feel badly that you haven't had anyone in your life who has demonstrated that Science and religion are compatible, and haven't adequately articulated their faith in a manner that makes sense to you. You are always welcome on this subreddit with any questions. 
That's nice and all (see how douchey that can sound in text format?) but there are organizations out there designed to help people in your situation. If you have 2 years of medical records proving your wife has a condition and the company was notified of her condition with doctor's recommendations then that's called discrimination. Majority of time just a threat of a lawsuit is enough to make a company fold because they don't want the bad press and you can easily find labor rights attorneys who charge a small fee, or sometimes none at all, unless the company reaches a settlement. That all being said it doesn't always work out in the employees favor and yes sometimes the system fails them. I'm sorry it happened to your wife but there are avenues one can take in that situation, the problem is that most people either don't know about or don't spend the time to research for one reason or another. In the end, companies will always get away with doing employees wrong if the employees are unwilling to challenge them. [SEP] > That's nice and all (see how douchey that can sound in text format?)  You mean like you you just glaze over the general idea that most people are in dire straights or not in a great mental state of mind during shit like this and don't have the time/money to go after a multimillion dollar corporation.   You just take the time to be condescending while reiterating what was already said and disregarding my entire point that normal people can't afford the time off to pursue this sort of thing.   Maybe you can go tell homeless people that they have many avenues of help available if they'd just stop being homeless and do their research properly.
Many feminists in my group of friends like to talk about it, but maybe that's just us. I do agree that these questions aren't as voiced though. Why? I'm not sure. Could be because feminism is originally coming from female perspectives, because we've lived lives where we've been worth less than men and we're tired of it. So the fight has primarily been to lift women to have the equal worth of a man first. I haven't heard as many men complain about not having the same rights as women when it comes to certain things as much (could be because I haven't taken as much notice, or because I'm female). Often when I've seen/heard men complain, they've often been shut down (which honestly sucks).   But also, many times when I see these questions come up, it's not really to voice the concern of men having it worse in some aspects or to bring up issues, but it's really to bring down feminism. So it's spoken about in the wrong context. I think if we want to bring these things up, they can't be brought up in a way to put down something else. Feminists want men and women to be equal. We want men to have the same rights as us, and we want women to have the same rights as men. We need to become better to lift each other up.   This was sort of a ramble. But what I want to conclude is that if you want to acknowledge this more, talk about it more. Spread knowledge. Because it is important. But do it in the right context. /r/MensLib is a good subreddit where they bring up these types of questions and issues, without hating on feminism :) [SEP] >we've lived lives where we've been worth less than men   I'd like to know what you mean by this. It comes back to my original point about there being advantages and disadvantages of both genders. I don't think women are seen, in any way, as worth less than men. Anywhere that's evacuated, for example, is women and children first. Men and women are valued differently, and on both sides those differences provide advantages and disadvantages. I'm not dismissing female experience, i'm just saying that it's totally ignorant to claim men have it objectively easier as a whole. Yes, a woman who wants to get a job in a STEM field is going to have a hard time. But i'd argue a man who wants to become a professional nanny is going to have just as much of a hard time.  Please don't think i'm dismissing the experiences of women. I just take issue with the claim that women are valued less than men. That just isn't true.  If you're talking about monetary value, then that's a different story. Although monetary value is only one part of someone's experience, and is not the whole of their existence.  >Many times when I see these questions come up, it's not really to voice the concern of men having it worse in some aspects or to bring up issues, but it's really to bring down feminism.  I understand this completely, and i do see the inflammatory nature of some discussion as a huge issue when discussing male issues in a feminist context. That said, do you not think that a lot of feminists (not all, but a noticeable amount on the internet) take instant offense to a man bringing up his grievances? I feel like catch-all responses such as mansplaining and #notallmen are used way too often to shut down men when they voice contradictory opinions. I feel like dissent is good, and isn't something that should be stifled by people in a movement that's dedicated to social progress. Feminism should, as far as i'm concerned, be openly criticised as much as possible, much like any other ideology which claims to be an attempt at making things better for everyone.  I feel like part of the reason men don't speak up about their issues is that they almost always get shut down by feminists. Men are mocked and derided for voicing their opinions, unless those opinions line up with the existing status-quo.   As far as i'm aware, there isn't a platform that allows, or at least takes seriously, discussions about feminism from a male point of view. A platform that isn't almost exclusively used by men, at least.  >We want men to have the same rights as us, and we want women to have the same rights as men.  I've already asked in another thread, but what rights does one gender have that the other doesn't?   ----------------------------------------------------------  Sorry if this seems like I was being overly critical or negative. I actually really appreciate your response, I just feel like there's a lot to unpack and it can come across a little accusatory. I wasn't critcising your beliefs or anything, just bringing up things i find hard to reconcile. Oh, and thanks for the link to /r/MensLib, i'll check that out now. 
Apple tends not to point out when a feature they added existed before. But they also never claim to have invented it. And that's most features. That's a lot of where apple hate comes from. People act like apple thinks they invented everything, when Apple never actually claims that they did. It would just be shitty marketing to be like "and we added this feature we saw on chrome a while ago" [SEP] Who wants them to say this?  > "and we added this feature we saw on chrome a while ago"  Nobody. But there are ways to present features without seeming like they arose out of the brilliant minds of Apple and Apple alone. Apple presentations have a particular tone, and for an educated technology audience like those who watch the keynotes, it can come across as superior and even condescending.   And hate? As I type this on my Mac responding to your comment that I read on my iPhone which interrupted a comic I was reading on my iPad. I think Apple is remarkably tone-deaf, but that doesn't mean I hate them. They just exist in a world, where they can present old ideas as if they're new. They can wait for years before acting on feedback that their users give them and then act like the feedback never happened and they just came up with the ideas themselves. 
Jesus dude... first, learning about photosynthesis in elementary school doesn't mean understanding it at an atomic level. Kids understand the general concept of "fire" at a human scale before they are thinking about atoms and chemical reactions.   Second, you know Feynman spent a year working in a biology lab... Sure he didn't have his degrees in biology, but he understood it well enough to talk about a basic subject like this. And actually he did make some contributions to the field (studies of intragenic supression)... but the biggest contribution is probably just insight on the differences between scientific fields.   Lastly, what does that video you linked have to do with any of this? I guess you're saying that Feynman is ranting here with no real point? If that's the case I feel bad for you, you seem incapable of experiencing many of the simple pleasures in life.  [SEP] > first, learning about photosynthesis in elementary school doesn't mean understanding it at an atomic level  The hell is that even supposed to mean?    Yes it does. We learn it an "atomical level" and chemical level in 7th grade IIRC.    > Kids understand the general concept of "fire" at a human scale before they are thinking about atoms and chemical reactions.   What the hell is that even supposed to mean?    No we learn about the atoms and chemical reactions and do the calculations in elementary school. There is no "human scale" involved.    Also, OP didn't say anything about kids, he said people.    > Second, you know Feynman spent a year working in a biology lab...    And?    > Sure he didn't have his degrees in biology, but he understood it well enough to talk about a basic subject like this.    He is simplifying it to the point of inaccuracy. What is your point with this?      > the biggest contribution is probably just insight on the differences between scientific fields.    Like?    > Lastly, what does that video you linked have to do with any of this? I guess you're saying that Feynman is ranting here with no real point?    He insist on being an authority of knowing something he actually doesn't know. Dawkin's wants to know how the conciousness works because it's baffling and nobody really knows. Then comed NDGT who just haves to pipe on about what "we" know as if he actually possessed some sort of higher knowledge and everybody else is just asking the wrong questions.    NDGT is also right in that people would not be studying magnetism so extensively if it was actually completely understood.       > If that's the case I feel bad for you, you seem incapable of experiencing many of the simple pleasures in life.   What is that even supposed to mean? Again, all you can do is to be extremely condescending to anybody who wants you to answer a question you can't answer. But instead of admitting that you can'rt answer, you need to hear yourself "explain it" anyway.   What is between two magnets? You say "forcefield, duh!", but what is that forcefield? You say "it's the magnetic field, stoopid!", but what is that magnetic field made of? You say "It's field lines, dumbass", but what actually causes those patterns? yadda yadda... You are just going in circles and not being able to admit that there are some questions you simply can't answer.    
> so we cant trust his recorded statements but we can trust that him being scared made him unable to murder?  Even based on the judge's statement that to take the world of people that may be on the influence of drugs with a punch of salt. Cromier was a creepy fuck but it's not enough to convict him.  >Victim blaming at its finest. Its not her fault that she was murdered by Raymond because he couldn't keep it in his pants, the disgusting pedophile.  I'm not even blaming her. There's no point I was even blaming her. I agree as stated above that cromier was a creepy fuck for screwing around with a 15yo, call him a pedophile all you want but he's not going to jail for her death.  >If you want to be mad? Jesus Christ, A 15 year old girl was murdered and you belittle the emotions of a grieving family and people. absolutely sickening.  Proves my point that this trial was based on emotion. As I stated before, there was little to no evidence to convict cromier and that's how it'll end. You can be mad and take tantrums but a jury decided he wasn't guilty. [SEP] > She needed a stable upbringing which she never got and should have gotten. At 15, I would have never been allowed to be in another city alone without someone knowing about it or being with me in that city.   None of this is your fault, she didnt deserve to be murdered.   >Proves my point that this trial was based on emotion. As I stated before, there was little to no evidence to convict cromier and that's how it'll end. You can be mad and take tantrums but a jury decided he wasn't guilty.   Really, that proves your point? I believe you had made up your mind along time ago about anything relating to FN people when at court. If anything you prove my point.    See how condescending that is? 
> To the uninformed/average user  I think this might be you.   > using a VPN to connect to the world outside of your country (i.e. China )  that would be me, but not China. The great country of the republic of Korea.  I don't use a vpn to play runescape but sometimes my vpn is on when i play runescape. We don't all live in a place where you live. I might live in a country where there is no hulu or netflix and streaming porn is banned. I might have other legitimate reasons but i love how you try to be a know-it-all with your smug attitude of superiority.  [SEP] Now, you see,  >That would be me, but not China. The great country of the republic of Korea  Would have sufficed. I understand other countries in the world face different problems with their governments than the lack of that we do in Canada ( Which, unfortunately, does not have Hulu. ), but to the North American user, a VPN/Proxy is used simply by people who have something to hide, or do not want to be found. Illegal activities usually.   It is also made clear by Jagex that the majority of bots/goldfarmers are run by sweatshops located in the greater Asia regions. A player might use a VPN/Proxy to avoid IP bans, so instead of losing access to Runescape entirely, they'll only lose a few bot accounts. Makes sense that Jagex will then target VPN/Proxy users, because of their notoriety. Innocent players may be banned, of course ( Which, once again, raises the question of why the players were using VPNS/Proxies in the first place. ), but cutting bots off at the source is a fair trade in my own opinion.  So, as we've established, the average player has no special circumstances requiring a proxy to play. So when a player asks why a proxy is needed, they might be genuinely interested, or skeptical, of a user's need for a VPN. And so, we ask.  So, for someone in your personal situation, who "needs" a proxy, I merely wanted to know why it was needed. A user generally understands by now a proxy is a red flag to Jagex, so continued use of one only raises skepticism, whether it be extreme circumstances (possibly yours), or the player is most likely just another gold farmer who's main got banned with their bots on here complaining (it's happened).  So, now that I've explained the problem the average player's view of a proxy user, how about you don't be a condescending smart ass and just politely explain why you:  a) Need to use a proxy;  b) What kind of horrible Nazi extremist dictator would ban porn?   EDIT: And remember, the "average, uninformed" user, will generally view VPN/Proxy users as "bad", not to mention "slow", "laggy", "pointless to the legitimate player". Why not enlighten us as to why they're "good"?  
I already admitted that it was unfair for me to lump you in with pro-lifers simply because you have a conservative stance on welfare. But if we're talking about American politics, there is clearly one party that does tout both stances.   And you did say earlier that the irony of this "joke" is lost on liberals, which led me to conclude that you lean conservative. That's a pretty safe assumption but feel free to correct me.   I don't see how one could possibly oppose abortion without having a belief in the sacredness of each individual human life. Could you explain that to me? It doesn't seem logical not to have that belief as a prerequisite for being pro-life.   Can you please point to a program that provides monetary or material relief to the poor that was proposed by conservatives and not liberals? A single program?   Many voters identify as Republicans (despite the fact that Republicans advocate policies that work against their own immediate economic interests) because they actually believe in a coherent set of conservative principles. They actually believe that, in the long run, not having public assistance programs (that would benefit them in the short term) will lead to more growth, which they can hope to benefit from. They believe in "growing the pie" or that "all ships rise with the tide", so to speak. However, there is also a large bloc of conservative evangelical voters who only support Republicans because they refuse to vote for any candidate who is not pro-life, based on their beliefs that a) the right to life begins before birth and b) every human life is sacred. Again, I find it ironic that anyone who believes that every human life is sacred would continue to espouse this idea that humans can be compared to wild animals, or to support a party whose principles reflect such ideas. [SEP] >"...you did say earlier that the irony of this "joke" is lost on liberals, which led me to conclude that you lean conservative. That's a pretty safe assumption but feel free to correct me.  Consider yourself corrected. And stop assuming one must be one or the other. Not everything is black and white.  >I don't see how one could possibly oppose abortion without having a belief in the sacredness of each individual human life.  Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it does not exist. I believe I already covered that.  >Can you please point to a program that provides monetary or material relief to the poor that was proposed by conservatives and not liberals? A single program?  That's kind of a trick question. Since most Republicans believe the private sector is more effective in helping the poor than government is, they tend to support giving government grants to private charitable organizations (including faith-based organizations). As we've seen with such programs as Social Security, Medicaid and the Health Care Initiative, government control of social programs often lead to their failure. Republicans also believe that limits on eligibility and benefits must be in place to ensure the safety net is not abused. Republicans introduced and strongly supported the welfare reform of 1996, which was signed into law by Democratic President Clinton, and which limited eligibility for welfare, successfully leading to many former welfare recipients finding jobs, helping poor people much better than simply giving out money. Although Republicans generally support a reduction in Medicaid's growth rate, congressional Republicans expanded Medicare, supporting a new drug plan for seniors starting in 2006. Many Republicans support increased health insurance portability, laws promoting coverage of pre-existing medical conditions, a cap on malpractice lawsuits, an emphasis on preventative care rather than emergency room care, and tax benefits aimed at making health insurance more affordable for the uninsured and targeted to promote universal access, all of which help the poor. This is in contrast to "programs" that perpetuate the the cycle of poverty.  >Many voters identify as Republicans (despite the fact that Republicans advocate policies that work against their own immediate economic interests) because they actually believe in a coherent set of conservative principles.   While it may be true that "Republicans advocate policies that work against their own immediate economic interests", perhaps they realize that in the long run Democratic endorsed programs further the cycle of poverty. To them, it makes sense that less taxation and increased growth will contribute to their well-being. As far as the "conservative evangelical voters" of which you speak, while there are some that vote on the single issue of abortion (just as there is a significant bloc of people in both parties who are "single-issue" voters). Simply because life is sacred does not mean it is intelligent. In the case of the joke made by the OP, the comparison to animals is correct, and forms the basis of the reason that our present government programs continue the cycle of poverty-that being that giving a handout to poor people creates a dependency on further handouts. This is the irony lost on Progressives-in their condescending view of the nanny state, they have created a section of society which is not only dependent on handouts, but where a sense of entitlement thrives. If Progressives truly wanted to end the cycle of poverty, rather than maintaining the status quo (or increasing the cycle of poverty) they would consider the past failures and the present states of dependency and entitlement. 
You're being ridiculous.  I think poor people deserve every opportunity to not be poor.   That has nothing to do with paying people what the market dictates.  I believe all people, no matter how poor, are capable of learning a skill to putting themselves in a position to earn a decent living.  Raising the minimum wage because you think poor people have no choice but to flip burgers is a lamentable, and quite frankly a disgusting, insinuation. [SEP] > I think poor people deserve every opportunity to not be poor.  Look at Mr. High-and-Mighty here, condescending to give poor people opportunities! Do you also believe creative professionals should be paid in exposure bucks and FB likes?  Can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps if you can't afford bootstraps (or boots, for that matter). I suppose you'd also be interested in telling people how they should spend their money, even if they had enough?
> Even if the court "determined" the Fourth Amendment didn't apply, are they correct in determining this?  "The Supreme Court isn't final because they're right. They're right because they're final."  The rest of your comment betrays the fact that you're not familiar with the cases which have shaped Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.  > Are the digital messages/documents on it not our present-day equivalents of letters, or "papers"?  They are, which is why such content is protected by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Nevertheless, there are other things related to your cell phone which are not. Please try and keep up.  > They are supposed to "interpret the law" as it was intended and I can hazard a guess that had the Fourth Amendment been written today, given its intention was to guarantee us rights to privacy  This is extremely debatable. There is some manner of privacy which is protected, but it's absurd to simply say it establishes rights to privacy without caveats. In fact, it specifically carves out exceptions - a reasonableness requirement, only applying to searches/seizures, and still allowing an invasion of privacy upon probable cause and an appropriate warrant! There's absolutely no way that we can handwave our way from, "I think it kinda gives us privacy," straight to, "Literally anything that I think increases our privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment." That's just not the case.  > it would have included digital privacy.  It does! But again, this is not unlimited. Your right to privacy in the physical world isn't unlimited, either. For example, the post office can take pictures of the outside of an envelope that you send through the mail. They can do this without a warrant. Law enforcement can obtain that information without a warrant. As easy as it is to imagine, "But maybe I want that to be private," it simply doesn't fall under the warrant requirement. We have a lot of case history here, and I highly suggest you read it. At the very least, start following Orin Kerr's writing. [SEP] >They are, which is why such content is protected by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Nevertheless, there are other things related to your cell phone which are not.   So what things related to cell phones "are not" protected by the Fourth Amendment? This article specifically mentions GPS tracking, which the courts have deemed as a "search" and by Fourth Amendment definition is not allowed without a warrant.  >Please try and keep up.  Wow, you're pretty arrogant when debating, huh?  >it specifically carves out exceptions - a reasonableness requirement, only applying to searches/seizures, and still allowing an invasion of privacy upon probable cause and an appropriate warrant!  I know the text of the Fourth Amendment. Its SPECIFIC PURPOSE was to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures. Not to create a right to reasonable searches and seizures.  > "Literally anything that I think increases our privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment."  Yes, because that's exactly what I said.  >the post office can take pictures of the outside of an envelope that you send through the mail. Since we're relating this to digital information, what would be a cellphone equivalent of this?  Other laws lay out "exceptions" to the barring of searches without a warrant, such as the "plain view" law which allows collection of evidence that is in "plain view" and seems applicable to the outside of a letter; but nothing in a phone is in "plain view."  >We have a lot of case history here, and I highly suggest you read it. At the very least, start following Orin Kerr's writing.  I appreciate opportunities to learn more, but would be a lot more eager to take your recommendations if you weren't so condescending. It's possible to disagree with people, or be more knowledgeable on a topic than them, without making efforts to degrade them. Just some words of advice back to you, since you gave me so many.
So now you're actually threatening me? That's cute.   I was simply asking why you're angry. Why do you rage against everyone on here? [SEP] Where did I threaten you? Are you threaten by my use of logic and reason?  >I was simply asking why you're angry.   No you said I had impotent rage. That's different and condescending.   >Why do you rage against everyone on here?  Not everyone, just asshats like you.
> You say all of this, link to what appears to be a random video game reviewer and expect that to convince me that my experience with games that have realistic characters and those that don't just...don't real?  No, I linked to a reviewer who succinctly summarised the problems with photorealism, which is what is required to conquer the uncanny valley. You're deliberately trying to avoid answering any points whatsoever.  > I'll put it this way: whatever negative effect the uncanny valley might have on my gameplay experience  It isn't about the negative effect of the uncanny valley so much as the negative effect of the focus on realism et al. Realism is not required to make a connection with a player, and is fully capable of detracting from what is.  > it pales in comparison to feeling like a small child and trying not to laugh at graphics from the games you and others are bringing up as paragons of awesome non-realistic games.  "Feeling like a small child" mostly stems stems from your own insecurities, not the games' graphics. However, for example, the Mother series is known for having superficially friendly looking graphics but using a mixture of text, audio and thematic shifts to create a sense of disorientation that a child like Ness having an experience as you do in Mother 2/Earthbound, really would have. One of the key events that led to the conception of the series and style was that the creator walked in on a brutal rape scene in a movie theatre as a child. I don't think that experience could ever have been conveyed without the cartoony visuals of the series.  > I'm not saying there's anything wrong with liking those games, just that I and most others in the western world generally don't like them as much as we like their realistic counterparts.  You can't speak for most of the western world. If that were the case, the highest selling physical game in history would not be Wii Sports.  Moreover, you are free to like realistic games. It is categorically false to say that a realistic style is required to create a connection with the player.  > ...no, that was not a rebuttal. That was a statement of my experience.  So what you said was pointless in the context of this discussion.  > Were you expecting that I was going to say "oh, well now that you've said that about some games I haven't played, you're clearly right"?  No, because it's not a choice between those two. There is no value to you saying " I haven't played those games and I haven't heard of them but I did play one tangentially related game I didn't like. Now because I haven't heard of them, what does that tell you about how important those games are?" That's a rebuttal, that last part, but a weak one that I argued.  > However, my saying that I've never heard of some of these games after playing games for many years does sort of undermine the idea that these are the universally accepted paragons of awesome you seem to think they are.  Your ignorance does not undermine anything. Anyone can claim to have not heard of anything. I can find at least several billion people who never heard of The Beatles either. That doesn't undermine the importance or universal acclaim for the Beatles in mainstream music culture.  > "Chrono Trigger" appears to be a Japanese game. Maybe Japanese people or fans of Japanese games agree that it's the best game ever, but I speak English and Japanese games have a nasty habit of translating horribly into the English language...as in, they often transform into barely comprehensible nonsense. If you're trying to tell a story, that doesn't help.  Chrono Trigger had great localisation and sold a majority of its units in the EU and NA. More importantly, even if it was a Japan centric game, it doesn't matter that you didn't or werent capable of experiencing it because that's completely irrelevant; if it's engaging in Japanese to people who can speak Japanese, that still supports my point. There is nothing English-centric about my argument.  > I would also suggest that the Walking Dead's popularity might have had something to do with being a tie-in with a massively popular TV show.  That's why they licensed the IP, but  A) That is not why it is so popular, considering the other hyped Walking Dead game, Killer Instinct was a game with more realistic graphics, and was even part of the first person horror-survival genre yet ended up as a critical and commercial flop  B) the fact that it is so popular is more to demonstrate its relevance; you haven't played it but it's just as relevant as any AAA game.  > The people objecting very strongly in this thread to an observation that most people seem to agree with   You're not backing up this idea that "most people" agree with it, considering nonrealistic graphics have been just as, if not more, successful than realistic graphics, historically.  > are referring me to a few well-known games like FF and WD, and then a long list of obscure games that are supposedly awesome.  The fact that you haven't heard of them doesn't make them obscure. The fact that you haven't heard of Chrono Trigger is mind boggling if you've actually been an active participant in the gaming community for a long time. That or you're very young (mid teens probably).  > If this same scenario played out in other art forms, we would be calling it either pretentiousness, snobbery or hipsterism.  No, it wouldn't. If someone said "more realism = better connection with the audience", there's nothing hipsterish or snobby about disagreeing with that when it's just a completely unsupported point that makes no sense. Realism in itself does nothing for forming a connection between the player and the art in any art form. It is the content of the art that is supposed to do that. For example, a hyperrealist render of an apple probably won't form any connection with the viewer while something that's not realistic at all might.  > Books aren't interactive. Books require no choice or active participation. Books are a singular art form, video games are a synthesis of literature, visual art, sound and game mechanics.  How does this rebut the fact that books can be engaging and form connection with the player based on only story?  Additionally, what about text based adventure games? What about Visual Novel games that have nothing to stand on except their story and usually very stylised art but are still critically acclaimed and beloved? More realism =\= a greater connection between the game and the player. This idea remains unfounded, unsubstantiated and demonstrably untrue, which is what I've been showing all along with examples of games that are fibdly remembered for making a connection with the player, and despite their unrealistic graphics.  That core point, which I initially objected to, remains untrue. [SEP] >You're deliberately trying to avoid answering any points whatsoever.  No, I'm rejecting your summary from a random dude based on my own contradictory experience. You have to make a point before I answer it.  >Realism is not required to make a connection with a player, and is fully capable of detracting from what is.  I have never contended that it's required, only that it's better than any alternative. It's also far less likely to work against the story than "abstract" visuals. You oppose this by offering me games I've never heard of and about which I'm skeptical and are somehow confused when things I haven't seen are unconvincing.  I make two basic contentions: 1) all games would be better with improved graphics and 2) video game stories are by and large better told in a realistic visual style. That doesn't mean abstract is bad, it means realistic is better. That games in the past have been good without doing this speaks to the reduced expectations of past consumers, not the value of comparatively shitty graphics. Those games gradually become historical artifacts, not good games.  >"Feeling like a small child" mostly stems stems from your own insecurities, not the games' graphics.  No, it very much stems from depictions of characters as small children or in a cartoonish fashion reminiscent of the games played by children.  When you make obscure references, explain them without actually explaining them and make a point of condescending, you very strongly reinforce my belief that a lot of this is based in pretentiousness. And when I was referring to hipsterism or snobbery, I was mostly referring to the kind of rebuttals I'm getting (like this), not the objection to my point. Responders in this thread have rushed to tell me how little I know about real, significant games of substance. You give me an obscure reference and when I tell you I don't know anything about it, you spend more time denigrating my lack of gaming cultural knowledge than you do defending what you've said. You appeal primarily to the historical significance or past critical acclaim garnered by games rather than explain why they're fun or engaging.  That's snobbery.  >So what you said was pointless in the context of this discussion.  It wasn't. People exchange necessary contextual information in conversation so that other people will know enough about them to make informed and relevant statements. I told you that I had neither played nor heard of these games. The only way that would be irrelevant to you is if you really didn't care about convincing me of anything.  How you could've reacted to that: "Oh, okay. Let me tell you about the people who agree with my position and why you should agree with it instead of linking to a random youtube reviewer," or "Oh, okay, Let me tell you about the reasons I really like this game and why it's really awesome." Instead, you got defensive and irritated.  >There is no value to you saying " I haven't played those games and I haven't heard of them but I did play one tangentially related game I didn't like. Now because I haven't heard of them, what does that tell you about how important those games are?" That's a rebuttal, that last part, but a weak one that I argued.  It's actually a pretty strong rebuttal because as it stands, you've offered literally nothing in support of your opinion other than your statement that "it is a widely agreed-upon fact that these games are awesome". Your sole justification is that most worthwhile people agree with you, yet I can find nobody who does.  >I can find at least several billion people who never heard of The Beatles either. That doesn't undermine the importance or universal acclaim for the Beatles in mainstream music culture.  I recognize the historical significance of the Beatles, I just don't listen to them because I like other music-as do most people who respect the Beatles. Most people don't listen to the them or Elvis or Ray Charles or Metallica or Run-DMC. Just because something inspired or influenced the things you like now doesn't mean you have to like the old thing. I'll take your word that Chrono Trigger was very influential and important, but playing it doesn't sound very fun and excessively praising its current value sounds absurd.  I'll put it this way: I loved KOTOR, but I haven't touched it since Mass Effect came out. The story was great, I just don't like faces made of ~6 planes anymore.  >Walking Dead game, Killer Instinct  That was a bad game and a bad comparison: the Telltale game was available on mobile, could be bought in cheap installments and was pretty well tailored for people who'd never played a game before or had only played mobile games. It also wasn't in a genre replete with much better titles.  >The fact that you haven't heard of Chrono Trigger is mind boggling if you've actually been an active participant in the gaming community for a long time. That or you're very young (mid teens probably).  I apologize, but I was busy and couldn't adequately participate in the gaming community, and it's a shame because you're all just peaches to hang out with. I play games for fun, not to participate in a generally annoying and creepy community. I really don't think the gaming community actually represents most "gamers", but I'll call that a hunch.  >If someone said "more realism = better connection with the audience", there's nothing hipsterish or snobby about disagreeing with that  1) Painting of the height of abstract expressionism versus....an apple. That's a bit of a loaded comparison, don't you think? If you had compared the rendered apple with a still life of another apple, I think my point would've been well-made. Because then you could've asked someone "which one makes you hungry" and someone would probably have said "the real one".  2) It makes intuitive sense that more realism equals more connection and its borne out by the evolution of art...pretty much since we've had art. Humans make connections by recognizing familiar patterns; we love animals when those animals look like us and eat animals just as smart when we can avoid anthropomorphizing them. We're hard-wired to see ourselves in other human-looking things and that means that the more human something looks, the more its experiences will resonate with us. A person being attacked right in front of you will provoke a powerful emotional response. A computer simulation of a beloved character under attack will do the same thing to a diminished degree. I don't care about a square viciously beating a circle.  >How does this rebut the fact that books can be engaging and form connection with the player based on only story?  It doesn't. I argued that your point was irrelevant because books are a fundamentally different medium from video games. As I've said to others, good writing is critical to any story and I've never disputed that. What I'm saying is that, given a single script made into two games and all other factors being equal, the more realistic game will be better.
I'm voting for Gary Johnson, since I'd like to own the guns without actually needing them to shoot someone.   Trump is a fucktard. I don't care if he's a rabid pro-gun fucktard, he is still a fucktard. His policies will be the policies of a fucktard and his reactions will cause my lovely guns to get used by kids I like in wars we don't need because fucktard couldn't keep his mouth shut in front of our allies, enemies, or anyone else.   I prefer never, ever to have to use the weapons I train with. Situational awareness and avoidance.   And now you can give me my fucking downvotes like this sub always does for going against the bullshit machismo. I only stay for the articles on positive results from CCW these days.  [SEP] >And now you can give me my fucking downvotes like this sub always does for going against the bullshit machismo.   Maybe the downvotes have more to do with your condescending attitude.
Well now that you mention it. We did a few things to reintroduce moderator discretion and don't have everything exactly spelled out in the rules anymore.  Allowing us to use our best judgement to remove / allow threads. That probably actually did have quite some impact.  My rough plan is to continue that trend throughout all of the rules, shorten them and explain them separately. To have a TLDR for people with common sense and a not so tldr for rule lawyers. Maybe not even explicitly as rule but more along the lines of explaining the intentions behind this rule and why we might act in certain ways in regards to this.  But nothing is set in stone in that regard just yet. First we'll get our newbies on board and then I'll start that off... which will probably take another few months before we roll out anything significant. Change is slow.  But anyway. Thanks! [SEP] > Allowing us to use our best judgement to remove / allow threads. That probably actually did have quite some impact.  YES! That's all I was clamoring for, really. If a topic has a DAE title but the content is invaluable to the community I don't see why it would be removed.  I don't know if this is exactly what I'm talking about, but  http  has some good ideas on what a central rulebook should be. Rigidity usually ends up being worse than flexibility on non objective things and opinion pieces.  >My rough plan is to continue that trend throughout all of the rules, shorten them and explain them separately. To have a TLDR for people with common sense and a not so tldr for rule lawyers. Maybe not even explicitly as rule but more along the lines of explaining the intentions behind this rule and why we might act in certain ways in regards to this.  I think as soon as you trust the mods, you can start trusting the users. The main problem i had with this sub is the mods arguing with a condescending tone on non objective things (upvotes shouldn't dictate things, these are the rules, if you guys just behaved this would be easy, etc) If we treat each other like human beings and not slaves to a piece of text, I think the whole thing is a lot more human.
A pattern I noticed with these guys looking for deep and intellectual conversations is that the subject usually is one of their own theories that are about as groundbreaking as water is wet. They don't have a specific topic they know inside out and don't really read any form of academic work; they just feel like they are really fucking smart and thereby worth listening to.    They then get upset that no one appreciates their intellect when the truth is that everyone interested in ''deep discussions'' don't enjoy talking to them because nothing they say is well-researched or challenging, just tired repetitions that isn't worth arguing about (not that they are open to being questioned and proven wrong). I think that's because they never actually read an academic paper and seen just how specific most discussed topics are. Instead they just read a summary of some great philosopher's work and felt really smart for understanding the main points so they present these great theories about the human condition and the meaning of life while the rest of the people in the room just want to discuss someone's cool thesis about the trainability of bees or discuss the ethics of marketing plastic surgery through influencers. [SEP] >form of academic work; they just feel like they are really fucking smart and thereby worth listening to.  Yeah, any guy who's looking for an "intellectual girl" isn't looking for someone who's actually a student of whatever and has their own theories and thoughts and knowledge, they're looking for someone who they can feel validated mansplaining to. 
if you live in the U.S I think you're exaggerating in the sense that these are societal problems that individual women can't face/conquer. While all of these do happen and are part of our society. This in no way forces you to be anything you are not, you won't be stoned/killed. You can be a super fat ugly girl that is smart and open to her sexuality and still have a job/ and be happy or whatever. As more and more women be just who they want to be then slowly but surely these social constructs will change. [SEP] I live in Australia but really, this country is so Americanized as is, there isn't that great a difference. You guys actually seem a lot more intense than us in a lot of ways.   > While all of these do happen and are part of our society. This in no way forces you to be anything you are not, you won't be stoned/killed.  Stop being condescending. Not every woman's experience is going to be the same. Some will be fine and some will be targeted. Every woman comes into contact with some form of sexism in her life. It comes in all shapes and size and forms and all of it is bad. And if you don't think western women are killed because of things like sexism, you need to check domestic violence statistics.   > You can be a super fat ugly girl that is smart and open to her sexuality and still have a job/ and be happy or whatever.   Is this supposed to be encouraging. Right there I can see exactly what about women you place importance in: her attractiveness. I should fucking hope that overweight women can find jobs and be happy but you wanna know what makes the happy part VERY difficult? When the entire world considers women who aren't skinny to be worth less as a whole person. Hell, even women who are skinny can't escape it. I see stick thin celebrities called "curvy" or "hit rock bottom" when they gain a few pounds and the obsession with women losing baby weight as soon as they give birth is disgusting. It all contributes to a sexist attitude that women are how they look and nothing more.  > As more and more women be just who they want to be then slowly but surely these social constructs will change.  Obviously but it would be nice to not be told how to be in the first place.
I have respect for your point of view, and feel no need to insult you with pejorative terms such as "spookiness." I also don't try to hide the fact that I'm not a physicalist, and won't be unless mind can somehow be explained in terms of the physical. All of the physical processes which we know to occur in the brain--chemistry, electric charges--occur outside the brain too. So if you claim brains are the sole and complete cause of mind, I'd like to know how exactly they cause it, and why you are so sure of this claim. And nobody in your camp has anything to say about this: all we know is that drugs or brain surgery alter mind. Which fits perfectly the Cartesian idea that the soul is attached to the brain.   Evidence I know that supports my view includes spooky stuff such as out of body experience, and coincidence (you receive a phonecall from a loved one just when thinking about them, for example.) it's spooky, but the world itself is incredibly mysterious, and only reductionists--people too silly to admit how little they no--mistake mystery for inanity.   In the19th century, idealism reigned supreme, just as materialism dominates today. I think that the next thing will be something which combines both, but alas, doubt I'm the one to discover it. However, most mediocre thinkers will always follow accept the popular arguments of the day, whatever they are.  [SEP] >I have respect for your point of view, and feel no need to insult you with pejorative terms such as "spookiness."  I'm sorry that you took it the wrong way, but spookiness is common vernacular in philosophy. Physical entities being interacted with by non-physical entities and positing the existence of non-physical entities is "spooky". I want to know all about how this spookiness works.  >All of the physical processes which we know to occur in the brain--chemistry, electric charges--occur outside the brain too.  But not like they do in the brain. The brain is probably the most complex machine in the known universe. When you smash 100 billion neurons together, make them fire at speeds of 270 miles per hour, with recurrence, and with outside stimuli coming in from 5 different sources simultaneously, and give the neurons 7 different languages in which they can communicate with one another -- you are going to get some spectacular macro effects.   >So if you claim brains are the sole and complete cause of mind, I'd like to know how exactly they cause it  What would be sufficient evidence for you? Because I've already stated that consciousness is just a phenomenon. No 1 thing in the brain causes it. It's caused by a 100 billion things doing their thing very very very quickly.   This is like seeing a Mickey Mouse cartoon, asking me to explain what causes Mickey Mouse to exist, me explaining that animators draw Mickey Mouse with slight variations into about 10,000 still cells, and they put it on a reel that slips through these cells at a very fast pace, add sound, all giving the impression of a dancing whistling Mickey. But then you, the emergentist, says "No no no, that's too reductionist, I want you to produce the real Mickey I experience for me." It's an impossible, absurd mission. Any attempt to produce physical causality for a "concept" which is non-physical by definition is absurd.   Nobody in my camp has anything to say about what causes consciousness because it's an absurd premise from the start. It's just the sum of its parts to us, so none of us are trying to assert that conscious is anything other than that. Full stop. You, however, are. You believe concepts have emergent features and functions -- so the burden is on you. You go find "consciousness". You tell me what it is.   >all we know is that drugs or brain surgery alter mind. Which fits perfectly the Cartesian idea that the soul is attached to the brain.   Where exactly is it attached to the brain? How does it attach itself? Does it use appendages? If I showed you a cross section of a brain, could you point to "the mind"? Is it possible to extract it from the brain? If I can, can I contain it in a jar or a vase? What are the measurements of a mind? Is it big or small, short or tall? Does the border of the mind stop at the skull or protrude outward? Does have a smell? Does make any noise? Can I break it into pieces, and make more minds? Is it like a wind or a fire? If we can't see, touch, smell, taste, or hear it -- what kind of hypothetical scientific instrument would you propose in your wildest thought experiment to be able to observe this "mind"? You seem very capable of asserting that things exist without telling me anything else about them, and that's concerning.  This all might sound condescending, but this is the kind of question begging that always arises to meet the dualist/emergentist/idealist, and what Gassendi posed to Descartes over three centuries ago producing no sufficient responses since.  >Evidence I know that supports my view includes spooky stuff such as out of body experience, and coincidence (you receive a phonecall from a loved one just when thinking about them, for example.) it's spooky, but the world itself is incredibly mysterious, and only reductionists--people too silly to admit how little they no--mistake mystery for inanity.   Out of body experiences have physiological explanations. And coincidences have statistical explanations.  And reductionists don't view mystery as inanity. Consciousness is cool, hallucinations are interesting, coincidences are fun -- but we think these all ultimately have perfectly rational non-spooky explanations like the ones I provided, and since the enlightenment, we've had a very consistent track record.   >In the19th century, idealism reigned supreme, just as materialism dominates today. I think that the next thing will be something which combines both, but alas, doubt I'm the one to discover it. However, most mediocre thinkers will always follow accept the popular arguments of the day, whatever they are.  But you don't have to discover it. This is philosophy, you can a priori posit what you think such a paradigm shift might look like, and we can talk about that. Futurology is a branch entirely dedicated to it. Again, I am begging you to explain how we will be able to access a "world of forms". This is all your burden of proof. 
The tree didn't learn anything anyway. In most countries, not wasting food is more important than trying to force your moral views on old people. Why do you even care? [SEP] Ok I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make. First you say:  >The tree didn't learn anything  Which means you are talking about this story, as obviously there is no such thing as a racist talking tree. But then you say:  >In most countries, not wasting food is more important than trying to force your moral views on old people.   Which implies you are now talking about the real world. But see that doesn't make sense, because there is not a single instance I can think of where there is a charity, run solely by old people, that feeds a bunch of children except the ones they are discriminating against because of race. If you are not referring to the real world and are, for some reason, referring to trees as people, it still is a weak argument as trees can live for hundreds of years, enough for many generations of black children to be denied the shiny, shiny fruit.   Finally you ask why do I care. Now if you ask why I care about the tree in the story, then the simple answer is I don't. I just enjoyed playing along with the absurd fantasy of a talking racist tree. If you are asking why I care about old racist people, well I suppose it would be a number of reasons. First, I think it is a bit condescending to just ignore grandpa's racism because "He's so old he doesn't matter" or some such variant. Secondly, I don't think it is acceptable for anyone, regardless of how close they are to kicking the bucket, to say or do mean things to someone on account of attributes that they have no control over. Thirdly, I am a firm believer that is never too late to learn, and I would hope that when I am old and decrepit, people take the time to inform me on how the world has changed, if it seems obvious that I am stuck in the past. And last of all, their racism isn't always harmless. And even if it isn't as overtly racist as using your position of power to discriminate against someone else, it can still be dangerous. The racists of tomorrow are shaped by the warped ideals of those they trust, those that raise them. That 'harmless' old man, could be providing us with the next generation of bigots. 
> So you're questioning what the analysts say after they get concrete data about the situation because their predictions were wrong?... that's uhhh reasonable. I'll be waiting for the evidence to your counterpoints from the professionals you've collected though...   Uh no, I'm questioning their conclusions if they are based on wrong information.. especially once that can't be unproven (hence, even more likely to be biased) like Solo bombed because of bad marketing and being to close to TLJ... right...  > Except, again, you're comparing marvel to Star Wars. Something that analysts learned from the Solo debacle is that Star Wars is more of an event and needs to be properly marketed, built up and slotted.   Except that, no, there is nothing that supports that.. you're just grabbing data and then fitting your own biased narrative around it. There is no reason for this level of under performance. You do realize that the underlying reasoning for it being "too close" to TLJ is because of the bad reception to TLJ right?    Badly marketed? That's an euphemism for not generating enough interest.. what can suck the interest out of a film series? Heavily badly received previous installment... Remember during the trailer for TFA when the Millenium Falcon first flew onto the screen? Where I was people stood and cheered.... This time? bleh.. whatever... yeah.. same thing.. completely different effect.. what is the cause of this? Was it TFA? Or was it the last time they saw the Falcon? exactly.    It's not Marvel... It's not even DCEU... Even all of those have outgrossed Solo... ohhh.. and BvS and Suicide Squad were released 5 months from each other (oh, they weren't too close?..) and they both trounced Solo.. And SS was also not in the "main" series... kinda like Solo.. hmmmm..  > Ant-Man and the Wasp made 600 mil at the box office after Infinity War made 2 bil. That's 30% of Infinity War's grossing...   Yeah, sure.. I'll give you that one.. but Ant Man was never meant to be as big as Solo was.. it slightly under-performed.. Solo outright bombed..   > (including the doubling of its budget during production)   When a movie is supposed to make 1b and it makes less than half it's a frikin' bomb.. budget issues are aside from that.. it wouldn't have been considered less of a bomb if it lost less money.. still lost money.  > I'm gonna wait for you to provide me with the experts that refute the analysts claims and back whatever your claims even are... because you don't seem to have any points other than "analysts wrong" which, I mean, sure you can discredit the professionals, but that's a pretty lofty goal where you're gonna need evidence...   Hate to break it to you, but they have no evidence either.... who pays for their services? Who benefits from this "it was just badly marketed and too close to TLJ" narrative? Is it the fans? Or is it the multi billion dollar company with millions in marketing budget? Why would tracking say that Solo was set to open at 170 million? Why say that it had presold more than BP??? Why? cuz they pick and choose whatever metric they like and they bend it to fit a narrative to serve their purposes...   ​  What "evidence" do you have?  ​  ​  ​ [SEP] Holy... honestly where do I even start with this mess...    >Uh no, I'm questioning their conclusions if they are based on wrong information.. especially once that can't be unproven (hence, even more likely to be biased) like Solo bombed because of bad marketing and being to close to TLJ... right...    Analysts analyze the a films performance and try to find route causes for it. They search through every piece of evidence there could be and come to a conclusion based on their expert opinion. You're challenging that expert opinion with nothing but your own, non-expert opinion and saying that their information is "wrong" without actually providing anything to the contrary. They're working with the same information you are. The difference here being it's their job to comb through it and tell us why it happened. And if you want to counter that, well you better have the evidence to prove it more than just your opinion on the data...    You're arguing that all the experts, all reaching a similar consensus, were all biased towards Disney, when, if you look at their "bad marketing, too close release" claims, that's literally criticizing Disney on how they handled the film... So if anything, looking at what they said, it would have to be a bias against Disney since they're almost universally squaring the balme on the company's mismanagement of the release...     >Except that, no, there is nothing that supports that.. you're just grabbing data and then fitting your own biased narrative around it. There is no reason for this level of under performance.    Yes there is. Again, you're doing what you claim I'm doing with every single paragraph you type! It’s astounding, honestly. I’m going on the professional’s words. You can challenge them, but pardon me if I don’t buy into your opinion just because you say it’s so… You need to back it up with evidence of your claim… I’m still waiting for you to do so, but all you’re doing is giving more anecdotal analyses from your own opinion. (And you complain about biases in the professionals… why the fuck should I be trusting you?)    >Badly marketed? That's an euphemism for not generating enough interest..  Um, that’s what bad marketing means? That’s not a euphemism… do you even know what that word means? You’re not using it correctly…  >what can suck the interest out of a film series? Heavily badly received previous installment…  Nope, because according to the data, the previous installment was not “heavily” badly received. So, really, analysts would be looking at that to determine whether it affected Solo, but what they’d find is the opposite of what you’re trying to claim. You’re also discounting every other piece of evidence and going for your one, largely unsubstantiated claim, which of course, is always the right way to go about stating your case…  >Remember during the trailer for TFA when the Millenium Falcon first flew onto the screen? Where I was people stood and cheered.... This time? bleh.. whatever... yeah.. same thing.. completely different effect.. what is the cause of this? Was it TFA? Or was it the last time they saw the Falcon? exactly.  No it was the fact that nobody asked for this movie. It never generated interest amongst the fan base even before TLJ. The bad press from the firing of Lord and Miller and rumors of acting coaches, the pumped up doubled budget, these are the things that killed any sort of hype that could be generated. Add to that the movie only go it’s first trailer 3 months before it came out… Like I don’t even need an expert to see the signs you’re so willfully ignoring with your own, biased opinion you’re trying to peddle as fact with no evidence…. >It's not Marvel... It's not even DCEU... Even all of those have outgrossed Solo... ohhh.. and   My god you’re so condescending and it’s so unearned it’s laughable…   >BvS and Suicide Squad were released 5 months from each other (oh, they weren't too close?..) and they both trounced Solo.. And SS was also not in the "main" series... kinda like Solo.. hmmmm..  So wait a minute… Suicide Squad was heavily marketed a ton before even BvS was out… BvS came out 5 months before Suicide Squad, you’re right, and was not very well received amongst fans… It was pretty hardly debated, split the fan base of the DCEU and was pretty unpopular in the general public, plus had terrible critics scores… and the movie that came out five months later made a lot of money, right? So then wouldn’t the conclusion be drawn that maybe the previous installment being unpopular doesn’t have an affect on the next film? If going to use your non substantiated logic, that is… jee maybe there's something else factoring into Solos performance?  In reality, of course, you’d know that the circumstances between the two series were totally different being Suicide Squad had brilliant marketing and generated hype from day 1 where as Solo had all the opposite going for it, plus a star who was relatively unknown and couldn’t draw people to the seats like Suicide Squads Jarred Leto, Margot Robbbie and Will Smith could… all in starring roles… You’re honestly digging yourself deeper here with each thing you say… >Yeah, sure.. I'll give you that one.. but Ant Man was never meant to be as big as Solo was.. it slightly under-performed.. Solo outright bombed..  You’re changing the goal posts. You asked for a movie that made 30% of the pervious movie’s gross. I gave you an example from a series you’ve been using as an example to counter Solo by comparing the two, but now you’re saying “Oh well we can’t compare them because they’re not meant to be the same” when Ant-Man is literally side story that has none of the same cast carrying over from the pervious installment and had limited marketing and not a lot of hype generated around it when it came out to okay reviews… But sure, We’ll go by your opinion again on this one… jeeeeeeeesus  >When a movie is supposed to make 1b and it makes less than half it's a frikin' bomb..   Show me where ANYONE said Solo was supposed to make 1b. I’ll wait.   >budget issues are aside from that.. it wouldn't have been considered less of a bomb if it lost less money.. still lost money.  Um, yes it would? Wtf are you talking about? The only reason it’s considered a bomb is because it didn’t make anything close to it’s overinflated budget. Please look up the definition of “box office bomb” please because again, you’re using words in which you don’t know the definition. If Solo had budget of 300 mil and made 400 mil, it would be considered LESS of a bomb than when it had a budget of 600 mil and made 400 mil. Holy fuck, my dude…   Here’s the definition of box-office bomb: "In the motion picture industry, a "box-office bomb" or "box-office flop" is a film that is considered highly unsuccessful or unprofitable during its theatrical run, often following significant hype regarding its cost, production, or marketing efforts.[1][2] Generally, any film for which the production and marketing costs exceed the combined revenue recovered after release is considered to have "bombed”.[3]” >Hate to break it to you, but they have no evidence either….   I have expert opinions… Which are good enough for the court of law, but apparently not enough for you. Please never become a judge…  >who pays for their services?  Not Disney, they’re paid by whatever company hired them to do box-office analyses, usually an outside firm. They cover all studios and are not some kind of “bounty box-office analysts” that you just hired like an independent contractor. Wtf, you have no clue what you’re talking about…  >Who benefits from this "it was just badly marketed and too close to TLJ" narrative?  Not Disney, since, again, it’s "their wild mishandling of the film that caused it to flop” is not exactly a good look for them. So much so that Bob Iger had to make a statement about it recently and rework their methods…  >Is it the fans? Or is it the multi billion dollar company with millions in marketing budget?  It’s neither, it’s just the facts, buddy. Out down that tinfoil hat and read up on what you’re trying to talk about because it’s very clear you really have no idea.  >Why would tracking say that Solo was set to open at 170 million? Why say that it had presold more than BP???  Because people thought a Star Wars movie had enough hype to array itself on it’s own. Even Disney did, but again, it didn’t. And the factors that led to it’s flop have been very clearly listed out to you. It’s literally predictions, not facts. (Except for it’s presage numbers being higher than BP. That was true, but BP made it’s money not from presales)  >Why? cuz they pick and choose whatever metric they like and they bend it to fit a narrative to serve their purposes…  Seriously, this is tinfoil hat bullshit and you have nothing to back yourself up on this one since your whole argument falls apart when you account for the analysts blaming Disney’s mishandling of the film as the cause… Again, seriously, just please stop. This is incredibly embarrassing...   >What "evidence" do you have?    I’ve given it to you. You can’t throw my request back at me when I have the experts on my side. I’m still waiting for your proof and I’ll continue to do so.    
>whenever anyone defends a religious text or character by appealing to looking at "the whole" or "context", I roll my eyes.  Anything and everything has to be taken in context. Even the ridiculous legalism of Leviticus has a purpose and a place, whether you agree with it or not (also do read about the history of the text, it's basically a lengthy priest fight and people sneaking extra stuff in to win arguments. I don't know why that's so funny to me.)  > Just like the No True Scotsman fallacy, it's a line that's given a free pass in religion even though outside of religion everyone quickly identifies how erroneous it would be to defend atrocious behaviours through context.  The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is just internet armchair philosopher nonsense. A Scotsman is a class defined as "a person who is Scottish". The notion of "no true Scotsman" is just needless analysis of nonsensical attempts to re-define a well established class. The same applies to a religious group. A Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, these all have good working definitions that make it pretty easy to figure out who is or is not a member of each group.    This is why "context" is actually vital - you can't just take a piece of something and claim that it is enough for full understanding of the thing. Hence the pidgin metaphor. And no one, anywhere, is defending atrocious behavior based on the Bible. Very, very few Christians will say "we should kill babies" because God kills babies in the story of Exodus. In fact, your not even address the story by focusing on the death of the first born sons. That's not what the story is about, at all, and to take that piece out and claim that's central to the Tanakh/Old Testament is simply insane. That would be like reading a paragraph of The Lord of the Rings and just assuming that's what the whole book is about. It also ignores things like metaphor and simile and all the things human beings use to tell stories to make them more interesting. [SEP] > The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is just internet armchair philosopher nonsense.  No, the No True Scotsman fallacy is attributed to Anthony Flew as a kind of ad hoc rescue to a counter example. Anthony Flew was not an armchair philosopher, he was professor of philosophy at Oxford and London.  > A Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, these all have good working definitions that make it pretty easy to figure out who is or is not a member of each group.   Yes, which is why the constant accusations various member of the Christian faith hurl at each other of "not being the true Christians" is so very flawed. You're arguing for my exact point.  > Anything and everything has to be taken in context. Even the ridiculous legalism of Leviticus has a purpose and a place, whether you agree with it or not  You're late to this party I'm afraid. The point is not that these things don't have a context, it's that talk of context is usually a smoke and mirrors tactic to defend atrocities that cannot, in any context, be justified.  > (also do read about the history of the text, it's basically a lengthy priest fight and people sneaking extra stuff in to win arguments. I don't know why that's so funny to me.)  As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I have. This was another point I raised that a common response is to assume that the person needs to read more unless they agree with one's interpretation of the text.  > Very, very few Christians will say "we should kill babies" because God kills babies in the story of Exodus.   Can you stop this condescending nonsense if you're actually going to debate this? It's not about whether or not Christians are advocating killing babies, nor has it ever been about that. It's that a supposedly moral perfect being, one falsely claimed by Abrahamists to be worthy of worship, is engaging in the indefensible.  The fact that Christians, in a real-world situation, recognize the atrocity of this act makes my point stronger if anything.  > That's not what the story is about, at all, and to take that piece out and claim that's central to the Tanakh/Old Testament is simply insane.  The story contains, regardless of whatever else is going on, Yahweh committing an act of mass murder of innocents. Do you believe that the plagues, which killed countless innocents in the story, are morally reprehensible?  > That would be like reading a paragraph of The Lord of the Rings and just assuming that's what the whole book is about. It also ignores things like metaphor and simile and all the things human beings use to tell stories to make them more interesting.  EDIT Actually, I'm going to change this bit, when did we slide from "X is a morally reprehensible act" to "X is a morally reprehensible act and is central to the text"? No one has claimed the latter, nor does anyone need to.
The way they dealt with it was great. Some movies might also try to lean a bit too far in the opposite direction, where the frumpy middle aged woman turns out to be the greatest hero who ever lived once she discovers her inner beauty/empowerment.  She struggles, she has difficulty adjusting to her harrowing situation, she nearly blows it all a few times. She's shown as being desirable but not in a way that is exaggerated to the point of being ham fisted. In the end she grows and develops in a way that, while not realistic (because it's a movie), is at least reasonable and feel believable. In other words, they treat her like a real person and not either a running gag or a mary sue, and the movie ends up being excellent for it. [SEP] > where the frumpy middle aged woman turns out to be the greatest hero who ever lived once she discovers her inner beauty/empowerment.  I liked it a lot because she isn't transformed by love or some garbage. She was always a competent agent. She was pigeonholed and treated condescendingly at every turn, but that was based on other people's inability to see past the fact that she's middle aged and chubby. 
Your attitude is prejudiced. One day hopefully you'll see that.  Being emotionally honest is not manipulation. I was just letting you know the very real repercussions of your actions.  You once attacked me because I called you a "gal" with zero malice intended. Hell, you've attacked me over and over again until recently​, so please don't act like I have no reason to see malice in your words after I have specifically had this conversation with you on multiple occasions, yet you continue with your careless attitude and descriptions of my genitalia. [SEP] What about my attitude is prejudiced?   >You once attacked me because I called you a "gal" with zero malice intended.  You say zero malice intended, after saying you'd be happy to educate "you gals", in a condescending manner, and then moved on to "you ladies". Which following "gals" just sounds condescending also.   >Hell, you've attacked me over and over again until recently​,   I've disagreed with you, and refused to agree, yes.   >yet you continue with your careless attitude and descriptions of my genitalia.  What careless attitude? How are my descriptions of surgically constructed genitals wrong? 
So this is an absolutely perfect example of circular logic; if I believe your first sentence, then the rest of your argument falls into place. However, if your root argument is flawed then the whole thing is wrong. I'm not trying to blow you up specifically; however, so, so, so much of today's 'social truisms' are based on shitty/circular logic. It's tragically common.  So let's examine your logical root: "all critics draw from life experience". Is this true? Possibly, but almost certainly not in a unique way. 'Knowledge' is gained by studying the corpus of that field \- you become a mathematician by learning math. You become an art critic by studying art. In this case, you'd study movies. To truly make a cogent argument that gender/race deeply matter and are the exclusive domain of a given gender/race/etc combo, you're going to have to make a coherent argument that 'the human experience' either doesn't exist or is irrelevant. That's a huge fucking ask, and if you can't do it, you're argument is critically weakened (yes, it is. and think about it before you reflexively argue back). Put differently, what did Kael bring that was specific to her gender that Bazin or Ebert could not? Or was she just a really well\-studied analyst of the art itself? More broadly, is criticism about the art or an examination of self by proxy of the art (this is a trick question b/c these are two wildly different things).  Now where gender/race/etc does matter is in today's neo\-film\-criticism, where you have 27yr old writing 'think pieces' that are not film criticism, but instead are commentary on personal/social issues pretending to be film criticism. If you want an example, look at the NYT review of Oceans 8 where the author dedicated 20% of the review to the movie and 80% of the review to commentary on personal/gender/social issues. And to be clear, the author should feel free to write whatever she wants, but her piece was not a movie review; it was a think piece that mentioned a movie. [SEP] > I'm not trying to blow you up specifically  That's fine. In fact, you didn't "blow me up" at all, Lord Logic of /r/movies.  > Is this true?  Yes, it is absolutely true.   > 'Knowledge' is gained by studying the corpus of that field - you become a mathematician by learning math. You become an art critic by studying art. In this case, you'd study movies.   This is an apples and oranges comparison. Movies, unlike art or math, always have a narrative to it. The primary way we process, evaluate, and ultimately critique narrative fiction (and non-fiction) is through our own experience.   Let's take Finding Nemo as an example. People can empathize with Marlin's struggle because they know what it's like to lose something they're responsible for (parents in particular understand this anxiety). People empathize with Nemo's struggle because they know what it's like to want to break free from parental control. These are recognizably human experiences, even though they're fish, so part of the appeal to movies is whether they enthrall/entertain, while arriving at universal truth (or insight) through their stories. Good movies connect with audiences, in some way or another, while bad movies do not.   Yes, critics should study technique and form, since those are important tools in their proverbial arsenal, but they always relate to movies as people first.   > To truly make a cogent argument that gender/race deeply matter and are the exclusive domain of a given gender/race/etc combo  I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that a black critic may approach Get Out differently than a white critic, and so on, and those differences could be worthwhile to readers.  > Put differently, what did Kael bring that was specific to her gender that Bazin or Ebert could not?   She struggled in her early career because she was condescended to as a woman.   > Or was she just a really well-studied analyst of the art itself?  She wasn't just that, and you would know that if you knew more about her. Tell you what: maybe you should read the book Sharp to see why and how female critics approach the field differently.  > Now where gender/race/etc does matter is in today's neo-film-criticism, where you have 27yr old writing 'think pieces' that are not film criticism, but instead are commentary on personal/social issues pretending to be film criticism.   This is a red herring.   > If you want an example, look at the NYT review of Oceans 8 where the author dedicated 20% of the review to the movie and 80% of the review to commentary on personal/gender/social issues.  Are you referring to Dargis' review? First of all, she is not 27. Second of all, it's a pretty thorough review that talks about the film in the context of the heist genre, and the quality of the filmmaking/performances/etc.  
> Not satisfied with that, he gives them loathsome agonising diseases too.  Ok, since you're looking for answers to observed moral conundrums, let's bypass the evidence component!  God did not create the natural world as we see it today; the natural world as described by survival of the fittest is a causal reaction to Jehovah removing his authority from the earth, and allowing Beelzebub to determine "knowledge of good and bad".  The natural world is a reflection of the spirit inside of mankind and the deceiver.  "It's a ~~doggy~~ dog eat dog world"  The original creation was designed as a peaceful symbiotic system, and will be again in the future: ----------------  "On that day I will make a covenant with all the wild animals and the birds of the sky and the animals that scurry along the ground so they will not harm you. I will remove all weapons of war from the land, all swords and bows, so you can live unafraid in peace and safety."  - Hosea 2:18  THIS is Jehovah's creation; not the pale shadow reflected by man's heart under the delusion of the opposition.  "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them."  - Isaiah 11:6  -------------------  Granted, Jehovah allowed this "age" to transpire: ----------------  "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption"  - Romans 8:20-21  I understand your response; I've felt the same way in the past, when I was operating with insufficient data.  --------------  Shall we unwind WHY Jehovah should be trusted to allow the creation to go through this process?  Or, because your concept of God and the natural world is in error, and the argument is not applicable... how about the evidence?  -------------------  On a personal note, what benefit do you gain from becoming an atheist, since the problem remains, but is MORE bleak, since you, the universe, animals and all mankind have quantifiably zero hope other than release from moral frustration by death? E.G. now that you're "thanking Beelzebub" what have you solved?        [SEP] > Ok, since you're looking for answers to observed moral conundrums  Not at all. I'm not looking for answers to 'moral conundrums', and certainly not from the wisdon of sheepherders. I'm pointing out that, as Darwin said, 'nature is red in tooth and claw', and that your 'holy' book has no real answers to this 'conundrum', as you put it. Either your god is responsible for ALL suffering, or he doesn't exist.  > let's bypass the evidence component!  My, how convenient. Once again you sidestep any real questions.  > God did not create the natural world as we see it today; the natural world as described by survival of the fittest is a causal reaction to Jehovah removing his authority from the earth, and allowing Beelzebub to determine "knowledge of good and bad".  This is nought but assertion. You have NO PROOF of this.  > The natural world is a reflection of the spirit inside of mankind and the deceiver.  Bullshit. It's a reflection of an evolutionary arms race, where animals evolve ever more fascinating and efficient ways of avoiding being consumed by other creatures who evolve yet more fascinating and efficient ways of catching and consuming them.  > "It's a doggy dog eat dog world" > The original creation was designed as a peaceful symbiotic system, and will be again in the future:  Ok now this is where I really, really take issue with your bullshit.  How peaceful and symbiotic is, for example, the relationship between, say, the hawk, with his highly acute vision and powerful razor sharp talons, and a field mouse? Do you really mean to suggest that your 'creator' made the hawk with its specialised equipment to do what, rip potatoes out of the ground? It's a highly efficient killer. WHY???? Why did your god make it this way? Ever heard a rabbit scream? Ever seen a pigeon get hit by one of these things, ever watch it writhe on the ground with a broken neck as the hawk casually walks over to it and begins to rip it asunder and consume it whilst it's still alive? Do you really expect anyone to believe that he made them this way but that really, until the 'fall' they ate what, lingonberries? More importantly, do YOU believe it? Have you ever given it a fucking thought? Did you just push it to the back of your mind thinking 'I'm sure god will reveal all in his due time'? Because that, my friend, is a cop-out, and will come back to haunt you.  Don't give me your hypocritical bullshit about your 'god of love', how much love is shown in the falcon's talon? Don't fool yourself with notions of 'oh, but creation is all imperfect because of sin'. We have fossils of these creatures, and FAR far worse, dating much further back than your ridiculous Garden of Eden. Killer whales, with their lovely sharp teeth, have been around for millions of years. Sharks, the most efficient killing machine in the oceans, have been around far longer. Need I mention the dinosaurs? The list of predators is practically endless. So answer me this, without evasion: If your god is both real and a god of love, why is his 'creation' founded upon pain and death? WHY??    > "On that day I will make a covenant with all the wild animals and the birds of the sky and the animals that scurry along the ground so they will not harm you. I will remove all weapons of war from the land, all swords and bows, so you can live unafraid in peace and safety."  And with such fairy tales we reassure out children. Again, you can't submit any proof that this is anything more than wishful thinking.  > THIS is Jehovah's creation; not the pale shadow reflected by man's heart under the delusion of the opposition.  Open your fucking eyes, man. Go to the zoo at feeding time, watch the lions tearing a carcass apart and tell me that they aren't built perfectly for doing just that.  > "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them." > Isaiah 11:6 > Granted, Jehovah allowed this "age" to transpire:  If your god 'allowed' it, why was it going on for so long BEFORE your adam and eve allegedly broke everything? Why?  > "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it  Oh, so god did it. Gotcha.  >on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption  You keep hoping, buddy. It's not happening.  > I understand your response; I've felt the same way in the past, when I was operating with insufficient data.  Please provide your 'data'. Every time I've challenged you, you've avoided my questions. You haven't read my references. You just retreat into posting your ridiculous musings on your scriptures, when the very organisation you say you belong to would throw you out if you publicly admitted you had authored them. (Btw, I doubt you're impressing anyone. Think you're smarter than your governing body, writing your mini watchtower studies? Well here's a newsflash. YOU ARE. Because they are a bunch of idiots. There's nothing special about you though, most people recognise the WTBTS for the cult it is.)  > Shall we unwind WHY Jehovah should be trusted to allow the creation to go through this process?  ...condescending much? SHALL we? More to the point, CAN you?  > Or, because your concept of God and the natural world is in error  More assertion. That's all you have, assertion piled upon assertion.  >and the argument is not applicable... how about the evidence?  WHAT evidence????? You keep ranting about evidence, and fail to provide one iota of it. Again.  > On a personal note, what benefit do you gain from becoming an atheist, since the problem remains, but is MORE bleak, since you, the universe, animals and all mankind have quantifiably zero hope other than release from moral frustration by death?   I'm not morally frustrated. I'm not even sure what you mean by that, or that YOU are sure.   I'm not trying to gain anything by not believing in gods, I simply haven't seen any evidence. Do you believe in your god because you're trying to gain something? Because if so, that is truly pathetic.   Thing is, I'm not an atheist because it benefits me, any more than recognising that I'm going to die benefits me. It's not to solve a problem, it's not because I'm mad at god, it's not because I want freedom to commit what you might call sin. Forget the judgmental nonsense your religion says about those who can't believe in the supernatural.  It's not bleak to accept that this life is all there is. Far from it. Instead of seeing this life as a trial to be endured, a sentence of labour that must be completed to receive a reward, the understanding that this brief moment in time is all we have makes every experience all the sweeter. I climb a mountain, knowing that I might never see the view from the top ever again, and I treasure it. To think that by sheer fluke I should be a sentient being, able to experience part of the universe whilst simultaneously recognising that I am part of that universe, and that I understand my place in the enormity of it in a way that my ancestors could not have dreamed, is a humbling yet joyous thought. I appreciate the fleeting beauty of this planet and the exceeding unlikelihood that it should be as it is, the tiny flukes and coincidences that shaped it, far more than when I believed it was all created by a someone. I swear that's the truth.  >now that you're "thanking Beelzebub" what have you solved?  Seems I've solved the question of whether you can appreciate irony.  Now seriously, answer me this without evasion: If your god is both real and a god of love, why is his 'creation' founded upon pain and death? WHY??  Edit: Just saw this, thought it apropos.  It raises a question I had not thought to touch on; in your paradise, what the fuck is your god going to do with an entire ecosystem based upon the predator/prey paradigm? Eh? Your holy book got an answer to that?
I thought that the info that I had a boyfriend would discourage him, since I believe that the Norwegian translation was just an excuse. Also me explaining that I have a Norwegian boyfriend justified my recent presence in Norway despite not speaking any Norwegian  [SEP] > me explaining that I have a Norwegian boyfriend justified my recent presence in Norway  There's the problem... you thought you needed to justify anything to this begging stranger.  Edit: the other problem I see is my mansplaining. ^^Sorry.
I wouldn't call the history book that most closely matches your views of how the world works, the most "unbiased." And that's something you should have learned a long time ago.  Although the Spanish banned slavery to appease the British, they were perfectly okay will letting it continue in Cuba. Cuba wasn't some lawless places. It was one of the most controlled parts of the Spanish Empire. Nothing happened in Cuba without the direct oversight of the Spanish Empire.  So almost all of Latin America was on edge but yet they made the US give Cuba up? The Same U.S. that wanted Cuba for "generations?" You're grasping at straws now.  The US took Cuba from the Spanish Empire, gave Cuba its independence, and the two countries had a close economic relationship that made Cuba one of the most economically successful countries in Latin America.   Reestablishing economic and political ties isn't going to bring James DeWolf back from the grave.  [SEP] >I wouldn't call the history book that most closely matches your views of how the world works, the most "unbiased."   My views don't come out of one history book. They come out of a few. Your own, however, appear to be painfully distorted. I mean, how can you honestly sit there are posit all this blindly pro-American rot without questioning it?! It's ridiculous.  >And that's something you should have learned a long time ago.  Trying to condescend doesn't do anything to further you argument. It just serves to make you look like a desperate dick.  >Although the Spanish banned slavery to appease the British, they were perfectly okay will letting it continue in Cuba.   Illegal trading went on all around the world, yes. The point you tried to make (unless you've already forgotten) was that the U.S. did wonders for the Cuban economy. I merely pointed out that slavery was a major U.S. contribution and it didn't help the Cuban people in the main. It enriched foreign nationals and a select few Cubans.   >Cuba wasn't some lawless places.   Who said it was?  >It was one of the most controlled parts of the Spanish Empire.  Who said it wasn't?  >Nothing happened in Cuba without the direct oversight of the Spanish Empire.  Again, your point is?  If I'm being honest, it seems like You're just rambling now. Burping out little snippets and trying to pass them off for knowledge. The thing which is missing from your viewpoint isn't fact though, it's comprehension.  >So almost all of Latin America was on edge but yet they made the US give Cuba up?  No one said that, did they? I said the U.S. made the conciliatory gesture to ease extremely tense relations with Latin America. They were tense because of U.S. fuckery.  > The Same U.S. that wanted Cuba for "generations?"  Other interests in other areas were more pressing, besides, the U.S. maintained control over Cuba with the Platt Amendment and held on to Guantánamo Bay - as it does to this day.  >The US took Cuba from the Spanish Empire, gave Cuba its independence, and the two countries had a close economic relationship that made Cuba one of the most economically successful countries in Latin America.  There you go again, spouting shit from cloud cuckoo land.  Yes, mate. The Americans freed the poor Cubans then handed the country over like benevolent Gods! You poor, hapless son of a bitch. Think. For. Yourself.  >Reestablishing economic and political ties isn't going to bring James DeWolf back from the grave.  No one said it would. You were the person chatting shite about the U.S. raising Cuba's economy up and other assorted bollocks. I was just reminding you of how they contributed because, as with all the other little bits which you don't like (or don't know), you left that part out.  The truth is you refuse to see your country for what it is/was and you need to open your damn eyes.
Dude, you're just embarrassing yourself now.  If the playing field was level, 9/10 South African motorsport racers would be non-white. In reality, 99/100 motorsport racers are white, hence the need for a dedicated programme to address this inequality.  It is not a reflection on black people's ability to compete based on their skin colour, it's a response to real numbers that prove staggering levels of inequality in the sport.  "Passively racist against blacks." Do you even hear yourself?  [SEP] >"Passively racist against blacks."  If I was competing in athletics and they told the rich kids (or some other vector) to sit out so that I can win a medal, I would be embarrassed, and later angry at the condescending organizers. Maybe I have pride, but I suspect many people with a shred of self respect will too.  Once again If I need to repeat myself for the third time in this thread: What barrier does the son of a black politician have, or a black millionaire when signing up for this development program? The answer is none. What barrier would a lower income white kid have. The answer is his race. This is what the kid in the article is actively experiencing - he wants an opportunity not available to him, but because he is born with a certain skin colour he is denied that opportunity. In what universe is this not disgusting?  So the question I have to you - is excluding somebody from an activity based on his skin colour racist or not? Yes or No question.  Then the follow up is racism bad?  >Dude, you're just embarrassing yourself now.  I am sorry if being anti-racist is embarrassing myself. And to whom? People who are okay with racism?   
Generalizing doesn't make you right though either. Maybe men would feel more "welcome" in feminist spaces by learning what their place is in them - they aren't meant to speak over women, which a lot of the time, they do. That's their egos making them "unwelcome," not women. [SEP] >Maybe men would feel more "welcome" in feminist spaces by learning what their place is in them - they aren't meant to speak over women, which a lot of the time, they do. That's their egos making them "unwelcome," not women.  Good point. Male feminists need to "know their place" and toe the feminist line. When female feminists argue amongst themselves, that's fine. But when a male argues with a female, he's "speaking over her" and he's sexist and he's egocentric and he's mansplaining.  Men need a space where they can speak their minds productively without being accused of sexism.
I also feel like there's pretty much no room for rape victims in sex positive feminism. In groups I've run in, BDSM is a huge, empowering thing. It's incredibly triggering for me and I'm not comfortable with men getting off by beating women. I know that if I said this though, I'd be labeled a "kink shamer." I see feminists pushing this kind of sex on young feminists a lot now, as though it's some progressive thing.  I also agree with everything you said. [SEP] > I also feel like there's pretty much no room for rape victims in sex positive feminism  This is SUCH a good point. They are all so pro-BDSM, etc. Very alienating to someone like me, who could never even entertain the possibility.   Also, the "tragedy of the commons" and all their screaming of "but but but I love anal!" has meant I've been anally raped on four separate occasions for saying no, twice quite brutally. Not to mention orally raped, as well, for seeming "reluctant." Thanks, liberal feminism, for positioning heterosexual anal sex as de rigeur and for agreeing with men that we're supposed to keep them happy at all times with blow jobs! (Let's all compete to be the best blow job givers EVER!)  They are so supposedly against rape (under the guise of promoting "enthusiastic consent," a smokescreen for "whatever you consent to is okay as long as you're doing so enthusiastically, encouraging unhealthy behaviors is in fact very healthy, and what's more, let's put some pressure on, too, because monogamy is for babies and Puritans, and IMO vanilla isn't even a flavor, amirite, ladieezzz"), in such a "methinks thou doth protest too much" sort of fashion, it's hilarious. Rape is the logical endpoint of the philosophy they are espousing.  However, it's okay to not be into BDSM as a rape victim, for liberal feminists, the way they think radical feminists are radical feminists because of "trauma." There's a kind of condescending pat-on-the-head tone, as if we have no real critical analysis in outlining just how "problematic" their libertarian sexual philosophy is under the violent hierarchy called patriarchy: "There, there. We know what happened to you. That's why you're so irrationally scared of a little light spanking and always talking about male violence. You poor thing."  Recently I have been seeing a lot of pro-"sex work," pro-porn, pro-gender libfems having meltdowns on social media post #metoo. I mean, even the ones who have not been victimized (per SE--they have, in their sexual interactions, they just aren't admitting it or it hasn't been violent, just exploitative), but who have realized they have tons of friends who are rape victims. They are just absolutely melting down, more than we who have actually been violently victimized and have known this shit all along and have spent a long time coming to terms with it, and what it means for us and for our lives, difficult as that internal conversation may be.  It would be kind of funny if it weren't so sad.  shrugs  ETA: I know some of them ARE victims who are in denial, and are struggling with repetition compulsion, and I feel for them too. I mean more those for whom the patriarchy has been mostly abstract thus far (who brush off the sexual harassment, convince themselves they like male sexual dominance, tell themselves bad sexual encounters were one-offs, were exceptions, and otherwise are able to deny the existence of patriarchy and systemic male violence/male sexual violence because it hasn't been shoved in their faces enough times yet, or they've escaped the worst of it, while still being trained into it...I don't mean those who have experienced the worst of it and become masochistic and self-harming. I feel really, really bad for them, and I really understand, because I was stuck there for a while, too).  
I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.  >If picturing me as a meathead with a Tapout tank top makes you feel any better go ahead.  Have i done anything close to indicate that those who a) like brawls or b) did not like the fight are "meatheads with a tapout tank top"?   Of course not, you are projecting your own snark on me.   This was a highly technical and to me not very boring fight, you seem to take offence to my point of view and see snark where little or no snark is.  [SEP] Most of the people who would make a comment like you initially are the same people who calls anyone who doesn't like a fight like this a just bleed meathead, I am sorry if I offended you with my presumptions, I hope you will get over it eventually.  >This was a highly technical and to me not very boring fight  You keep pretending like you just wanted to tell the world that you did like the fight. That you in no way whatsoever was implying that finding the fight boring was wrong in any way. That's not how I read your initial comment at all. Seriously, try rereading it, you come off as a condescending douche. Next time you could say something along the lines of "maybe you didn't like the fight but I thought it was a highly technical and exciting fight, much better than a brawl where neither fighter seems to know what he's doing" if you truly don't mean any offense.
People are drowning in healthcare, childcare, and education expenses. I haven't seen a single Republican policy to really address those issues and certainly not one that follows other successful examples around the world. At least the Democrats were pushing for policies like paid sick leave and expanding healthcare to all.  I don't understand how anyone looks at Republican policies and sees tangible improvements in their life or for their families. I'd love to hear from a Trump supporter what actual improvements they expect from Trump other than vague "more jobs" or "more money to spend on consumer goods". [SEP] > I don't understand how anyone looks at Republican policies and sees tangible improvements in their life or for their families.  And that is exactly why Clinton lost this election. The left fails to see or acknowledge any viewpoint on the right as credible. God damnit, as a liberal, when the fuck will we learn our lesson. The Tory Party, Brexit, and now Trump. WE'RE NOT FUCKING WINNING. STOP WITH THE CONDESCENDING HOLIER THAN THOU BULLSHIT.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.  Windows does work with trying to be Secure, like any OS. Just why would you try to sell that to the typical consumer? You wouldn't - the typical consumer doesn't care how you encrypt data or fixed X number of security vulnerabilities. I am sure you can search online to find out what security features they have implmented if you care about it. Privacy is privacy - ask if you have privacy on any website, you don't. But I am willing to bet your anonymous usage of your PC is more private than what you post on Facebook.  Performance is relative more so to your computer, than the OS. The Desktop interface is already acknowledged as "this should seem familiar" and their changes back to how Windows used to be - outside of Metro. Metro itself isn't a bad thing, it just wasn't vary easy to work with on a typical desktop, which caused frustration to users.  That has been changed since 8.1 anyways. So you obviously are not as up-to-date as you like to think you are.  Cortana is going to be like Google Now or how Siri is. If you think Cortana is bad, don't use your phone's voice commands either.   Windows UPGRADES are free if you come from Windows 7 or Windows 8.x. But, if you were to go and switch from a non-Windows 7+, you will have to buy it like any other OS. This is their way of trying to stop supporting old versions and get people to the newer and better stuff.  If you think any of your life is not collected already, I have shocking news for you. If you have ever been on the Internet since, well, the past 15 years, everything you do is logged in some way. Either anonymously or not.   Do you know how easy it is for a website to actually watch your movements while browsing it? Don't believe me, go look at some analytical software for websites out there. And no, I am not talking about heat maps where people see where you click. There are some out there that will let you "watch" someone's session as they use your website.  Is this information valuable? Yes, very much so to development reasons. People are always so scared about their information on the Internet, which is a very valid concern. But EVERYONE online does it, and if you don't, your product will fail. Why? Because you have no, or at least a lack of, knowledge on your users.  The latest IE is actually pretty nice and not sure about this "bloated features" thing you are talking about.  So I think you are an unacknowledged person who starts babbling and ranting on topics you honestly have little information about. Basically the same type of extremists who starts debates over stupid stuff and feed the rest of the people in this world with misinformation and causes the issues we have today. [SEP] >Just why would you try to sell that to the typical consumer?  What the typical consumer wants does not a good OS make.  >Performance is relative more so to your computer, than the OS.  I don't know what you're implying by this. Are you admitting that Windows performs poorly? Maybe performance is more relevant to computer than OS, but that doesn't excuse Windows' performance. Are you saying Windows users should just get used to having to buy more expensive computers?  >Metro itself isn't a bad thing  A walled-garden app store on a desktop OS isn't a bad thing? Touch-orientated apps on a desktop OS isn't a bad thing? Adverts in your start menu and default apps in an OS that cost $100-$200?  >That has been changed since 8.1 anyways. So you obviously are not as up-to-date as you like to think you are.  8.1 changed very little. It actually metro-ized several parts of the OS that didn't use metro before. I don't think you are as up-to-date as you think you are.  >If you think any of your life is not collected already, I have shocking news for you. If you have ever been on the Internet since, well, the past 15 years, everything you do is logged in some way. Either anonymously or not.   I don't appreciate your condescending attitude. It's still possible for well-informed user to stay secure online, just not on Windows.  >But EVERYONE online does it, and if you don't, your product will fail. Why? Because you have no, or at least a lack of, knowledge on your users.  It's possible for analytics data to be collected in an anonymized way. In fact, in Germany, it's the law. There is no reason for analytical data not to be anonymized.  So I think you are an unacknowledged person who starts babbling and ranting on topics you honestly have little information about. Basically the same type of extremists who starts debates over stupid stuff and feed the rest of the people in this world with misinformation and causes the issues we have today.
Really? Quote to me where I am being hypocritical. [SEP]  >Quote to me where I am being hypocritical.  Oh, you shouldn't have said that.  Complains about handicaps being dissed, THEN makes up JOKES ABOUT THEM!   Creates unsuccessful subreddit: r/circletroll, then tries to insult me with "how's r/LasVegas".  Dude, hahahaha, you crack me up. 
>>You are also hilarious to imply that the potus doesn't have advisors   >I made no such implication. Said POTUS was advised by a much smarter group of men (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) who, as smart as they were, managed to hand Iran the elected government of Iraq on a silver platter.   You said that exactly nowhere in this thread of discussion. You just insulted Bush and used his lack intelligence to defend your point.   >>Regional destabilization has predictable effects.  >No, it has chaotic effects. That, and the Bush executive branch did not aim to destabilize Iraq; it aimed to control it.  Lol, how do you think you gain control over a region that is held by a regime? Why do you think so many covert operations aim at destabilization? Just to fuck with people?  >>Save your condescension, it doesn't impress me.   >It's not supposed to impress you. It's supposed to make it possible for your brain to understand the words I'm writing, but it appears that I have overestimated your brain.  Ignorant and a cunt. You're a real winner.  [SEP] >You said that exactly nowhere in this thread of discussion.  I wrote, "Said POTUS was...", not "I said POTUS was...". So I was agreeing with you that he had advisors. But I was also saying that they did fuck up.  >how do you think you gain control over a region that is held by a regime? Why do you think so many covert operations aim at destabilization?  Sure, that's the standard playbook. Duh. However, it doesn't always go according to plan. It certainly didn't here. Check out South Vietnam for a particularly ham-handed example.   >Ignorant and a cunt. You're a real winner  You know what got me started? You were being condescending. When I matched your snark, you accused me of being condescending. Classic.
Indefinite detention? Are you referring to Guantanamo? If so, you need to do a little reading.  Drone strikes? What is ethically wrong with drone strikes? Nothing at all. You're going to vomit up a link to the wedding party strike but that's not an argument against drone strikes.  And the trade treaties haven't even been put up for congressional review yet.  What annoys me about people in general is that, even though there really are a number of things to criticize about Obama's or any other president's time in office, people invariably have no idea what they're talking about when they talk about how great or how crappy a president is.  [SEP] I'm referring to the law that was passed in 2012 Anyone ready to play 3 degrees of a terrorist?    What's wrong with drone strikes? Oh I don't know, probably the fact that they target "militants" in battle zones who are defined as any man between the age of 15 and 45. Lets not forget the women and children we're blowing right out of their socks. But fuck them though, right? The ends justify the means, and there are less brown people in the world. Job well done. Lets BBQ and grab some beers. I don't mind drone strikes, I mind killing innocents because of shitty intel. I mind that another drone strike happens 10 minutes after killing first responders to the scene. Ambulances, children, neighbors. I mind when you kill American hostages.  >And the trade treaties haven't even been put up for congressional review yet  I didn't say they had. What's already been leaked is terrible however. See before, these corporations had to at least bribe the politicians. If these shitty bills are passed, they'll be able to write their own laws.  What annoys me about people in general, is their default asshole attitude state, which tends to leave their stunted social interactions dripping with a condescending "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality. 
Ok, some things:   You don't need to sign your posts with your full name. Pero go lang if you want to.   You seem to have a very fixed view of /r/philippines. Why, what happened?   Let me tell you what I said to a Duterte supporter like you: We are not your enemy. We're fighting the same fight, actually. Here's my convo with them. It's very civil.   You're the mod of /r/unbiasedph/. One of the recent posts there is a link to a video entitled "Pres Duterte 1st Achievements Part 3 - Mr Riyoh feat Socmed Warriors". You claim to be unbiased. Would you accept memes critical of Duterte, too? Not outright mocking him, mind. Just viewing his presidency objectively.  > kaya 50/50 nalang yung subreddit na yan kasi parang neutral lang ito. so sa mga dutertXXXs dyan na ayaw lang naman sa ganyang content, meron naman akong subreddit na namamanage but due to sleeping issues eh parang idle or parang wala lang so i don't want to link a subreddit para iwas issue :). "eh hanapin nyo kung anong subreddit ko pero bawal witchhunt doon kaya baka magdidisable ako ng some features na para patas ;)"  Please, what does "neutral" mean to you? [SEP] > You seem to have a very fixed view of /r/philippines. Why, what happened?  He posted his "comics" in an AMA and then other users gave him constructive criticisms because... to be blunt, they were quite meh (and that's being nice).  Then he started to attack people who   (1) critiqued his "comics"   (2) gave him tips on how to survive if he should pursue his comics interest  (3) other people who participated in his AMA.   He was rude and condescending, and this being reddit, you know what happened next.  -Merdio Nesmon Dragon
Why are so many people my age idiots? Sitting there, playing a bunch of memes at earrape levels over speakers they're not allowed to use, giving me literal hearing loss, and not stopping when I tell them off. [SEP] >not stopping when I tell them off.  If you really want them to stop, then you gotta give them some level of respect and ask nicely instead of "telling them off". Also, maybe not sound condescending/have a "better than thou" attitude (your question kind of gives off that vibe).
If they are different things then absolutely and it is not hypocrisy to do so. So no, I'm not implying it, I'm flat out stating it.  Even if they are exactly the same thing and the suggestion is that the other person is doing that thing to excess when they could very easily do a more reasonable amount of it (which is much more relevant here) then that's absolutely fine.   What I can't do is say "this thing which I am doing to the same degree as you is something which you should not do, even though our circumstances are not significantly different".  For example, if we were both going to kill and eat a pig and I decide that I'm going to beat my pig to death because the suffering makes it taste better I can't then criticise you for beating your pig to death. If you were going to kill your pig using an instant painless method because you believe that suffering should be minimised then you are absolutely entitled to tell me that what I am doing is wrong. Even if you were going to slaughter it in a less painful way because it is not possible to eliminate suffering completely then you are perfectly entitled to criticise me for my actions and belief that suffering is to be maximised if it improves food.  I don't give one single solitary shit about your diet, what it involves or farming statistics. phauna expressed the view that your diet seems to involve a lot of animal protein and that producing this involves greater environmental harm than producing plants. The only acceptable responses would be to either show how your diet does not involve a lot of animal protein compared to a normal diet or to show that farming animals causes no more environmental damage than farming plants (actually, a third option would be to concede the point that producing animal protein is more damaging but that you don't think that this is important). Your actual response was "yeah but other sorts of farming harm the environment too and we both do other things that cause other sorts of harm to other things as well". That isn't the issue.   We all depend on the environment and, due to the society we live in we all contribute to things which harm it. Is it really unacceptable to you that someone might hold the view that it is ethically preferable for us to at least attempt to make decisions which will lead to slightly less environmental harm than others? [SEP] > Even if they are exactly the same thing and the suggestion is that the other person is doing that thing to excess when they could very easily do a more reasonable amount of it (which is much more relevant here) then that's absolutely fine.  There is a difference between suggesting a change and telling someone that what they are doing is unethical. Phauna did the latter.  > phauna expressed the view that your diet seems to involve a lot of animal protein and that producing this involves greater environmental harm than producing plants.  Phauna was condescending and stated many "facts" about the diet that just weren't true. When I explained those misinformed opinions I got nothing but more misinformed opinions and telling me my diet is unethical.  > The only acceptable responses would be to either show how your diet does not involve a lot of animal protein compared to a normal diet  If you had actually read all of our discussions in this thread you would realize I have stated many times that you don't have to eat an excessive amount of meat to be on paleo. It is up to the choice of the individual how much meat they want to consume. Some people consume meat every day, others just every week or so. After I pointed this out to Phauna, he/she continued on with the "Paleo = excessive meat and that's bad" posts.  > Is it really unacceptable to you that someone might hold the view that it is ethically preferable for us to at least attempt to make decisions which will lead to slightly less environmental harm than others?  Before you decide to respond again you should probably read the other discussions we've had in this thread. It should shine some light on where Phauna is coming from. 
Dark theme? Be prepared for burn-in. Didn't you know that's why Google made the status bar the same color as the app you're using; for aesthetics, and because their upcoming Nexus 6 has a shitty 2012-gen AMOLED panel that would burn in easily. This is also a reason why Samsung doesn't use on screen buttons. Yes, the display on the Galaxy S6 may have improved, but the potential for burn in will always be there, that's just the downfall of AMOLED tech. Don't expect it to be fixed anytime soon. Yes you might be a proud S6 owner who's a bit in denial that your gorgeous AMOLED display could possibly have a "con" but I'm just presenting facts. This is my opinion, if you don't like it, too bad. The fact you don't like what I have to say doesn't change the fact that your AMOLED display is burning as we speak. [SEP] > The fact you don't like what I have to say doesn't change the fact that your AMOLED display is burning as we speak.  Unless it's off.  But really, you're being incredibly condescending about someone else's phone. He's probably quite informed about the issue, already.
A better gaming experience is to play them in proper order. Your comment tells me what kind of gamer you are and, hey, you do you. In the case of OP, it's irresponsible to tell him to play a third game in a connected series when he has the chance to start things out the right way. [SEP] > Your comment tells me what kind of gamer you are and, hey, you do you.  I don't know if you meant it to come off as such, but this sounds like an incredibly condescending statement.
The point is that the debate over gun violence is more complex and nuanced than getting shot is bad. And to have uneducated people in that debate does no good for the people or the debate.  [SEP] I reject that premise.   > The point is that the debate over gun violence is more complex and nuanced than getting shot is bad.  We are not yet at any debate. These kids, and a majority of the country, have been and still are at the point where there is a demand for recognition of the facts, and committment to action. The facts that getting shot is bad, and committment to the idea that there are actions that our government can take to make this situation better, and that we expect lawmakers to do their fucking jobs. Rallies are not a debate. They are a demand for action, a cry for help.  And I reject this conclusion: > And to have uneducated people in that debate does no good for the people or the debate.   This statement from you reads to me like you think you, or someone else, gets to tell people that they should shut up, that they do not deserve to have their concerns heard. It reads like you want stasis with a pretense of debate.  Who do you think gets to shut people up when we all are in danger? You? I find your conclusion obnoxious, condescending, and arrogant.
God ... where to start ...  If 2000 years ago isn't history enough for you then allright. The earth belongs to Africans , since they settled everywhere first.   [SEP] >If 2000 years ago isn't history enough for you then allright. The earth belongs to Africans , since they settled everywhere first.  You realize 250 AD was ~ 1765 years ago as well (nearly 2000 years as well), and that was when Azerbaijanis began settling Caucasian Albania under the Persian Sassanid Empire? ( http   ( http  - the old Azeri language was spoken in "Aturpatakan", same region neighboring Caucasian Albania, ( http  - which later became known as Adharbayagan, and later Azerbaijan?...  And you're the one really being condescending and acting like the hot shot? 
Griefing is when your crew does something like dropping loot, blowing up your own ship, dropping the anchor repeatedly, etc.  Playing the game as intended is never griefing. Plenty of carebear games for you to play kiddo. This one obviously isn't for you. Your mommy didn't teach you to have a thick skin it seems. [SEP] > Plenty of carebear games for you to play kiddo.   Ironic considering you're acting like a child. Could you be any more obnoxiously condescending?   > Your mommy didn't teach you to have a thick skin it seems, it seems.  Looks like yours didn't teach you how to not be a jerk.
Thanks. I expected to get downvoted. there are a BUNCH of TLJ defenders here. I dunno, everyone has an opinion... It just sucks that I have to defend my view point againts people who wouldn't understand the difference between shiny and shallow, and intelligent writing full of lore and depth. [SEP] You're not being downvoted for having an opinion, you're being downvoted for making accusations that are blatantly, verifiably false.  >people who wouldn't understand the difference between shiny and shallow, and intelligent writing full of lore and depth.  That may be another reason why you're being downvoted. Piss off with that condescending BS. You know it's capable to disagree with an opinion without accusing the people who hold that opinion of being complete and utter morons, right? 
I'd walk around, I saw a few HELP WANTED signs on Pacific when I was there last week. Also, walk around and talk to people, especially in businesses or fields you're interested in. What do you like? Carpentry? Surfboards? Jewelry? Food/restaurants? Just kind of "happen by" and hang around a bit, get talking with people.   I know it's shocking but there's actually a real world out there and it's best accessed by stepping away from the monitor and venturing out into the "big blue room". Computer resumes' are just about worthless because you can't even use one to wrap old gum in.  [SEP] > I know it's shocking but there's actually a real world out there and it's best accessed by stepping away from the monitor and venturing out into the "big blue room". Computer resumes' are just about worthless because you can't even use one to wrap old gum in.  I agree with your first paragraph but this was not only unnecessarily rude/condescending, and just plain wrong. Both my current jobs had online applications, so I'm not quite sure where you get off on saying "computer resumes are just about useless". I did print a bunch of copies of it because I did the whole "walk into the store, chat, give them your resume" routine but none of those attempts were fruitful. Probably depends on the job but dismissing online resumes/applications as "worthless" is just dumb.
I'm pretty disappointed to say the least. Buford said he would not overpay Splitter and that is exactly what he went and did. I love Splitter but he is not worth 9mil a year. We finally had options and money to spend and we overpay Splitter. Once we sign Manu our free agency is over unless they decide to ammensty Bonner to let us sign some old vet for the minimum. We are a team that needed to added pieces, not stay the same. We we were very fortunate this year to get where we did and none of it was because of Splitter. We won't win a championship with a overpaid soft center.  [SEP] > We we were very fortunate this year to get where we did and none of it was because of Splitter.  I completely disagree with you. Splitter was one of the Spurs’ most important players this season, ranking fourth in overall net rating and first among the starters in defensive net rating. He was a big part of sweeping the Lakers and the Grizzlies. What was the biggest adjustment against the Warriors that eventually stopped Steph Curry? The Miami series was a shitty match-up for him and he definitely didn't convert point blank shots, but to say that "none of it was because of Splitter" is patently ill informed. Bigs get paid in this league, pure and simple. Is this your first time watching the Spurs? I dont mean to condescend, Im just saying that he gets better and better every year. 
Peeping. lol  I think that what you find clear is funny. The toxic attitude in this sub needs someone to help mitigate it's damage. The way people are trying to change and engineer new social behavior is disgusting.  When women act like that no one bats an eyelash. When men do it everyone comes out to hate on them. It is pretty easy to see the double standard.  What you consider harassment is toxic. You have a problem. You need some help. [SEP] >When women act like that no one bats an eyelash.  No, if my neighbour was a woman, stronger than me, being condescending and sexually harassing me, and then peeping on me as well, I would do more than bat an eyelash. I would confront them about it with an ultimatum to cease and desist before I got legal authorities involved. That is what legal authorities are for. No one should have to put up with sexual harrassment and bullying.  I am confident that I am not the one who needs help here. I am confident that if you displayed this behaviour you're showing me here in a public sphere I would not put up with your defense of this abusive shit and neither would the law abide it if you decided to enact similar behaviour. You are maladjusted and need to relearn some social mores.
Sorry to hear that, man... sounds like she's in a better place tho... [SEP] > sounds like she's in a better place tho...  ~~So being dead without me is better than being alive with me? Aren’t you a condescending fucking asshole.~~  Apology accepted.
I'll disagree. I played it in like 2005 or 2006 and I wasn't impressed. The story just had nothing for me. Everyone got super hype over Gordon Freeman but his character was boring as fuck. 100% of his character is built by surrounding characters and I would argue it wasn't even done that well. I found the story to be rather "meh", I actually really enjoyed the music, and the general mechanics weren't awe-inspiring to me (especially when you compare Halo 2 releasing only a few days prior). [SEP] > Everyone got super hype over Gordon Freeman but his character was boring as fuck.  I don't mean this in a sarcastic, condescending way like this is usually said but I think you missed the joke there. Freeman has no character at all. There's nothing there. I remember there were a bunch of jokes making fun of that in that fake hype sort of way with over the top backstories and reactions, but none of it was sincere.  
>Except that no it doesn't because the science of flight takes Earth's gravitational pull into account. You're really sounding foolish here.  Let's move you to Mars. Earth's gravitational pull won't stop you there, but you still won't be able to fly. Or let's put you into geostationary orbit - and you'll be able to fly in the Earth's gravitational pull, with no external influence.  The cause is you being unable to reach sufficient speed to overcome gravitation, not gravitation itself.  >If this is your basis for ignoring scientific fact then you might as well swallow large amounts of arsenic just to make sure the models are accurate.  Please, learn the difference between fact and theory. Adverse effects of arsenic are verifiable, have a clear mechanism with no unknown variables and have thousands and thousands of study cases in support of them - so they are a fact.   Climate models can't be proven (as we can't conduct an experiment at that scale, real life data is contaminated and driven by Black Swan events, and models are contaminated by real life data as they are constantly tweaked to fit it more), have innumerable unknown parameters (we can't input data on every leaf and insect) and are incredibly complex, so that no computer ever can even run the simulations without oversimplifying things. So saying that any of their predictions are going to come true is a theory, not a fact.  And blindly accepting any poorly made theory just because of its authors/supporters is not science, it is religion. Go preach in the nearest mosque if you want to do that. [SEP] >Let's move you to Mars.  Yes because you're so desperate that you'll do anything to be right, even if it means creating desperate hypothetical situations based on ignoring all context..  >Please, learn the difference between fact and theory. Adverse effects of arsenic are verifiable, have a clear mechanism with no unknown variables and have thousands and thousands of study cases in support of them - so they are a fact.  Speak for yourself. It's a scientific fact that the Earth's temperature is moving on an upward curve at a level that it has never previously reached. This is also correlating with our level of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases are proven to act as heat traps when released into the atmosphere. This is also correlating with rising ocean levels and temperature. This isn't just theory, it's supported by facts.  You talk a lot about models not reflecting variables but what do you really know about them? You sound like you just don't want to believe that they work because you don't want to believe global warming is a real issue.  >And blindly accepting any poorly made theory just because of its authors/supporters is not science, it is religion. Go preach in the nearest mosque if you want to do that.  Right because everyone who understands the facts behind global warming does so on a religious basis... Your condescending attitude is A. Uncalled for and B. Demonstrates your ignorance to how science actually works. Oh wait sorry, I forgot you're the guy who disagrees with scientists and people who've spent their lives studying this subject because you can't trust experts since they're too dedicated.
>Another factor for all these upvotes is the fact that most redditors are socially awkward, so when someone actually pays some attention to them, redditors get happy.  You lost me here. Your cynicism has warped your sense of reality. There's just as much good in the world and in people as there is bad, and I think the good is winning out here.  People who take this view annoy me, because they seem to think that because they see all the ways things could go wrong or have sinister motivations, they've seen the truth of the situation and everyone else is a moron.  I went through a phase like this as a teenager: I started discovering all the bad, nasty things about the world, and thought I was realizing The Truth and that all the good things didn't exist. Then I got older and realized things aren't so black and white, and that you can choose which aspect you focus on. Life is much better this way.  If you've found actual evidence that this is some multinational corporation lying to us about its product, by all means blow the whistle. If you feel the urge to caution people not to be blindly trusting, try do it in a way that's not insulting, or even better, just let people learn on their own. But if you just have a negative view of the world and other people's ability to navigate it, please just keep those thoughts to yourself. [SEP] Buying a sauce, even an overpriced one, that you would never have bought before, regardless how many ads for it you would watch, isnt necessary "evil". I only suggested that people should always second guess their actions. Dont let their impulses take over because there are people out there who will take advantage of your impulses. Always ask yourself "why am i doing this?". And people on reddit like to brag how they are not cattle.   But the truth is that everyone has a "button" and reddit needs to realize, especially since it is becoming more popular. Reddit is/will be the target for advertisement campaigns like this.  >If you've found actual evidence that this is some multinational corporation lying to us about its product, by all means blow the whistle  I dont know about this particular situation but it is a fact that corporations are using "web 2.0" and are adapting their strategies so that they can reach audiences like the one we have on reddit. But even if we assume that this submission is totally legit, why do you upvote it? If similar small companies submitted a similar posts every day, would you upvote it? Then why this?  PS Insulting? Why am i insulting them? I can understand that i am a bit condescending but i dont think anyone should be insulted(and generally the whole "i am insulted" thing is stupid but ok).
Let me get this straight -- he was rude and listed another number that is frequently published / slightly higher. I get that he should have respected her expertise, but it seemed he was just trying to show knowledge about the subject and agree ("I've read its even 22") that its a BIG PROBLEM.   There are 8,000 service members killing themselves in peace time. We should be glad both candidates have plans to intervene.   This article is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Trump wasn't "wrong" so much as he was impolite. [SEP] >Trump wasn't "wrong" so much as he was perhaps impolite.  No, he was wrong and impolite.  Pretty good rule to live by: If you're going to be a condescending twat, you can't also be a fucking idiot.   Donnie would do well to learn this one. 
>Long hours =/= working hard. I do 60hrs a week, the vast majority of it sat on my arse piloting a lorry  Yes because doctors sit on there arse all day. The amount of ignorance in this statement is hilarious.   Working hard would be doing one of the most academically challenging jobs out there at a fast pace between making critical decisions.   Just because driving a lorry doesn't take a lot of brains doesn't mean being a doctor is the same. It isn't.   I won't waste more time on people who will never be qualified enough to be a doctor but think they somehow know the pace doctors work at and how it isn't hard work. If it were a reasonable statement I'd discuss it but its getting too stupid to bother with unfortunately.  [SEP] > Working hard would be doing one of the most academically challenging jobs out there at a fast pace between making critical decisions.  But they don't do that all day or anything like it and unless you're in a field where you're going to be spending a high amount of time dealing with life risking critical conditions, such as in A&E or ICU/CCU, there isn't going to be much fast paced critical decision making. Much of the time they'll be doing mundane stuff. For example the plastic surgeon currently treating my mother in law after rebuilding her nose following cancer surgery spends more time doing paperwork, ward rounds and initial consultations than they actually do in surgery doing the actual complicated stuff. A GP spends most of their time treating mundane stuff that a lot of the time people don't even need to be seeing the doctor for.  > I won't waste more time on people who will never be qualified enough to be a doctor but think they somehow know the pace doctors work at and how it isn't hard work.  There's some condescending bollocks right there if ever I've seen some. I may be a truck driver but don't think I'm stupid because I do. I left school with exam results that put me in the top 3% nationwide. I come from an engineering background, I did a BEng Honours degree in electronics engineering and according to Mensa tests, when I'm not suffering sleep depravation I have an IQ of 150. I would hazard a guess that I could qualify as a doctor if I so chose to.
Blacks not supporting my candidate of choice? They must not be listening, it couldn't possibly be that they simply disagree!!  You guys are like a caricature of a Bernie bro. [SEP] > Blacks not supporting my candidate of choice? They must not be listening  Or they actually aren't listening? There is a real problem when you have a state with low turnout, a large percentage deciding their vote over a month before the primary and a good percentage of AA's are low info voters.  Objectively speaking, Bernie has the better record at supporting blacks, he was campaigning for civil rights while Hillary was working for Goldwater, he's championed their cause and unlike Hillary not directly done damage to their cause.  So there's nothing wrong with saying they aren't listening because they aren't.  If an entire demographic has decided to vote for a candidate whom has hurt them over the candidate who wants to actually help them and made their minds up a month before the vote, then it means they aren't listening.  This isn't their fault, they feel disenchfranchised and only have mainstream media to go off, but it is what it is.   Anyhow, stop being a condescending dick, it's reaching at best to call him a caricature of a Bernie bro and you know it.
>The Cowboys are going to have a very one dimensional game this year.  Wrong. We will still be a team who controls the game with the run.  >Murray is all about plowing through defenders and fighting for extra yards.  Wrong. Murray is not afraid of contact but he falls forwards. Lynch is a running back who plows through contact. Murray does not compare.  >Randle's playing style is a lot more like Shady. He will try and dance around for those extra yards, and is a fast guy.  Wrong. Randle is a patient one cut runner. He is fast and has more burst than Murray when getting through the hole. He does not dance around like Shady. That is an awful comparison.  >Having Maxwell on Dez, Thurmond on Beasley, and Carroll on Williams with Jenkins over top can cover the receiving corps decently. Not great, but decently.  No one is going to be able to single cover Dez so Jenkins will have to shade to his side. Thurmond will not be able to keep up with Beasley in the slot. No one did last season and no one has during practices, joint practices, or during the preseason. Williams is showing he can be a #1 receiver while Bryant has been on the sidelines.  >To beat Dallas' offense, a basic 4-3 defense, or similar, will do.  Wrong. We beat Seattle in Seattle. They have the best "basic" 4-3 defense in the NFL.   >With the DLine we have, we really only need decent coverage (which we didn't come close to last year).  The coverage will need to be more than decent to compete with our offensive line and our receivers.  >In the passing game, Dallas has Dez, Beasley, Williams, and, of course, Witten. Of that corps, you can put Dez in single coverage with a safety playing high or double him up.   You are finally right about something, covering Dez with a safety help is correct.   >Beasley runs lots of crossing routes, which is why the majority of his yards come after the catch (420 yards in 2014; 250 were YAC). You can have him in man with a linebacker helping if need be. He's almost never the first read for Romo, so defenses don't need to put huge pressure on him.  Wrong. Beasley does not run a lot of crossing routes. He runs option routes which are usually in-outs, comebacks, or slants depending on the coverage. He does get a lot of yards after catch because he usually beats the initial coverage easily. On first and second down you are correct but on third down Beasley is usually Romo's first read.  >By a quick glance of their offense, you don't think the regress much. By actually digging deep into what made their offense successful, they will have to gameplan differently this year than last year by a lot.  A lot of the information you have provided is wrong. Our offense will not regress. We will continue to be a team who runs the ball to control the game.  > Defensively, they lost their best CB.  That is true but you neglect to mention we drafted Byron Jones and signed Corey White. Dallas likes Tyler Patmon and we get a healthy Morris Claiborne back. We lose a great player but we also have depth at the position.  >And none of this takes into account of Tony Romo's Iron Man suit fails him this year. His back is going to fall apart one of these days. If he goes down this year, they have 2 rookies and Weeden. Weeden can't even lead a horse to the water.  Most teams will not succeed if their star quarterback goes down. [SEP] > Wrong. Murray is not afraid of contact but he falls forwards. Lynch is a running back who plows through contact. Murray does not compare.  Falls forward? That's just petty bitterness.  > Wrong. Randle is a patient one cut runner. He is fast and has more burst than Murray when getting through the hole. He does not dance around like Shady. That is an awful comparison.  He absolutely dances around like Shady. He'll take the one cut if there is a huge hole in the line, just like Shady.  > No one is going to be able to single cover Dez so Jenkins will have to shade to his side.   He can cover him "decently." That was the word I used.  > Thurmond will not be able to keep up with Beasley in the slot.   He doesn't always need to keep up with him. The guy runs slants most of the time within 10 yards of the LoS. Our linebacking corps can help out with Beasley, just like both games last year.  > Williams is showing he can be a #1 receiver while Bryant has been on the sidelines.  You haven't even seen Nolan Carroll play.  > Wrong. We beat Seattle in Seattle. They have the best "basic" 4-3 defense in the NFL.  I was talking about this coming season for the entire post. Can't you read? Nothing changed through that point in my post.  > The coverage will need to be more than decent to compete with our offensive line and our receivers.  We beat you dumbasses 33-10 last year with an awful secondary, and then lost 38-27 with that same secondary. That was with a truly pathetic secondary. Now we have competent guys in the secondary.  > You are finally right about something, covering Dez with a safety help is correct.  Being condescending? Really? Grow up.  > Wrong. Beasley does not run a lot of crossing routes. He runs option routes which are usually in-outs, comebacks, or slants depending on the coverage. He does get a lot of yards after catch because he usually beats the initial coverage easily. On first and second down you are correct but on third down Beasley is usually Romo's first read.  No way in hell he is Romo's first read on most 3rd downs when he isn't running a crossing route. Do you even watch the Cowboys games?  > A lot of the information you have provided is wrong. Our offense will not regress. We will continue to be a team who runs the ball to control the game.  And you provided no information. If you think your offense won't regress, you are in for a serious wake up call. You completely ignored the fact that Randle succeeded because defenses game-planned for a totally different running style from Murray.  > That is true but you neglect to mention we drafted Byron Jones and signed Corey White.  I think Byron Jones will be a bust who was a combine star. Wouldn't be even close to the first time that happens. As for Corey White, don't expect him to do anything special. He never has, and, most likely, never will.  > Dallas likes Tyler Patmon and we get a healthy Morris Claiborne back  No one is downplaying Patmon. He's a good player. Claiborne, we'll see. He's had some close to serious injuries in the past.  > Most teams will not succeed if their star quarterback goes down.  Yeah, well most teams don't have quarterbacks with steel backs.  _____  You are so quick to say I'm wrong, and you can't provide any evidence for anything you said. On top of that, you have no idea what the Eagles are even fielding this year. You only know some things about the Cowboys, nothing about why your offense was successful last year, and you know nothing about the Eagles.  Just saying "wrong" does not make me wrong. You can't prove any of what you just said. 
She didn't fuck him. He was fucking her.   I'm not the one who claimed she was screaming at herself to get out of there, that was her. I looked up her sexual history, and that's how I found out she was a rape survivor.   All it did, was provide perspective on the rest.  > she found it funny  She's a comedienne. It's her job. You should hear the jokes other comedians have made about the shit that happens to them. Do you need links?  [SEP] > I'm not the one who claimed she was screaming at herself to get out of there, that was her  She was screaming to leave because she felt embarassed by the whole thing, that he was beneath her.  Not that she was terrified.   Come on.    >I looked up her sexual history, and that's how I found out she was a rape survivor.    Funny how she never mentioned this as being relevant to her experience here. Nor did she claim she was paralyzed with fear as you claim.   >She's a comedienne. It's her job. You should hear the jokes other comedians have made about the shit that happens to them. Do you need links?    I need you to not put words in her mouth.  Try manlistening instead of mansplaining her story. 
My misguided friend, in all your writings you have failed to observe the definition of objective truth. A proposition is generally considered objectively true, to have objective truth, when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. This is science. The purpose of the hypotheses, the tests, the scientific method itself is to strip out the filters of feelings, goals, and opinions of the individual that color our world various shades of colors. The ultimate goal of science is a pure understanding of how the universe. I say again science is not a individual pursuit nor is it a set of knowledge in one given time period. It is a journey all of humanity is walking together. Every generation building upon its predecessors. A relentless search for the objective truth of how the universe functions. [SEP] > My misguided friend, in all your writings you have failed to observe the definition of objective truth.    1\. The colorful adjectives in your arguments are becoming more condescending. I’m not illiterate, nor am I ignorant and I assure you I’ve read you’re comments thoroughly with comprehension. Please share how could you possibly discern what I’ve observed and what I haven’t observed?   > A proposition is generally considered objectively true, to have objective truth, when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.    2\. I’ll share this once more: you claimed it true that we are trapped by our subjective sense like a prisoner in a cell. If that is true, and it is, then a sentient being will have the baggage of bias caused by feelings, ideas and opinions. It’s no secret that the scientific community is compromised of sentient humans. When the experiments are done humans still have to choose what to believe.    You can’t assume a premise true to form your argument, but then contradict the premise to form your conclusion. You’ve continually ignored addressing this point in your replies.   3\. It’s also no secret that scientists and science institutions compete for funding like major federal & state grants and private endowments. As such there is immense social and academic pressure to publish results to secure this funding. You cannot deny that publication bias is real and you can’t deny that scientists and scientific journals prefer to publish positive results of experiments and tests over null results. I’m not saying they lie; I am saying you are being somewhat naïve and are turning a blind eye to socio-economic factors.    > This is science.    4\. False. In fact I’m convinced at this point you are asserting scientism (which is itself unscientific). Scientism is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. This fallaciously raises the expectations of science to that of an infallible religion.    > A relentless search for the objective truth of how the universe functions.   5\. Bingo. This passes the duck test. It sure looks like scientism, swims like scientism and quacks like scientism. It’s probably scientism. 
It's not a strawman at all. You, and every other feminist who decries "manspreading" take umbrage with the realities of male anatomy. If you didn't, manspreading wouldn't exist outside of Tumblr. Yet here we are.  > the initial surge of manspreading pictures  And there it is. "The initial surge". Third wavers found something to complain about, then it became this feminist cause celebre and big news in places.  I'm told time and time again that my understanding of feminism is flawed, which I find quite puzzling. My understanding of modern feminist is informed by feminists.  If you don't like the fact that I associate feminists with trivial complaints like "manspreading", then I urge you to foster more level-headedness in the third wave feminist movement. Quite frankly, I don't owe you the kindness of ignoring your crazies.  If feminism is willing to make widespread condemnations based on minor irritants (and it is) I am willing to disregard feminism in return.  Feminists seem to labor under the belief that they're free to slander and insult people at will, while simultaneously insulating the most radical amongst them from any sort of criticism. Smells an awful lot like an expectation of privilege to me. [SEP] >the realities of male anatomy.   if you absolutely have to sit with your legs spread that wide (the idea of manspreading is that your legs are spread wide enough to encroach into the space of neighboring seats), you have some issues that you may need to see a doctor about.   and hey, guess what, "manspreading" may seem like a new complaint that only feminists have, but it's been around as long as public transit. i say "the initial surge" because "mansplaining" is a new term and feminists were talking about it because it's primarily men, and why is that? are there underlying causes for why some men seem entitled to more space than others? it wasn't just feminists talking about it though- my point was that because it's an easily documented phenomenon (and, presumably, annoying to many people who may not even be feminists), it spread quickly and broadly. and no feminist i've ever known has listed manspreading as a core issue of the movement- are we allowed to have opinions on things that aren't of dire import?  >If feminism is willing to make widespread condemnations based on minor irritants (and it is) I am willing to disregard feminism in return.  uh-huh.  >Smells an awful lot like an expectation of privilege to me.  your KiA-like reaction to the mere mention of manspreading as a symptom of privilege is telling.
Wasn't the same argument made simply because it's about this time the top level at Arsenal predicted that Arsenal will be financially secure?  Are we not?  And what do you do when you are in a good position? Make yourself better. This doesn't happen in a season. How it's looked over is silly to me.  We're doing better than recent seasons, desipte 3 horrific games. Don't be blind to the bigger picture. [SEP] You need to edit your post a bit, as I couldn't read parts of it which made it difficult to understand.  Anyway, as I understand what you wrote, your argument is that the club has not spoken of success, only that we would become financially stable, and that we're moving towards that now.  I would argue that if that's the case, where's the timetable given by any club official? Liverpool's management from top to bottom has been very clear about their goals, not just for this season, but for the next two. Where is ours? This is why I say it resembles a second coming. There is no timetable, no deadline for delivering.  I also think your argument is wrong because for the past three years, Gazidis and Hill-Wood(and Keswick recently) have been tooting the horn talking about how Arsenal can now compete for trophies. Well we haven't been competing.   Of course looking at our finances, a case can be made that we haven't really gotten financial stability until the past 12-15 months, but when you charge your fans the highest ticket prices in the world and then lie about the ability of the team to challenge, that is a "heads must roll" type of situation.  My post history will bear me out on this as I've said numerous times, I don't think Wenger is solely to blame for a lack of competitiveness, but our management(club, not players) need some sort of pressure to stop gouging the fans. Its been years of misinformation and misdirection and that has to stop.  >We're doing better than recent seasons, despite 3 horrific games. Don't be blind to the bigger picture.  This line really really annoyed me because your argument sounds condescending, not to mention stupid. A league title only ever comes down to between 3-5 games. I challenge you to look to the past 30 seasons in ALL top 5 European leagues and count the number of times a team won by more than 15 points. If you find much more than 10 occurrences then I'm an idiot. I doubt you'd even find 5. I know my tone is harsh here but that line is an often spoken one that annoys me immensely. Titles only EVER come down to 3-4 games out of 38.  Again, I have a few theories as to why we lost those games, and I've seen others posted by all manner of fans, but an overwhelming constant in is the inability of the team to find a solution from within. Its not a slant on any players' ability in any way. We need outside players to fix our team attacking and defensive posture during games  I'm not blind to the bigger picture in any way at all. I know that the club is working under massive constraints and it cannot be easy when under the guise of "making them competitive", financial doping has made certain teams impossible to ever directly compete with. But they don't run our training and team selection policy. Our injury record is independent of their actions. The lack of a coherent message from the Board and the manager(I'm speaking specifically of the verbal tug of war over when we have financial muscle in the market) isn't their fault as well.  Now take those issues and add them to the tone deaf manner in which the club prices its fans. That's what annoys me. It will still cause concerns F.A. Cup/Champs. League qualification or no, because it is a foundational issue.  
The only two that could be possibly considered name calling weren't in this sub. What happens in other subs with completely different rules has no relevance here.   You didn't find one case of me calling you or your candidate names. I understand that you may find it offensive that your candidate received more than $30 million from Goldman Sachs, but pointing that out isn't name calling.  [SEP] > What happens in other subs with completely different rules has no relevance here.  I'm not talking about sub rules, I'm talking about character.   >You didn't find one case of me calling you or your candidate names.  Not calling me names, but other people names, and you refer to Hillary in condescending remarks and with schoolyard bully name calling. I can even find more cases if you wanted me to.   >I understand that you may find it offensive that your candidate received more than $30 million from Goldman Sachs,  Again being hostile and condescending. You can make a point of the Wall Street money if you want. Don't bring me into your arguments.   Sorry (not sorry), I don't talk your wolf crying of attacks and name-calling of Bernie seriously. I'm not saying it doesn't happened, it does, but you don't really have the character to criticize. 
>Where's the racist comments?  Read the linked article. And then maybe also read about all the racist shit that Trump has supported and understand that there's a link.   >downvoting is an attempt at silencing something you disagree with  Or, and I really want you to think about this, it's other people using their freedom of expression to disagree with you. AKA democracy. Fascism would be punishing you in some significant way for your dissenting opinion. You're going to have an uphill battle convincing me that the loss of imaginary internet points is significant.   And the fact that you didn't respond to the baby elephant gif makes me think you're probably irredeemable, but just in case not here's an elephant taking good care of a turtle:  http   [SEP] > Read the linked article. And then maybe also read about all the racist shit that Trump has supported and understand that there's a link.  I did read the article. It's "evidence" is a handful of posts with about few upvotes from several months ago. Doesn't quite show racist comments or how that can be applied to the subreddit (or even Trump supporters) as a whole. Also, I haven't seen or heard anything that's actually racist that Trump has said or supported. If there was I wouldn't support him.  > Or, and I really want you to think about this, it's other people using their freedom of expression to disagree with you. AKA democracy. Fascism would be punishing you in some significant way for your dissenting opinion. You're going to have an uphill battle convincing me that the loss of imaginary internet points is significant.  I love how condescending you're attempting to be. But anyway, I'm pretty sure this subreddit (and most subreddits) state that downvoting is a tool to be used on things that don't contribute, not things that disagree with your opinion. If you want to disagree with me, go for it. Do as we are now and hold a discussion or simply ignore it; but downvoting is an attempt to silence, not disagree. The loss of imaginary internet points is far from significant. I couldn't care less and I'm sure most people couldn't as well, but that doesn't change the blatant fact that more upvotes = more visibility = louder voice.  > And the fact that you didn't respond to the baby elephant gif  It wasn't there when I responded; you must've edited it. Very enjoyable, thanks for that. 
If there is one thing 2016 has taught us, it's that when smart and sane people don't pay attention or vote, the idiots and assholes take over. I know politics is frustrating and often tedius, but man I hope people make an effort to get involved in 2018 and beyond, because the worst people we know vote every damn time! [SEP] >If there is one thing 2016 has taught us, it's that when smart and sane people don't pay attention or vote, the idiots and assholes take over. I know politics is frustrating and often tedius, but man I hope people make an effort to get involved in 2018 and beyond, because the worst people we know vote every damn time!   What a condescending thing to say. This uppity, I am better, smarter and your crazy way of talking about political opposition is just plain pathetic.   Tons of smart, sane people exist on both sides but you Democrats love to keep pounding the I am smug superior to you heathens attitude. It's like a new version of the Nazi supreme race idea repacked as a Democrat party talking point.  
>>Here's a fun fact for you  >There's really no need to be smarmy at all. Seriously.  I think you might've been reading into the tone on that one. Whenever I come across stats that I find interesting and that go against the common perception people have, I post them as and call them fun facts because I find it very interesting when the numbers go counter to what people expect. Seeing numbers like that are fun to me.  > but how likely is that with Vrana, Bura, and Eller all better suited for that spot   You don't seem to understand what each role on the PP has been. Thinking Vrana/Bura/Eller would ever play the slot on the PP is very incorrect.  This spot on the PP has never been occupied by a small skill player - that is the spot below the endline that Johansson played for a long time (that Kuzy played this year). Vrana/Bura would play the below endline role. Eller plays the half wall where Backstrom does.  Here are the players who've been PP Slot players consistently since we implemented the 1-3-1: Brouwer, Ward, Oshie, Connolly - strong right-handed guys who can screen the goalie and muscle their way for rebounds and to create space for the quick one timer when teams decide to mark Ovi. Wilson fits this description to a T. Vrana, Bura, and Eller (all lefties) do not.  >You know, i like and try to use analytics as much and P/60 is a useful stat, but the difference between Wilson and all those guys you listed is they converted that into actual points.  You don't seem to understand what P/60 is. P/60 is "actual points" just adjusted for how much the player is actually on the ice. It measure the number of points a player records per 60 minutes of ice time (in this case it's per 60 minutes of 5v5 ice time).  Let me actually break it down for you so you can see it more clearly:  Player|5v5 TOI|5v5 points|5v5 P/60 -|-|-|- Little|1047|26|1.49 Hornqvist|923|21|1.37 Thornton|637|14|1.32 Zibanejad|931|21|1.35 Hoffman|1163|28|1.44 E. Kane|1184|35|1.77 Pavelski|1191|35|1.76 D. Sedin|982|28|1.71 H. Sedin|947|27|1.71 Toews|1021|28|1.64 Johansen|1066|30|1.69 Seguin|1217|34|1.68 Crosby|1260|35|1.67 Wilson|1079|32|1.78  Wilson is 5th on that list in terms of "actual" total 5v5 points. Crosby played 180 more minutes, Seguin played 150 more, Kane and Pavelski played 110 more minutes (and were only barely behind in rate, but were behind)  Saying "they converted that into actual points" shows a fundamental misunderstanding for what the numbers are showing.  > And it's not as if he was buried on the bottom 6 all year, the majority of his minutes were with a combo of either OV and Kuz or OV and Backstrom  How many 5v5 points do you think those guys got? Ovi had 48, Kuz had 44 and Backy had 38. That's not that much more than Wilson's 32 especially considering they got (who was 4th on the whole team behind them at 5v5 points and P/60 - ahead of guys like Vrana and Eller and Oshie and Bura).  People are going to need to get comfortable with seeing 5-6M AAVs because they're going to become what 3-4M had been the last couple years. The Cap is going to continue to rise. By 4M a year? probably not, but it's going to keep going up  >the largest increase I can recall recently at least  Only in the last 4 years. From 13-14 to 14-15 it went up nearly 5M and in the time in between it went up more than 2M in 3 of the 4 years.  >That's not even to mention the upcoming FAs we have coming up after this season, Vrana, Bura and Djoos, who yes are RFAs but will be looking at raises (and if they progress the way we hope, significant ones)  Both Vrana and Djoos are RFAs coming off ELCs - Those guys only get massive deals if they put up Kucherov-level numbers (Kucherov on ELC numbers, I mean - 60+ points, 30 goals), Vrana'll get in the neighborhood of 3-4M given the team control and Arb option (I'd bet on arbitration, honestly).   Bura is likely gone clearing up another 3M - he hasn't progressed and with Vrana's emergence, he doesn't have much of a role. Between Stephenson, Boyd, and Walker one of them will likely be moved up next year (or late this year if Bura gets moved at the deadline, which I could see happening)  >I wouldn't have bothered replying, i just woke up here, but damn you pissed me off coming at me like that. Here's a fun fact for you...like I'm some fuckin Pens fan invading the sub calling him a dirty goon or something. I love Wilson and I want him to be the monster we all hope he can be. We're on the same team here. Not like I trashed him or you or even anyone's opinion. I merely gave mine and dispassionately might I add, which I based on logic that you may disagree with, but there was no fuckin need for that, at all.  That's a lot of piss and vinegar for one phrase. That "fun fact" is meant to give optimism when relating to Wilson. Everything else I said was just breaking down numbers and pointing out that "hey, we can't look at Wilson just on raw points, we need to look at the context." [SEP] I only want to point out what annoyed me because I'm frankly exahusted (like in general, not blaming you). I felt like it was talking down to me, i mean honestly if i was debating someone and in my retort started with "here's a fun fact for you" I would expect that to be upsetting. But I could see that it was maybe jumping to conclusions. And then you said:  > You don't seem to understand what each role on the PP has been   >You don't seem to understand what P/60 is   Now you make a good point about Wilson on the PP being a right shot. My quibble is that, well I'd like to see it happen first, honestly. All of this is speculation on what he may do, which like I said before, I don't mind paying for potential, this is just a lot in my eyes for what we've seen so far. We disagree. That's fine.   I do get the concept of P/60 but analytics is not my go to, thus my using of the word "try". Those are good points about the 5v5. Granted. Again, I find it's still a little unproven given the amount he was just given.   Could you not find another way to word how you say things? You don't seem to understand how to talk to people. When you speak that way or "Let me break it down for you so you can see it more clearly", it comes across condescending. I get that you're trying to give pertinent information, and it is, but do you think I or anyone else wants to be talked to like you're a teacher in front of his/her hapless students or like you're Bill Nye (or god forbid Professor Brouwer)? I don't even talk to my students that way.   Anyways, I did overreact in that first sentence and last paragraph and for that I do sincerely apologize. I do still find you condescending but it was uncalled for. I'm sorry. You make great points and you could be right in the end. I guess I feel like we've all been waiting for Willy to become this next gen power forward and the second we finally got a little taste of it, suddenly we're putting him somewhere we hope he'll be and paying him for it. God I hope it works out, it just scares me when it was such a small sample size (relative to his career, and yes i know he was misused before) and it's such a large commitment.
>Steven claims to have been away from the Hoenn league and Mr Pokémon has the orbs from the games in HGSS. This means that RSE happens at least before Gen 4 and therefore before Gen 2, albeit not necesarilly at the same time as Gen 1.  It's implied that there are multiple orbs considering the variety of NPCs that provide the orbs across multiple dimensions/timelines/realities.  >The first reply in the reddit thread you linked literally states what I'm saying. Check how it says " DPPt/HGSS" and "Megaverse Sinnoh/Jhoto".  You said "Megaverse" theory is the theory that everything got rebooted in gen 6". It was just revealed that the games past generation 6 exist on a separate timeline where history unfolded differently than the previous gens.   >From the bulbagarden link: "B2W2 and XY happened at the same time, albeit in different universes"  Um duh. The Megaverse/Mega Timeline theory is that every game stays within the same chronological order, with the only difference being the existence of mega evolution.  The timeline split at the 3000 year old war.   Mega timeline: War took place [3000 years] Kanto/Hoenn [3 years] Johto/Sinnoh [unspecified time] Unova [2 years] Unova/Kalos [2 years] Alola. Megas exist.  Non Mega timeline: War did not take place [300 years] Kanto/Hoenn [3 years] Johto/Sinnoh etc. etc. etc. Megas do not exist.   Zinnia's claims support this. There's a reality where the war didn't take place and megas do not exist. That's the non-mega timeline.   >The youtube video also states that Gen 6 is from a timeline(another mistake, as Zinnia refers to "worlds", not timelines) apart from previous games.  And here's where you reveal your lack of understanding. I see why you're confused and misinformed now. You're getting caught up on the word "timeline" itself. In the English language, when discussing multiple parallel universes/realities/dimensions/worlds, the word timeline is often synonymous the the previous three words. To jump from one reality to a parallel reality is the same as crossing from one timeline to another. To jump from one world to a parallel world is describing the same thing. This is a fundamental tenet of 'multiverse theory,' generally speaking.   For every possible outcome, multiverse theory states there's a split in a timeline/reality where time progresses following the outcome of one decision/choice/event, and another where time progresses following the outcome of the other decision/choice/event.  Let's make this easier for you to comprehend. Say on my afternoon jog I come to a fork in the road. Let's say I chose to take the right fork. I finish my jog around 5 pm, come home, and am now replying to a very confused user on reddit.   In a alternate reality (remember our synonyms here: timeline, world, universe, dimension) I had chosen to take the left fork in the road. In that reality, time still progresses, yet different outcomes occur due to my decisions. In this alternate dimension, as I'm finishing my jog around 5 pm, a bus swerves to miss a stray animal and crosses my path, killing me. This timeline of events runs parallel and alternate to the one that I am experiencing right now.  The English dialogue in the games tends to favor the words 'dimension' and 'world' to keep it kid friendly. However, I see that even this simplification managed to confuse you, my friend.   Hoopa is stated to pull entire islands (mirage islands) from different dimensions  Burnet studies the dimensional research lab  Zinnia refers to an alternate world where megas don't exist  In SM and USUM, when changing between day/night it refers to it as the other world  That last one is yet another prime example. Sun and Moon are two different realities where time progresses in (near) parallel despite events unfolding differently. In one world Nebby evolves into Lunala and in the other Nebby evolves into Solgaleo. Two timelines, two realities, to universes, nice and simple.  >>Minor sidenote, I've only met one other user on this sub who is incapable of understanding basic multiverse theory so I'll page them to read this explanation. Though, they sort of get a pass because english is not their native language. Paging /u/DrasilReborn~  >people keep talking about "timelines" despite time travel not being involved  Oh bless your heart.   >Also, the only thing you had so far was a lazy asset reuse on a post-game facility.  Two separate instances lazy reuse. The sloppiness is one thing, the recurrence just takes it to a whole new level of sloppy. You don't disagree it's lazy. Still doesn't excuse the fact that this laziness is cause for confusion.  Let's not brush off the messy and conflicting regional origins of megas. No, your headcanons of isolationist societies are not substantiated.   >What we have is enough.  Since there's still debate, obviously not.  > Those two only happened because they were closely related to a previous game, but that's not how this franchise works in general.  I'll give you that considering the standalone nature of each game. But a single line of text from an NPC wouldn't hurt. Hell, Red's presence wasn't even alluded to until very late in the game.   > However there IS info given that is ignored. More info wont really help matters because this fanbase doesn't actually care  You say this, yet here we are, on a pokemon fan forum, replying to one of the nigh weekly discussions on the timeline.   >And yet, some people can get it.  Which is good. BUt not nearly enough to warrant a broad consensus.  >I do because they're the ones to blame, as seen, proven and not disproven.  Even you, who claim to have the timeline down so well, are still labile to picking and choosing which bits of information to give weight to. You and I agree on quite a bit concerning the general structure, but it's the small details that we've been arguing about these past few days. The devil is in the details, bud. [SEP] >It's implied that there are multiple orbs considering the variety of NPCs that provide the orbs across multiple dimensions/timelines/realities.  What's that "implied"? Didn't you claim that you wanted it outright stated?  Also, from Bulbapedia you get Red Orb from the different versions of the Hoenn plot, and after that in Mr Pokémon's house and sold in Alola (which reminded me I have to go get it). We don't really know whether its the same that changed hands throgout time or if there are different.  >You said "Megaverse" theory is the theory that everything got rebooted in gen 6". It was just revealed that the games past generation 6 exist on a separate timeline where history unfolded differently than the previous gens.   I guess this was a misunderstanding, sorry for that, I used the word "reboot" wrongly. Yeah, "Megaverse" means that the games starting from generation 6 are on a different world. Which is something that was never said, SM destroyed completely, yet people still want to claim going against what's said/shown on the game.  >Zinnia's claims support this. There's a reality where the war didn't take place and megas do not exist. That's the non-mega timeline.   First, for the billionth time, stop talking about timelines, as time travel wasn't involved, they're different worlds as Zinnia says.  And secondly, no, Zinnia's claim don't support megaverse theory. Zinnia's claims state that the non-mega evolution Hoenn, AKA RSE is on a different world than the mega evolution Hoenn, AKA ORAS. She doesn't talk about anything outside Hoenn. You want everything explicitly stated yet proceed to ignore what IS explicitly stated. See, how what you want wont really change things?  > In the English language, when discussing multiple parallel universes/realities/dimensions/worlds, the word timeline is often synonymous the the previous three words.   Except when there IS time travel in the franchise and there is in pokémon.  >For every possible outcome, multiverse theory states there's a split in a timeline/reality where time progresses following the outcome of one decision/choice/event, and another where time progresses following the outcome of the other decision/choice/event.  But we didn't have a timeline split, we had a world split. Next time you want to be condescending make sure you're right.  >The English dialogue in the games tends to favor the words 'dimension' and 'world' to keep it kid friendly.   Or, maybe. because that's what they freaking are.  >Hoopa is stated to pull entire islands (mirage islands) from different dimensions  Once again, you claim you want everything outright stated and nothing assumed yet you assume something was stated. That was never stated. All of Hoopa's entries talk strictly about space or about its forms.  >Burnet studies the dimensional research lab  The term is properly used here.  >Zinnia refers to an alternate world where megas don't exist In SM and USUM, when changing between day/night it refers to it as the other world.and   Exactly, and going by what the games DOES say these are world because the games says they are worlds. Therefore they are worlds. You are not only ignoring/misreading what the game outright says(ironically how you want it to work) in favor of your headcanon. You both failed at comprehending what the game says and also filled it with false information. Both of the things I claim the fanbase is doing. Thanks for proving me right.  >Still doesn't excuse the fact that this laziness is cause for confusion.  I don't 100% disagree, but again, if you use all the information you're given you can get the answer despite the confusion.   >Since there's still debate, obviously not.  Except the debate doesn't stem from the lack of info but from people making stuff up and spreading it as fact. As you showed in your post.  >You say this, yet here we are, on a pokemon fan forum, replying to one of the nigh weekly discussions on the timeline  That just proves we (but lets allow the extrapolation for the entire fanbase) care about DISCUSSING the timeline, but not about the fanbase caring about what is ACTUALLY said on the games. You can discuss things and be wrong at the same time, they aren't mutually exclusive.  >BUt not nearly enough to warrant a broad consensus.  Well, yeah, but that's because the community wants to ignore the facts, not that the facts aren't there. You're pretty much resorting to ad populum here.  
Part 3: So I came here, to have a discussion about linguistics. What is linguistics?    http  "Linguistics is the scientific study of human language."  Scientific study of human language.   What is scientific study? Well you can feel free to disagree with me if I am wrong, but I believe that it involves the scientific method, which is a process of creating a hypothesis.. performing experiments, looking for patterns, and thus coming to conclusions. I think we all know what scientific study really is.  What is language?  "Language may refer either to the specifically human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, or to a specific instance of such a system of complex communication. The scientific study of language in any of its senses is called linguistics." This is already stupidly complex, language is communication. It can involve speaking, signaling, and I would say even just understanding, it is simply communicating.  What I have been doing from the start here in my series, is attempting to have a conversation about linguistics. I asked a question in my first post referenced, "What is linguistics?"   While I agree it may have been slightly distracting to post "(feel free to answer me!) afterwards, the fact of the matter is, I posted a question: "What is linguistics?" And rather than anyone willing to actually explain to me what linguistics is, as we might do in actual human interactions, I got a total of three responses asking me what the question was. My question was, "What is linguistics?" What can we observe from this? My idea: We are not willing to bond with just one person in an anonymous public environment on the internet. I suspect this is because we are scared of risking our other bonds.  I even attempted to get to know you people, anyone reading this. I gave you my background. I may not have gone to graduate school for linguistics or anything, but I live in a foreign country using a second language every day of my life, and teaching my first language..to children and adults at that. If you can tell me why this has nothing to do with linguistics, I'd love to hear it.   But what is happening in our online communications, is we are choosing to try and connect with what the majority of people who will agree with us. I believe this happens in real life too, and that this is how societies are formed. We create bonds with each other, and interact as best we can to uphold those bonds.   Isn't it interesting that the responses keep growing here, and it is all of you either trying to push me down, or to bond with one another, the ones you already know?   I agree that I am giving you limited information thus far. But what I am trying to say more than anything, is that language is about communication, and linguistics is about language. We can keep trying to tell each other how awesome we are to impress one another... this seems to be human nature, sadly. But in the end, if you don't have someone to interact with, you don't have language, and you don't have linguistics. I'm not saying it isn't interesting stuff, but I believe I am seeing a dangerous change in our interactions in anonymous environments. [SEP] >I posted a question: "What is linguistics?"  As far as I can tell this comment is the first time that you have asked that question.   You say you're attempting to have a conversation, but you don't actually appear to be doing so. Your pattern seems to be to post your thoughts, and then, instead of directly engaging with the people who respond, to post a follow-up that pontificates about why they responded to you the way that they did (that you didn't like).   This isn't a good way to attempt to have a conversation. It's rude and condescending. This is only one of the problems that is causing you to not get the reception you seem to desire, but it's probably the biggest one.
It’s the frequency that is a bit alarming. The Congressional Armed Services Committee Chairman said the readiness of the military is “at a crisis point” right after a staggering amount of accidents were happening in a months time frame.  This is definitely not good for morale in the military as a whole, and this is why I can see it being a bigger issue than what you’re trying to belittle. It should frighten any military pilot not knowing if a simple flight will endanger the lives of other soldiers on board. Any naval aviator should be feel like they owe it to the passengers on board to make it where they need to go safely.   It’s not about what frightens me in the grand scheme of things, it’s about the men and women in uniform who I’m putting in my plane. So, maybe it’s something for you to consider. It’s not about “you,” it’s about them. [SEP] > So, maybe it’s something for you to consider. It’s not about “you,” it’s about them.  Do not come to this sub to be condescending. I don't carry passengers. I execute a mission. I have no "them" to think about.   Are you here to whine about a job you'll never have the balls to do, or to find something to quote to another sub!!  >OMG, LOOK WHAT MILITARYPERSONBADGUY /U/GATOR7862 SAID ON THIS MILITARY SUBREDDIT ABOUT NOT CARING ABOUT HIS PASSENGERS OR THEIR SAFETY?
so childish. please keep your mind open once you start making cool music. Music industry is really bad right now, this doesn't help it.  [SEP] > please keep your mind open once you start making cool music  mmmm, dat condescending ad hominem. 
Fuck off. I'm not a "special brat" and I normally address these issues in person. As I've explained like 100 times in the thread already.   > This kind of thinking needs to end   It's not gonna end princess. It's not allowed to wear perfume at work. Because corporations and bosses are also special brats, apparently. Yet its probably the womyn complaining they don't get enough special treatment, like disabling others from working to seduce them with fake hormonal smells that reek.   Women like you should stay at home. If there were a guy doing this, and someone told him to stop he would at least consider it, because he's aware he's wearing scents for others. And now others have told him it's just annoying. You would just tell them to fuck off, because? I dont know, apparently you think you're wearing perfume for you. Like how you wear makeup for you. Hilarious.   You're being a cunt and you know it, and you just think it's up to me to deal with it. Maybe you can just stop? Who are you trying to impress anyway with your artificial pheromones? Maybe just work on respecting other people, and following generally accepted etiquette and you won't have any problems finding a decent boyfriend, then maybe you wouldn't have to wear obnoxious chemicals to trick people into thinking you're attractive.  I love how you two jump on me for being a special snowflake when I could easily push the issue and get UW on my side... I assumed people would just be respectful but instead it appears you have to have rules in place or people dont listen. You're the only two self-identified women in this thread and you've both been massive cunts about it.   If I knew who this girl was, I would have said something. And she probably would have listened. Just like you would have, despite your bullshit "I'm a strong womyn u can't tell me what to do" .. I've never once had a girl say no to me and I've asked things like this dozens of times. I'm not some scronny little awkward fuck that you're picturing. Again: if I knew who it was, or if it wasn't the second last class of the term, I would have said something. As the title says "classes", plural, I'm trying to tell girls at UW in general to think of other people. So far the reaction from women has been completely hostile. I'm not entirely surprised since I clearly don't think very highly of pampered women who cake on makeup and perfumes.  [SEP] >So far the reaction from women has been completely hostile.  Because you've singled them out for something that guys do all the time, and you keep throwing in passive aggressive little jabs at women as if it's some sort of universal truth that we all wear perfume and oppose scent-free policies. Not to mention the random, baseless little "caked in makeup", "you must be a femenazi" bullshit that you keep sprinkling in that has nothing to do with the argument. There's no reason for you to specify girls in your title, or to "spergout", as you would say, as soon as you find out you're arguing with a woman.  I don't think anyone would disagree with your base request to not stink up the classroom. I fucking hate when people wear excessive perfume and cologne. But you are being way too abrasive, condescending and sexist for anyone to react positively to what you're saying.   >its probably the womyn complaining they don't get enough special treatment   >If there were a guy doing this, and someone told him to stop he would at least consider it   >you won't have any problems finding a decent boyfriend, then maybe you wouldn't have to wear obnoxious chemicals to trick people into thinking you're attractive   >"I'm a strong womyn u can't tell me what to do"   >I'm trying to tell girls at UW in general to think of other people  Do you really wonder why women react with hostility to this?
-being surrounded by intellectuals (mostly)  -flexible working hours  -working on the weekends, campus totally barren, & having a beer on the rooftop deck afterwards  -TEACHING. I LOVE being a TA. So much that I wonder whether my true calling is in teaching. [SEP] > -being surrounded by intellectuals (mostly)  This can be bad if it lasts too long. You may lose the ability to talk like a normal person, and it's hard to relearn without coming across as condescending or eccentric.  > -TEACHING. I LOVE being a TA. So much that I wonder whether my true calling is in teaching.  Everyone says this until they get a taste of the school system from the teachers' side.
I get what you're saying. I guess that situation was a bad example, mainly because I didn't cover the full context. I had asked her to roam as well as not going for Zed. I had pointed out to her that he was only building MR in passing phrases that were heads-ups as opposed to directly insinuating that she was incorrect in her actions. I.E. "Hey guys, looks like Zed rushed a Hexdrinker" or "Look out for CC'ing Zed he now has Mercs". It just seems equally unlikely that people learn from their 5+ deaths with or without any kind of acknowledgement from their team. So I was being as cordial as possible yet I get flamed. Then the game so typically deteriorates to them "trolling" or muting you though you merely offered up insight in to why they aren't playing to their possible potential. Not necessarily insulting them or being aggressive, just point to other people they COULD kill and they still take it as though you're attacking them. [SEP] (Wall of text ahead, because this is a topic I'm very interested in and thus spend a lot of time learning about.)  >I had asked her to roam as well as not going for Zed. I had pointed out to her that he was only building MR in passing phrases that were heads-ups as opposed to directly insinuating that she was incorrect in her actions. I.E. "Hey guys, looks like Zed rushed a Hexdrinker" or "Look out for CC'ing Zed he now has Mercs". It just seems equally unlikely that people learn from their 5+ deaths with or without any kind of acknowledgement from their team.  That's fine, but here's the thing: Right now, there are people at literally every single level of LoL skill and knowledge between "LCS pro" and "your deceased great-grandfather," and they're all playing the game. And you'd be amazed at how well people can do without actually understanding that much about things you might consider absolute basic knowledge.  The point is, you simply cannot make any real assumptions about what your teammates know until you've reached a certain general rank -- maybe around low Gold or so (and even then, someone might be duo-queuing with their higher-level friend). So you can offer a bit of advice, but then you have to look at the result.  In this case, "Hey guys, looks like Zed rushed a Hexdrinker" is a great piece of information to offer (assuming you did, in fact, phrase it like that). So, what happened next? LeBlanc tried to combo him anyway and got out-dueled, multiple times.  What does this tell you about the LeBlanc player on your team? There are only a few possibilities.  1. They know the full implications of their own build and Zed's build, and are deliberately picking fights they know they cannot win.  2. They've looked at their items and at Zed's items, and they think they know what that means for combat, but they are incorrect and they refuse to change their mind.  3. They don't really understand what's going on with their items and Zed's items, and/or they don't really know how to play from behind in the LB/Zed matchup specifically, and/or they're not that familiar with LeBlanc or against Zed in general, and/or they're having a really off day -- but they're trying their best with the knowledge and experience they do have.  (1) is obviously stupid, and (2) is actually very unlikely -- although the implications don't change much. The vast majority of the time, this player will be in (3).  So what can you do about that? They know Zed has a Hexdrinker, so pointing that out again doesn't change anything. Are you going to ask them a bunch of questions so you can try and figure out the specific thing that is causing them to play poorly? If they told you, are you going to stop in the middle of the game to explain how MR works in League of Legends? Are you going to give them a tutorial on LeBlanc and/or Zed? Are you going to have a discussion on leveraging a shitty laning phase into a passable mid-game?   Of course not. There's no time for that. And that's still assuming it's something they can be told in the first place. What if they're a jungler main who only recently started playing mid, and they don't have the mental energy to keep track of people's items because it takes all of their focus just to last-hit? You can't help that; they need more games.  You'll notice that in not one of these possibilities is it actually useful to add that Zed now has Merc's. If LB was unable to act on the knowledge of the Hexdrinker, she will not be able to act on the knowledge of the Merc's. And if you say it immediately after LB has died, it's actively going to annoy her. She's dead, so she has plenty of time to check Zed's build. Either she can use that information and thus knows to check herself (so you sound condescending), or she can't meaningfully use it because she's not skilled enough (so you sound like you're berating her for something she can't fix right now).  By the time you get to "Hey Leblanc, don't use your entire rotation on the Zed that has nothing but MR items please," you're just expressing annoyance, and that's not their fault. In fact, if I were in that game with you guys and you said that, I would have immediately told the LB to mute you, because not hearing you is going to make her play better. Either LB is going to waste time outright flaming you, or she's going to waste time arguing with you, or she's going to internalize the criticism but still be unable to act on it, and so she will become paralyzed and distracted by the knowledge that any failed play on her part is going to lead to more criticism from you.  Speaking personally, I literally just finished a Normals game as Sejuani with four players who were at least a division above me. And as you might imagine, I made some bad decisions -- not going in for a dive when my teammates expected one, going in too hard and giving up a kill under a tower, spending too much time on one side of the map, etc. And all four of my teammates spent the entire first 25 minutes insulting and complaining about me.  I can assure you, that was the worst game of Sejuani I've ever played. I did better on my first ever game as Sejuani than I did this game. I straight-up forgot to use my ultimate, hovered between objectives, wasted time not farming or ganking, died to a jungle camp -- it was a complete shitshow. And it didn't have to be that way. They could have just said nothing and had a mediocre-to-passable jungler, but instead they chose to make me feel like shit and have a completely useless jungler. That's not me being hypersensitive; that's just how people work. Fear, anger, and shame make for awful League of Legends players.  So, to bring this back around to the original point. I know you think you're being "as cordial as possible," but the facts say you're not helping. Yes, sometimes you will get flamed over nothing, but you yourself have stated that it's a consistent pattern -- you get flamed in response to your attempts to offer useful advice to your teammates. When you consistently get a negative reaction to what you are saying, it's possible the problem is everybody else, but it's much more likely that there's something you can change in how you communicate so that you are no longer pissing off everybody around you.  So, here's what you do. You go right ahead and make a note of that Hexdrinker. Now that information's out there, for LB to do what she will with it. You've done your job, now worry about your own lane. If you notice something specific that you want to give LB advice on, sit on it until the game is over. In the post-game lobby, you can talk about it all you like, if she's interested.  If LB continues to make poor decisions, then that's just something you're going to have to account for. Accept that you'll be dealing with a fed Zed and put on your carry pants. Reassure LB that her deaths won't sink the team, and you guys can make it up somewhere else on the map and/or later in the game, so that she has the confidence to keep trying. She will want to do well for you, because you supported her. And after the game, she'll actually want to hear your thoughts on what she could have done better, because she'll like and respect you, because you believed in her and you noticed the things she did right.  It's the best of all worlds. You get to impart useful advice to a willing listener, LB gets a fun game that could have been miserable due to her deaths, and your whole team does better in the game itself so you're all more likely to win. Everybody comes out ahead.
>You're being an idiot. It is not your whole definition but it is a major part of who you are.  Again, I feel bad for you if you base your life even majorly on your sexuality. For being someone that's chastising everyone else on "OMG GUYS. GAWKER SAID SPIDERMANS CANT BE GAY!?" ( Even though he can be. )...You have a really super narrow view of life it would seem. I honestly feel bad for you, being totally unable to find people relate-able that are different from you it would seem  >So it is what I said, so I do understand. Thanks.  Yeah---Except for in every response you've made so far, you've been talking about Spiderman; like the fucking Headline you just "accepted" as being true.  Spiderman can be whatever. Peter Parker can't.  Not sure why you see that as wrong or bad---Considering there are MULTIPLE people that have taken the role as Spiderman; but apparently you're having a rough time with that. [SEP] >Again, I feel bad for you if you base your life even majorly on your sexuality. For being someone that's chastising everyone else on "OMG GUYS. GAWKER SAID SPIDERMANS CANT BE GAY!?" ( Even though he can be. )...You have a really super narrow view of life it would seem. I honestly feel bad for you, being totally unable to find people relate-able that are different from you it would seem   this is stupid and you're being obtuse at this point in a poor attempt to be condescending.   Being gay is a major part of your life, being black is a major part of my life, being black and gay have had majorly defining features in the entirety to my upbringing to say otherwise would be ridiculous and while our generation likes to claim this idiotic "we're everyone" mentality it is very much a farce.   >Yeah---Except for in every response you've made so far, you've been talking about Spiderman; like the fucking Headline you just "accepted" as being true. Spiderman can be whatever. Peter Parker can't.  which is exactly what I clarified and said. So my understanding is quite clear. try re-reading my post without being a condescending twat and you'll see that. 
If you're a black person, you cannot get too angry or you'll be seen as aggressive. Certain clothing choices make you look like a gangster to some people. If you're a black woman, people touch and ask you countless questions about your hair. There are statistics stating overall in the dating scene black women are considered the least desirable dating prospect compared to other race, white women and Asians rank as the most desirable. It can seem more difficult for a black woman to be widely celebrated for her beauty or desirable to men of all races. It is common to receive backhanded insults such as you're smart or pretty for a black person. People thinking you're overly sensitive about racial issues. Only lighter skinned members of your race are accepted or seen as beautiful. People talking to you in hip hop slang with a wannabe "black" accent to relate to you. [SEP] >If you're a black woman, people touch and ask you countless questions about your hair.  Nah, can confirm this happens to black dudes just as often. Just quit touching our goddamn hair.  The rest is fine though  >It is common to receive backhanded insults such as you're smart or pretty for a black person.  So much this! But something that I'd like to add here is that black people do this to other blacks as well. It's especially troubling in high school, where otherwise smart and promising black kids are told by their peers that being smart and responsible is "acting white" while at the same time being condescended to by white students.  A smart black person who fails failed because black people just aren't capable enough to do X. But a black person who succeeds obviously got where they are because of affirmative action  >People talking to you in hip hop slang with a wannabe "black" accent to relate to you.  I'd also add people who assume black people who speak in ebonics aren't educated and can't be intelligent. If you have a Scottish accent, no one blames you because that's just where you're from. But if you speak AAVE it's obviously because you didn't go to school long enough for educated whites to beat the black out of you
okay. so. the reason heavily religious people think atheists are so heartless, cruel, angry, hateful, etc, is because their entire worldview relies on atheists not being right. most atheists can't comprehend this, because us enlightened free thinkers are always willing to accept new ideas as long as they're based in evidence.   for the highly religious, however, this is not the case, nor can it ever be the case so long as they remain highly religious. they cannot conceive of a world where it is possible for god to not exist. god is the reason for literally everything. for that to not be true, everything they know beyond the most mundane facts of life has to be wrong.   simply by existing, atheists are perceived as saying "you're all wrong, and i'm going to destroy your world."   tl;dr: atheists are insanely threatening to a religious mindset simply through continued existence [SEP] >most atheists can't comprehend this  This comes off as ridiculously condescending. Thought you'd like to know.
> I mean it's not like I tried to discuss and then I just got told I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about.  A) I didn't do that  >I mean, it's not like someone could actually try to take a counterpoint to me while doing so politely. But I guess that is too much to ask.  B) I did actually do that, earlier.   C) It's late and I'm tired and grumpy, I have to be up for work in less than 6 hours, so I'll just say good day, sir. [SEP] > A) I didn't do that  I didn't say you did. Actually you were the most polite of the people who replied to me. At Least you didn't say that I was "mansplaining."  > B) I did actually do that, earlier.  It seemed to me that you were asking for clarification on my point rather than trying to counter it.  > C) It's late and I'm tired and grumpy, I have to be up for work in less than 6 hours, so I'll just say good day, sir.  Thanks you for at least trying to be polite unlike some other people.
Cool story. You missed the point. People in their 30's and later tend to want to spend time with their spouse or their child or on other things. That's cool. But you can't call it 'discrimination' if someone is putting in another 20 hours than you and probably works harder during the day because they are consumed by what they are working on. And please, tell me how much you know about a song that even historians debate... You're so sophisticated... [SEP] >if someone is putting in another 20 hours than you and probably works harder during the day because they are consumed by what they are working on.  Most people who are putting in the longest hours, sorry to burst your superiority bubble, are either A) victims of really bad management or B) the shittiest engineers (the shittiest \[insert any role here\] actually, because this applies to any job). The people who are really good at their job don't require 60 hours a week to get it done unless their managers have put too much demand on them, hence A.   Man, only on reddit can you get some bootlicker worshipping da job creatorz and condescending to other people for not being willing to work more hours for less money. Like for real, how fucking pathetic are you that you actually believe any of this?
Rust seems to be overtaken by a new generation of players that seem to think that Rust is one big deathmatch game. Just suggesting nerfing the raiding mechanics even in the slightest gets you more shit than you can find in a pigsty.   I think its pretty easy to solve by just boosting the amount of resources needed for C4, not making walls breakable by melee, and making walls generally stronger. But for some reason Facepunch seems very reluctant in regards to balancing the raiding aspect of the game. Maybe to make the game more appealing to casual gamers.  I remember the good old legacy days where raiding was something you prepared for. Are you going with the 5 c4 your team already has stored and looking for a smaller base, or is your team gonna keep on farming in order to take on that big base you've been scouting the last couple of days. Raiding took effort, it took time. And a lot of times you even ended up empty handed, or with your C4 stolen, and yeah that sucked. But that feeling you got after a succesful raid was crazy satisfying and such a rush. Now there seems to be an entitlement that raiding should be as easy as joining a server, and god forbid a base is actually hard to get into [SEP] > new generation of players that seem to think that Rust is one big deathmatch game...Just suggesting nerfing the raiding mechanics even in the slightest gets you more shit than you can find in a pigsty.  Yep, and they smugly hurl condescending insults at anyone who dares to disagree. ("Learn to game, care bear!") Apparently, they see it as their exclusive right to dictate what genre Rust is supposed to be. Of course, they aren't actually any more entitled to decide that than I am; the prerogative belongs to Facepunch. We fans just get to voice our opinions.
So essentially, you think the 36 gold Ogre + support gets and 359 gold the carry gets is going to be enough to make you able to leave the lane and immediately turn around mid whose gold deficit is probably more like a thousand at this point, while your offlaner is sitting all alone at perma-level 1?  Man I knew people overrated blink but by this much? [SEP] > Man I knew people overrated blink but by this much?  Dagger is probably the most underrated item for overconfident noobs, which is the main population of reddit, so seeing how you do theory crafting and fail to have any dose of realism, and rather just want to bash my point, I'll just ignore you and your condescending tone.  
>Light requires time to travel. Time is required for the combustion of fuel that creates the light.  Picture it like you had a lantern and time stopped. There would be no time, but the lantern would still be the source of the light  >Perhaps you have another example?  There can’t be a concrete example of something permanently timeless since all of our senses depend on time. We wouldn’t ever even be aware of it if we ourselves were to go into a timeless state.   But the examples here just serve to help understand it (which apparently a lot of people find difficult), not to prove it. There’s nothing contradictory about having causation without time – all effects would just take place instantly. Saying “it doesn’t make sense to me so I think its wrong” is just an argument from incredulity.  Plus we know there must be causation that doesn’t depend on time. If there couldn’t be atemporal causation, then what could cause time itself?   The only other option would be that there had been an infinite amount of time, but infinites are logically impossible so that can’t be the case.  >If the universe (in one form or another) existed in this "atemporal" state, then there is no need for a deity  Removing time from the equation doesn’t change anything. For anything at all that exists, you’ve only got three explanations that it even makes sense to propose for why that thing ultimately exists. Either:   A) An infinite chain of sources, stretching back infinitely (like you exist because your parents existed who existed because your grandparents existed who...)  B) A logically required source (as in, something that is incapable of nonexistence. It has to exist for the same reason 1+1 has to = 2: its a logical contradiction for it to not be the case)  Or C) There is no source. Things started existing without any cause for no reason  There really can't be anything other than those three: its either 0 sources, a finite number of sources, or an infinite number of sources.  How long it took a thing to exist - whether instantly or after three thousand years - is totally irrelevant to this. [SEP] > Picture it like you had a lantern and time stopped. There would be no time, but the lantern would still be the source of the light  Except this is not what you are describing. Time was still required in the first place to create the effect of the light. Simply pausing time does not change that.   >There can’t be a concrete example of something permanently timeless since all of our senses depend on time. We wouldn’t ever even be aware of it if we ourselves were to go into a timeless state.  And this is one of the problems with your line of thought. You are trying to make an inductive argument from things that we do experience. If we can't have any examples of what you are talking about, then the argument breaks down.  >But the examples here just serve to help understand it (which apparently a lot of people find difficult), not to prove it.   I do not require you to "prove it", but your examples are supposed to support your premise, and they simply don't.  >There’s nothing contradictory about having causation without time – all effects would just take place instantly  You keep asserting this, but don't back it up.  >Saying “it doesn’t make sense to me so I think its wrong” is just an argument from incredulity.  Ha! That's a good rationalization of your own unsupported position and totally not condescending. You haven't shown that your conclusion logically follows, let alone demonstrated it. When called on to show that causation doesn't require time, you use an example that does require time. When that is pointed out to you, you then shift to say there are no examples. If you can show your work, then we can move on to other parts of your argument, if not, then it fails right here.  >Plus we know there must be causation that doesn’t depend on time.   No, we do not know this. You keep asserting things without supporting them. This is why you are being down voted.   >If there couldn’t be atemporal causation, then what could cause time itself?  The correct answer is I don't know. But one option is that time is not caused.   >Removing time from the equation doesn’t change anything.  >There really can't be anything other than those three: its either 0 sources, a finite number of sources, or an infinite number of sources.  Yes, it does. Because until you demonstrate that there can be causation without time, then 0 sources starts to look more likely.   >How long it took a thing to exist - whether instantly or after three thousand years - is totally irrelevant to this.  Perhaps I wasn't clear. Positing another entity in the "atemporal" state is an unnecessary complication. The universe in this state could have what you call "necessary existence". Or it could have no cause. Besides even if this necessary "thing" existed that is the ultimate cause, there is no reason to believe that it is a god.  .
They do have a partnership/sponsorship with MSI and yes I guess they do play on MSI products but they probably do more.  I would not address them as hipsters... [SEP] >I would not address them as hipsters...  Why not? Hipster is not ment from me as condescending discription. But rather as a discription of people who are very concerned with how they are potrait and looked at by the public and not so much concerned to provide interesting and thought provoking content.  
White dude here. Personally I love seeing a cop and being reasonably sure that I won't be randomly hassled. And walking through a parking garage at night without clutching my keys. And how most people I meet seem to trust me without any justification, or assume that I know what I'm talking about even if someone much more qualified is standing next to me. Being broke sure isn't a cakewalk, but it should make you super happy you're not broke and a minority.  [SEP] > should make you super happy you're not broke and a minority.   What a horrible, pathetic and condescending thing to say to a underprivileged poor person. Next you will be saying "should make you super happy you have cancer but are not a minority." You know what, fuck you and fuck people like you, i don give a fuck if you are a "white dude", you don speak for everyone, especially when you say bullshit like this. 
Yeah move those goal posts. OP said a judge NEEDS to display a calm demeanor, at all times, regardless of life circumstances, as a prerequisite for office. Good luck finding any judges at all with that criteria. [SEP] >Yeah move those goal posts.  I didn't move anything you condescending prick, and it's not that difficult to find someone without a history of questionable ethics. Especially for a job this important.   The recent allegations against Kavanaugh are just the tip of the iceberg. He has a number of questionable things in his legal history and financial history. There is a reason the trump administration moved to block access to all of the documentation that is normally required for every other supreme court nominee. 
Try to avoid arguing with 14 year olds. They might mistakenly believe they have an opinion. [SEP] >Try to avoid arguing with 14 year olds. They might mistakenly believe they have an opinion.  Hey now, no need to be condescending. The sort of people who make smiles in text posts usually have battered egos as it is.
> Do you understand that a strictly beans and rice diet doesn't give you the proper sustenance?  Do you understand I never suggested a strictly beans and rice diet?  Got any other straw men you want to beat the shit out of?  [SEP] >Do you understand I never suggested a strictly beans and rice diet?  It's the only thing you offered as an alternative, dipshit. You didn't care to elaborate. As if saying "beans and rice" solved the entire problem. Why don't you tell us all the foods you wouldn't allow the poor to eat?  >Got any other straw men you want to beat the shit out of?   You clearly picked up "straw man argument" from reddit (congratulations, you are now a master debater), but that's not what this is. I was making plenty of other nuanced arguments that you chose to ignore. This is nothing but you trying to worm your way out of an indefensible position. Care to address anything else I brought up? No? Okay, I think I've made my point here. Go back to condescending poor people, it seems to be your favorite thing to do, and it will sadly get you very far in life. 
You said there are no laws at all in 32 states governing private gun sales, not there are 32 states that don’t require background checks.    That’s a huge difference. Again, you seem a little confused and maybe even stupid.   Furthermore, 23 states do require background checks for private s sales. Your math sucks on top of your writing accuracy.  [SEP] u/lifts_Things:  > You said there are no laws at all in 32 states governing private gun sales, not there are 32 states that don’t require background checks.  >That’s a huge difference. Again, you seem a little confused and maybe even stupid.  You seem like a decently bright individual so let's actually have a discussion.   I'll concede that the statement that "there are no laws in 32 states governing private guns sales" is hyperbolic and reductionist.   What I should have said is that, in practice, there are no laws in 32 states that require background checks.   Let's take the first on the list from your original source Alabama:    Background Check When Seller Is Not a Licensed Dealer: None    Additional Regulations on Private Gun Sales: Ala Code §13A-11-72, et seq.  Ala Code §13A-11-72, et seq: Handguns may not be delivered to anyone prohibited under state law.  Now let's take a brief look at Ala Code §13A-11-72:  >(a) No person who has been convicted in this state or elsewhere of committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence, misdemeanor offense of domestic violence, violent offense as listed in Section 12-25-32(15) , anyone who is subject to a valid protection order for domestic abuse, or anyone of unsound mind shall own a firearm or have one in his or her possession or under his or her control.  Please explain to me how can you possibly know who is prohibited if you aren't conducting a background check in the first place.  u/Lifts_Things: >Furthermore, 23 states do require background checks for private s sales. Your math sucks on top of your writing accuracy.  I don't mean to sound condescending but I'm not sure you are actually counting correctly. Ctrl + F for 'none' and see how many results are returned.  You might also be getting confused because some cells contain more than the word 'none.'  Example:   State: Maine  Background Check When Seller Is Not a Licensed Dealer: None.  However: The Department of Public Safety is tasked with assisting private sellers who prefer to conduct a background check on prospective buyers.  Please explain to me why private sellers would prefer to spend more time, headache, and money to complete every transaction.    
My problem with what you're saying in your post, or your general espousing of "religion" is that you seem to be conflating religion with spirituality and philosophy. Someone can have a perfectly healthy spiritual life, meditating on ontological questions, while simultaneously rejecting religion and the false promises it offers.   Earlier you said: > It (religion) was not built for factually explaining the physical mechanics of the world, it is better suited to guiding a human through the murky depths of their gut reactions.   To wit I say religion is the intellectually-poor man's philosophical logic, in that it purports to provide answers and guidance to those incapable of discovering the answers on their own. And there's nothing wrong with that.  [SEP] > Someone can have a perfectly healthy spiritual life, meditating on ontological questions, while simultaneously rejecting religion and the false promises it offers.  Very true. My only point was that religion can, for many people, be the easiest path to spirituality.   >To wit I say religion is the intellectually-poor man's philosophical logic, in that it purports to provide answers and guidance to those incapable of discovering the answers on their own. And there's nothing wrong with that.  Maybe I've been looking for a way of explaining religion that doesn't sound so . . . condescending, as if those who embrace it are the intellectual inferiors of those who do not.   Generally, where my intellect has led me to condescension I've found it to be deceiving me, even if the way in which it was doing so was not immediately apparent. 
Perhaps we're of different generations. (Maybe this is why I spend almost more time on Malefashionadvice than femalefashionadvice! The men seem a little older!) But some people say fashion is the art of keeping up with the trends, of making sure to spend a bazillion hours a week researching blogs and websites, and running yourself ragged making sure to always have the latest stuff. On the other hand, style might be defined as the art of expressing one's personality through clothing choices, something that might not change as much from one decade to the next. So while fashion magazines and websites might be important if you're in your teens and twenties and are interested in wearing the latest neon colors, books become more important for those old enough to realize neon is not very flattering on 99% of those with European skin coloring. Here are a few things I've learned from books:  1.) How do I dress for my particular shape? (How can I minimize a large bust / enhance a small bust? Make my legs look longer? Appear taller?) Waistlines go up and down with trends, for example but if you know what looks good on you (say, empire waists), you'll purchase several items in empire waists in classic, solid colors while they're on trend to make it through the drought when they're not. Good tailoring for your body in particular is part of this; tailoring seems to be discussed a great deal more in books than in magazines and websites. Choosing colors best for your skintone also might be something books can help with.  2.) What materials are best for me? If you're still in your teens and twenties, you might still purchasing the polyester junk from Forever 21 and H&M. But as you age, you begin to appreciate the comfort and breathability of real cotton, silk, and wool. Polyester has indeed improved since the '70's, but it still doesn't float like real silk, nor will it keep you both warm and cool like wool, which wicks away sweat amazingly well. Books can be great for emphasizing real quality in materials and stitchery; magazines tend to focus more on who designed something instead of the seamstress who sewed it up. (Yes, good designers tend to use good quality materials on average, but some start out with a famous name brand, and then start making crap. I looked at a whole bunch of Calvin Klein suits recently at Macy's.... they were all polyester!)  3.) A little black dress has been popular since Audrey Hepburn. Burberry gave us the trench coat. A striped tee has been popular since Coco Chanel. Brands like Old Navy and Ralph Lauren have built their entire lines around the nautical feel Chanel gave us! As Urthwhyte says, it's great to know a little about history so you can know what pieces are classic and spend real money on something that will never go out of style. And yes, that does indeed change! Charmian Carr (Liesl) was encouraged to spend her earnings from The Sound of Music on a fabulous fur coat, which would "never go out of style." And then animal rights activists started pouring things on and throwing things at people who wore them, and things changed. But in general, there are some things that have stayed the same, and it's nice to know how to pick out a good pair of classic black pants that I can wear with that blouse that simply doesn't go with anything else.   tl;dr: Magazines and websites are great for following what's currently trendy. Books are great for figuring out which shapes and colors are best for you, what makes a quality garment, and what sorts of things might be more classic, that you can wear forever. [SEP] I am a moderator here, yet I spend most of my time on MFA (coming up on over a year, actually). So take that to mean what you will.  > making sure to spend a bazillion hours a week researching blogs and websites, and running yourself ragged making sure to always have the latest stuff  This is my main point of contention with people who misuse the word "fashion" or attempt to lampoon it by associating it with some pathetic rat race about who's on top and who has got the nicest, newest clothes. This is not fashion. This is being a fashion victim, and there is a huge distinction. I think it's actually pretty condescending to assume that people who care about fashion are all scrambling drones trying to one-up each other and scour the internet for the newest trends.  This is a great comment about things you can learn from books, and I am not dismissing books entirely. Books can be useful for the static things that you mention, like dressing for a particular body type or learning about fabrics and color theory. However, books simply cannot provide constantly updated information or interactive resources for the curious.   Not everyone is into "classic" style. Not everyone likes Burberry trenches or Chanel tweed suits or tiny black Givenchy dresses a la Breakfast at Tiffany's. For people who are into contemporary style, people who are into avant garde, people who are in their teens and looking to dress age-appropriately yet still fun while in high school, books are simply not the best resource.
I don't like to be told that, because I don't support their conclusions!  I can't control how you react to what I say. So why on Earth should I be responsible for how you react to what I say?  "Here's this bomb. You don't control when the bomb goes off, it's controlled by every person you interact with. If it hurts someone, it's your fault."  Obviously there are limits to this. This view is for non-creepy, non-offensive shit only. Like "you're very well spoken," which is only offensive if you tell yourself a story about why the person saying it said it. [SEP] >So why on Earth should I be responsible for how you react to what I say?  Because all we have to go on as to who you are as a person, your thoughts and your feelings, your personality, is what you say.  There is a reason these are called micro-aggressions. A bomb isn't going to go off if you say "Oh you're very well spoken"; most people probably won't think twice.  But if you use a lot of small condescending phrases, you might to start to build up a picture in peoples heads about what you think.   So maybe you don't care what other people think, but it's not really hard or a bad thing to think about improving the way that you talk so that you give off a better impression to other people.
Where to start...  I am asking if drawing a conclusion about a population from what I deem to be a representative sample is sexist. My proposition is that it is not.  >Based on my experience: Native Americans must not like board games at all.  Ok, I don't know how many native americans you've (tried to) board game with. But, to make such a strong conclusion, it would have to be a LOT. Even then...it's a bit much. On the other hand, if you've tried playing board games with many native americans and none are really into it, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that your experience is that native americans seems less interested in playing board games than (insert other race). It's up to you to determine the credibility of your sample and decide whether you can make the leap to conclude that you think that native americans as a whole are less interested in board games than (insert other race). Seems ok to me.  >If I offer suggestions, based on my experience, I will am terrible, awful and stupid.  Can you explain this? If I've found that women I play with tend to like game X, why is it bad to recommend that game upon finding out the person asking is a woman?   >For fcks sake :: If you like playing a game recommend it. If you don't offer another suggestion. If you think any gaming is gender specific then you have not been paying attention.   Yikes! I'd definitely not recommend a game simply because I like it. It's important to take into account characteristics of the person asking for the recommendation. I love Caylus, but I'll never recommend it to someone who's just getting into gaming!  >You don't know the gender of a username, unless they disclose it.  Good point! I'm talking more about when the gender is known.   >Because you are saying "them females don't like heavier games"  I'm actually saying that my experience is that females don't tend to like heavier games than men and I'm assuming the population follows the same trend. This is different than what you're claiming I've said.  >"My experience has been that males tend to prefer xbox than females." SEXIST and completely NOT True. Women out number men in buying consoles and console games.  Interesting! So, the correct statement would be "Females tend to prefer xbox over males", correct? Now, suppose that in my sample of friends, this is exactly what I'd observed and this is the conclusion I drew about the population - would that also be sexist? If not, then why is it sexist when I conclude that males tend to prefer xbox over females? It may be the wrong conclusion, but I don't think it's sexist.  >"My experience has been that blacks tend to prefer heavier games than whites."  If this is what I've observed, why is it racist? I'm genuinely asking. I'm not saying they prefer heavier games because they're black, I'm just suggesting that the evidence says there's some connection.  >Males are diverse, have preferences that aren't based on their gender ... so why would you say that about females.  I don't think I said that anywhere about females. To clarify - I think there's a connection between gender and the weight of games that they tend to like. I don't think that's the only variable that determines game preferences for either gender and I don't think I ever claimed that to be the case. [SEP] It is sexist or racist .... actually any type of "-ist" or "-phobic" if you generalize. ANYTHING!!!  It is sexist because you generalize and make suggestions because of their gender being female.   >I think there's a connection between gender and the weight of games that they tend to like.  SEXIST!!!!!!  Because YOU ARE WRONG!!!!  It doesn't matter what you personally experience doesn't mean you have some "insight" in gender gaming preferences. Like I tried to explain .... not all men like the same types of games SO why would females like the same types of games?   Saying males gamers don't like playing coop games. Is not only wrong but sexist. I generalized sexist statement against men. It is wrong because exposure changes things. Suggesting to the male gamers Pandemic, for example, will open their gaming experience.   THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN GENDER AND WEIGHT OF GAMES!!!!   There are all types of men. There are all types of females.   Side note: have you watch youtubers trying to explain a board game and completely decide not to play because the talent CAN'T teach a game? Or they over explain? Or they talk as if they are experts? Condescending?   Stop trying to find GENDER qualifier. It does not exist!  > If I've found that women I play with tend to like game X, why is it bad to recommend that game upon finding out the person asking is a woman?  BECAUSE THAT IS SEXIST.  "My female friends like this game, therefore you will like it." IS SEXIST AND IGNORANT.  Seriously. SEXIST  You NEVER, EVER ... EVER!!!! Suggest anything to someone because of a physical characteristic or gender. NEVER!!!  > If I've found that blue-eyed people I play with tend to like game X, why is it bad to recommend that game upon finding out the person asking is blue-eyed?  > If I've found that guys I play with tend to like game X, why is it bad to recommend that game upon finding out the person asking is a guy?  > If I've found that males I play with tend do not like game X, why is it bad to not recommend that game upon finding out the person asking is from a male?  It is absolutely stupid to think those statement hold true. The only reason you recommend a game is because YOU LIKE TO PLAY IT. Not because someone else likes to play ... because YOU LIKE TO PLAY THE GAME.  You NEVER say, "Oh my brown-eyed friend doesn't like 'Mice & Mystics' since you have brown-eyes you won't enjoy the game."  You NEVER say, "My female friends don't like to play LCGs, I would not recommend LCGs."  Can't you see from /r/boardgames the different tastes in boardgames with the male dominated subscribers? Why would females not have different tastes for boardgames?    I am seriously just baffled. 
It mentions the relation in the article. Of course articles are too much for you aren't they now kiddo? [SEP] .. burying the lead, the attention grabber, the reason people WOULD read this, is not becoming. Yes, the article mentions the relation. The headline should blast the relationship over a megaphone, on the world's largest PA.   > "articles are too much for you aren't they now kiddo?"  jesus h macy christ, who the hell died inside you? why be so condescending as if you know me or anything else for that matter? 
> Their justification is voting for the lesser of two evils  They don't even try to justify all the shit Trump said/did during the campaign. They loved the racists sexist remarks.   They all cried "but hillary's emails" anytime someone wanted them to defend Trump's hideous behavior.   >even if Trump turns out to be the greater of the two evils.  Turns out? It was blatant for 2 years he was the greater evil. It's a fucking false equivalency to say Hillary is anywhere near as bad as Trump.   But these people think Intelligent Design and Science are equal. They don't know shit about reality.  [SEP] > They loved the racists sexist remarks.  You have to be more specific and you have to show proof that they loved whatever remarks you're referring to.   > They all cried "but hillary's emails"  People should be concerned when she uses a separate server so that her work related (government) emails go unnoticed. People should be concerned when she's trafficking classified emails through an unsecured server. Trump has not done it.  > But these people think Intelligent Design and Science are equal. They don't know shit about reality.  Don't be condescending toward people that follow a religion that you don't. They're not forcing their religion upon you.  
"Mr. Boss, you have years of experience, you manage a team of experienced, results producing programmers who don't complain about the floor plan. I'm brand new to the company, hell, to the industry, but I don't like how you're doing things. You need to make special arrangements for me."  What you call defeatist I call realistic.  [SEP] > who don't complain about the floor plan  How the fuck do you know? Please stop talking out of your ass and being such a condescending prick.
when did we reset our relations with them? and why is not excusable for a candidate for office be talking to russians related to their government? that should be bringing up alarms. [SEP] >when did we reset our relations with them?  reset button supported by Hillary, then SoS, and Obama  > and why is not excusable for a candidate for office be talking to russians related to their government?  Because there is no evidence Trump talked to Russia. Even the most serious "Russian-collusion" case, Flynn, was cleared by the FBI with no wrongdoing.  >that should be bringing up alarms.  I don't want to sound condescending, but the amount of times people, both online and in real life, have told me "that should bring up alarms" makes the statement pretty moot.
The problem is that various groups of men are lumped into the category of “nice guy”: the friendzoned, the men who think niceness is attractive, the people who really do think they should be rewarded with sex for being nice, the chivalrous, etc. You can’t really critique the term “nice guy” because its only egregious offenders that are labelled as "nice guys”, the rest are just simply invisible and forgotten. [SEP] > The problem is that various groups of men are lumped into the category of “nice guy”: the friendzoned, the men who think niceness is attractive, the people who really do think they should be rewarded with sex for being nice, the chivalrous, etc.  Most "nice guys" are a combination of these characteristics. They're not really exclusive.  The only men who stand out are alpha men who display attractive qualities (good looks, confidence, dominance, etc), who also call themselves "a nice guy". But of course, they are not included in the common, condescending definition of the term.
>What I really enjoyed about this post in particular, were his concepts of the characteristics of an omniscient God; which I thought were extremely insightful. The only issue that I had, was with his assumptions of God's judgment.  You enjoyed his assumptions of one god's characteristics because they matched what you were taught/believe, but you don't like his assumptions in this same god's judgment because they don't match what you were taught/believe. Correct?  Do us a favour and forgo "discussing" about any person not being able to understand/perceive this mythical creature's intentions if you're going to spend the next few paragraphs speaking about how you know them as well as referring to a piece of pre-(modern) science science fiction. May Thor be with you. [SEP] >You enjoyed his assumptions of one god's characteristics because they >matched what you were taught/believe, but you don't like his >assumptions in this same god's judgment because they don't match >what you were taught/believe. Correct?  Incorrect. I do not agree with his assumptions because they do not align with the context (that is the Bible). I provided the context to support my reasoning, see Romans 3:22-24, John 3:16.   >Do us a favour and forgo "discussing" about any person not being able >to understand/perceive this mythical creature's intentions if you're >going to spend the next few paragraphs speaking about how you >know them as well as referring to a piece of pre-(modern) science >science fiction. May Thor be with you.  I know what I read, and I have read that God judges you based on your sin. Which will only be over looked through the salvation of Christ.   I guess my request for a counterpoint free from condescending overtones was too much to ask.   May the douche be with you.   
> Okay, fuck it, I'll just continue working with a hernia until I'm 65 strictly because libertarians take ideological issue with the notion of communal empathy.   No they take an issue with using force in executing such empathy. You assume that not wanting force people to do X=not wanting people to do X.  > So where's that 90 thousand now? Never went to a hospital once.  Insurance is about amortizing risk over a long period of time. I fear you might misunderstand how insurance works.  > Maybe I'm not smart enough to figure out how but I'm certainly sensible enough to know that we can afford healthcare for everyone.   The how is the most important part. Not all proposals for how will be affordable.  I'm fully willing to discuss the merits and flaws of a given proposal or set of them.   My response was primarily addressing the idea that the increase in cost for a medicare-for-all proposal would be trivial.  >Anyway, sorry for the rant. Bad day on this end. Write me back after you've watched the video. And don't gloat when your side wins.... Cheers!  I don't like to see debates as winning and losing. Debates should be about subjecting your views to scrutiny and refining it, and at least one but hopefully both parties coming out with a better understanding and better arguments, even if they don't change their ultimate conclusion. [SEP] >No they take an issue with using force in executing such empathy.    Please describe for me a functioning government, past or present, that did not have at its disposal, the threat of force, used to coerce the desired social outcomes? Force is always present, usually on the outskirts, usually maintained simply as a threat, while otherwise reasonable people on the inside attempt a dialogue that does not descend into anarchy. Your side could use force to not pay the taxes. Maybe secede from the Union. There is no justification for a serious scholar to interject their disapproval of "force" as any part of a cogent argument. It's rhetorical solipsism and adds nothing.    > I fear you might misunderstand how insurance works.    Okay you can skip the unoriginal and condescending talking points because they're not only lame - they're WRONG! That 90 thousand was not "amortizing risk" - the majority of it was helping pay for Joe Schmoe's heart bypass or some preemie's incubator. But more than anything else, it was lining the pockets of lightly regulated and completely unethical doctors and administrators. The point you fail to grasp is that no matter how faithful I was to Blue Cross, I was never more than a profit potential to them, same as my pizza customers are to me. But your health should not be balanced on a profit metric.... Why? Because my customers can shop around for a better pizza, and not die during the search. And for creative destruction to work its magic in the field of health maintenance, for us to eventually discover who the "under-performers" are -- many people have to die first.    So we've seen what doesn't work - private insurance control, and free markets. And we've seen what DOES work: The American VA system, Medicare, and the socialized medicine of every other developed nation on the planet.    Meanwhile -- I also spent about 90 thousand on social security insurance for retirement. Did I lose it during the lean years when I couldn't afford anything ? Nope, it's still there waiting for me.
A better word would be "women" in any case. I've never heard anyone personally use the word "males" in place of men, but I've heard people say "females" plenty of times.   I will admit that with the rise of the alt-right and their association with the RedPill/Niceguys/Neckbeards^TM this word is getting noticed more in that group. That's all I was trying to point out, that the word is used by a group of undesirable people. [SEP] > I've never heard anyone personally use the word "males" in place of men  Because usually they say "guys". There's not really a polite female equivalent. "Gals" is awkward and "dolls" is condescending.   An analog might be women who refer to males as "boys". This can seem demeaning or in the wrong circles racist.  As to the use of "female" in OP's question, I think it was the most inclusive word. "Girls" is demeaning to the older women and "women" alienates the younger redditors.
> If you haven't heard of it, then you lack a position on the topic. That's pretty simple.   I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. When you haven't heard of something, you don't believe in it. If I were to ask you: do you believe in LKsdf'SAdflsi VI? Your response isn't "I don't have a position on the topic", you search your memory for "things you believe in" and you don't find "LKsdf'SAdflsi VI" and honestly answer: no, I don't believe in LKsdf'SAdflsi VI.  > This is why calling a baby an atheist really doesn't make sense.  Implicit atheism - check it out. Atheism implies all gods. This is different from two thousand years ago when Christians were called atheists which meant they don't believe in the particular God. I think it's silly to call Christians atheists now because the definition has changed from one particular God to all Gods.  > babies don't take a position on the existence of god, and thus cannot be atheists.  Atheism: lack of belief in Gods. Do babies believe in God? No. Therefore, atheists. You cannot not have a position on belief. You MUST either believe or not believe. You cannot semi-believe.  > atheists -that is, people who believe no gods exist  We have a problem with definition. "people who believe no gods exist" are gnostic atheists and, yes, babies are not that. Neither are vast majority of atheists.  If you're one of those "agnostic atheism means nothing, you should call yourself an agnostic" then fine, that's your issue with the definitions. Considering you can be an agnostic theist, I find the label "agnostic" ambiguous.  > there is no reason to claim that one believes, but doesn't know that god doesn't exist.  Yes there is - there are atheists out there that DO know that God doesn't exist.  > there is no reason to proclaim, "I believe, but I don't know."   Actually, all hypotheses are exactly this. People have a hunch but they don't know... so they run the experiment to know. However, you're right, science has nothing to do with atheism.  > It's disingenuous to claim to be an agnostic when you know for a fact that you are gnostic about some (in fact, most- once you realize how "knowledge" is actually defined) god-claims.  In the context of someone living in the US, when the term "God" is used, it's typically referred to the Abrahamic God rather than, say, Thor. I do not have proof for or against the existence of the Abrahamic God. Therefore: I don't know.  > But "god" as a non-empirical "entity" (for lack of better words) has always been known throughout the ages  Nope. At best, it was "gods" - monotheism is a relatively new idea, at worst it was animism. Wind blowing, 250,000 years ago? Why that's the Wolf Spirit howling. Animism later merged into gods.  > We've refined our concept of god over time   Yes, we removed most of things attributed to this God to other things. This continued shrinkage of the power of God is worrying. Will God eventually be stuffed into the time before the Big Bang, with everything else explained?  > you also have no proof that the theory of gravity is true  Yes I do. I can prove it through a scientific experiment which is testable, repeatable, and has predictive properties. If your point eventually leads to solipsism then I do not care about this line of philosophical thought.  > there should be physical evidence   Have we excavated absolutely everything on Earth? No more discoveries? This also assumes that the horn is a bone. What if it's flesh or even cartilage?  > there is absolutely no logical reason he cannot intervene   Christians would disagree with you.  > the problem of evil shows that this god doesn't exist, logically speaking.  I have no problem with the problem of evil. I believe evil must logically exist.  > we already know that that god doesn't exist  News to me. You have proof because I don't.  > Wasting our time with such inane conceptions of god is a pointless  Sure but considering people who believe in Gods change laws... it kind of affects me personally.  I'm going to reply to the other post because this is already huge!  > One exists (in theory), one doesn't  I don't care about theories, just reality. I'm OK with "theory" Gods but that's not the type of Gods who people use to change our reality.  > there are plenty of reasons to believe in things we can't directly perceive  But quarks, etc, all make themselves known. It's possible that we don't have the instruments yet to detect God. We could one day, I don't know.  > as well as mathematical objects   I'm not a math guy but either mathematical objects describe reality (ex: Pi) or it's something way beyond me but I don't believe something like that is where gods would hide. It's certainly not in their nature based on the descriptions in various holy texts.  > Belief means one thinks something is true...  Nailed that whole paragraph right on the head.  > when it comes to the sciences, you realize that objective, peer-reviewed ...  Sure but note that it doesn't affect my life. I'd care a lot more if their conclusions were that SsurebreC is to blame and he must be killed. Big Bang, evolution, climate change, etc, are pretty much irrelevant to me in my daily life. This is unlike religious claims of Gods where, if they were true, I need to drastically change my life right now.  > it is clear to me that you didn't mean this latter sense   Just a tip... I'm obviously not a philosopher, a scientist, or even much of a debater. Take it easy on me - you clearly could be writing books and giving lectures on this stuff, if you don't already.  > idea that knowledge ... is like a product of an animal  Well crap, I thought it was my idea. I'll look into him, though I will say that philosophy isn't a hobby of mine.  > You seem very smart  Nah, this type of a discussion just isn't my thing. I've also been distracted by the real world so on one hand, I'm eating this up, but on the other hand, I have other things on my mind.  > nothing is "proven" in science  The difference is that philosophy - as I know it - has ideas but there are no real wrong ideas. Science has plenty of wrong ideas. The testability, reliability, and predictability of scientific experiments gives me confidence that it is true enough. For some things, like gravity, we can prove it through repeated experiments. For other things, like Big Bang or abiogenesis, it's possible we can't ever prove it. To me, anyway.  > you can ONLY prove ...things via logic or math  There is some high-level math that I think is out there as far as its ability to prove anything. Logic however is tricky, you can get into trouble with unproven axioms. [SEP] Pt. 2  >Yes there is - there are atheists out there that DO know that God doesn't exist.  I think this may speak to a misunderstanding of what "knowledge" entails on your part.  If you reasonably believe something (have a proper justification for something), and that justified belief is true, you have knowledge.  For all you know, you actually do have knowledge that god doesn't exist right now.  This concept is often misunderstood by fledgling epistemologists: you don't need to "know that you know" god doesn't exist, to say you know he doesn't exist.  >Actually, all hypotheses are exactly this. People have a hunch but they don't know... so they run the experiment to know. However, you're right, science has nothing to do with atheism.  To be specific, in the scientific paradigm, there is no consideration of personal beliefs. So whether they have a hunch, or know, or whatever is entirely, 100% irrelevant for science as an enterprise. Science is only concerned with objective knowledge, apart from the subjective knower, whereas what we're concerned with here (in a philosophical debate) is with knowledge as inextricable from the subjective knower.  Think of 'knowledge' in the objective sense as "a body of knowledge."  Think of your "knowledge" in the subjective sense as, "personally knowing."  When it comes to hypotheses, and we're concerning ourselves with the wholly irrelevant topic of the personal scientist's subjective notions about the hypothesis-   If he has a hunch (not a belief) that the hypothesis is true, or has an emotional want for the hypothesis to be true (maybe because he is working under someone he is trying to impress or some such scenario), neither of these are the basis for beliefs (justifications/reasons are)- and so he wouldn't claim to believe it is true, and he can't claim to know that it is true, nor would he say he thinks he knows it's true: he doesn't have a belief in it, and so he doesn't think it is true.  But if he goes into a hypothesis believing (justifiably) that it is true- then he thinks he knows it is true, and can say reasonably that he knows provisionally that it is true, but will be open to further testing to have that provisional (fallible, weak) knowledge overturned.  If he has justification to believe that his hypothesis is true, that means he thinks he knows it's true. Does he know that he knows it is true? No; but that's not a requirement for knowledge (again, I know this is a difficult concept- and I don't say that condescendingly- I just remember thinking about this particular concept, "This is bull shit! You need to know that you know!" but nope, that's not the case).  This is also why scientists often stubbornly cling to their pet hypotheses in spite of them failing or being proven wrong by others. They really do think they know it is true, because they held a belief about it going into the experiment(s).  Now, if they're trying to disprove something, 'cause they got beef with another scientist-dude/dudette, then they're probably not going in with the belief that the hypothesis is true, and thus, they don't think they know it; but that's not what you were describing because you were speaking about hypotheses they believed, but didn't know.  So, when science is done unbiasedly, and the hypothesis being tested doesn't reflect a personal belief of the scientist, yes, they can go in saying, "we have a hunch, but we don't know."  But a hunch is different than a belief, and thus one of the requirements of forming knowledge (justified, true belief) is absent; at least in this scenario. Don't you agree?   >In the context of someone living in the US, when the term "God" is used, it's typically referred to the Abrahamic God rather than, say, Thor. I do not have proof for or against the existence of the Abrahamic God. Therefore: I don't know.  Really? That's one of the easiest ones: the problem of evil. QED.  Does that work for every god? No; but if god can intervene to perform inane miracles and prove he's so awesome, and completely corrupt the free will of human beings by making his presence known- then he can certainly intervene to stop rapes and murders- at the least- and no, the theist can't use the "free will defense" because they just admitted that god has intervened and screwed with our free will before.  Because there are rapes and murders, we know that the abrahamic god doesn't exist.  Now, does that disprove god in general? Absolutely, positively not. But the stronger god conceptions (ones that are similar to the christian god in some ways, like being triple-omni, having a teleological aim, fine-tuning and creating the universe, being perfect, judging our moral compasses, etc.) that are strictly non-interventionist to keep epistemic distance so as NOT to sully our free will like the abrahamic conception are absolutely defendable against the PoE; all you have to say is that god could and would not sully the free will of his creations, and thus, he can't/won't intervene.   Of course, the biblical interpretation flies in the face of that. But the biblical interpretation is also insane. As long as a theist admits that god could intervene in spacetime for just one instance, such as making a statue cry blood, there is no logical reason to say god wouldn't intervene to stop rapes- because if he's willing to risk altering the trajectory of our moral compassess and our free will by making his presence known with silly miracles that prove the laws of physics can be halted by an all-powerful deity- then he has no reason to not take that risk with stopping rapes.  >Nope. At best, it was "gods" - monotheism is a relatively new idea, at worst it was animism. Wind blowing, 250,000 years ago? Why that's the Wolf Spirit howling. Animism later merged into gods.  Well, I was trying to say that while multiple gods were claimed to exist, there tended to be a concept of "the infinite," "the demiurge," "the one," from which everything, including those gods came.  But you're not entirely wrong either. Fair enough.  >Yes, we removed most of things attributed to this God to other things. This continued shrinkage of the power of God is worrying. Will God eventually be stuffed into the time before the Big Bang, with everything else explained?  Except, the strongest conceptions of god don't have him interacting within spacetime, or performing "natural" feats that nature can do itself. It may have been silly of us to assume a "false positive" that it was in fact god (or gods) making these things happen, but god as an explanatory principle does explain other things that science will never answer.  Does this mean I believe in god? No. But is it reasonable to? Very. Is the Christian God reasonable to believe in? Absolutely not. But is deism a tenable position? More so than you think.  >Yes I do. I can prove it through a scientific experiment which is testable, repeatable, and has predictive properties. If your point eventually leads to solipsism then I do not care about this line of philosophical thought.  No, no, no. It doesn't lead to solipsism. It merely points out what Hume, one of the greatest philosophers of science (who was also an atheist said), you don't "prove" anything via causation, which is what you're trying to do here. You can demonstrate the theory of gravity, over and over, but you can't prove it. This has nothing to do with solipsism; but the point is that you've proven nothing about the theory of gravity via these repeated demonstrations except for one thing: how strong of a theory it is.  >Have we excavated absolutely everything on Earth? No more discoveries? This also assumes that the horn is a bone. What if it's flesh or even cartilage?  You don't need to excavate the whole earth. Lol. You can claim provisional knowledge; and based on the fact that we also know that the person who wrote about unicorns was mistaken about a rhino, we can use this evidence in tandem with the fact that we have no physical evidence so far (where there probably should have been some by now) that unicorns exist. If unicorns play no explanatory role in anything, we have no evidence where there should likely be some, and we have reason to believe someone was mistaken about unicorns existing and then proliferated a tall-tale about it; then we can provisionally claim knowledge that they don't exist. We have a theory that they don't exist, and I've just presented a bunch of facts. The theory is falsifiable, so you can prove it true by getting a unicorn carcass or some such thing. We think this scientific theory is true, and say we know it, provisionally, but we're open to changing our minds given better evidence or falsification.  >Christians would disagree with you.  And Christians are mostly illiterate; and those who aren't tend to compartmentalize. It's pretty simple. Don't mistake me as saying that people who believe in god do such things. It's really just organized religious people I'm speaking about.  >News to me. You have proof because I don't.  Like I said: if he can intervene and sully our free will, then there is no logical way to say the problem of evil is wrong; and therefore, we know (at the least provisionally) that that god doesn't exist. But still, I'm going to also claim that we strongly know he doesn't exist, because it is illogical for god to be omnibenevolent, yet allow rape, yet still be able to intervene.  >Sure but considering people who believe in Gods change laws... it kind of affects me personally.  Fair enough... but you most likely won't argue such people out of their inane beliefs. And what I was trying to imply is that if you wish to further your philosophical beliefs, don't waste your time with such simpleton conceptions of god.
What? So geographic proximity and financial means are the only criteria that determine accountability? Bill Gates is capable of providing every homeless person in Seattle with a home and certainly has the means, does that mean no one should give any homeless in Seattle money because Bill Gates could take of it and he already lives there?   Our values are better than those of UAE and Saudi Arabia and I don't want them to be the barometers of our moral obligations and I am pretty sure you don't either. Others shirking their responsibilities doesn't justify us doing the same. Plenty of countries are doing significantly more than we are and the top 10 refugee hosting countries in the world are not in the west. Turkey and Lebanon have taken over a million refugees each in a conflict that we are at least in part to blame.   You have no idea what I do and what level of personal accountability I exhibit. As it happens I do lend my time and money to numerous causes including refugee and asylum organizations. Plus I pay taxes so I get to voice my opinion on how the government is run whether or not you agree with it. Virtue signalling is a term dumb people use when they get called out on their bullshit and really doesn't mean anything.   A lightening quick glance at you post history shows you are and undergraduate student so I can't even really get that frustrated. You have almost certainly lived your whole life in a nice protected little bubble and never really had to work with other people and likely haven't seen enough of the world to realize it is not as black and white as you want it to be.   I have been talking down to you and being an ass but it is only because I find your opinion morally repugnant and whats worse not terribly well thought out. That is not the attacking you. And no I won't get off my high horse.. Edit: And to the whole ignorance is bliss comment, please do enlighten with your worldly knowledge Mr. ASU undergrad. I have been all over the world doing the work I do and have had long meaningful relationships with people in some of the countries included in that ban. Yep I know this is an appeal to authority fallacy but I don't care. You are nothing but a pissed off, entitled, whiny brat who doesn't know jack shit about the world and hasn't contributed fuck all to it but somehow thinks you are owed something and that you know shit.  [SEP] > So geographic proximity and financial means are the only criteria that determine accountability?   I'm going to avoid your use of a logical fallacy again and address the question without the "only" since I see how you're trying to twist my words. Yes geographical proximity and financial means are huge factors, along with refugees being able to assimilate in those countries better than the US.  > Bill Gates is capable of providing every homeless person in Seattle  That's a red herring that has nothing to do with the subject. Bill Gates can decide to do what he wants with his money. Do you believe you know what's in the best interest of Bill Gates? Do you know how to allocated Gates' money better than he does? Didn't think so.  > Our values are better than those of UAE and Saudi Arabia  So because "our values are better" all other countries are barred from providing help for these refugees? I'm sure you don't know the wealth amassed in these countries that are certainly better in aiding refugees, they have money to burn. In Saudi Arabia all citizens get $10k a month just for being unemployed. Are you telling me Saudi Arabia can't help out?  > Plenty of countries are doing significantly more than we are and the top 10 refugee hosting countries in the world are not in the west.  Ah, you want the US to be the babysitter for all the world's problems, don't ya?  > Turkey and Lebanon have taken over a million refugees each in a conflict that we are at least in part to blame.   I think the blame for that lies with the last administration. You know the one that invaded Libya and Syria.  > You have no idea what I do and what level of personal accountability I exhibit.  Clearly, you don't care about accountability if you don't think better suited countries should help instead.  > Plus I pay taxes so I get to voice my opinion on how the government is run whether or not you agree with it.  And as a taxpayer too I get my voice as well instead of having you dictating what I should do or think.  > Virtue signalling is a term dumb people use when they get called out on their bullshit and really doesn't mean anything.  Oh you and your blanket claims. I don't believe you actually care for refugees. You're refusing to admit you can be wrong, which would then make you smug and ethnocentric.  > You have almost certainly lived your whole life in a nice protected little bubble and never really had to work with other people and likely haven't seen enough of the world to realize it is not as black and white as you want it to be.   "Never had to work with other." How narrow-minded and self-centered can you get? Boy, you don't even know what struggling and grinding is until you experience anything close to what I have to do for school and work/internships. You don't even know the work I had and have to do. In fact, I'm guessing when you were my age, you were a slacker protected by your parent's safety bubble while I was grinding out work.  > I have been talking down to you and being an ass because I find your opinion morally repugnant and whats worse not terribly well thought out.  That's just you being condescending and pretentious.  > And no I won't get off my high horse.  Ah, your fragile little ego can't take being criticized.  I'm going to guess you are a Gen-Xer with a narrow worldview. You're probably a registered democrat and you only vote for democrats since you have party alliance. You also believe you have a greater importance to the world than actually true. You probably called yourself a "political expert" even though you probably get all your political news from buzzfeed and r/politics, havens for gullible readers to shelter their world view. You go a college subreddit despite you not knowing how the college financial system works today and how they force students to take out student loans. But I'm sure your mommy and daddy paid it all for you, aren't you a little privileged? You frequently get into arguments with people, looking at your comment history, which makes me thing you like arguing for the sake of arguing and not to present any concrete stances. Now I see your patriots flair on r/NFL so I know 1) You never watched football before the year 2001 2) You're a bandwagon fan 3) You know nothing about the sport because the patriots are the team of those who don't know football. But enough of my trying to analyze what you are  You Gen-Xers fucked up our country and all you do is point fingers at everyone else without taking personal responsibilities. You quarantine yourself in your liberal echo chambers to protect your fragile self-confidence. You can't make any valid points, nor give one fact to support your claims. Honestly, it's sad having to school you with facts and point out your unchecked bias'. But hey, keep believing Mass Media doublespeak because you are certainly that gullible to believe anything that shapes your confirmation bias.
He said he didn't know most of the facts, implying he was writing from a barely informed (ignorant) view. While we don't know if the facts he know are in addition to what has been in the news as of late, I believe even OP would say he is not "clearly informed." You wrote about illegal settlements while talking about the Arab-Israel conflict as a whole, implying you feel the entire nation is illegal. The conflict dates back over a century, illegal settlements on yje occupied lands are only part of it.  Adult tip: Don't flip out because your communication skills are poor. When that happens in the real world you find yourself out of a job real quick. Better to clarify what you meant to say.  EDIT: And don't curse, very immature [SEP] >I don't have all the facts  Direct quote.  Also I know all of the factors involved in the conflict. The wars, peacemaking, terrorism, illegal settlements and how the country of Israel even came to be. I just mentioned illegal settlements as an example and now you're taking it way out of context.  I don't see where I flipped out at all. This is the internet, it's nothing like real life. You're the one with poor communication skills seeing as you can't seem to understand the points I'm making. You're points are also very vague and don't make a lot of sense. Stuff like this is why it's hard to understand what the hell you're saying:   >You wrote about illegal settlements while talking about the Arab-Israel conflict as a whole, implying you feel the entire nation is illegal.  How does that even compare?   I'll tell you how you end up out of a job: Being condescending and indecisive.  In regards to your edit:  http   Who's immature now?
1 & 2) It was a question, but an educated guess. Even if not true for you, it's true for most people reading.  > there are alternatives to factory farming, people just don't use them  3) Right, so we agree. No need to be derogatory or treat me as "one of you people".  Don't worry, you'll win the vote-war in any case. People hate uncomfortable truths. [SEP] > People hate uncomfortable truths.  Actually you just came off as really condescending
"I don't have any real arguments so I'm just gonna act like I'm cool" Ok bro. This is not a conspiracy, this is what suits working in those companies spend half a day figuring out, cause it's their job. There's a whole science around products in the supermarket, where they're positioned, next to what, how close to exit, what music is playing, which product is discounted etc... All to maximize profit. If you think gaming companies are above doing something similar you're living under teenage delusion. [SEP] LoL is a free to play game, they don't make money just by selling it. They have to get people to play the game for a long time to actually make money off of them. You think that LoL would leave their game an unbalanced pile of shit with no patches and still make money?  > This is not a conspiracy, this is what suits working in those companies spend half a day figuring out, cause it's their job. There's a whole science around products in the supermarket, where they're positioned, next to what, how close to exit, what music is playing, which product is discounted etc... All to maximize profit.  You do realize that the balance team is completely separate from the marketing team? The balance team's job is to make the state of the game fun for people to play, because when people play a game a lot and enjoy it, they tend to spend money on it.  LoL doesn't get any money just by getting people to try out the game. They don't just hype up a video game release for 60$, then ditch the game and make another sequel. No they have to get people to actually play the game to make money off of it.  So "bro" where are your arguments, I've just seen you spout condescending bullshit that has nothing to do with the topic.
I know where its from, and that why I know he is implying our lobbying is fine compared to some other lobbies. Do I really need to think for you or you're fine by yourself? [SEP] > Do I really need to think for you or you're fine by yourself?  Please stop being condescending.  Also, he still isn't implying that, IMO. Going back to what I said earlier:  > All he said was the the European Union didn't sell us out to the telecom lobbies. Which is true.
> somehow magically mean my real experiences with your cult didn't happen.  Alright, so, we've established the truth here, finally. You're mad because someone who claimed to be Christian hurt you. Maybe it was one person, maybe it was an entire denomination -- I don't know. But I do know that this explains why you're so bitter. Again, I'm sorry for whatever abuse happened or how you were treated. You deserved better.   > Christians... have ALWAYS been a net negative  No, they haven't? The Catholic Church preserved the knowledge of the Western World after Rome fell. It built the first Hospitals, and remains the world's largest charity organization. The Church, the Christian faith (and indeed, most all religious Faiths) are forces for good in the world.  [SEP] > But I do know that this explains why you're so bitter.   Thanks for admitting that you can't even make the most feeble attempt at addressing your cult's atrocities. Your condescending whines about how "bitter" you've been programmed to believe I am mean absolutely NOTHING.   > I'm sorry for whatever abuse happened or how you were treated. You deserved better.  No, you're NOT sorry, you DON'T have a problem with abuse, because you won't denounce the evil lies your cult made up to justify abuse.   Admit that the dogma of hell is a lie, and everyone who promotes it is a monster, or you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a subhuman piece of shit with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. If you want to spread the good news, go tell people there is no god so evil as to burn people alive forever, and the monsters who spread that delusion were LYING! That's an infinitely better message than every bit of the worthless bullshit your cult preaches.   > The Catholic Church preserved the knowledge of the Western World after Rome fell.   The Rape Children Cult set people on fire for daring to suggest the Earth revolves around the sun! What the fuck is WRONG with you that you think that qualifies are PRESERVING knowledge?   > The Church, the Christian faith (and indeed, most all religious Faiths) are forces for good in the world.  No, they are, always have been, and always will be forces for evil. Your inability to denounce the most vile and depraved doctrine of your child-raping death cult proves that. 
Second person who called me biased for no apparent reason.   And my "statement presented as fact" was me paraphrasing the comment before me. He literally empirically proved my "asinine statement" true.    Your comment however, has inaccuracies. Big ones. In gw2 if you get your gear, you are set. Permanently. You won't need a gear upgrade. Ever. I can come back in one year and my chars will still be geared and viable for raids and fractals. For WoW that's not true. I enjoy wow sometimes, but never for it's structured content and vertical gear progression system. That's what I don't like. [SEP] > Second person who called me biased for no apparent reason.  Because it clearly showed in your post. It came off as condescending.  > And my "statement presented as fact" was me paraphrasing the comment before me. He literally empirically proved my "asinine statement" true.  You need to go through some serious mental gymnastics to come to this conclusion.  > Your comment however, has inaccuracies. Big ones.  How so? I never stated there was vertical progression in GW2. I just stated that you need to farm gear to get into Fractals and Raids. How is that statement inaccurate? I would love to know.  > For WoW that's not true. I enjoy wow sometimes, but never for it's structured content and vertical gear progression system. That's what I don't like.  Nothing wrong with that. Like I said, you enjoy GW2 and that's good for you. The lack of gear treadmill is what I enjoy about this game too. It allows me to come back whenever I feel like taking a break from other games I play and just pick up where I left off.
Math kind of works the same all over the world. If there's an error in my math feel free to point it out. [SEP] >Math kind of works the same all over the world  That sounded kinda condescending/dickish, lets be civil.   >The average annual cost of BC per person total, not just for the insuree is around $1200  Where are you getting your numbers?  http  15->25 per month per person in Canada  In the last paragraph you start listing lifetime costs for raising kids, that has nothing to do health insurance. 
> Maybe what you were arguing was that you need a good CPU in order to fully utilize a high-end GPU and that the bottleneck will occur there. But that was never clear in both of your comments.  Well, yes, that's how it works. Progress!  Most gamers with mainstream systems will never run into a CPU bottleneck, their GPUs are the limiting factor in any game.  That used to be common knowledge around this sub even a few months ago.  CPU bottlenecks haven't been an issue with modern games for quite a while (at least for single GPU systems) and only have become more widespread sine the release of the GTX 980 Ti - which now means 1070 and higher, which is starting to affect the mainstream.  Not that it should be necessary to explain that in a thread about the GTX 1080. 'Guess it is ...  Or the "144fps gaming" in the title could have given it away, at least ...  Or the fact that I quite explicitly mentioned a range of 100 to 125 FPS, which isn't something you reach with any midrange card.  Just for comparison: your GTX 960 or its current equivalent, the GTX 1050 Ti, would typically reach around 50 FPS in AAA games at 1080p and Very High'ish settings.  Miles away from any CPU bottleneck.  > The most recent AAA title I played is Witcher 3 but I'm still not bottlenecked by my CPU.  Witcher 3 is indeed an AAA title, and one of the better benchmarks for CPU limitations when doing the Novigrad runs - the huge amount of buildings, objects and NPCs take a huge toll on CPU performance.  Your 960 though isn't anywhere close to fast enough to show that effect, it would still be the bottleneck if combined with weak CPUs like AMD's FX and Phenom II or Intel's Nehalem (first generation of Core iX), you'd have to go back to first gen Phenoms or low-clocked Core2Duo/Quad CPUs.  Oh, and ... Overwatch actually is a title that can start running into CPU bottlenecks, but typically that won't happen below 160 to 200 FPS on modern systems, it's the push towards the 300 FPS limit that requires a mid- or high-end CPU (mid-end = high-end of mainstream, read that as i7 4770k, 4790k, 6700k and 7700k, high-end = absolute high-end, like the i7 5960X, 6900K, 6950X and 7820X and any i9) along with a low-latency RAM configuration.  All of that becomes important when using a GTX 1070 or 1080 at 1080p and starts to be an issue with the GTX 1080 Ti at 1440p.  (And technically AMD's Fury and Vega cards at 1080p, but these have additional problems that limits scaling).  >Wow. Sorry for ruining the whole subreddit with my ONE comment. Hold on, let me report my own comment. Why are you so angry? Who the fuck hurt you?  No, your ONE comment isn't ruining the subreddit, and I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you actually know that you're on a ridiculous strawman argument here and just use hyberbole for entertainment value.  In fact, you actually wrote a reply instead of just downvoting, which puts you miles ahead of the rest of the mob. Which is why I'm actually giving it a try to explain to you what's the problem.  But your presence in this discussion is indeed a problem, or rather, a symptom of a bigger problem.  Now, I get where you're probably coming from - this subreddit has a history of being a helpful resource, you likely got help here at some time or other and now you feel like you should repay that by offering your experiences to others.  And of course the very human instinct of belonging to something, in this case the Tribe of PC Builders.  Great, very understandable.   But unfortunately not helpful at all.  Voices like yours are far more numerous now than actual expert voices, and to the point that expert voices are now the outliers and getting treated as such.  And as a result, qualified comments get even rarer while like/dislike feedback (which btw is NOT what the upvote and downvote buttons are for) create an echo chamber effect for populist opinions.  You are part of the problem.  Which is again part of a much greater problem, that's affecting every single facet of our civilization that's being touched and transformed by modern internet culture and that experts have been warning about since "Web 2.0" became a buzzword.  Yes, I'm quite frustrated about this whole issue, and it might actually show in the tone of my posts. Sorry about that, not sorry, actually.  Yes, it wouldn't really change much if you alone become aware of what you're doing and changed your behavior.  But: since you were the one person to actually engage in discussion, I'm going to address you as proxy for everyone like you, for the whole class of netizens you represent, who might still read this and also get an opportunity to reflect about this.  I'm NOT blaming you personally.  Most likely, you're actually trying to help - you just don't have the expertise necessary to understand that you're actually hurting your own interests instead. [SEP] > Well, yes, that's how it works. Progress!  Do you even see how condescending you are? Or how you seem to think your own opinions should matter more than the average user?   Again, I'm explaining that you never explicitly said that the CPU is bottle-necking the GPU. The implication was that CPUs are bottle-necking games. I was mentioning it as a possible reason why people were downvoting.  > you actually know that you're on a ridiculous strawman argument here and just use hyperbole for entertainment value.   And yes, I was taking the piss with my comment.   > Voices like yours are far more numerous now than actual expert voices, and to the point that expert voices are now the outliers and getting treated as such.  So what are you proposing then? Only have approved users post and comment? ^^^(hyperbole)  Regardless, that is a very tall order for such a large subreddit with just a handful of mods. Who gets to decide who the experts are? Who gets to decide that comments like mine are the problem? Do we only provide benchmark results to people who ask "which CPU is better?" because those are the people who actually did the tests?  > you just don't have the expertise necessary to understand that you're actually hurting your own interests instead.  How do you know I don't? How do I or other people know that you do? And how am I hurting my own interest? I come here to help people and keep myself informed of what's up with the PC enthusiast scene. If I say anything wrong, people will happily correct me and I'll be much more knowledgeable about it. If I'm right, people will agree. That's how it works.  If you have a problem with how the sub is run, build your own. Message the mods. Start a discussion. Ranting to a random guy about problems you perceive will achieve very little. As reddit likes to regurgitate over and over again, be the change you want to see.
Can you people who are under 35 kindly register and VOTE? Would it kill you? And spare me that "Aww but both parties are the saaaaame" lazy nonsense. [SEP] > And spare me that "Aww but both parties are the saaaaame" lazy nonsense.  Spare me your condescending "People with different priorities than me are wrong" speech and I'll spare you mine.  Put a gun to my head and I'll vote republican or democrat. Until then, piss off.
I knew you are my number 1 fan, but now you want to do artistic painting of me? I'm flattered but I don't need a stalker.  Listen Twwwy, I think you're a bitter douche who has no luck with women. You never agree with me and I'll never agree with you.  So why don't you stop talking to me and both save us some time ? :)   [SEP] >Listen Twwwy, I think you're a bitter douche who has no luck with women. You never agree with me and I'll never agree with you.  OOO, I love the smell of personal attacks, as it gives me the opportunity to post back personal attacks! HOORAY! Let's do this...  Listen /u/n0ggy , I think you're a self-obsessed borderline narcissist who fake-brags about his 'tonne of success' with women, to act as a pivot to express his snobby and condescending views phrased as 'that's so generalizing, men and women both do this, we all do this' upboats please statements, which convey nothing much; and who likes to make stupid childish personal attacks at people of 'haha, you don't get laid, you such with women' like a little bitch when his opinions are challenged and when he's got nothing else to say.  This is a public-forum, and when I'll see someone post something here which I find to be bullshit, I'll comment on it, deal with it I guess. I've never talked to you personally and neither do I dream of it; I'm not a fan of snobby douches personally to have as convo-partners/friends.   But a point/concept you raise, I'll debate it: if I want. So, deal with it. 
Passive aggressive? Ok, I'll stop trying to be tactful and constructive.  Your music is cliche and derivative. It has been done to death since the mid 1990s. You are offering nothing new, or interesting. Over-production is not a replacement for creativity. Your synths already sound dated.  This is why I never listen to tracks in this forum. Why did I start now? Oh yes, you promised me 'non-oontz music'. And then you started trashing people who bothered to listen to it who didn't lick your arse. [SEP] >Passive aggressive? Ok, I'll stop trying to be tactful and constructive.  You were being tactful? Perhaps in your very first reply. Constructive? Nowhere in this thread. The only reason I called you out on your BS is because it was BS. Here's why:  A. You took a completely insigifnicant, tongue-in-cheek comment and twisted it out of proportion and context.   Seriously, who fucking cares?   Even so, just to be perfectly clear, my comment was simply meant to diffuse the notion that "electronic music equals 10-hour fistpumper drumloops with random police siren sounds mixed in." Most people who see the words "electronic" and "music" in a single sentence immediately think of that particular flavor of house music and walk away, which is what I was trying to avoid.  B. When you were asked to explain why you felt the way you did about my music, you instead sent me away with a condescending, enigmatic remark reeking of arrogance and snobbery.   Have you said anything to the effect of "I find the lyrics cliched" or "I think your shit sounds like Enya," I would've responded in a civilized manner.   >And then you started trashing people who bothered to listen to it who didn't lick your arse.  Read danosour's comment and my reply to him. He said he didn't enjoy "Stay" and he provided an explanation as to why. No problem, I might not agree with some of what he said, but I respect that he backed up his claim. So did hollowgram. You didn't.   Instead, you unleashed your condescending snobbery in full force, and for the third time, you provided not a single iota of meaningful explanation that would validate your claim.  To sum up, please fuck off and take your bullshit condescending snob attitude with you.
Yeah I've had to learn to stop myself from offering solutions because that's my first instinct but often not what people are looking for. But my mind is geared towards problem-solving so it's hard for me to listen to someone talk about issues or problems and not think through ways they could fix them.   It's caused a lot of tension between me and my sister :/  [SEP] > ... and not think through ways they could fix them.  Another thing that is crucial to keep in mind is the fact that when someone is ranting, they are not telling you all the relevant details. They are focusing on specific issues that bother them; they aren't explaining the whole, big picture behind it, nor any of the solutions they may have already tried or thought about (but dismissed for various reasons.)  My issues with partners going into "Fix It Mode" has less to do with them wanting to help, but more to do with the way they assume that what I told them was the whole story and the solution is some super easy thing that I somehow didn't notice. (Which makes me feel patronized as well, but that is beside the point here.)  Women are problem-solvers too. If we have issues, chances are we have also tried to resolve them. This is especially so for recurring issues, like an annoying coworker or a difficult project we're working on, since we have had a lot of time to think through these things.   In the end, the "advice" I often get from partners often fails to consider the facts that 1) I know more about the situation than they do, and 2) that I have my own brain and abilities. The off-the-top-of-the-head "advice" of someone who just learned about the issue and who does not know the nuances of my workplace (or school or friendships or family or whatever else is causing me problems) is usually simple, unhelpful, and something I have already thought about before.  ... Then when I dismiss the "advice," some partners have gotten mad at me for not giving their idea a chance. Now on top of my existing frustration, the lack of emotional reciprocity, the sense of being condescended to, and the sense of being treated as stupid and incapable, I now have to ALSO decide, "Am I going to sit here and explain one-by-one why everything he just said were bad ideas, or am I just going to walk away and calm down by myself?" Option A means an argument escalates. Option B means I'm "giving him the silent treatment" (even though I'm not) or, worse, he thinks, "Uh oh, when women walk away that means they are angry and if they are angry then I have to fix this," and they follow me and keep talking and I never get any peace! GAHH!!  ... And there I go ranting. Well, thank you for your time. I'm gonna go get some wine....
Yay, discourse is great fun!  At the same time, keep in mind that this is a 10 minute video, not an in depth lecture on the intricate nature of the INTJ mind. Also keep in mind that all types utilize all functions. In fact, both Ni and Ne, as well as Te and Ti are strong functions for the INTJ (and ENTP respectively) what most people confuse this strength with, is the type's preference.  I'm going to break down everything you're saying into sections and provide explanation or counter arguments for each.  These "possibilities" may very well come from the INTJs ability to subconsciously use Ne, but I tend to disagree. The difference being, INTJs come to these "possibilities" in a very methodical and argumentative way (Ni + Te). The Ni's main superpower is it's random revelations or it's "AH - HA" moments. The ENTP on the other hand has a much more spontaneous way of coming up with possibilities. To them, they are whizzing by, and all the ENTP has to do is reach out and pluck one from the air. This is the key difference that a 10 minute video won't afford me the time to elaborate on. INTJs spend a great deal of time sifting through the various perspectives, exploring them very in depth (as is their forte). It takes longer and each different "possibility" is reached as a result of thinking through another. They rarely just jump to mind, it's like following a train of thought until you find yourself right next to another train. You then decide to follow that one, while keeping the other in mind, etc.  Their ability to scrutinize specific technical aspects of something is most definitely NOT Ni - Se. Se is not concerned with this sort of data categorization in the slightest. It's only purpose for the INTJ is sensory input, in other words, absorbing the world around them in the rawest way possible. Imagine a camera taking a picture. There is no other purpose than to take that picture. The editing software on your computer is what colour corrects. Se is simply interested in experiences for the sake of experiences themselves. This is why INTJs can become addicted to drugs, alcohol or adrenaline inducing behaviours regardless of anything besides the experience. (Please, do not argue me using other functions in tandem with Se, OF COURSE other functions work along side it to produce addictive personality traits, such as Fi self loathing leading to alcoholism, etc.)  Ti is only concerned with the rigidity of the structures it creates. Everything needs to be flawless like a professional engineer. When you argue with an INTP or an INTJ, they WILL argue semantics. The only way and INTJ can ensure you understand them is to make sure you are staying within the structural framework of the argument or discussion. Also known as - Ti! TA - DA! :D   The point of the non-judgmental, J was to communicate that even though YES they do seem very judgmental, but most of the time they do not care. Elon Musk is a horrible example for this, because he is a business man through and through. He is not concerned with people's personal feeling in relation to their work ethic because it doesn't make him money. The point is, an INTJ (even Musk) does not give a flying fuck about your personal beliefs or values (note, not work ethic) because it does not AFFECT him in any way. Most INTJs are w5 and the runner up is w1, just for clarification. Regardless, as long as your personal behaviour is not getting in their way, then they do not care.   Telling me that because my expectations are high, I must be a judgmental person is completely missing the point; and my Ti is screaming at me that we're not on the same page as far as 'judging' goes in regards to people. As I pointed out, IF an INTJ is old enough (usually by early 20s) to have any competency with Fi, then they do not judge in a negative, subjective way. There are two kinds of judging to an INTJ, and they are very different in application.   As an example:   Person A - Judges you based on your sexual orientation and is, as a result, mean.  Person B - Judges you based on your aptitude at work in order to give you an objective (as they possibly can) performance review.   Which do you think I mean when I say INTJs aren't judgmental?    I'm beyond tired of typing ahaha, my hands are cramping. I think I got to the main points of what you said. Anything else, I hope you can infer based on the knowledge I have given you. Hopefully now you understand that I'm no novice at this and indeed "know my shit" pretty well. :p  Thank you very much for your input! I think I'll do a video better explaining all of this. [SEP] Hmmmmm... You may indeed 'know your shit', but I think you're letting a bit too much emotion shine through the examples you're providing.  > keep in mind that this is a 10 minute video, not an in depth lecture on the intricate nature of the INTJ mind.  This is true, though a time limit is not necessarily enough justification for a lack of clarification. A time limit only means that a topic needs to be condensed down to it's most important parts, but those parts still need to be fully understandable.  > This is why INTJs can become addicted to drugs, alcohol or adrenaline inducing behaviours regardless of anything besides the experience.  This is completely alien to me. Previously in the paragraph, you're talking about the differences in how people analyze their surroundings and then you suddenly jump to addictions. What is the connection?  > The only way and INTJ can ensure you understand them is to make sure you are staying within the structural framework of the argument or discussion. Also known as - Ti! TA - DA! :D  From my experiences, you are not incorrect on this topic, though the inclusion of the last sentence seems rather condescending which can hurt an otherwise informative atmosphere.  > Which do you think I mean when I say INTJs aren't judgmental?  I think that a better clarification of what you meant is that INTJs judge based on objective facts, rather than emotions even if it seems otherwise. I.E. "you're doing a crappy job" and not "you're a crappy person".  > Hopefully now you understand that I'm no novice at this and indeed "know my shit" pretty well. :p  I don't think saying this would help any argument/discussion, just seems a bit cocky.  ---  In regards to things you might of missed from the original comment;  > Your description of Ni as "possibilities" and thinking 30-40 years into the future is pretty broadly applicable. Zooming in on a single point of data may relate to Se-Ni, but it really depends on what you're actually talking about.  My interpretation of the video was that an INTJ can think of and dissect something 30-40 years out, even if they can't come up with a scheduled plan for that length of time, but I think you focused more on the differences between ENTP and INTJ rather than the question at hand.  > Another common enneagram type for the INTJ is E5, they are still intense, withdrawn, detached and nihilistic. These INTJs are more similar to INTP, probably a lot less judgemental for the reasons you give: they don't care that much, they might not even take care of their own personal hygiene, room is a mess etc. because they are pretty much detached from the whole world, a walking brain, but again that's not really like what you describe.  This... Well, I just don't know what this is about and I don't know if you addressed it. Oh well.
She is trying to but she gets easily overwhelmed, aside from taking meds, she’s trying to do more exercising and meditation and she used to see a therapist or someone of that nature, but now that she’s moved away from our hometown I don’t think she’s seeing anyone. She reads a lot of stuff online but I don’t think that necessarily helps, the other thing is that she has a big social media presence, something that I never cared for, but like most young folk these days this obviously has a negative affect on her mental health. [SEP] > but like most young folk these days this obviously has a negative affect on her mental health.  Given that you're 23, this comes across as real condescending. 
The advice here is basically not to make extreme decisions. It’s like the advise to never put ALL your holdings into Bitcoin. And btw “never sell ALL your bitcoin” is one of the oldest sayings in Bitcoin. And for good reasons as we all can see. [SEP] > The advice here is basically not to make extreme decisions. It’s like the advise to never put ALL your holdings into Bitcoin.  It's condescending and stupid.  > And for good reasons as we all can see.  Making profit is not everything in life. 
A smart consumer checks the product. Finds all the info he can get and pays for finished fully working product that he is sure he will be happy with.   You on the other hand try to justify your need to get 2 free games.  >You have no rhyme or reason to your opinion, no personal thought, you just heard about how bad it is that you've completely missed the actual point of not pre-ordering.  Bioshock 1 is very old game that you can get for 5-10$. XCOM you can get on sale for 15$. If you are going to wait with playing Bioshock Infinite 3-4 months you will get it also much much cheaper. But if you preorder it and game comes out unplayable to some bug, it will turn out to be something completely different than you expected - You as consumer are the only one to blame. You did spend cash on unfinished product (Yes it is unfinished until you will be able to play it).   Apparently your need to justify your choices just forces you to attack me personally not my opinions and this is the line I draw in discussions. So good day to you. Also if Bioshock or any other game that you preordered comes out to be total garbage blame yourself not developer.  [SEP] >A smart consumer checks the product. Finds all the info he can get and pays for finished fully working product that he is sure he will be happy with.  But a smart consumer can also make a gamble. Let's say you're planning on buying a stove, and if you get the new line of refrigerators that doesn't have a lot of information out on the market yet. Oh, sure, you could wait. But the stove in question is a good stove, and the fridge in question comes from a pretty good brand, and there's a warranty...  This is being a savvy consumer. Only an idiot would sniff and say you shouldn't do this thing that will save you thousands of dollars because, well, this fridge might be worst fridge ever, despite everything you know to the contrary.  A savvy consumer can make an educated, controlled gamble and still be doing it right.   >Bioshock 1 is very old game that you can get for 5-10$. XCOM you can get on sale for 15$. If you are going to wait with playing Bioshock Infinite 3-4 months you will get it also much much cheaper.  It's an entertainment product. Wait time makes a hell of a difference, as you purchase the game in the first place to entertain yourself. If you are willing and able to pay full price for something that you feel will entertain you, whether or not it will eventually go on sale is irrelevant. You're giving me reasons why you can wait. I never debated that there are reasons.  I'm saying there are great incentives not to, and that remains. And you're ignoring the GMG deals as well. $15 in credit plus another game. Remember, you object to all preorders. Unless you would like to admit that some incentives are too powerful.   >But if you preorder it and game comes out unplayable to some bug  As I said, educated gambles. Ken Levine is, by my determination, a great lead designer who has made some really fantastic games. Irrational does not produce shoddy games in my experience. And even if the game is buggy--I get XCOM, Bioshock, $15 of credit, and another game. That in and of itself is a fantastic deal. Even if I wait that 3-4 months, as you said, I still haven't saved myself anything in value.   >Yes it is unfinished until you will be able to play it).  It's gone gold, it's been finished. I don't care whether you think you can redefine the definition of "unfinished" or not. It's finished.  >Also if Bioshock or any other game that you preordered comes out to be total garbage blame yourself not developer.  Of course. I will have chosen poorly. I never said otherwise.   >Apparently your need to justify your choices just forces you to attack me personally not my opinions  I attacked both, actually. :) My vitriol is coming from the condescending superiority you exhibit above. 
> Which joycon do you use, do you use all of them and send the audio signal to all of them, this would increase power usage and complicate matters, don't forget each joycon might be used by itself so if you only have it on one of them you will annoy people as well. What about volume, do you have different volumes for each joycon, how do you control it.   First you're assuming I just meant Joy-Cons. The Pro could have certainly had a headphone jack. And also still your excuse for a headphone jack fails since it's not high power at all. You're not going to be sacrificing anything but space in the controller. The better argument is it would take up said space. That I can agree with. The pro controller could still have snuck one in. But still point is a simple bluetooth connection to the console would have been nice.  > Its not out yet so we don't know this, but I'm going to assume only when online is correct as its a internet based service :P  And thanks for answering that question. It was an exact counter to your argument. What does it matter if it's portable if I still need to be online with my Switch? So I would still need a wifi connection. Unless I tether to my phone or sit in something like a Starbucks, I can't exactly fire up a session with friends. Plus I don't think alot of people are going to go out to play multiplayer online games with their friends. They will most likely be home or even at their friends. Let's not act like portability was the problem here. Should read more carefully.  > Because its not halfass its following current trends. It's future proof as well, no matter WHICH console you have you can all link in nicely.  And what does it matter if you can link all consoles if you can't communicate with one another unless you are in the same game?? Like I said, the PlayStation app, no matter if someone is on a PS3 or PS4, I can still send them messages at the bare minimum. Your argument will only hold true if Nintendo decides to just allow party chat without the need of being in a game together across all platforms. It also doesn't make much sense seeing as this is Nintendo's only platform that utilizes it!  > You realism one of the big 2 launched with no party chart right? Can't remember which one but it did.   And you realize you're referring to PS3 right? A last gen console. That did not have party chat. Both the Xbox One and PS4 launched with party chat outside of games on day one. On PS4 it is a free service and can be up to 8 people. Xbox up to 15 but you need to be a gold subscriber. This just shows how ignorant people can be on this matter. Also how you try to mold things to fit your argument and defend Nintendo. This is not some current trend, this is Nintendo being out of touch with how people communicate when it comes to online gaming.  P.S. I can just plug a standard pair of headphones into my controllers on those consoles, controlling both game and volume audio right from the dashboards. Can even do it while I'm game too. All you need is an inline mic and that would even do the trick. You can get as cheap with it or as fancy with it as you'd like. Amazing what options can do for you. Rather Impressive I'd say. [SEP] > First you're assuming I just meant Joy-Cons. The Pro could have certainly had a headphone jack.   But then you need to buy something extra anyway to use the voice chat so you STILL have the same issue people are complaining about.  >But still point is a simple bluetooth connection to the console would have been nice.  Ditto here, need more stuff not provided.  > What does it matter if it's portable if I still need to be online with my Switch?  Well you can tether to your phone? Or if you get the message and your are out and about think "oh i can join when I get home". Various other things.  >Plus I don't think alot of people are going to go out to play multiplayer online games with their friends. They will most likely be home or even at their friends.  Yes, but you still need to account for people using it at starbucks etc. Otherwise people would complain "hwats the point if i can't play here".  ALso if most people are with there friends why does voice chat matter, you are there already, just speak to each other.  >And what does it matter if you can link all consoles if you can't communicate with one another unless you are in the same game??  Because the service will change and evolve and just be used for the next one as well, and the next one , and so on? I fully except the system to let you chat to mates outside of games in a future update since this is just hte lite version we are getting now (if what they said before was corect main launch is next year)  > On PS4 it is a free service and can be up to 8 people. Xbox up to 15 but you need to be a gold subscriber. This just shows how ignorant people can be on this matter.   Ah it was team chat that didn't work properly, your right i got confused.   http   ALso been issues with destiny as well, party and team chat issues -  http    Ones still not fixed.  [edit] Yeah and it didn't work properly and wouldn't work in certain games, surprised you did not know this as you seem to throw around nasty words a lot and i found this from basic research, while yes its true I was wrong about the system being there I got duped a bit by the press saying "terrible", turns out the system was there just broken for XBO at launch.  People had problems joining games as a party -  http  - significant issues on a "next gen" launch, things as they are not were not as they are at launch. [/edit]  >P.S. I can just plug a standard pair of headphones into my controllers on those consoles, controlling both game and volume audio right from the dashboards. Can even do it while I'm game too. All you need is an inline mic and that would even do the trick. You can get as cheap with it or as fancy with it as you'd like. Amazing what options can do for you. Rather Impressive I'd say.  You know that being condescending just makes it sound like you have no arguments left so have to go for the insults right?, especially as you have not yet responding to the questions I asked in my previous comments which included questions on HOW you would do the things you mentioned with the "plug into Joycon method" , like control the volume (each joycon separate or all together) and stuff like that?   Also interesting how you managed to prove my point about " There are a lot of us that think its a good idea, just we keep quiet because we are fed up of being downvoted to shit for saying them" because so far all that has happened is that my points have been downvoted and not a single counter has actually been made. You have no explained how your system woudl work with the stuff provided (both times mentioned buying another item) and stuff like that. So why would we bother trying to explain how you are making a mountain out of a molehill when all this is happening? Especially as you ended it in a MASSIVELY condescending manner (which BTW breaks rule 1) and further proves why people just don't bother arguing, get insults for it.
> I'm not sure what the point of your article is  Something told me you'd be unable to figure out the point on the article.  Kind of sad, actually, the humor in the article depends on an understanding of math and statistics, the sort of understanding one would think an engineer would have...  Perhaps you should show the article to someone who knows a bit more math and stats than you do and have them explain it. [SEP] > Something told me you'd be unable to figure out the point on the article.  I didn't read the article. I saw that it was from The Onion and ignored it. If you want to be taken seriously say it yourself instead of posting a satire piece and expecting me to draw conclusions. You would think a "chemist" would be smart enough to know that a satire piece cannot be used as a source.  > Kind of sad, actually, the humor in the article depends on an understanding of math and statistics, the sort of understanding one would think an engineer would have...  Again, I didn't read the article. I have better things to do with my time than read shitty articles posted by a whiny redditor that struggled to find a job because his resume and attitude are shit (if you're going to make baseless assumptions I may as well too).  > Perhaps you should show the article to someone who knows a bit more math and stats than you do and have them explain it.  I didn't read your article nor do I plan on it. Your condescending attitude and superiority complex certainly aren't helping make your case.
I am not from your culture or subcontinent.  I don't have any liking or disliking for any culture, religion or anything from that part of the world.  I understand people out there are little loose with words so I will not get into an insult war.  And you are right it is about a foreign policy of a nation... geo-politics... which is about foreign policy and economics if you understand anything about history.   Anywho, I was commenting on the gullibility and credulousness of folks like you from the subcontinent.   Reminds me of a guy online who claimed Nicole Scherzinger is Indian and how she is now teaching Britain to sing ... apparently in reference to X Factor UK or Britain's Got Talent.    [SEP] > I am not from your culture or subcontinent. > I don't have any liking or disliking for any culture, religion or anything from that part of the world.  Then wtf are you doing shitposting in a subreddit called /r/INDIAnews? Why even bother coming here in the first place, let alone commenting? Do you routinely go around making an ass of yourself on the message boards of communities that you neither belong to nor are invested in, on topics that you don't care about at all?  >I understand people out there are little loose with words  Hoo boy. Sure buddy, why not. Go ahead and reduce an entire subcontinent to a stereotype. What you know about the Indian subcontinent could fit in a matchbook  >so I will not get into an insult war.  Posts a lengthy rant on how the subcontinent is 'easy' and how it will be 'ruled by one empire after another.' Then says that he doesn't want to get into an insult war. Buddy, you came in here looking to start an insult war. And you found one.  >And you are right it is about a foreign policy of a nation... geo-politics... which is about foreign policy and economics if you understand anything about history.  Nice attempt at being a condescending prick. Also nice attempt at coming off as some wise authority. Too bad it didn't work.  I know a hell of a lot more about Indian politics, foreign policy and economics than you ever will, so kindly shut the fuck up before you shove that foot down your mouth any further.  >Anywho, I was commenting on the gullibility and credulousness of folks like you from the subcontinent.  Doesn't want to start an insult war. Right. Not just a condescending prick, but a racist as well. Nice (claps sarcastically). You sure are on a roll today.  Please, O Great Wise Master, please do give these unworthy beings your astounding insights on what is good for a country that you neither belong to, nor are invested in, nor know anything about. After all, how could we lowly natives with our ignorant experts and our piddling knowledge possibly hope to hold a candle to our wise and superior masters in the West?  >Reminds me of a guy online who claimed Nicole Scherzinger is Indian...  Nicole Scherzinger. That's what you've got. Some dumbass on the internet mouthing off about Nicole Scherzinger now apparently represents all of us.  Any more astounding insights, O Wise Master?  No? Good.  Yes? Not interested.  Either way, get the fuck out of here, you ignorant moron.
What does that mean, that it doesn't imply any cognitive association? Intuitively, it seems to indicate something about the types of concepts we are quickest to associate with one or the other.  The study you linked has an interesting conclusion, to be sure, but I'm skeptical that police will act similarly in a lab, where they presumably never fear for their life, as to the streets where they might. This is used as the justification for any shooting so it seems important. I realize the irony in me making the exact critique of that study that was made against the IAT. [SEP] > What does that mean, that it doesn't imply any cognitive association? Intuitively, it seems to indicate something about the types of concepts we are quickest to associate with one or the other.  Well, for example, one theory is that a quick association is a sign of awareness or familiarity with stereotypes, not a sign of agreement or that someone is likely to act based on those stereotypes. That would explain why black and white participants both show a "preference" for white on racial IAT, for example, less condescendingly than the "internalized racism" theory.  >The study you linked has an interesting conclusion, to be sure, but I'm skeptical that police will act similarly in a lab, where they presumably never fear for their life, as to the streets where they might.  Besides the irony you pointed out, also note that the tests showed physiological indications of fear:  >In two previous tests using police simulators, James monitored the neurophysiological reactions, such as brain waves, of both police officers and civilians to deadly encounters. She said in an interview Tuesday that she found that “the participants were experiencing a greater threat response when faced with African Americans instead of white or Hispanic suspects.” But even with that response, in both studies the police and non-police participants were “significantly slower to shoot armed black suspects than armed white suspects, and significantly less likely to mistakenly shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects.”
> She wasn't charged with laughing in a courtroom?  No. She wasn't. She was charged with "disrupting Congress," something she clearly did. You need to stop reading fake news and clickbait. After a few months of following politics you'll figure out that just about everything from Huffington Post is clickbait and misleading. I understand it can be hard when you're brand new and come across politics on Reddit for the first time.   Proof:  http   It's sad because she clearly has a mental health issue going on. [SEP] >No. She wasn't. She was charged with "disrupting Congress,"  .......... Charged with disrupting congress, because she laughed when sessions lied under oath... There is no sugar coating this.   >It's sad because she clearly has a mental health issue going on.  Projecting much? LoL. Now go look up what projecting means you condescending Drumpfster
TIL that US metropolitan areas count as "forests."  In spite of the terrible headline, this is pretty pathetic. No surprise that it's occurring most heavily in the South where the scum wouldn't understand environmental regulation if it slapped them in the face. [SEP] > in the south where the scum wouldn’t understand environmental regulation if it slapped them in the face   I’m for environmental regulation and from the south. We’re not all confederate flag waving trump loving idiots. Believe it or not, those people aren’t loved and praised either. Until you learn to talk to people of different backgrounds than you without being a condescending cunt, you’ll never change anyone’s minds. In fact, you’ll probably only make them dig their heels in deeper.
Looks like your employers trying to squeeze every penny they can out of you, aren't they? In larger, more organized and successful companies, there are separate teams for all the automation because decoupling roles allows each team to specialize deeply in what they're supposed to be doing rather than stretching themselves thin.  I'm willing to bet in companies where they force devs to be jack of all trades, the pipelines aren't as robust as they could be. That typically translates to lots of dollars and time lost.  Do you guys have change management teams or is that something devs have to do too?   [SEP] > Looks like your employers trying to squeeze every penny they can out of you, aren't they?   Fuck no. We have separate ops teams that handle all the cluster stuff. Our pipelines are just a matter of compile, test, run analysis tools, build a docker container and then tell Kubernetes to go enjoy itself with it. It fits perfectly with what we do; 90% of our time is sofware engineering.  Our ops guys are our Kubernetes experts. But even as a developer you need to know a bit about it, enough to figure what went wrong. In the companies you describe you'd typically file a 'ticket' which would then get handled somewhere that week and result in an annoyed sysadmin telling you you made a typo somewhere.  It's a really old-fashioned way of doing it. The idea of DevOps is that you still have the traditional roles but combine them in a single team. Our Ops guys know enough about our work to help us out / debug issues while we know enough about Ops to help them out / debug issues. It's called a T-shaped skillset.   Also stop making condescending assumptions about what I do and the companies I work for. 
> I speak from experience of my own shitty choices in life.  I think the problem is that you are using anecdotal evidence to make a quantitative argument. It's quite possible - especially from the tone of your rant - that your indictment of the higher education system is rooted in your own inability to find gainful employment.   A stronger argument would be rooted in a careful analysis of the place of higher education in a modern (first world) society. A no point should you ever have to use the following words: ludicrous, unconscionable, pissed/pissing, "education" in quotes, worthless piece of paper (they are called diplomas), "generation of baristas,"  Those words should be replaced with phrases like "the amount we spend on higher education for the humanities is less than the economic output it generates [CITATION]. This statistic is alarming and causes one to consider changing the way we fund higher education in the humanities. Studies A and B [CITATION] show that if students begin working full time at age 18 instead of enrolling in a University to pursue a degree in the Humanities, they will be X% more like to be employed full time and will make Y% more annually...."      [SEP] > that your indictment of the higher education system is rooted in your own inability to find gainful employment.  Less my own than those of my friends. I went on to law school and attracted a ton of interest from employers through that. So after 2 worthless degrees I finally found one that was worthwhile. Meanwhile, my friends from my MA program are 1) unemployed 2) unemployed 3) working at a all centre 4) trophy wife to some really rich Muslim dude 5) Working at Starbucks 6) construction worker 7) personal trainer 8) senior ethics adviser with the military (that one was pretty cool, but the dude in question was like 50 and already had 20+ years military experience already). Counting me, that's 1/9 people who did anything meaningful with the degree, and even that barely counts given his history.   Also I don't know where you learned rhetoric but your smarmy and condescending tone is neither attractive nor persuasive.
>~~Switzerland Bi-Laterals is not possible in the short time-frame of transition.~~  Yes, they are. Easily so.  Switzerland took decades to form all its EU based bilaterals because for the longest time they either had them on the backburner or didn't have a single entity to go through as they now do with the passing of Lisbon.  >~~Acquis Communautaire would need to be repatriated for sifting and sorting entirely on exit to continue Single Market participation.~~  All Acquis would need to sifted and sorted on any exit to ascertain what is repealed. A point of misdirection.  >~~MOST OF THE RULES are global in origin in any case:~~  Most of the regulations have a global origin. They tend to pick up a lot of luggage by passing through the EU middle-man. This isn't an "any case" point. That's the whole point of arguing for streamlining. Keeping gloabl trading but with a more competitive edge.  >There's only x1 off-the-shelf package that allows this immediately which = EFTA/EEA.  EEA is off the shelf as it doesn't provide for the simplest of requirements in providing the UK with permanent immigration controls.  >~~The alternative Association Membership is a bitter pill to swallow because it's agreeing to Fiscal EUROLAND integration in return for staying IN the EU as second-class citizens; and effectively corralling the UK as per Andrew Duff:-~~  In only that Duff and Verhofstadt have offered a compromise with a new form of tailored association membership to run alongside other association agreements, but as your second point highlights     "a long stay parking place".  As federalists themselves are signalling that even as they need fiscal integration of 'Euroland', which the UK will not be a part of, they are keen to keep UK trade, then there's nothing wrong with an Association Agreement "parked outside the EU" within commuting distance of its single market. Sounds perfick. Outside the EU, with free movement of goods, capital, and services but not labour, with none of the political union.  HANNAN'S SPOT ON.   ^^[If ^^you ^^intend ^^to ^^respond, ^^and ^^would ^^like ^^a ^^response, ^^please ^^don't ^^write ^^in ^^broken ^^syntax ^^as ^^if ^^you're ^^writing ^^notes. ^^It ^^appears ^^fractured, ^^and ^^even ^^unhealthy.] [SEP] >~~HANNAN'S SPOT ON.~~  That was simple. But then that's your modus operandi:   Propaganda as visual attractiveness for recruitment  As opposed to quality of argument  And yes, apologies for my poor grammar and syntax here on reddit but I am not a paid professional on a recruitment drive for Association Membership. I simply don't have the time to type and think and be ignored using excess words where simple ideas are more economical even if they lose quality of grammar and syntax.  Incidentally, I've studied Grammar as a TEFL teacher and it's overrated on political websites because people such as yourself are so insincere and act on the principle of the confidence-trickster (assuming and declaring you're right must make readers actually believe your arguments are superior - only in presentation old boy) in their use of language which leads to all the lies and deceptions we both agree the EU has used and to which you're so willing to take up the mantle, next!  Please try to sell the idea that Switzerland's Bi-Laterals are not creaking at the seams after >16+ years to negotiate, using more words please.  >an Association Agreement "parked outside the EU" within commuting distance of its single market.  Wrong Association Membership will be "inside the EU" as sold to the public by the Tories in the second referendum post-2017. You're behind the curve along with the legacy media who have barely talked about this apart from Christopher Booker:-  The EU aims to make us second-class citizens  Let's see: Co-author of The Great Deception vs Hannan who believed Greece would already be out of the EURO a few weeks ago?  "Hannan's Spot On" = Just shows your "snobbish grandstanding" tactics, and you could not resist a passive aggressive parting-shot either because I think you said last time you were "done responding to me hence you ignored all the posts with references on the argument that went into any kind of depth or additional insights.  >All Acquis would need to sifted and sorted on any exit to ascertain what is repealed.  Again using the EFTA/EEA which already exists. The obverse is that non-EZ members will not vote in EU Parliament on their issues. There's only 2 options here even with Association Membership under the time-frame even if you prefer a rebranding under the Fiscal Treaty provisions of the Second Referendum to keep the UK in the EU.  >EEA is off the shelf as it doesn't provide for the simplest of requirements in providing the UK with permanent immigration controls.  Immigration measures are more than positive via EEA for gradual reform of Migration Policy at:-   National  Regional  Global  Over time, just like all the other policies that would require gradual transition upon Withdrawal from the EU.  Interestingly you actually agree with arch-Federalists Carl and you've forsaken belief in British people to educate and inform them about democracy. I wonder why? The trouble is your message of support is so condescending, in your view of the future, the politicians still run things grandly for the little people. Tell me what's so different from that to our current membership of the EU?  You're another one of these "grasping types", it's no wonder you are so uncritical of Daniel Hannan's porous oratory. So long as you get what you deserve in all this, eh?   
On this particular subreddit, if somebody is offended by certain comments, I take that into consideration when removing them. That's not at all pathetic when you consider that nobody really wants to read what a troll has to say about the OP, including the OP themselves.  Think about that before you quickly judge a situation without knowing the context of what you're doing.  -J [SEP] > if somebody is offended by certain comments, I take that into consideration when removing them.   Yes you implied that, but I think that the amount of people ‘being offended’ is often a very poor measure of the value or worth of a comment.  > That's not at all pathetic when you consider that nobody really wants to read what a troll has to say about the OP, including the OP themselves.  Maybe ‘pathetic’ was a little harsh. However, this commenter was not a troll, so you’re making an irrelevant point. The commenter said that OPs ex must be gay if he didn’t find her attractive, which is a colorful way of saying “OP is attractive”. That some people getting offended whenever the word ‘gay’ is used in a colorful way is not relevant, not on this subreddit, and you as a mod should appreciate that.  > Think about that before you quickly judge a situation without knowing the context of what you're doing.  I quickly judged a situation correctly. What context are you talking about? Why don’t you try to be a little less condescending, it’s not a good trait in a mod.    
You didn't even read my post  i brought it up because they're both super hero movies, of course you're gonna compare wonder woman and spiderman, black panther and batman and so on.  I never said vulture sucks, i said the fight sucks because its CGI jumbled non sense, I didn't go into detail just because there might be people here that haven't seen it yet.   Honestly you sound like you never even watched the power rangers movie because nothing about the character development was 1 dimensional. Literally none of the character had anything close to the same struggle   Honestly fans like you are why shit like megaforce happens. We honestly can't evolve further then horrible acting making half of us just look up the fights on youtube [SEP] I read all of your posts.  How about we judge a movie on it's own merits instead of comparing it to another film for super trivial reasons?  I never said the characters are one dimensional, ever. In fact, I said I really appreciated how much they were developed.  I've never seen Megaforce or any season after In Space for that matter.  I never said I want horrible acting. I said I want more scenes of Power Rangers.   You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension skills.   >Honestly you sound like you never even watched the power rangers movie  >Honestly fans like you...  You actually sound super condescending and elitist just because I didn't like the movie as much as you did. You even said in another comment "If they just morphed sooner this movie would've definitely be a high 9" so you obviously agree with me so some extent. Why be such a dick?  Edit: Disabling inbox replies 'cause I don't have the energy to reiterate my points. Read my posts. If what you get out of it is still "hurr durr he just wants nothing but action and bad acting" then you can't be reasoned with.
They sell a solid experience to people who don't know or care what's under the hood - and that's perfectly fine, because most people shouldn't need to know or care.  The iPod was absolutely positively NOT revolutionary, though, in any way other than as a fashion icon. If you don't believe that then you didn't follow that technology even a tiny bit back then. The iPod did absolutely nothing new besides the "wheel", and quite frankly compared to the interface my Dell DJ had, the iPod's actually sucked! I won't protect or tout the goodness of Dell in very many situations, I normally think Dell stinks, but the DJ was much simpler to use than the iPod - especially creating "on the go playlists"...  I'm not a mac hater. I grew up on the Apple 2, the Apple 2gs, the Mac Classic, the Mac 2ci, etc... Apple was my introduction into computing...  As someone who has used both platforms extensively, I can tell you that the Mac provides me absolutely no compelling reasons to pay the price difference. [SEP] Yes, other hard drive-based music players existed at the time, but they didn't provide the same end-to-end experience that Apple offered. Apple didn't just make a hard drive based music player and say "here ya go", they created an entire universe to support that device and create an "experience" for the consumer. In that sense, it had little or nothing to do with fashion (although, in some sense it did become a fashion icon later).  > As someone who has used both platforms extensively, I can tell you that the Mac provides me absolutely no compelling reasons to pay the price difference.  Then Apple's products aren't for you. Some people prefer to pay extra for that end-to-end experience and some people like to mix and match and tinker, and both ways are fine. I think it's a bit silly to sit back and condescend just because you prefer one way and someone else prefers another (and that applies to both sides of the fence).  But to address your original point, I don't think Apple's success is a result of their marketing as much as it is a result of the satisfying end-to-end experience they offer their customers.  edit: I didn't downvote you, by the way.
I am very familiar with the concept of p-zombies. Somewhat obscurely implied in my comment was my opinion that they are stupid.  The whole concept of p-zombies is essentially part of a debate on eliminative materialism. But they beg the question (which is funny because if I recall they were first proposed by an anti-eliminativist). If eliminativism is false, then a zombie cannot be both indistinguishable from a human and lack subjective experience, because subjective experience informs certain aspects of human culture (for an obvious example, philosophy of mind). Then a zombie would never invent the hard problem, for sheer lack of relevant data. The only way around this would be to have zombies specially programmed to talk about subjective experience, basically a crude hack in their brains, which would obviously make them distinguishable from a human.  TL;DR zombies are stupid.   [SEP] > I am very familiar with the concept of p-zombies.   Apologies then if my post seemed condescending.  > Somewhat obscurely implied in my comment was my opinion that they are stupid.   I'm not really familiar with eliminativism/anti-eliminativism. I skimmed the Wikipedia article, but it didn't seem to exactly match what you seem to be implying with your post. Could you please give a brief summary of what you mean when you refer to that?  I'm also interested in which position you subscribe to and your opinion on the existence (or lack) of subjective experience. I'm assuming that you think p-zombies are stupid since you believe they couldn't actually exist. 
To be fair, the SDF only really got beefed up relatively recently to provide more muscle for the USA pacific block to counter the rise of China. The Japanese navy on the other hand, as far as I'm aware, has been a well equipped and powerful force for much longer.  [SEP] >the SDF only really got beefed up relatively recently  It's going up in the *immediate* last few years, but it's always been pretty high.  >In 1987 Japan ranked sixth in the world in total defence expenditures behind the Soviet Union, the United States, France, the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), and Britain. 
The game has certainly changed since those teams really earned their "elite" status.  I don't think it is a given that teams like Michigan, Texas and Penn State will be elite again.  I think that of those teams, it is the most difficult for me to imagine Texas staying down forever.  With the geographical and financial advantages that they have, it boggles the mind that they continue to struggle the way that they are.    [SEP] >I don't think it is a given that teams like Michigan, Texas and Penn State will be elite again.  While it's definitely not a given, when you look at their fanbase, athletic department budget, and national support it's hard to imagine these teams *not* becoming relevant again.
Your statistics re consitenly wrong and no sources are cited. You're a sheep. Go back to your heard.  The fact of the matter still remains: No matter how much good it does for society, the coercive and non consensual taking of a persons property or money by another person or group of people is morally wrong. End of story.   Don't they teach you that stealing is wrong where you live?   [SEP] >Your statistics re consitenly wrong and no sources are cited. You're a sheep. Go back to your heard.  Which statistics are now?  More to the point, if you are going to wander around doing the whole 'you are a sheep' thing, you may want to check that you haven't just joined a slightly different herd, with similar if not worse issues than the ones you oppose.  >The fact of the matter still remains: No matter how much good it does for society, the coercive and non consensual taking of a persons property or money by another person or group of people is morally wrong. End of story.  In your opinion.  I disagree, because there is far more benefit from a society finding a way to govern itself and then pay for such services that they decide they need.  >Don't they teach you that stealing is wrong where you live?  Don't they teach you the difference between taxation, stealing and slavery?  Hell, I could make a decent argument that private property is theft if you want, after all ownership is at it's root something born out of the same non consensual taking of things you seem all upset about.
Moxie yes. Finesse is a big maybe. Support attacks use support power to determine damage, so unless your running assault abilities in your tank LAS finesse will do nothing for you.   Edit: derp. Warrior. My bad. I was thinking engineer.  [SEP] >Edit: derp. Warrior. My bad. I was thinking engineer.  Ah, yeah, I was going to say.   For Engineer, your points are valid. That's why I didn't list Brutality, the Warrior assault power stat. 
I don't think this binary paradoxical conflict you describe is accurate. The big issues in all this are agency and power. In the past, the patriarchy (by which I mean a social power structure based on masculinity) prescribed the woman should cover up and be virginal creatures with no sexual agency. Then sexual "liberation" happened, but it really didn't liberate anyone from anything. Now the patriarchy just demands that women act and dress in a sexual manner and again removed their agency. So essentially all the paradox you mentioned aren't actually paradoxes in feminist thought but a grave misunderstanding thereof; the problem is the patriarchy is still in control, it just controls in different ways that give an illusion of liberation.  [SEP] > Now the patriarchy  lulz... If there was an oligarchical all-powerful patriarchy people like you would be arrested or shot. Even though the majority of people will tell you you're crazy you* and all the women in western modern civilization are still free to do whatever the hell you want.  *probably a man, but it applies
I don't understand how cops like this keep their jobs. [SEP] > I don't understand how cops like this keep their jobs.  The whole system is corrupt. They don't have anyone with logic or ethics overseeing them. So who is going to fire them?  No one.
God I hate the creeping backward trend. All stores used to open at Midnight, then someone made it 11, then someone else had to compete and opened at 10.  Now some places don't even close and just "start" BF deals at 6 p.m. or something equally ridiculous. [SEP] >Now some places don't even close and just "start" BF deals at 6 p.m. or something equally ridiculous.  Sounds like a smart way to combat the mobs  
>Martin Luther King, Jr. was never a registered Republican.  Is there any actual hard evidence either way to support this?  >This is a Republican myth based on the supposition by MLK's niece that he might have been a Republican because the southern Democratcs in the 1950s were so racist.   Regardless of if he was or wasn't a republican, the video that I've seen of his niece didn't take the form of a supposition, but was stated as an outright fact.  Now you can certainly take the stance that she was incorrect if you want, but we should at least honestly represent how she presented her claim.  >However, MLK's own son categorically stated that he was never a Republican.  So we believe the word of one family member, but not the word of another.  That seems a little hypocritical...  >The interesting thing is that all those seats held by racist Democrats in the 1950s are now firmly held by dog-whistle blowing racist Republicans.  Now you are just making vicious, generalized accusations that I promise you don't have any evidence to support.  You disagree?  Then I challenge you to prove that every seat is now held by "dog-whistle blowing racist Republicans."  Can you do that?  Yeah I didn't think so.  Now it is becoming clear that you are either a troll of someone whose mind is so poisoned by bias that your opinion is less than useless.  >Just like stating that the "right to work for starvation wages" is somehow a good thing.  Even more bullshit.    Let's play a game.  How about you tell me the total amount of people in the US that ACTUALLY starve to death in a year.  Then tell me how many of those are deaths are caused by excessively low wages as opposed to parental neglect or mental retardation or clinical conditions. [SEP] >How about you tell me the total amount of people in the US that ACTUALLY starve to death in a year.  Thanks to minimum wage laws, food stamps, and public and private charities and food banks, very few people actually starve to death in the United States.  However, the person to whom you are responding is making that point that if you implement right to work for less laws that eliminate the minimum wage, companies will basically hire people for starvation level wages.
There is a couple of games with leap motion support and of course Rift will have Touch controllers in December. But i agree, Honey Select is the best there is but that doesnt mean its good. [SEP] > There is a couple of games with leap motion support  More like experiences not games and I feel like it will wear off soon especially because Rifters will get proper motion controller.   > Rift will have Touch controllers in December  I know, I'm just speaking as of now so Rift games are a bad example in that case.
Orient the long board lengthwise from left to right so the plunge cuts are perpendicular to your body. Adjust the router to the desired depth of cut. Place a straight edge clamped to the board at the location you wish to place to dado cut, measured appropriately to allow for the distance from the centre of the router bit to the edge of the router base. I would not have used a router table for the leg placement at all. Side note: I have the exact same router and table as you. Do you ever find that the black piece in the centre of the table needs constant adjustments? [SEP] I did not think of orienting the board that way (D'oh).   I thought about doing them both by hand, but since I am just starting out I figured I'd use the table first  (training wheels). When I bought the wood and had it cut, I had enough cut so that I could make two.   > Do you ever find that the black piece in the centre of the table needs constant adjustments?  Yes! I've just started using this table and I noticed that. I was wondering if I was doing something wrong. I was considering finding  someone to manufacture a piece that was a little more sturdy and less flexible.
I think so, yes. I wouldn't know how one can transition from a supinated palm grip (as in chin ups) to a muscle up. In fact, I think that's impossible. [SEP] > I wouldn't know how one can transition from a supinated palm grip (as in chin ups) to a muscle up. In fact, I think that's impossible.  it might be easier with one arm... https://youtu.be/TADoeSo5eW8?t=3m44s
Your live isn't based on statistics but on your own choices. The fact that males are traditionaly the sole earner doesnt mean your chances of being the stay at home parent are lower. The way your household manages income is only determined bij you and your SO. Furthermore going back to one earner making enough to support a family doesn't mean going back to the old gender roles. It also doesnt mean only one person per family is able to have a job. [SEP] >  Furthermore going back to one earner making enough to support a family doesn't mean going back to the old gender roles  In theory, but we know who will have what jobs if the country goes back to one income families. 
Yeah but neither of those launched with more than 1 or 2 colours,unlike the 64 with about 5 or 6 different ones I believe. The colours on the 64 controllers were more vibrant and caught the eye better too. Going to a mates house? 99% chance he has a black Xbox One controller. Going to a mates house in 1995? 20% chance he had a grey 64 controller. See where I'm coming from? [SEP] Right, and while Gamecube had about a dozen colors total, but it had Indigo and Black for the first year. The N64 from what I can find released with 6 colors, The Standard Gray, Black, Red, Green, Blue, and Yellow.  >Going to a mates house in 1995? 20% chance he had a grey 64 controller.  Well- The N64 wasn't released until mid to late 1996, so really there would be a 0% chance they have any N64 stuff at all at any time during 1995. :P  Another interesting point is that while the launch controllers came in 6 colours, all the console systems sold with a grey controller, so realistically shortly after launch, if somebody had an N64 there was a nearly 100% chance they had a grey controller, at least unless they got a limited edition system, or, later, a "funtastic" console.
Violence isn't always morally wrong.  The point of the argument is not to be opposed to every government policy.  It's to hammer home the idea that laws are quite serious things which should not be passed frivolously, and that you consider this particular law so good and right that you are okay with violently forcing someone to obey it.   [SEP] > The point of the argument is not to be opposed to every government policy.   Well, some people do literally do this. Sovereign citizens, freemen on the land, sovereign moors... it's kinda disturbing.
Sorry, I wasn't raised that way. My mom is a certified first responder. We stop, for everything. She saved a pregnant woman who went into a diabetic coma while driving. She helped a little old man wandering around with bloody hands and no memory of anything. We always stop for accidents if there aren't emergency vehicles on scene yet, no matter where we're going. And I *did* step forward to help out a guy who had just been thrown around the corner from a fight.  I've had the hero instinct kind of burned into me. I can't imagine having any reaction *but* to help people, because it's always been a part of who we are. And even if I were to panick in a momentary test, there's no way I would be able to walk past a rape, or any other crime, and not help, without *hating myself for the rest of my life*. Even if there were weaponry or a gang involved, I would at least call the police immediately and attempt to find someone who could help. [SEP] >attempt to find someone who could help.      This is the money shot right here.  Why not throw yourself into the fray as a human shield like you are saying men should?  Maybe I am wrong but I get the impression that they expect ment to physically stop the crime, whatever it is.  I actually have done this several times, not rape, but one time, for ex/, I was at the local fair and this big guy and his gf got into it and he smacked her and I did step between the two only to have her yell at me and smack me.    Fuck it.  I won't be a human shield for women.
Although I am a Keynesian and - it should go without saying - anti-austerity, I think we have to take Yanis Varoufakis' comments with a pinch of salt. I'm a fan of his economic views, but his political views seem pretty tainted of late. [SEP] > Although I am a Keynesian and - it should go without saying - anti-austerity  Isn't that a bit like telling people in the middle of a rain shower they should have brought an umbrella? Overall a good idea, but a bit too late for that right now.
> However viewers would have been left with little to do but switch the kettle on this weekend as Netflix suffered an outage lasting nearly three hours.  This was due to the release of the new Marvel series Luke Cage, I believe. Surges in power requirements are being replaced by surges in bandwidth as people binge of newly available shows. [SEP] >This was due to the release of the new Marvel series Luke Cage, I believe.  It was indeed. I personally had to torrent the show to get it. Haven't had time to watch any of it yet though. 
> it is comparable considering we are simply talking about good players on shit teams, so it's absolutely comparable lol. EU being relatively weaker than KR does not change that Rekkles had a useless team just like Faker did therefore he looked worse compared to other competition.  Rekkles wasn't even the best player on Alliance... Faker is far and away the best player on SKT.  >it is comparable considering we are simply talking about good players on shit teams, so it's absolutely comparable lol  Not when the context makes the comparison null and void. [SEP] > Rekkles wasn't even the best player on Alliance... Faker is far and away the best player on SKT.  He was though and the only other person close was Froggen. Its worth noting at IEm Froggen played the worst tournament of his life and Rekkles played well.  > Not when the context makes the comparison null and void.  Okay, well, it doesn't... Faker got solokilled 3 times by pawN in S4 qualifiers, rekkles didn't get smashed hard he just didn't carry. If anything rekkles looked better with a bad team. Of course I'm not saying rekkles did the same job for ALL that faker did in SKT, but he wasn't performing.  You're also ignoring that ADC's are always weak early game, that is the role of ADC. You can rarely make plays, just become strong mid/late game.
LA Galaxy, LAFC, San Jose, Sacramento, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Orlando, Atlanta, and Miami could all be available for home games in early December and February....maybe Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver as well.  I really don't care if the season starts in July or February, but June needs to be taken off and the Gold Cup needs to be moved to June. Playing through the international absences for World Cup, Gold Cup, Copa Lib, and maybe the Euro Cup has to stop.  The only way to do that is play more games in the winter.  Every year a few teams could claim their season was ruined by international call-ups and those teams likely lose some fans.  How much longer can it go on?  How am I supposed to take the league seriously, when they don't even take themselves seriously by playing through these tournaments? [SEP] > The only way to do that is play more games in the winter  Not true. They can play more mid-week games and only give teams bye weeks during what would be FIFA mandated international breaks. It would be challenging to take the full month of June off in that format, but limiting that to 2 games and making sure those 2 games are past the group stage would mitigate much of the damage. The other possibility would be to trim the season by 1-2 games.
yeah my girlfriend broke up with me and said similar things about me.   Part of the reason was "I wasn't texting her much" and "didn't seem like i cared much".  This was why we she said broke up. There was a much more profound issue, but these are things that come up to the surface and serve as their 'complaints'.  I'm not taking it too seriously, just looking at it as me not maintaining my frame properly and not handling a situation well enough.  For those curious, she developed herpes 1 month into our relationship, and I handled it poorly and we broke because of it. She thought I was cheating and the relationship was not going to last past a month when an STD develops and little trust has been built and the guy handles it poorly. [SEP] >She thought I was cheating and the relationship was not going to last past a month when an STD develops and little trust has been built and the guy handles it poorly.  You should have just bailed as soon as you found out, herpes is for life. 
In a way, the Roman Empire didn't really split, and it is more useful to think of it as a singular entity with two different administrative structures after 395 CE. The emperors of the East and West were both related to each other and rendered each other aid.  I would love to hear the answer to your other question. There was a Byzantine "renaissance" in the eleventh century that reemphasized classical learning of Christian, but that was almost more of a "Hellenic" revival than a Roman one. [SEP] > The emperors of the East and West were both related to each other and rendered each other aid.  Also, the constitutional laws were common for the whole Empire: for instance the code of Theodosius II was confirmed by the Senate of Rome and the senators explicitly mention their "lords, Augusti Theodosius and Valentian"
Right, how could I forget about all that other stuff he's done. Like drive us into a depression and maintain Bush's absurd wars. [SEP] > drive us into a depression  Pop quiz.    Q1) The economy crashed in what year?  Q2) What year did Barack Obama assume office?   > and maintain Bush's absurd wars.  Q3) How many wars did Bush start?  Q4) How many wars are we in now?   *(Answers: Q1 = 2008, Q2 = 2009, Q3 = 2, Q4 = 1)*
Having driven in the UK this holiday I think it is a bit different to other countries when it comes to roundabouts, but nonetheless pretty easy to understand. The car obviously not only is at fault a 100% here, he also tries to get away after he hits the biker, which is far worse.  [SEP] > tries to get away   Aside from that, I still don't understand. Why wasn't the blue car allowed to drive straight?
What I got from it: 40-31 percent of the country seemingly would vote Republican no matter what. Even though 68% say they believe Trump has made unwanted sexual advances toward women, 40-31 percent of the country is seemingly perfectly OK with that. >.>   [SEP] > 40-31 percent of the country  If it makes you feel any better, it's actually 31-40% of *likely voters*. Only about 55% of eligible voters vote, and about 10% of the population isn't able to vote at all.  So it's ~36% of 55% of 90% of the population. So maybe like ~18% of the population is lockstep Republican?  That's still pretty high, and of course we don't really know how many more that might be if everyone could vote and had to.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
> No, consensual, casual sex is not damaging  No it's not. You're right. However, the types that constantly engage in this behavior with different men tend to be already damaged, and the multiple partners she keeps getting with just solidifies these poor character traits that lead to these decisions.  > And what about the men that sleep with them?  If it's an actual slut? We try to keep it secret or just to our bros. We don't like to publicly announce we had to fuck a slut to fulfill our urges. Sluts aren't our prefferred fuck, but we'll do it if our options our limited.  > I really dont get this whole "ill stick my dick in what lets me, but afterwards ill judge the shit out of them for it. Im really a nice guy though." contradiction.  I actually have no problems with sluts. I'm just pointing out that I'd never date the type of personality that is a slut. I love sluts. They make last call at the bar really easy.   > your double standards  I'm sorry, but that's life. There are going to be double standards between the genders. Believe it or not, men and women are different beyond just a chromosome. Some double standards are unfair, and others make sense. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that men and women are different and have different expectations by society but there are.  [SEP] >had to fuck a slut  No, you didn't have to. You wanted to. I think men who look down on the women they *choose* to have sex with are projecting in that "I can't respect someone who would actually have sex with me" sort of way.
The diameters do not vary across substance, but 10 gauge AWG might not be the same as 10 gauge MWG.  It's just saying that the steel industry typically uses the gauge label that the wire is most likely going to be used for.  It not like they would use gun gauges for copper wire...  As long as you stick with a consistent gauge scale, 12 gauge wire should be the same no matter what it is made out of. [SEP] you contradicted yourself  >10 gauge AWG might not be the same as 10 gauge MWG  >12 gauge wire should be the same no matter what it is made out of.
The issue that I have with carbon tax credits is they can be bought and sold (at least the version that I've read can be). If a company figures out that it's cheaper for them to pay for tax credits and pollute, then they will. If they are expensive than they may choose to do it illegally. Maybe if it was done in a way that would gradually pressure companies to innovate cleaner methods of doing things, it could be good, but then the company would patent whatever technology is used in it and that could have a wide array of different, unpredictable outcomes. [SEP] >Maybe if it was done in a way that would gradually pressure companies to innovate cleaner methods of doing things, it could be good, but then the company would patent whatever technology is used in it and that could have a wide array of different, unpredictable outcomes.  That's the whole idea.  You place a price on carbon that gradually increases until it entirely covers the cost of the waste produced. If the price is too high, companies trade the carbon, paying a de facto tax for their negative extranalities, until they bring their waste controls in line. So either they pay for their damage or they end the damage.   It's a market-oriented solution to a public problem, which is pretty much the best way to solve most negative extranalities and market failures.
We are a subset of libertarians. The term is being hijacked.  If you are worried about socialists hijacking and destroying our ideology then look at fabian society logo and step up your game really quick.  No much time left for /r/Anarcho_Capitalism if they zergrush as this sub is gone. [SEP] > We are a subset of libertarians. The term is being hijacked.  http://i.imgur.com/v4X15zZ.gif
The leagues were interesting but 2.0 was only interesting for new content, clear speed and build diversity was crushed in 2.0 which made the game much less interesting. I stopped playing about 2 weeks ago and just lurk on the forums looking for something enticing to tempt me back.  [SEP] > clear speed and build diversity was crushed   So with removal of reflect clear speed is crushed?   I would expect SC players are having a blast and got their clear speed x10.
I agree that the rules blatantly conflict, but messaging the mods for clarification is a much better response than running to /r/undelete and screaming CONSPIRACY. [SEP] > messaging the mods for clarification is a much better response than running to /r/undelete and screaming CONSPIRACY  This is bad for popcorncoin
How lame would it be if the way we discover aliens is due to some stars having a bit of a wiggle in their spectrum [SEP] > How lame would it be if the way we discover aliens is due to some stars having a bit of a wiggle in their spectrum  I mean, that's a pretty succinct description of one of the major methods used to discover exoplanets (the RV method), so if we *do* discover alien life (or, reasonable tracers of alien life) outside our solar system anytime soon, that'll almost certainly be part of the data trail.
His special does 15K damage, it won't kill most teams. Even better than poison is the Dreadnaught ship that saves you one special animation and one crew slot. [SEP] > His special does 15K damage, it won't kill most teams. Even better than poison is the Dreadnaught ship that saves you one special animation and one crew slot.  It would also help you live through his special, too, thanks to the 1.5x HP.
Write for Business Insider?  As for that Colonel; I honestly don't know what his thought process is - he says it's payload is low, yet at over 18,000lb its payload greater than any of the jets it replaces, he says it has a short range, yet it has a greater combat radius (>600nmi) than any of the jets it replaces, etc.  Instead of linking to articles, why don't you go and do your own research and look at **empirical** data; learn what it means, what different metrics are used, learn how to convert apples-to-oranges comparisons to apples-to-apples, etc. [SEP] No, you sing the praises of the F35 on reddit all day like it's your job.  >The analysis in the Air and Space Power Journal states: “Even if funding were unlimited, reasons might still exist for terminating the F-35.  “Specifically, its performance has not met initial requirements, its payload is low, its range is short, and espionage efforts by the People’s Republic of China may have compromised the aircraft long in advance of its introduction.”  Advances in Russian and Chinese radar defences mean it is not clear that the stealth technology will still work, the analysis warns, adding: “The F-35 might well be the first modern fighter to have substantially less performance than its predecessors.”  >Instead of linking to articles, why don't you go and do your own research   Instead of telling me to do my own research, why don't you read and address the Air Force journal critique of the F35?
Anyone remember the May 21, 2011 Christians? Despite the fact that they were in the news for only about a month, the group had been around for over twenty years.   I would know - I was raised in it.  One of the horrible aspects of May 21st is that people were commanded to sell of their houses, quit their jobs, take their kids out of school, ect because continuing a normal instead of preparing for the rapture proved someone to be unsaved. I wouldn't know where to begin - my family knew several families that sold everything they owned and decided to live in cars and "spread the word."   Almost everyone quit their jobs. I know one woman who drove a school bus. She handed out religious tracks to all of the elementary students on what she thought was her last day. It probably was on the account that parents probably rang the school up about the crazy pamphlets she was handing out and how it scared the students.   There were also numerous divorces. One spouse would think the whole thing was crazy, pick up, and leave. One woman's husband took their child and left, and after the whole May 21st fiasco she still couldn't find them. I don't know if she ever has.   There was a lot of discussion about what to do with pets - I know one man who put down his healthy dog. That really broke my heart. I remember crying over both my dog and cat, and not being able to sleep because of what God was supposedly going to do and how it was going to hurt my best friends. I asked God to just do it quickly.  I didn't quit my job (my parents were not happy about that because it made it seem like I didn't have faith that the world was going to end), but I dropped out of school, and gave away ALL of my money to the group. There were few cases (at least that I know of) that involved people running up debt. Mostly because doing so "proved" someone was unsaved.  I picked up after it all happened. I got two jobs to try and make up for the money I lost, I worked my ass off in community college and am now in the university of my dreams, and am trying to transition into a normal life. It's very difficult. I was raised in a cult and it's impossible to relate to people sometimes. Religiously, I couldn't be better. I am probably too cynical about religion, but I feel good going to bed each night, being an atheist. I feel so much better and life is looking up. I've dramatically changed.  Everyone else varies though. There are plenty of people who are trying to figure out what happened and plan for the next date of the rapture. These people will ALWAYS be around. For the most part people are just trying to get by - get what jobs they can and take care of their kids. I know a lot of the younger people are relieved, and feel guilty to feel relieved. (Feeling relieved means that you didn't actually want it to happen, which means that you don't trust in God's will, which means you're unsaved and going to hell). I think I struggle less internally than most of the younger people I know. Most are trying to still be some sort of Christian and make some sort of life out of the mess. It's all very, very sad.  Chances are though, it's the worse event that will happen (or not happen) in our lives. Whenever I'm having a shit day I try to remember that.  EDIT: I should mention that I am not quite 100% better. Religiously speaking, I am better off than most of the other young people. Most of them are trying to reconcile and still believe in God or bits of the May 21st theory, ect while I'm religiously over all of it. But as far as my health mentally, socially, and even sexually I am.....not really all the way there. I'm working on it, but there's a lot of shit to work through after more than 20 years. That's one of the reasons I'm always trying to track down people who went through similar events that I did. I feel like we can relate to each other in ways that others don't quite get. Also, I can't really tell my new friends - this is a lot to throw on someone out of no where. It's a lot of baggage. I'm really the only one in my family who left, so it's a bit lonely, ya know? Also, not that important, but I'm a woman. [SEP] >There was a lot of discussion about what to do with pets - I know one man who put down his healthy dog.  I guess someone hadn't heard about After the Rapture Pet Care. http://www.aftertherapturepetcare.com/    
BY minor League Attendance the A's should move to Sacramento. The Rays should move to either Charlotte, NC or Indianapolis IN. [SEP] > The Rays should move to either Charlotte, NC or Indianapolis IN.  Or they could move to Tampa, I guess
And there is a reason people think of GDI's as pussies too. That doesn't mean I think of every GDI that way.  [SEP] >And there is a reason people think of GDI's as pussies too.   If you think of people who aren't in your stupid little club as a pussy just because they aren't in your stupid little club, you're a fucking retard and most likely an asshole. Hell, what do I mean "most likely"? You *ARE* an asshole if you think like that.   > That doesn't mean I think of every GDI that way.   I'm just going to come out and say that term is fucking stupid to begin with anyway. 
But free trade with the rUK is a significant downgrade from what we would have as a member of the UK and will mean significant barriers to trade for over 60% of our exports and imports. Being in the UK's single market is pretty important for Scotland. Moreso than being in the EU's.  Financial services (just under 15% of the UK's GDP and a similar proportion of the UK's tax revenue) is a whole load of different industries that are listed as one. We're seeing that now, as some are expected to take a hit from Brexit, whereas others are seeing record growth. Finance firms were the some of the largest donors to *both* the Remain and Leave side. This makes the industry a lot more diverse than one raw material.  [SEP] >Being in the UK's single market is pretty important for Scotland. Moreso than being in the EU's.  Well, for now.   Who knows? maybe in the future we will send our stuff over to ireland, denmark and sweden to be processed and ported out across the world instead of sending it south or we can just start doing it ourselves.   If we can get those wine drinkers hooked on whisky,Irn-Bru and munchie boxes we will be laughing
Especially since Jojo and Rexxar got 25% nerfs to the exact same thing... [SEP] > Especially since Jojo and Rexxar got 25% nerfs to the exact same thing...  Joh and Rexxar got nerfed in minions damage only, while Leoric got nerf on everything, it just so happens that Leoric does bonus damage to minion as well. 
To be fair, it's come a long way. Most major distributions allow you to simply install a package and Graphics Drivers automagically work (Debian, Fedora, Arch).  I remember 6/7 years ago having to hunt down the proper network adapter drivers. God damn, that was such a pain. Most hardware nowadays (<5 years old) should work out of the box. [SEP] > network adapter drivers  This is the absolute worst lol, "Go find drivers to make your internet work, but you can't use your internet to make it work"
>Supressing ideas because they cause bad feelings is retarded. It is pure censorship with weak reasoning.  Suppressing women's sexuality because it causes men to feel insecure is retarded. It is pure selfishness with weak reasoning.   >Tell me your number out of curiosity, are you ashamed?  No, I'm not ashamed. I find it difficult to touch and be touched by new people, so I've had only two partners, both within LTRs. Have I been called a slut numerous times anyway for reasons not even relating to sex? Yeah.   "Slut" and other terms like "whore" are used specifically on women to make them feel less valuable and worthwhile, even if they're not doing anything overtly sexual. I've been called a slut by girls I didn't even know, and by guys I turned down. A woman's sexual nature is usually the first thing someone attacks when they want to hurt her, and this is both a double-standard and a serious problem for young women who don't know how to defend themselves against it.   It's a serious problem because slut-shaming causes bullying and social ostracization, depression, and in some cases even suicide. And it's all completely preventable, the only thing you have to do is not shame women for liking sex the way men like sex. We're human, we need to like sex to propagate the species. Women liking sex is not going to go away. [SEP] >I find it difficult to touch and be touched by new people  you sound like the perfect women, jk, that must be quite difficult especially in a touchy-feely society like ours.  Am I saying they should go to prison? Or even pay a fine?  I just said that I've noticed consequences like anything done exclusively in life.  >Have I been called a slut numerous times anyway for reasons not even relating to sex?  those don't count, it's like being called a nigger when your chinese, words do not insult the attitude behind them does.  >and by guys I turned down.  you hurt their fragile egos, would you prefer lesbo?  >A woman's sexual nature is usually the first thing someone attacks when they want to hurt her  I go for intelligence or irrationality.  It's not a gender issue, you do realised you are basically complaining that people use insults. And I would argue that when women insult men the go unapologetically to their masculinity significantly more often that men go for a women's chastity.  Kinda example:  >men to feel insecure is retarded  Men are significantly more violently bullied than women. Lets not talk about suicide numbers.   >And it's all completely preventable,  no it's not people are petty, selfish, spiteful that is how social wars are fought, you can't force people to like all other people, and any form of suppression will find just another release valve(cyberbulling).  >is not shame women for liking sex the way men like sex  if there was a death sentence tomorrow on saying slut in a wierd kind of liberal fascist state, people (women) would find other ways to shame you into behaving in a non-threatening way, and men would just say you look like your mother  >Women liking sex is not going to go away  God forbid, men have a hard time getting it in as it is, I couldn't even imagine how that Apocalypse would look like
let yourself drift off.... its part of the process. no one will ever have an hour of total silence unless they have died. the human brain will constantly chatter away, yes it will get quieter and less frequent. embrace it! it means your meditating correctly. dont give in :) [SEP] >no one will ever have an hour of total silence unless they have died.  I disagree with this wholeheartedly. It is unlikely for someone who has meditated for 2 months but many long term mediators can experience silence/concentration 24/7
>You refuse to accept the historical fact that extra-marital sex was widespread throughout human history  I'm not accepting this because it's not an historical fact. Extra-marital sex happened, of course -- but "widespread"? What do you mean by "widespread"? Where is your evidence?  >You rationalize your rejection by asserting that the only women who had sex outside of marriage were concubines.  I never said this.  >Reputable historical sources were cited   Where? Telling me to look at /r/AskHistorians is not a "reputable historical source."  >The point I have made over and over again, which you could not rebuke thus far, is the reality that what you call "casual sex" or "promiscuity" has been a persistent, ever-present part of human nature that was only briefly suppressed or driven into secrecy by Catholic dogma.  1. I'm not sure why the terms "casual sex" and "promiscuity" are in quotation marks: these are terms with clear meaning.   2. Attributing an opposition to casual sex exclusively to Catholicism is historically ignorant. What about the Jews? The Orthodox? The Muslims? All of the tribes across the globe who have practiced slut-shaming?  3. To return to the first point made in this response, it has not yet been demonstrated that casual sex was rampant in ancient societies. The risk of pregnancy was very real. Women were not yet treated as fully human. Promiscuous behavior was ubiquitously condemned, even in Roman society. What you're doing is what we in philosophy would understand as assertion-making rather than argument-making.  >They are going to have sex no matter how hard people like you try to tell them not to in useless abstinence-only sex ed programs.  Is there a single society in human history that has successfully discouraged young adults from having casual sex? (There are hundreds, but even *one* suffices to demonstrate my point.) Yes? Then it *is* possible to dissuade young adults from having casual sex. Your biological fatalism regarding promiscuity simply isn't backed by the historical record.  Let me go over the three main claims I've made:  1. Birth control is far more reliable and available than it's been in the past.  2. Having casual sex in the past was a far riskier proposition than it is today.  3. Consequently from [1] and [2], people today are having far more sex than they did in the past.  Feel free to address any of these points specifically.  [SEP] >I'm not accepting this because it's not an historical fact. Extra-marital sex happened, of course -- but "widespread"? What do you mean by "widespread"? Where is your evidence?  Do you *read*? Because it sounds like you haven't. Or you can't. One or the other.  Foucault's *History of Sexuality*. McGinn's *Prostitution, Sexuality and Law in Ancient Rome*. Langland's *Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome*. Milton Diamond has a book on the sexual habits of pre-contact Polynesian cultures. There's copious quantities of ancient Greek historians and theologians who have written famous works that contain historical evidence pertaining to the sexual practices of the era. Indian philosophies and religions all reveal very open minded approaches to sex and sexuality. There's recovered graffiti from Pompeii and other Greek and Roman cities that reveal every-day culture that is as raunchy and sexualized as ours is today, and *that's between just ordinary Greeks and Romans*, not concubines or prostitutes.  What more evidence to you fucking want? Holy shit, man. There's multitudes of published work out there that make it blatantly clear that extra-marital sex was most certainly a persistent thing throughout human history and numerous cultures. SOME of these cultures were intensely patriarchal and tolerated extra-marital sex only in the case of men, but those men exercised their privilege widely. They had sex with prostitutes, concubines *and regular unmarried women* alike. Married women were persecuted for it, but that doesn't change the fact that casual sex existed in these ancient patriarchal societies.  >I never said this.  Yes, you did. Don't be dishonest.  >I'm not sure why the terms "casual sex" and "promiscuity" are in quotation marks: these are terms with clear meaning.  They're in quotes because they are *moral judgements* that you are committing to and I am not. I don't consider it casual sex. I consider it sex. Just *normal* sex. I don't consider it promiscuity. I consider it *normal human behavior*. So when I use those phrases, I quote you. Hence the quotation marks.  Not that complicated.  >Attributing an opposition to casual sex exclusively to Catholicism is historically ignorant. What about the Jews? The Orthodox? The Muslims?   Once again, it's evident that you do not read.  Jews are historically closed societies. Judaism was present prior to Christianity, obviously, but it wasn't widespread. The nature of their religion is accepting of converts, but they don't seek converts out. Therefore, historically, the Jewish religious culture was a non-influential minority within the Roman Empire, and did not affect the Roman law and culture.  I attributed the *Western* emergence of this phenomenon to Catholicism. I am focused to this geographical region because that's what pertains to our existence today in the Western countries we reside in. We trace our cultural heritage to Catholic European countries, not Muslim Middle Eastern ones.  Nuance much?  >All of the tribes across the globe who have practiced slut-shaming?  Really? Because the tribal cultures of Polynesia might have something to say about that.  Before you cry at me about sources, it's cited above. Just a reminder, because I'm sure you didn't read.  >To return to the first point made in this response, it has not yet been demonstrated that casual sex was rampant in ancient societies.  It has. Just because you can't be bothered to educate yourself doesn't mean that your incomplete world view is absolute truth. Get over yourself.  >The risk of pregnancy was very real.  Yes, it was. But instead of *not* having sex, people used whatever methods available to them to reduce the risk and had sex anyway. The methods were *good enough* that extra-marital sex persisted as a part of our species' existence.  >Women were not yet treated as fully human.  So? Doesn't mean that there was no extra-marital sex.  >Promiscuous behavior was ubiquitously condemned, even in Roman society.  No, it wasn't. Multiple books on this subject. Cited some above. Should go read. But wait, I forgot you don't do that. Nevermind.  >Is there a single society in human history that has successfully discouraged young adults from having casual sex?   There are always societies that have discouraged *SOME* young adults from having "casual sex". Doesn't mean that a substantially larger number of them don't simply do what comes to them naturally as human beings and have the sex anyway.  So really, you have no point whatsoever.  >Birth control is far more reliable and available than it's been in the past.  Again, so what?  It was *good enough* that people kept having sex in and outside of marriage, and quite often. Some bastards were fathered, and women were persecuted in all the intensely patriarchal civilizations, but they all still kept on having sex.  >Having casual sex in the past was a far riskier proposition than it is today.  And yet again, **so what?**  People were able to reduce the risks enough that they still kept on having it in and outside of marriage anyway.  >Consequently from [1] and [2], people today are having far more sex than they did in the past.  People are having more sex than they did during the height of the Catholic dominance in Europe. Nobody is denying that. But of course, sexual suppression by Catholic dogma is a mere *blip* on the overall human history that extends thousands of years.  The reality is that people probably are having sex about as frequently as they did in ancient times. All historical evidence points to this conclusion.  I've said all that needs to be said here. Evidence is plenty for people who care to see. It's becoming awfully clear though that you're not really interested in seeing evidence. You're just interested in asserting your incomplete understanding as truth without any justifications (by the way, interestingly, I'm the only one here who actually has cited historical sources). So excuse my unwillingness to accept that you have anything to do with philosophy at all.  Don't bother responding. Seriously. I'm not really looking for a counter from you because I have no interest in "debating" with the kinds of rules you play by. Just go bother someone else.
Yes, *every single American, over 300 million people,* just sit on their asses. Fuck you. You know nothing about our country except for what you hear, and I'll tell you right now the only news that actually makes it is the bad. It gives an unfair view of the country.  [SEP] >It gives an unfair view of the country.   I don't think I am alone in thinking that the USA is totally fucked and will only get more and more fucked as time goes on.  Why? AMERICANS AREN'T DOING ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE STATUS QUO.  It really is *that fucking simple*. Who the hell else is going to save your asses? There's no "Other America" who will come and drop bombs on you until you're "free".   If the USA is going to change, that change must come from within. Unfortunately so far, Americans have shown themselves to be too fucking fat/lazy/ignorant to get up out of their armchairs and make that change.   There's your problem right there.
I personally think that the reason Jones had much better success then Morris is because he is a good pass catching back too, whereas morris is not. Because of this, when defenses see Morris in the backfield they stack 8 in the box and assume it's a run (because once again, Morris can't catch a cold butt naked in Alaska), whereas when they see Jones in the backfield (who is an unproven rookie) they think pass. Even Washington's coach in the press conference mentioned this as the reason he mixed their carries. It is an attempt to keep defenses guessing. I am a fantasy owner of both and am scared because I am convinced they will both get split carries all season because 1. Morris is too good and consistent to be a backup, 2. even if Jones is better, Morris is not third down back material (because of his brick hands), which would make Jones a 3 down receiver which would mean Morris never playing, and 3. Jones is too good to just be a third down back. [SEP] That's an interesting point, and possibly makes sense...    I'll have to watch this game for yet a third time, lol    That said:      >1. Morris is too good and consistent to be a backup, 2. even if Jones is better, Morris is not third down back material (because of his brick hands), which would make Jones a 3 down receiver which would mean Morris never playing, and 3. Jones is too good to just be a third down back.    You pretty much made the perfect argument for Jones to be the feature with Morris a change of pace.  Like a 65/35 split.   
> The very thing you see as "civilized society" is inherently uncivilized  I have civilized society in the associations I keep. I spent years building those associations. My interactions with government haven't been civilized, as government sees fit to act via coercion and deception.  BTW, I see no difference between corporate and civil government anymore. They became the same thing in the 20th century.  I prefer neighbors that act like neighbors. I don't care what other people call them.  [SEP] >I prefer neighbors that act like neighbors. I don't care what other people call them.  This doesn't mean anything.  In fact, you haven't really said a damn thing this whole time.  Either grow a pair and address discussion with some intellectual honesty, or just shut the fuck up.
We're pretty much normal guys. We get up, go to work, pay our bills, and respect other peoples opinions and beliefs. It's not bad here in Dallas. Most LGBT here are moderate leaning.  [SEP] > and respect other peoples opinions and beliefs.   What exactly do you mean by this?
The dog: Fullmetal Alchemist (it's great)  The catgirl: Asobi ni iku yo!, licensed as "Cat Planet Cuties" in the US (it's shit)  The manga girl: Yotsuba&! (it's awesome)  The crying kid: Pokemon (it's nostalgia)  The guy with the sunglasses: I have no idea [SEP] > Asobi ni iku yo!  She's not a cat. She's a wolf. 
Yeah, because I dont have to. Theres a whole subreddit for talking about Eva. The truth is most people disagree with you. You're the only one out of the loop, and I dont feel responsible for explaining things to you. [SEP] > The truth is most people disagree with you  Actually, there's a lot of manga/anime fans that do agree EVA is overhyped, pretentious garbage, and are also angered over the fact that it spawned a lot of terrible tropes that are still used to this day.  
Canada is a mostly a christian/secular country with their own values and identity.   It should not allow someone to become a canadian citizen if they do not follow these values and adopt a canadian identity.  By doing so it is destroying the identity of canadians, dividing them based on values and making them into currency.   Good talk about tribe and identity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7vGntRbFe8  If you want the canadian identity to be reduced to being a consumer, who lives north of 'murica' then you would have no problems with destroying the canadian identity and tribe. [SEP] > Canada is a mostly a christian/secular country with their own values and identity.   Canada "is" whatever it in fact is.  Want to know what Canadian values are?  Ask Canadian*s.*  What Canada **in fact** is, can be illustrated with various demographics.  There is no "mostly" this or that business.  Canada is a real place, not an abstraction.  And certainly whatever can generally said about it does not "write away" minority voices and opinions.  Canada is a nation of laws, not a mob.  >Good talk about tribe and identity.  Canada is not a "tribe."  Nation states are not "tribes."  >If you want the canadian identity to be reduced to being a consumer, who lives north of 'murica' then you would have no problems with destroying the canadian identity and tribe.  Nothing is being destroyed.  But a higher form of social organization has emerged.  It's called **civilization**, and if anything it exists in deep tension with atavisms like "tribe."  You want "tribal society"?  Check out Iraq, or the various other M.Eastern disasters that only barely qualify as "nation states."  **EDIT:** I'd like to add (more for anyone else reading this than yourself) that yours is a very good illustration of what is problematic with reactionary opinions.  They tend to confuse past circumstance and pragmatism with a perennial dogma in need of imitation.  This is what fundamentally separates "reactionaries" from the actual old timers they regard with reverence and seek to imitate.
Thanks for the tips.  I doubt ass play is possible.  I have begged for anal for a couple months and I'm not getting anywhere.  But the handcuffs combined with the flavored lube may do wonders.  My SO complains that her throat get sore and she chokes when I get close to finishing and hold her head down.  Maybe the cuffs will give her some control. [SEP] > My SO complains that her throat get sore and she chokes when I get close to finishing and hold her head down      I detest that, and if you did that to me, I would never suck your cock.  Hate it.  My SO never does that, and he gets 3 or more blow jobs a week, for the last 16 yrs.  Just sayin.     Also, more like ass massage than anal penetration.  Or spanking, if your girl is into that.
He should be hanged for treason. [SEP] >He should be hanged  by the testicles.
I thought Minecraft PE was already written in C++. All they've done so far is make it run on Windows 10 and that's about it.  > They've already said *many* times they aren't dropping support for Mac and Linux.  I'll believe it when I see it. [SEP] > I thought Minecraft PE was already written in C++. All they've done so far is make it run on Windows 10 and that's about it.      Yes. They're remaking the Java version in C++. Mac and Linux are coming.
Now I know this post will be unpopular, but people who say that the healthcare system should be totally free and the government should provide everybody insurance and there should be no out of pocket costs for anybody in the country... well that idea really makes me angry.   You only have to look at what happened in Europe and is still happening in Europe to some extent to know what will happen if we just start spending money again.  Certain countries in Europe almost completely went under and if it were not for other countries bailing them out they would have.. and then those countries almost went down as well.   The government will never have enough money to pay for everything.  If you make every state school in the country free for anybody who wants to go, it would make it far more competitive to get in resulting in less people going. The private universities would likely go out of business and you'd probably end up having to pay professors less.    Back on topic, I do agree that the medical costs of the US are high.  Its a fact that they are higher here than they are in most other locations across the world.   And there are three reasons for that.  One is a good reason and I gladly would pay more because of it, the other two are bad reasons and they need to be looked at.   The first reason is that when you take the whole healthcare system as a whole, lump it together then find the average that somebody pays, you have to account for the fact that a lot more research happens in the US than in most places around the world, and that accounts a lot towards the higher average cost.  I'd gladly may more money for medicines and new procedures knowing that that money will go to a company that is spending billions on research to improve things.   The second reason, and one that needs to be looked at is: So many insurance companies do not pay for preventative care.  I could be in a third world country and get the flu and be clinging to life and need to be transported back to the states to be looked after.  The insurance company will pay every single fee to put me and those traveling with me on a private medical jet and then pay for me to be put in a hospital when I get home. However,  paying for the flu shot would save them a lot of money verus the event I were to actually get the flu.   The third I have first hand experience with and is a big deal which is why i saved it for last.  My dad is a doctor.  You should see how much money he pays in medical malpractice insurance.  Its more money in that one bill alone than most people make in a year... and it has saved him a few times.    People are way to quick to sue doctors and the laws governing what you can sue for need to be tightened up.   I'll give you an example:  A doctor a few towns over from me was out to dinner with his wife and the doctor saw somebody choking.  They could not get it out so the doctor  stabbed a ball point pen into the ladies throat in order to save her. She would have died if that doctor was not in the restaurant.  However that lady did not like the scar on her neck and sued the doctor for $500,000, won, and the insurance had to pay for it.  Stories like that are things that need to be addressed at a equal level as "My flu shot cost me $35 dollars and I think the government should have paid that instead"  Because as long as doctors need top ay tens of thousands of dollars in insurance to protect themselves, the prices of those doctors are not going to come down.  [SEP] let's be clear on one thing... the world economy did not crash because european companies offer nationalized medical care and college education.  germany offers both and was one of the first countries to recover from the crash in 2008.  don't imply causation simply because a commonality exists.  i'm certainly not suggesting that anything should be implemented overnight.  but (and here's where the commonality really does create cause) the countries that provide nationalized health care and post-secondary education enjoy a better quality of life than we do.  less stress, better overall health, lower obesity rates, etc.  there is something to be said for being able to go to the doctor without having to fear the bills afterward.  >The government will never have enough money to pay for everything.  of course not.  there has to be give and take and sacrifice on all parts - both public and governmental.  i'm not talking about handouts, i'm talking about providing the best environment possible so that i can be the most productive member of society possible.  >you have to account for the fact that a lot more research happens in the US than in most places around the world, and that accounts a lot towards the higher average cost.  this is true.  HOWEVER (and i've worked for big pharma), a lot of those costs are also going to "make up for" revenue lost when a patent expires on a drug and generics can be made by other companies.  when that happens, billions can be lost in the space of a few months.  so the prices of name brand pharmaceuticals usually include a good chunk of stop-loss money along with paying for R&D.  >You should see how much money he pays in medical malpractice insurance.   the only way for us to fix this is to eliminate our society's tendency to sue first, ask questions later.  we have become so litigious in our nature that it's become safer for everyone to let someone die rather than attempt to help them live.  it's what happened to your friend and what happened to AIG when their shareholders decided to sue the government for not paying enough dividends after the bailout.  i'm sorry your friend lost, because common sense should have ruled.  but it didn't.  so need to stop being so quick to sue one another for stupid shit.
Successful and intelligent black women are single for basically the same reason OP is having trouble. We may like someone, but majority of the time the attraction is not reciprocated. Albeit you learn to be more open minded because your options are very small considering most guys aren't attracted to you.   When you look at it, white women are essentially universally desired, so they can pick whomever they want without a problem usually. Whereas when you're not as desired you really don't have room to be as selective unless you plan on being alone. Which also explains why a lot of black women who don't date outside their race are still single. [SEP] >Which also explains why a lot of black women who don't date outside their race are still single.  I keep telling fellow black women to be open to dating outside their race. If you like him and he likes you, who cares if he is white/asian/whatever!
The only negative I've discovered is that most do not offer business accounts.  But you can still get loans, free checking, savings accounts, and check cards. [SEP] > most do not offer business accounts  Not sure about most, but it's true not *all* do. My nearest CU does not, but since they're a Co-Op member, I can set up a business account at the next closest (15 min away, no big hassle) and basically do all my banking at the closest CU. In a way, Co-Op CUs are sort of just branches of one big CU.  I'm shopping for business banking right now, and I'll me moving my personal accounts where ever I wind up. And CUs are looking really good right now.
Why is he resigning from congress in addition to stepping down as speaker? [SEP] > Why is he resigning from congress in addition to stepping down as speaker?  Typically and traditionally Speakers who resign also leave Congress. 
I agree, but to be honest, it is exhausting to debate with people who quickly agree that the SLoT explains why everyone else is wrong, but that their idea is still correct.  > science progresses one funeral at a time  This phrase has mostly outlived it's validity. There are very few people who dominate their field that completely today.  Honestly, you can get traction if you have a theory and experimental evidence, it's just that most outsiders don't bother with both. [SEP] >most outsiders don't bother with both.  heh, fair cop guvnor.
I dunno, I'm older. Seeing what's happened to election season enthusiasm every four years has led me to believe that a whole lot of nothing will happen. We had all this saber rattling with the tea party in 2008, people were talking revolution and a new third party -- where is the tea party today? Where is Sarah Palin, the favorite candidate of the tea party? The problem is that these people hate and distrust the government so much that they're unable to work within the system to make the kind of changes they want. That is key. All they're talking about is how corrupt the media is, how the election is rigged, how their own party is abandoning them -- it's a total "us vs the world" mentality. That's not going to lead to any real movement politically. You're going to see some noise from the fringe alt-right, but people who band together over their hate for a president have traditionally never fared well. [SEP] I wasn't talking about a political movement, I was talking about some crazy fuckers going out and shooting somebody.  > where is the tea party today?  At Trump rallies? The far-right moderates have dropped off and the far-far rights have gotten even more extreme.  This extremism has been building for quite some time and I am scared that it is gonna end badly.
Knowing how to solve problems efficiently and streamlined has to do with your knowledge of algorithms or Language specific constructs that are efficient and streamlined, so it comes with time and just pure learning by heart is no help (you need experience in mapping a problem onto another problem you already know the solution for and then adapting that solution structure). [SEP] > you need experience in mapping a problem onto another problem you already know the solution for  what do you mean by that?  and yeah im trying to get experience under my belt :)
I think the general population likes Eminem because he's fucking good. I don't think Eminem's mass appeal is really that he's white, but more that he's super fucking talented. The biggest artists (Tupac, Biggie, Jay Z, Kanye, etc) break cultural barriers based on talent.  Although when it comes to guys like Watsky and Hoodie Allen, it probably has a lot to do with race and background. I'm honestly not convinced that's a bad thing either. People are drawn to music they identify with. Hoodie Allen is gonna be talking about some suburban shit, so my sister loves him. My sister isn't going to be riding around listening to Pusha talking about slinging bricks. [SEP] >People are drawn to music they identify with. Hoodie Allen is gonna be talking about some suburban shit, so my sister loves him. My sister isn't going to be riding around listening to Pusha talking about slinging bricks.  I can say with absolute certainty that 99.9% of this sub has never been involved in slinging bricks yet Pusha is very popular around here
Easy for you to say. As a JG fan, that 33-race winless streak last year wasn't easy to get over. [SEP] > Easy for you to say. As a JG fan, that 33-race winless streak last year wasn't easy to get over.  I actually rubbed my hands together and snickered evilly when I posted that about 11 races after seeing your flair. ;)
you know you can just drag them to the side to make them smaller... right? [SEP] >you know you can just drag them to the side to make them smaller... right?  Because that is totally as good as being able to resize windows as you see fit.
> That, as a nation, we only care about what happens when we don't think people deserved the violence done upon them.  It happens when people don't understand the motives behind violence.  >When there are shootings in run-down areas where drugs and crime are rampant, we have a underlying, subconscious feeling that it comes with the territory.  Because there are recognizable motives: the drug trade, ensuing gang rivalries, poverty related crime like robbery, etc.  >Suddenly a bunch of movie-goers in surburbia CO get killed by a crazy person and like The Onion points out, we go into our highly refined post-catastrophe mode   Because it's seemingly senseless with no easy-to-grasp motive.   >we won't be able to develop ways to prevent this so long as this is our national knee-jerk reaction.  Exactly what ways are there to prevent this? As much as you've mentioned "dealing with broader issues" you've failed to actually articulate any.     [SEP] >Exactly what ways are there to prevent this? As much as you've mentioned "dealing with broader issues" you've failed to actually articulate any.  Damn straight. Exactly how do you stop someone from snapping like this and taking out everything in their path? This isn't a recent problem, or an American one either.
> Solo content would have to be tuned toward a middle-of-the-road healer in cleric stance.  Or just have separate instances for each job. Tank instances deal more damage, healer instances have things to protect, and DPS instances have time limits. Other things work too, but they can cater the content to the class.  > I'd really prefer they fix the current social elements; several of the current systems are so hysterically bad for an MMO that it hurts. I really enjoy this game a lot, but sooooo many of the systems and blockings in place are just absolutely awful for a multiplayer experience.  I agree with the latter, but they don't really have much to do with what's being mentioned. Being able to play with others more outside of raids doesn't really help you find competent raiders. A lot of servers have people shuffling around and kicking members every day in search of their golden goose which they still can't find. When it comes down to it, I think it's just that the gap between casual and hardcore content is too small, but the skill level required is huge.  > Randomizing mechanics is, generally, not the best course of action.   I think fights with randomized mechanics are much more fun. Moggle, for example, is much more interesting to me because things happen in a chaotic order (unless you play tank and sit in a corner, that part needed work).  > Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't this precisely what Savage already does?  A lot of people don't find Savage to be fun, especially the groups who have hit a wall. Personally I enjoy raiding, but it would probably be more enjoyable all around if they released more bosses per tier. Instead of going from difficulty 1,3,8,10; they could have a slower and steady increase. More variety and more "accomplishment" points will keep it more entertaining for a while. And people who raid competitively have more races to win. [SEP] > Or just have separate instances for each job. Tank instances deal more damage, healer instances have things to protect, and DPS instances have time limits. Other things work too, but they can cater the content to the class.  This, however, triples the amount of time required to create each story instance.  Its not a bad idea, but its not without its own costs. 
I'm fine with a limit of about a million a year. The rest of that money should be going towards the workers in the company. "You" shouldn't be profiting massively while millions of people are worried whether or not they can afford to live for the next 30 days.  >  But then what happens if I'm in independent software developer that suddenly has a huge hit on his hands, like Notch had with Minecraft, and by some stroke of luck have made several million dollars in a month. I'm not ripping off money that should be shared with employees because I don't have any employees to exploit.   If that is the case, then sure, take your money. I don't have a problem with that, as long as you're not actively stepping on everyone just to get a little more.   >So what happens to all that extra money? Does anything I make after $20,000 just vanish and go to the government just because I made it all at once instead of over a period of time? Does that sound fair to you?  ...really should've let me answer before typing this one, huh? [SEP] > ...really should've let me answer before typing this one, huh?  Nope. I'd rather ask my initial questions up front. If I've made a mistake in my assumptions I assume the other person can just correct them.  I don't agree with a maximum wage as a set limit. If something like that were to be used in a corporate setting, then a multiple of the average or lowest employee pay makes more sense. It scales much better for different company sizes and potentially doesn't need adjustments for inflation.
Why do we need incendiary rounds?  Agreed a whack-job could make them, but wouldn't it be possible that a jacketed round would cause a spark, or even oil on the bullet from the shooters fingers could start an O2 compression explosion caused by the puncture, or even that the bullet itself would be tremendously hot from the friction with the barrel (any shooter who's ever burned his leg while shooting from rest can attest to how hot the barrel gets with only a few rounds).  Again, I don't find the idea likely, but "its absurd that a high-powered bullet into a gigantic tin can filled with O2 & jet fuel creates an explosion" is not convincing to me. [SEP] > Why do we need incendiary rounds?   Agreed.  It's not like anyone has ever tested how well rockets respond to repeated, standard rifle fire.  My guess, not well.
You are saying you'd love to constrain freedoms to further your own personal agenda?  You sir, are a fascist, I hope you die of malnutrition.   [SEP] > You are saying you'd love to constrain freedoms to further your own personal agenda?  It this the kind of freedom you're talking about?
Not knowing your wife, I don't know how she would react.  I'm not sure I'd want to know. I mean, intellectually I know my mom says all sorts of shit about me to people all the time. But actually hearing what she said... it would probably put me into a funk for days. I'd want to defend myself and explain why she's wrong. And there's nothing I can do about it because confronting her is doomed to failure.   This might be a case where not telling the specifics are better.   It may be a place to open up a conversation about how you can set boundaries with MIL, though. Just "yeesh, your mom, she started spewing shit at me and I didn't know how to shut her down. I ended up having to flee. Any idea on how I could handle this better next time?"      [SEP] > I'm not sure I'd want to know. I mean, intellectually I know my mom says all sorts of shit about me to people all the time. But actually hearing what she said... it would probably put me into a funk for days. I'd want to defend myself and explain why she's wrong. And there's nothing I can do about it because confronting her is doomed to failure.   I had posted a comment here arguing for telling his wife, but I see your point.  It really can put you in a funk to hear the latest awfulness when there's not much to be done about it.  But I like where you ended up - the approach of making it a conversation about boundaries.  Because really, if his wife doesn't want to hear it, then OP probably shouldn't be hearing it either, if they are really a team.  I like the phrasing you suggested - that since this sucks, what can we decide, together, about how to handle it next time she starts saying shit like this?
> It would have taken me much longer to get geared in D2 without trading, and the same is true for this game.  No, that depends on what you mean by "get geared." A lot of people trading in D2 were already doing Hell Baal runs. They were already geared up to a great extent. They were searching for more gear because, for whatever reason, they wanted it, not because they needed it--huge difference.  > Nobody actually knows what the game would be like without it, it's just used as a simplistic catch-all for people not having fun.  Yes, of course they do. There are other ARPGs out there that do not have central AHs.  [SEP] >They were already geared up to a great extent. They were searching for more gear because, for whatever reason, they wanted it, not because they needed it--huge difference.  It seems to me that wanting gear in order to overcome a challenge is better design than wanting it even though the end game is so easy that you don't even need it. 
Why would MS need to certify their own devices? It may well come with permanent Secure Boot. [SEP] > It may well come with permanent Secure Boot.  No, it won't.  Microsoft's UEFI certification **requires** that Secure Boot be optional on x86 platforms.  The UEFI fears of locking down your x86 hardware when running Windows 8 are completely unfounded.
Remember , for a lot of our media McG has the wrong Dublin accent to be making the kind of cash he is currently bringing in, taking shots at a guy upsetting the apple cart is par for the course.  [SEP] > Remember , for a lot of our media McG has the wrong Dublin accent to be making the kind of cash he is currently bringing in  This is exactly what it boils down to. Especially at the rags that are more middle class and more south Dublin than others.   
> My sandwich is no more logically limited than God,   Well of course it is, just as my circle is logically limited to not being a square.  > though, and I would argue that omnimaxity IS logically impossible anyway.  Okay good, I would probably argue the same thing.  > Right. That's the point. You can swap it out with anything you want and get the same result.  In terms of its name sure, but you still have all the baggage from the concept that Plantinga is arguing for. So you're not going against Plantinga's argument. You're just putting a different hat on.  > Exactly. And the MOA fails for exactly the same reason. Saying that the ultimate sandwich is more limited than God is only special pleading.  It isn't, since special pleading requires the distinction to be made in arbitrariness, but there's nothing arbitrary about saying that sandwich, as a physical thing, does not contain the same properties as a supposed God, which is not physical.  > He's says he's only trying to prove that belief in God is "reasonable" but he doesn't demonstrate that either.  Well clearly he does, since his argument is valid.  > His definition of "maximal excellence" is incoherent, his premise that maximal excellence "possibly exists is undemonstrated and does not actually look logically possible and his S5 axiom is just hocus pocus - an attempt to wand wave "possible" necessity into actual necessity.  We might want to deny S5, but it isn't hocus pocus even if we did. It's a complex topic in logic that I do not have the background in to fully explain. [SEP] > Well of course it is, just as my circle is logically limited to not being a square.  The ultimate sandwich is not bound by any such logical limitations. and is actually less logically  limited than omnimaxity because the ultimate sandwich is not omniscient. It's just really smart. Like Stephen Hawking amped up on Adderol, but it's not quite omniscient.  That is the case because I define it as so.  >Well clearly he does, since his argument is valid.  I would have to disagree since I don't accept either his premises or the "turn" he tries to pull off in S5.
Not often, but I don't visit new reddits much these days. I know that the rate limit is strictly subreddit specific because I've seen the site admins say so in the past, however I don't feel like digging up proof, so like I said, believe whatever you want. [SEP] >Not often, but I don't visit new reddits much these days. I know that the rate limit is strictly subreddit specific because I've seen the site admins say so in the past, however I don't feel like digging up proof, so like I said, believe whatever you want.  I am not saying it isn't subreddit specific. I am saying there are instances where more than one subreddit is tied to the same threshold.  It's not a matter of "believing" it's a matter of you having no idea what you're talking about. And shame on you for believing what the admins say.  They don't like to talk openly about this stuff.
I'll be the first to admit that I have no clue wtf is going on right now as far as the plot/story is concerned....which seems to be about par for the course. [SEP] >I'll be the first to admit  No you won't.
The Vision of Escaflowne / Neon Genesis Evangelion / Akira / Rurouni Kenshin / Cowboy Bebop / Perfect Blue / Yu Yu Hakusho / Ghost in the Shell / Vampire Hunter D / Ninja Scroll / Grave of the Fireflies / Serial Experiments Lain / Mononoke Hime / The Irresponsible Captain Tylor / Record of Lodoss War / Bubblegum Crisis / Vampire Princess Miyu / Wicked City / Blood+ / Demon City Shinjuku / Dante's Inferno [SEP] > The Vision of Escaflowne  Oh my I have heard of it. Never watched but somehow feeling nostalgic since it's so long ago when I last heard that name.
> This last point is the point I would appreciate if you could somehow source. I don't mean to sound like I doubt you, but there are lots of people making statements on either side of this argument, and a credible source would be enough to cmv.  Direct Stream Digital has a sampling rate of 2.8 MHz  If your average record needle travels at 2 kph (which is generous), then it will cover 55 cm in a second. That means the needle will need to about hit 51,000 grooves every centimeter to maintain that sampling rate.   Googling tells me the size of a vinyl particle is about 1 to 100 micrometers. However, to get a sampling rate of 2.8 MHz would require a groove to be .19 micrometers wide. The smallest possible particle of vinyl is 5 times larger than what would be required for that sampling rate. Therefore, it is physically impossible to encode that much data into a standard record.  Of course you could speed up a record and get more data on it, but we don't play records that fast. Also, you'd lose detail due to the momentum of the needle. [SEP] >The smallest possible particle of vinyl is 5 times larger than what would be required for that sampling rate. Therefore, it is physically impossible to encode that much data into a standard record.  ∆  Thank you very much. The ins and outs of the actual sound engineering side of things were too complicated for me to wade through, but I can understand this. My view has been thoroughly and completely changed.
Main issue with running very hot though, means that these 1070 equipped machines are actually slower than the thick machines, by virtue of boost/throttling.  All the aorus machines so far, and partially the gigabytes, have had subpar cooling :( which results in lower CPU and GPU performance compared to most of the competition. [SEP] > which results in lower CPU and GPU performance  Reviews of the previous ones did not show that, even with the 980m. I'd advise waiting for reviews before stating that. 
I love how they buy them before they're even authorised to use them. Repression is a necessarily part of the austerity agenda as seen around Europe, no surprise this is happening but it won't stop the forces that seek a different world, one that doesn’t benefit the few at the expense of the many. It won't be long before they get other lethal weapons such as tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs (in fact they’ve already got rubber bullets but they were mainly for the students and striking workers – there's a weapon for each group that contests capital or the state). [SEP] > lethal weapons such as tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs  Tear gas is not lethal if used outside.   Rubber bullets have not been deployed in the UK in decades, if at all.  Flash bangs are not lethal either - they just cause temporary blindness, hearing loss, and disorientation that only lasts for 20 seconds max.  And the austerity agenda has nothing to do with repression - and neither does the police over here. They're way too overstretched dealing with actual incidents to repress people.  Have a watch of this, because it's what you sound like.
When the book first came out there were many discussions regarding this. I'm on your side of this particular issue.   What it comes down to, in my opinion, is that if it's Merlin it's some damn lazy writing. Jim can be lazy, but he's not that lazy.   Perhaps it's one of the previous Wardens of Demonreach. Perhaps it's Jack the Ripper. Have some fun imagining who it might be. Jumping straight to Merlin is boring.  [SEP] > Perhaps it's Jack the Ripper.  I thought the Vorlons got him...?
We hate bad cops, the good cops who just do their job never make the news. [SEP] > We hate bad cops, the good cops who just do their job never make the news.  So true.  I have done some pretty neat things in my career.  Undoubtedly saved a few lives...  It's crazy that no one cares about those moments.
So, I can freely call all the S Italians "terroni" and there will be no problem? According to your thesis that one can be "terrone" without beeing labeled as slacker etc etc. I truly don't think so. And also seems to me that here everybody are thinking only, and exclusively, about the mere literal meaning, forgetting about the significant of the words....that is the main cause of argument. So, I, personally tend to do not use any of these words, even in a funny way, awake of the facts that someone could feel upset to be named like...and viceversa, I don't like to be labeled as "polentone". Even if the terms could fit my nature, or my geographycal position. [SEP] > So, I can freely call all the S Italians "terroni" and there will be no problem?   I said it has a derogatory connotation, but a less specific one than the ones you mentioned, Im  not saying I'll be calling my pugliese friends "terroni" tomorrow.   In truth, I often do so, and we're all rather amused and have a good laugh.   Context.
>Maybe you set the limit lower, but if you're arrested for fraud it's pretty hard to come out and get a nice job since nobody can trust you, so you'll end up being a server at Applebee's, in which your actual restitution would be roughly $0.  So we don't make restitution zero dollars for people earning that little. It's won't much, but it's still something for the victims, as opposed to nothing and a big cost to society. Plus did I mention community service? Don't underestimate the importance of that! If done right, people doing community service can be a great resource.   >Again, this seems to be coming from a place of ignorance. Yes, it is that easy, that's why bail and bounty hunters exist.   It's that easy *when you don't take measures.* How do you sneak anywhere when you have a monitoring bracelet that records everything that you do, and as soon as you get near an airport or start to try to remove it, officers are dispatched? Answer: You don't.   That's not what we're doing now, and we really shouldn't be doing that now  except in *flight risk* situations. Like the ones that you are talking about.   YOU are the one who is refusing to actually engage with the subject, because you seem to think that just because we aren't taking the sort of measures that I am talking about now, we can't ever take those measures. We can. And they would work, the vast majority of the time. And they would be much cheaper than TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR(!!!) for DECADES. [SEP] >So we don't make restitution zero dollars for people earning that little. It's won't much, but it's still something for the victims, as opposed to nothing and a big cost to society. Plus did I mention community service? Don't underestimate the importance of that! If done right, people doing community service can be a great resource.    I don't even know what to say. Again, deterrent. If keeping someone in jail for $40k a year stops even ONE more multimillion dollar scheme from making thousands of people lose everything then it will have been a good investment. With Madoff they're still missing **$18 BILLION dollars**. There are plenty of opportunities for others to do the same, and the hope is that the fear of life in prison is a deterrent enough to stop a few of them.   Beyond that, you have to leave them with a decent amount, otherwise they become homeless and what "house" do you have them "arrested" in?   >It's that easy when you don't take measures. How do you sneak anywhere when you have a monitoring bracelet that records everything that you do, and as soon as you get near an airport or start to try to remove it, officers are dispatched? Answer: You don't.   Good  Thing  That  Doesn't  Happen.  You seem to not understand that's how it currently works. They track your every movement and send police the moment the bracelet registers that you left the area, or it has been cut. The problem is they're always going to be a few minutes behind. Cut the bracelet and walk out the door - the cops will be there in 5 minutes. That's not a huge head start, but it's enough for MANY MANY MANY people on house arrest to escape. Come up with a cheap solution that beats putting them in prison and you'd be on to something. It has yet to be invented.    >YOU are the one who is refusing to actually engage with the subject, because you seem to think that just because we aren't taking the sort of measures that I am talking about now, we can't ever take those measures.   Then invent the measures. I'm talking about the resources currently available, and you're dreaming up some ideal solution that doesn't exist. If we're allowed to bring in some unbreakable and unhackable tracking bracelet then maybe you have a point. That doesn't exist.   >And they would be much cheaper than TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR(!!!) for DECADES.  Again, it's not about the cost of jail vs. community service, it's about serving as a deterrent. Have a look at how frequently fraudsters use just Ponzi schemes to bilk people out of hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, and those are just the ones that get caught for that specific scheme. Billions and billions of dollars are stolen through various schemes, so if it takes a few million dollars to keep people in jail as a deterrent for others then I see it as a good investment.   
Look, i doubt CM punk is going to be worth a damn in the cage. But why are people automaticly counting him out? We really have no clue at this point. Im excited for him to prove me and everyone else wrong.  [SEP] >But why are people automaticly counting him out?  Because he's never even golfed at the driving range and he's going to play in the PGA tour. 
Oooooooh, I see. What you meant by "horrible, ruined games" was actually "games I don't personally like."  And no, that's not right, it's just your shitty opinion.   "If i can't spend 500 hours on a game it's garbage".   You sound like the worst kind of gamer.   The Witcher 3, The Mass Effect Series, Dragon Age, The Last of Us... 60 bucks is a very fair price for the hours of fun and amazing stories from each of these games. Sorry they don't cut your elitist standard of 500 hours of playtime and extreme modifiability.   Lastly I just find it funny that your opposed to having fun on a game if it's too short for you.  "Oh my god that game looks amazing. Graphics look awesome, storyline looks intense and gripping, customization and non-linear gameplay, oh wait, DAMN *only 200 hours of gameplay*. Ah, not worth it."   [SEP] >The Witcher 3, The Mass Effect Series, Dragon Age, The Last of Us... 60 bucks is a very fair price for the hours of fun and amazing stories from each of these games. Sorry they don't cut your elitist standard of 500 hours of playtime and extreme modifiability.  Say sorry to the game developers that won't be getting my money. No skin off my ass.  >Oh my god that game looks amazing. Graphics look awesome, storyline looks intense and gripping, customization and non-linear gameplay, oh wait, DAMN only 200 hours of gameplay.  27 hours, actually. Look for Crysis on my list of games. Excellent game, but minimal replay value, and nowhere near worth what I paid for it.  >Ah, not worth it.  Damn straight. My entertainment dollars will stretch until they spontaneously grow larynxes with which to beg for my mercy, and they will receive absolutely none.  Why? Because I'm not an idiot, I'm not rich, and I'm not interested in having to worry about whether I can afford that cancer surgery I just had. Life is hard enough without being completely broke, thank you *very* much.
1. Yes, if too many episodes pass where I don't get a chance to see something or forget to watch it I'll declare it "on hold". This happens a lot with shows airing on cable. For example I have missed too many episodes of Black Lagoon (for some reason FIOS thinks the episodes are reruns and doesn't tape them. . .it hasn't been on TV before, has it?). I'm gonna be lost if I just watch next weeks.  2. because in the time I watched it it has given me no reason to drop, but it isn't competing with the other shows I'm watching that season. . . so I say I'll get back to it at a later date.  3. **Hajime no Ippo**. I should have finished it by now, because I'm only watching 3 currently running shows. ..  .but i haven't even been watching those. That show is seriously good, and if Summer is as loaded as I expect it to be it's not gonna be easy to finish it then either.  It's the same with **Michiko to Hatchin**.   Spring was supposed to be my backlog season, and it just isn't happening. [SEP] > For example I have missed too many episodes of Black Lagoon (for some reason FIOS thinks the episodes are reruns and doesn't tape them. . .it hasn't been on TV before, has it?  Actually, it has. It ran on one of the ancillary Showtime or Cinemax channels waaay back in the day(Which is how I was introduced to it). That being said, Black Lagoon is largely episodic, consisting of small, loosely connected arcs until pretty much the last arc of S2. I wouldn't worry too much about skipping episodes.
Are you talking about Xbox player counts? On what server are you playing that there are a plethora of high tier tanks?    Xbox version is also very bare for finding videos or info about it. Almost everything is PC based, which is similar but you can't really count on.  Many players keep 5 or 6 tanks are money makers.  You just made my point, new players can only hope to have 5 or 6 useful tanks at all. They run into guys like you who have stocked up tanks, crewed up, gold ammo, top gun, and are supposed to somehow outplay you?  Game is fun once you get to higher levels, and most people are close to even in skill and tanks, and they know how to use them very efficiently. But that takes A LOT OF games to get there, and the grind is not welcoming to new players.  Then jump from 8 to 10 isn't FAR different then a jump from 3 to 5, or 6 to 8. Almost every single person I play with that plays in top tiers is using Premium, premium rounds, and has crews leveled up. [SEP] >Are you talking about Xbox player counts? On what server are you playing that there are a plethora of high tier tanks?    At the times I play, it takes longer for the map to load than to find a match. ten seconds maybe and I am playing mostly 8-10s. I don't really know what the servers are like when I am at work, but evenings are fine.  >Xbox version is also very bare for finding videos or info about it. Almost everything is PC based, which is similar but you can't really count on.  Very much close enough. Most people just don't invest the time.  >Many players keep 5 or 6 tanks are money makers.  You just made my point, new players can only hope to have 5 or 6 useful tanks at all. They run into guys like you who have stocked up tanks, crewed up, gold ammo, top gun, and are supposed to somehow outplay you?  That's a good point, but I can't stand the low tier shitshow and have no need for it. You just want it to be more pay to win than it is so you have a scapegoat. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it isn't an every match thing.  >Game is fun once you get to higher levels, and most people are close to even in skill and tanks, and they know how to use them very efficiently. But that takes A LOT OF games to get there, and the grind is not welcoming to new players.   Why should it be easy?  >Then jump from 8 to 10 isn't FAR different then a jump from 3 to 5, or 6 to 8.  Yeah, it is. It takes more games, is more expensive for bad players, and the stock grinds get way worse(I know because I play stock grinds, idgaf). A tier five grind takes 15-20 games, a tier 9 takes 150-200.  >Almost every single person I play with that plays in top tiers is using Premium, premium rounds, and has crews leveled up.  Maybe they buy premium because they can afford it, like the game, and want to support the developers? Premium rounds are a fact of life in this game and not using them is putting yourself at a disadvantage. I carry a few, but I don't spam gold(unless I am in a very bad mood). If you've played right, by then you should have trained crews.
>the peak frequency is close to 56Hz  Almost certainly either 60 or 50 Hz, or some multiple thereof (60, 120, 240, etc...) on the nose, depending on your local grid. South America is pretty broken up, so you'll have to confirm yourself.   >I am planning to build some bass traps with mineral wool in form of panels, place them in the corners of the room (as the standard procedure for studio rooms). However, other strategy is to build a double ceiling with similar materials (since de noise comes from above). A third strategy is to cover my window with a curtain made of that material (thinking that the noise may come from outside too).   Unlikely to help. This will simply reduce nodes and stuff, and make the sound nice and clean.   >(since de noise comes from above)....(thinking that the noise may come from outside too).   Dollars to donuts says it's coupling through the walls. That's bad news for you, since you have cinderblock walls and can't change them.   The real (but difficult) solution is to change the frequency of the AC unit (impossible) or change the frequency of your walls (less impossible). Decoupling the AC unit from the walls will help, but I don't think it's practical since the AC unit depends on a healthy seal on the window, and disrupting that with all rubber and bellows and stuff will be hard and make your neighbor angry.   The solution that jumps immediately to mind is to determine if your walls are hollow, and if they are to fill the voids with something like quickrete or expanding foam. That will change the resonant frequency of your walls and decouple them from the AC unit. [SEP] > The solution that jumps immediately to mind is to determine if your walls are hollow, and if they are to fill the voids with something like quickrete or expanding foam. That will change the resonant frequency of your walls and decouple them from the AC unit.  That could be one of the best solutions... thanks 
It's a complicated question with no easy answers. Part of it depends on how much the nations of the world are willing to cooperate in order to enforce regulation of space travel and colonization. Part of it depends on the capability of world nations to enforce whatever laws and regulations they pass.  For example, if we were to figure out a way to colonize the moon and make it self-sufficient we'd be in easy range of any colonies to enforce our will for better or worse. Any colonies would need to step carefully in order to avoid any appearance of rebellion less they get quashed vigorously. Maybe at some future time those colonies will be granted autonomy but at first most nations are going to want to keep control of any resources.  The farther out we progress (again assuming we can manage it) the harder it will become to maintain control. When messages take hours and days to get to their destination and travel is measured in months and years it's not going to be possible to maintain a firm grip or respond to immediate concerns. Any ventures beyond our orbit will necessarily have a degree of autonomy knowing that any displeasure they provoke will offer them plenty of time to formulate a response. So I consider it highly likely that it would begin with a dog-eat-dog competition for prime locations and resources with petty concerns for life and property being treated as secondary to control.  It all depends on what technologies we develop to overcome the obstacles presented by space travel and colonization. [SEP] > Any colonies would need to step carefully in order to avoid any appearance of rebellion less they get quashed vigorously.   As anyone who's read a SF story exploring a Lunar rebellion knows, once a moon colony gets self sufficient enough to feel uppity, it is earth that will be in trouble. We're at the bottom of a gravity well, so bombardment from the moon is a snap. It also means that getting an invasion force up there will be problematic and expensive.
I moved a lot when I was a kid and twice I was in the same situation.  Both times about 3 months after I had moved, the mild taunting/bullying  had escalated enough that another kid wanted to fight me for no reason.  Both times I ended it quickly, the kid whined that I didn't fight fair and no one ever picked on me again. [SEP] >the kid whined that I didn't fight fair  That when I'd say "just be happy I didn't [describe action that would result in hospitalization] like I wanted to. Fuck, you know what, why don't I just do it too, you're pissing me off again you ugly shit...", so he goes from telling you you've gone to far to begging you not to take it further.   Kid threw an iceball at my face, I threw the kid in snow, he complained, I told him there was a solid wall right next to the snow and I could have thrown him face first in there, and I still could. Not made up my mind yet, so get the fuck out of my face before I break yours.  Of course, I didn't leave a trace on him, but he understood that this was my choice, not his. I told him if he ever did anything that could result in my losing an eye ever again, he would then chose to lose an eye, and some teeth, and he'd have scars, and there would be no way for him to stop me doing it.  So no one else threw stuff at my face that year.
Why do you say Islamic extremists instead of Muslims when you don’t say White Nationalist extremists? White nationalism doesn’t have an invisible man in the sky who wrote a book telling them to kill the infidels, advocating lying to gain their trust.   The shooting in Charleston, which wasn’t even really a terrorist attack, was condemned by every white nationalist and racist group I know of. How many Islamic groups out there support and celebrate violence perpetrated in the name of their faith?  [SEP] All white nationalists are extremists. Not all Muslims are.  > White nationalism doesn’t have an invisible man in the sky who wrote a book telling them to kill the infidels, advocating lying to gain their trust.  You clearly don't know enough about Islam to talk about it.  And actually they have a few - God, Hitler, and David Duke.  >The shooting in Charleston, which wasn’t even really a terrorist attack, was condemned by every white nationalist and racist group I know of. How many Islamic groups out there support and celebrate violence perpetrated in the name of their faith?  Ah yes, nothing like liars lying, why shouldn't I believe them?  And plenty of white nationalist organizations do hail acts like this in private while trying to distance themselves from their own compatriots out of their own cowardliness.
I'm not talking about Western feminists. I'm talking about Muslim women in the Middle East that are under the boot of men. Shouldn't feminism be focused on an issue like that, instead of a dude on tv saying a Girl is hot, or whatever the fuck they're upset with these days.  On the religion thing, it's funny. For example, here in Ireland women were treated like dirt for many years, largely people considered, because of the Catholic Church. But in the end it wasn't religion that was broken down, it was society's sexism, once that changed, the religion changed, and not the other way around. It's only now that the CC is finally falling in Ireland, but then again, divorce was still illegal when I was born, as was homosexuality, so we've come a decent way. [SEP] > On the religion thing, it's funny. For example, here in Ireland women were treated like dirt for many years, largely people considered, because of the Catholic Church. But in the end it wasn't religion that was broken down, it was society's sexism  *PLONK* Poster says something completely unprovable, then gives uprovable solution. 
There's a big difference between blunt and intentionally hurtful.  INTJs can err towards blunt, for sure, but it doesn't give us free reign to be assholes about it. It's the difference between "look, this is pissing me off" and "you're a fucking bitch for doing this."  So which is it?   As an INTJ, I value honesty above pretty much everything. I don't sugar-coat, because I see sugar-coating insulting to both myself and the recipient; sugar-coating assumes that you're dealing with someone who is incapable of dealing with the realities of life and needs to be wrapped in cotton at all times, which is infantilizing and patronizing. It insinuates that you do not believe you're dealing with an adult who is capable of dealing with reality and that you and you alone are the only one capable of living in said reality, which is insanely egotistical.  However, I cannot stand people who say 'oh I'm just blunt and honest' when really, they're being intentionally malicious and using 'bluntness' and 'honesty' as a cover for being hurtful and cruel.   If your partner is being hurtful and cruel, you need to find a new one. If your partner is being legitimately honest and straight forward, that means he sees you as an adult capable of dealing with reality as it is. One is blatant disrespect, one is a deep level of respect. Only you know which one it is.  [SEP] > If your partner is being hurtful and cruel, you need to find a new one.  QFT  A mindset that has helped in my communications with my husband (also INTJ) is to focus on the desired outcome of an exchange, especially a conflict. If my desired outcome is to resolve a situation then I can focus more on steps towards that outcome, rather than my natural tendency to just want to be right. I'd rather resolve the situation than be right. But that was not easy to learn.
> *That's a false dichotomy. There are more options. How about God is neutral and determines what is just using his vast knowledge.*  Then he wants it to be just, or he'd use his omnipotence to change whatever facts of the matter lead to it being just. Or does God not have that power?  > *Of course this is a hypothetical discussion and doesn't reflect my own thoughts.*  That's fine, it's an interesting discussion. [SEP] > Then he wants it to be just, or he'd use his omnipotence to change whatever facts of the matter lead to it being just. Or does God not have that power?   Let's say he changed the definition of just from A to B. Then you'd ask why didn't he change it to C, isn't he omnipotent?    Yes he could change whatever he wants but choosing not to doesn't mean he can't.
No minimum income.  Put all lazy ones to work.  >3,000 jobs up for grabs but only about 500 potential applicants showed up  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tsawwassen-mills-job-fair-fails-to-attract-hoped-for-job-seekers-1.3727811  There is no excuse not to work. [SEP] > There is no excuse not to work.  Yes, there is. When unemployment skyrockets as a result of automation of millions of jobs, why work? If jobs can be automated, why shouldn't they be? &nbsp;  If we possess the technological ability to replace jobs, we should actively seek to do so, due to the benefits of:  - Decreased cost to employer, increased value of 'employee' (No healthcare costs, no sick leave or other associated benefits, 24/7 working hours) - Increased GDP production in same given time frame - Decrease in costs associated with management and HR - Decrease in costs associated with ensuring that businesses  &nbsp;  All of that means less bureaucracy, and more money going directly into the hands of the unemployed through UBI. &nbsp;  It is an effective tool for helping to mitigate issues related to both poverty and unemployment. 
He's shutting us all up and showing up today. I really thought he was going to shit the bed.  [SEP] >He's shutting us all up  /r/Seahawks ---->
Oh one thing I forgot: Randomized Moon is a planned run, and that will likely take into account the people that skip Sun for spoilers reasons (or other reasons they might be unavailable).  So, I think having Sun as close to day 1 and then Randomized Moon later in Season 4 (maybe last run of Season 3) is the best way to go. [SEP] > Randomized Moon is a planned run, and that will likely take into account the people that skip Sun for spoilers reasons (or other reasons they might be unavailable).  Where did you hear that!? [](#PogChamp)
The quote is from the "Daily Mirror", upon visiting their website lethargically I stumbled upon said article. I searched and searched for a quote till I reached the end by which time I realised the whole goal of the article was for me to consume their horse-shite. The quote read as follows:  **A squad ­member said: ­“Everyone was surprised that the boss ­decided on Thursday that Robin was not allowed to come with us.”**  "A squad member".............what have we done to deserve such shoddy workmanship from the "journalists" of today? [SEP] > what have we done to deserve such shoddy workmanship from the "journalists" of today?  Buying their shoddy rags?
Uhh... Didn't the Brits make Bombay by reclaiming land?     Edit : it used to be communities of fishermen before that but the Brits shaped Mumbai as we know it today by reclaiming land and connecting islands. [SEP] > Didn't the Brits make Bombay by reclaiming land?  Err.. So?! After the Brits, Maharashtra Government, CIDCO, MHADA, MMRDA etc have built Mumbai.
You said he shouldn't have disagreed with a feminist if he didn't want to get kicked out of the class. If you don't think that him getting kicked out was justified for that action then you wouldn't have said that.  And oh yeah I must be *sooo* angry because I made a passing comment that your post was retarded. Because people only say things like that when they're *really* angry, right? Are you sure it's not you that has been enraged by my remark and this is your attempt at deflecting your butthurt? [SEP] > You said he shouldn't have disagreed with a feminist if he didn't want to get kicked out of the class. If you don't think that him getting kicked out was justified for that action then you wouldn't have said that.  Do you REALLY not understand that behavior in class has its own guidelines of appropriateness?
The whole gay/bi/str8 thing IS ridiculous. But the facts are that if I go have a few beers with my boys this weekend, and tell them about the amazing head my gay neighbor gave me..... it'll be an issue. Society is absurd in that way.    As time goes by I'm caring less and less. Almost proud of it in a way. I was incredibly turned on as it was happening. It felt so wrong.... but that's what was so hot about it. However, I still won't tell anyone about it just yet. Other than maybe a couple of my closest girlfriends.  [SEP] > As time goes by I'm caring less and less. Almost proud of it in a way.  Awesome! It sucks that you can't tell people you know, but great that you're accepting it yourself so easily.  I've never had a gay experience - never had the desire, but if something like this *did* happen I hope I'd handle it this well.
College graduates have several things:  Training  Experience  Proven skills  The ability to finish what they start  Sure, there have been some great self-taught designers. David Carson was one. But he was one in a million, which means there are 999,999 chances you are not one.  As it stands your portfolio will only get you absolute bottom rung design jobs, maybe working in a print shop. The work is far too basic and it doesn't demonstrate whatever creativity you may have. [SEP] > College graduates have several things:  Debt and the need to pay said debt. 
Hey I didn't mean anything bad against them, I love shut up and sit down.    They do ooze middle class though.     [SEP] > They do ooze middle class though.   What else are they going to ooze? They *review board games for a living*  What is the image you have of this hobby and how did you acquire it
I think your approach works for the most part, but if I'm the interviewer I am looking for an actual weakness (ex: I am a weak in technical writing) and what they are doing to *improve* upon that weakness (I am taking a class/writing a technical blog/submitting articles to a peer reviewed journal). Turn the weakness into a strength by actually identifying and addressing the problem.  I don't want a BS answer about how you're such a hard worker. [SEP] > I don't want a BS answer about how you're such a hard worker.  What *do* you want, though?  Do you really expect a candidate to say "I take a lot of sick days", or "I'm not very punctual", or "I don't interact well with others"?  No one is going to expose a legitimate weakness in an interview.  You're going to get a BS answer no matter what.  A candidate foolish enough to tell you a serious weakness would be removed from the hiring pool for that weakness.  Only a BS weakness is a safe answer.
There is absolutely no reason why you would see increased ranged through r-hop or flat hop. The idea behind them is better consistency between BB and bucking. Increasing accuracy not range.  That being said, my guns are all flat hopped which is enormously easier, and are plenty accurate as far as BB go. [SEP] >There is absolutely no reason why you would see increased ranged through r-hop or flat hop.   Sometimes, the Rhop does increase range.    But if done right it should always increase the "effective range" but perhaps not always the "actual range".
I think there are some valid points. Not about the protein shakes, etc. But about the sense of community and the culture that spending too long at the gym can foster. I've read recently that bigorexia (thinking you're small when you're muscular) is becoming a substantial issue for weightlifters in particular. It's probable that starting boys at the gym earlier will increase the chances of that - kids are far more easily influenced than adults. Encouraging a group to participate in an activity that can have lasting harm on your body at a very young age does have a lot of detriments to it.  Personally, based off of the sheer abuse of equipment I see at my gym, I think it'd be best if newbies had to attend a "gym safety" seminar to teach them not to be complete idiots. And to fucking rerack their weights.  [SEP] > I've read recently that bigorexia (thinking you're small when you're muscular) is becoming a substantial issue for weightlifters in particular.  That's because we're blasted by pictures of fake nattys everywhere we turn.  > Personally, based off of the sheer abuse of equipment I see at my gym, I think it'd be best if newbies had to attend a "gym safety" seminar to teach them not to be complete idiots. And to fucking rerack their weights.  Definitely gonna have to agree with you here. From personal experience, this kind of shit is essential when performing the big 3.
Thats 2 hours, so the overheads of takeoff and landing get amortized over a longer flight duration...  As you go shorter, the overheads form a larger percentage.. takeoff and landing are not at max speed, the cruise is much higher speed  >I don't think, they are thinking in terms of poor people, more in terms of infra and job development   Then the focus would have been roads and railway tracks. The one thing air travel is good at is that it needs relatively less infra  >that depends on value of your time. if you value 4 hour saved, more than 1000, you will go for it. most IT workers are paid 2k per day for 8 hour work.  Someone who values their time at Rs 250/hour is not someone who needs to be subsidised by the tax paying public of this country.  EDIT: and free time doesnt really have the same worth as work time. If a flight costs Rs 3k and an overnight volvo 1.5k, I'm taking the Volvo cause I can sleep 7 hours... [SEP] > amortized   are you CS grad?  > The one thing air travel is good at is that it needs relatively less infra  airway is infra in itself.  > by the tax paying public of this country.  by air flying public of this country.  > Someone who values their time at Rs 250/hour  not many people do, hence the price cap. and obviously it will not go on forever. this is initial push needed to get things going, and if it fails, private players will face the heat, not the government.  I will not benefit from it, rather will have to pay the cess. But it is good for the nation.  Also in amreeca and other places, air competes with rail. and high speed trains are running at losses[i had read about it long time ago, not sure, about present scenario]  
A crime I did not commit... This is the shitty side of out justice system, I will be forever known as the person who was arrested for this crime. That being said the best analogy is that of quick sand, I felt like everything I did I just dug my hole deeper... You can't breathe, there's no respite, you wake up feeling like someone is squeezing your heart. I fled before I was arrested because I didn't know what else to do...  edit spelling [SEP] >you wake up feeling like someone is squeezing your heart  That is an awful feeling when something bad happens, you can't think straight, you can't enjoy or really concentrate on anything. Just poisons your daily life.
This has me a little worried since there is so little info. Is this about Dockett since people seemed to like him and he was a vet? Are they crazy enough to cut Hayne? Yesterday I was so happy watching those guys ( all the 2nd and 3rd stringers) play their heart out and now it has ended :( [SEP] > all the 2nd and 3rd stringers) play their heart out and now it has ended   I say it's because of this. 
The threads linked within the FAQ contain answers. Yes, a more succinct version would be appreciated. [SEP] > The threads linked within the FAQ contain answers.   Yes, but that makes it something other than a FAQ. In its current form it is only slightly more useful than this link.
Says the fool who declares those with opposing opinions as trolls.  Your posts are hate filled, flinging insults at anyone who disagrees with you.  Here is a taste of your own medicine.  Just because you read a list of rhetoric fallacies, doesn't mean you know how to use them.  Come up with a cogent argument that isn't centered around gross over generalization before you use big boy words. [SEP] > Your posts are hate filled, flinging insults at anyone who disagrees with you.  Post some examples or go back to your video game sub and STFU, kid.
Other species do not rear their prey into lives of misery for the sole purpose of consumption. We are disrupting the natural order - like I've said in a previous comment, I do not find much issue in humans following the natural order and hunting. Domestication is different because we breed these conscious animals into lives of absolute misery and suffering that they understand. When a wolf kills an animal in nature, the animal lives a free life until it succumbs to its trophic superior.  I am not trying to say that humans exist outside of nature either - I am simply using the word 'natural' contextually.  [SEP] >5) Askreddit is not your soapbox, personal army, or advertising platform. Posts attempting to promote a specific agenda of yours or anyone else, to gain publicity, promote a cause or charity drive, or to publicly shame a person or entity will be removed.  .   >Domestication is different because we breed these conscious animals into lives of absolute misery and suffering that they understand.   Hunting/gathering may be a more sustainable lifestyle, but you're overestimating the conscious ability of the livestock.  Yes, they have cognitive abilities, but nowhere near the capacity that you're implying.  I'm guessing you feel the same way about medical testing on animals and rats. Talk to me once you've had a loved one beat cancer.  I would happily kill a million rats myself to save my dad again.
And the edible sort of pigeon rather than the common city vermin type (they're different breeds). [SEP] >(they're different breeds)  That doesn't really mean anything. Different breeds of things are still the same animal, they just have different colors and things.  It's not like they are a different kind of species or something. It's like a Siamese cat and a tabby cat, they are going to taste basically the same. 
Because in no world should your champion and top guy lose, twice in a row, to a fucking jobber. It shouldn't even be a discussion.   >throw out insults that don't make sense.  Not going to lie, I'm feeling pretty smug right now. [SEP] > Because in no world should your champion and top guy lose, twice in a row, to a fucking jobber. It shouldn't even be a discussion.  Whether he should or shouldn't, your original point was about this making Styles look weak and it just doesn't.  Wrestling's a fake sport, context in wins/losses matters. So while yes AJ has two loses to a jobber on paper,so people watching the show weren't thinking to themselves "Wow that world champion is a joke" because they saw what actually happened.  The first was essentially a lose to Ambrose, and the second was a DQ lose which always means nothing.  They're building a story with this. AJ is a prick who's become too cocky for his own good, and Ambrose told Styles on the first SD after losing the title that he was going to make his life a living hell because he took the low road. AJ had the opportunity to prove himself as a fighting champion last week, but instead decided to take the low road again. This week he had the chance to just end the match within a minute but instead chose to be an overly cocky asshole yet again.  The main event scene feels like a joke because Styles decided to make it a joke, and now he's paying the consequences for that. It's actually been pretty good at turning Styles & Ambrose into a personal feud, which is why I've enjoyed it despite not caring about Ellsworth. 
To be honest, Shinji was made, in part, as a reaction to the older mech franchise protagonists. Individuals who, when forced into a giant robot by fate, confidently step up and save the world (or something or other). It's a power fantasy, and Anno had issue with that. So he devised a character archetype that fit the exact opposite archetype. That archetype's been oversimplified as angst, but Shinji himself is a very well-characterized person, angst and all. [SEP] > confidently step up and save the world (or something or other)  The thing is, a lot of older mecha protagonists aren't like that. At least not in real robot shows. The defining real robot show, Mobile Suit Gundam, has the protagonist Amuro Ray who actively disobeys orders and has to get slapped around and basically forced to pilot the MS in its earlier episodes. And then you have Kamille Bidan in Zeta Gundam with his whole array of parental issues and aggressiveness and possible autism. Bidan's more confident than Amuro, but that often leads to its own issues.  Evangelion definitely explores the psyche of its protagonist more than Gundam, but Amuro and Shinji are more alike than different, in my view.
I think "(all else being equal)" includes the block size (if that abstract coin uses blocks to store transactions).  Just to prove that you are making a mistake by assuming that larger block size = higher centralization, consider a thought experiment: Bitcoin with 1Kb blocks every 10 minutes.  Do you think Bitcoin with 1Kb blocks (a full node can be run even on a smartphone!) would be more decentralized than Bitcoin with 1Mb blocks?  I think not, because most of the people won't have a reason to run it. A few enthusiasts could run the full nodes, but that would probably not be sufficient to achieve the current level of decentralization.  Do you understand now why I think that the argument that larger blocks always cause centralization needs to be proven (and is probably false)? [SEP] >Do you think Bitcoin with 1Kb blocks (a full node can be run even on a smartphone!) would be more decentralized than Bitcoin with 1Mb blocks?  Can we assume all else is equal, or does that only apply to your first example? If not, why did you choose to make this one different?
I have to think that one: they will pry her secrets out of her pretty damn quick. At the very least her identity. And two: why would you stay a darkfriend if you literally have nobody to serve anymore? Why help her if there is nobody to punish you for failure to do so?  [SEP] >why would you stay a darkfriend if you literally have nobody to serve anymore  The Dark One will return in another Age and those who served him faithfully while he was imprisoned have a chance to be resurrected. 
I played the Beta.   The tl;dr: If you have Rimworld- go play that instead.   The game itself has some good things going for it, the atmosphere and the writing and concepts are well planned out but it's execution could use some work.   I've found that the pacing of the game and how you progress seems to need work. You designate an area for trees to be felled and something like a basic dormitory to be setup. That process alone will take the colonists several days to do.   The UI is a bit difficult to grasp as well, nothing on the level of Dward Fortress but the amount of menus and lines and logs you have to go through to figure out where the break in a production line happens is maddening, the extra detail that they put into the texture and terrain works against the art style in making it difficult to differentiate between an item of interest on the ground and non-interactable texture.   There's also the sheer amount of busywork that's required. You build a stone oven and you assign a person to cook soup. A person grabs one unit of vegetable over to a stove and then stands over it for several hours and produces 1 soup. That 1 soup is enough to feed one colonist for a few hours, so you have a good portion of your workforce cooking food at all times. Then a stove breaks and you have to manually click to have it repaired, which could cause a chain break that results in a good portion of your colony starving.   I only have about 20-30 hours into the game and this is from months ago- but everytime I pick it up I think to myself "Why am I not playing Rimworld instead?" Every mechanic and feature of the game is done better in Rimworld, there's even a Lovecraft mod for Rimworld now too.  [SEP] > there's even a Lovecraft mod for Rimworld now too.   The most important part of your post (good post, mind you!) is a throwaway sentence at the end.  Tell me more!
Subway's a franchise, so it's up to the owners. Most will let their workers, but some are greedy and don't treat their employees well.  [SEP] >don't treat their employees well.  You mean like the 7.25 an hour? I agree.
> All you have done is spout one-liner 'refutations', without actually addressing any points I have made, as well as shifted the goalposts several times.  You should go back to the beginning of this dialogue where I stated that I have nothing to gain by proving yet another faceless person on the internet wrong and I have no desire to do so.  It has gained me nothing in the past and it will gain me nothing by doing so now.      You keep making excuses about why the parties are identical; "Romney's a flip flopper" "GOP wants Obama to fail."    Obama has not reversed Bush's policies; he has renewed them.  Tax cuts for the rich, war in the middle east, renewing and expanding the patriot act, war on marijuana dispensaries, failing to hold Wall Street accountable, continuing Gitmo incarcerations, and on and on.    You need to make excuses for all of these things.  I think personally I am most interested in knowing why Obama took a single payer option off the table from the beginning of health care discussions.    Same fucking thing on both sides of the aisle.           [SEP] >You keep making excuses about why the parties are identical; "Romney's a flip flopper" "GOP wants Obama to fail."   Do you deny that these are true? That is a stunning disassociation from reality.   I really hate it when people call things that are clearly evidence and call them 'excuses'. It is the worst kind of hypocritical dodging.  >Obama has not reversed Bush's policies; he has renewed them. Tax cuts for the rich, war in the middle east, renewing and expanding the patriot act, war on marijuana dispensaries, failing to hold Wall Street accountable, continuing Gitmo incarcerations, and on and on.   He has renewed some of his policies. Don't try to weasel your way out of distinguishing the difference between some similarity and total similarity, something I have called you out on many times while you continue to thumb your nose at an attempt to debate.  Obama is Center-Right. Bush was far-right. Most Democrats are actually centrists. The GOP is extreme right. This is cherry-picking, and it is dishonest. You also conveniently ignore that congress utterly blocked Gitmo's closure. These things actually happened, and you would rather pretend that its all some part of shadow conspiracy.  Why do you assume I am for pot? Why do you assume I don't support the war in Afghanistan? Why do you assume that because I care about some issues where Obama has let me down, I am willing to ignore the areas where he hasn't?  Does it suck that he isn't a progressive savior? Yeah, but I'll take what I can get with him any day over a hack like Romney or a crazy old codger like McCain. Unlike you, I am not willing to ignore the reasons why things happen in favor of some "ITS ALL BROKEN AND NOTHING CAN FIX IT!" hysterics.  >You need to make excuses for all of these things. I think personally I am most interested in knowing why Obama took a single payer option off the table from the beginning of health care discussions.   Yes, he did. With the hysteria over the current health care law as it is right now, and with about 10 Democrats being Blue Dogs, what makes you think anything beyond Individual Mandate would have survived congress? Hell, the Individual Mandate, the most conservative option, barely got by tooth and nail. Do you honestly think it was a winnable battle?  The Democrats are not a monolithic block. Its part of the reason they have trouble passing things. It's also part of the reason I prefer them over Republicans, who act like a cult.  >You should go back to the beginning of this dialogue where I stated that I have nothing to gain by proving yet another faceless person on the internet wrong and I have no desire to do so. It has gained me nothing in the past and it will gain me nothing by doing so now.   Yes, you said this. You also said a lot of lies, half-truths, and all-around nonsense. And you keep replying. I don't appreciate that you are still ignoring the points I made and repeating yourself, but your first post is not an excuse to act like a goddamn broken record.  You assume I am wrong, and keep claiming you can prove it, but I don't think you can. I think you are a liar, and that you are desperate to validate your own self-centered political notions that conveniently allow you to claim personal superiority.   The world doesn't work like that. It's full of compromise and gray. But you would rather see it as a charade because you need to feel that sense of superiority, that aloof above-it-all pretentious high. The ironic thing is that you are far more shallow than even the most far-right political hack, spouting talking points, claiming the opponent is 'making excuses', when he himself is spouting off cliche's and refusing to answer direct questions.  >Same fucking thing on both sides of the aisle.   Waaah waaah waah.   Here's a hint. You are not solving the problem. You ARE the problem. Self-centered jackasses who think they are so holier-than-thou that they are justified in their non-participation because all that matters is the center-part of the Venn diagram. You think you are politically educated, and well-versed in the subtle nuances that make up our Government, but you are not. You just wish you were.  The more people like you throw away your votes, the more the Republicans win. You said you gain nothing from debating faceless internet people, but its not because you are right, it because you refuse to look at yourself critically. I view that kind of attitude with contempt.  If, however, you are interested in an actual debate, then I would be happy to engage. However, Unless you seriously change your attitude and are interested in actually debating instead of acting like a walking stereotype, this will be my last reply to you.   Edit: Misread part of your post, corrected mine to match, added some elaboration.
The creepiest thing is that there was no music.  Some say he's still dancing to this very day. [SEP] > Some say he's still dancing to this very day.  All we know is he's called the STIG!
It depends on the person I'm hugging. I have to stand on something to hug one of my best friends (he's 6'8), so our perfect hugs are ones where I'm near something I can use as a ladder. Another one of my friends always kisses my cheek when she hugs me and that's nice. Then there are back-scratchers and bear-huggers. I dunno, they're all perfect in their own ways.  Apparently I am a huge hippie about hugs. [SEP] > Then there are back-scratchers  Okay so I'd never just up and scratch someone's back unsolicited, but back scratchers are the best huggers.
If I decide that I would quit my job, no amount of salary increase can change my mind. It's because I feel it creates a bad atmosphere when you forfeit your previous decision. In your manager's eye, you become the person who threatens to get a salary increase.    Other may have a pure economical approach, but that's just me. [SEP] > If I decide that I would quit my job, no amount of salary increase can change my mind.  Note that the "raise" can come in the form of working externally as an independent (and essentially calling your price).
OS X comes with usually not up-to-date versions of Python and Ruby. It's not unlikely you'd need to get newer versions from a package manager or even compile them yourself, for some projects.  > Plus, you know, there's the whole utility of not having written this in JavaScript and instead having it written in a language people want/like to read/use/extend.  While you may dislike Javascript, and so do I to some degree, but: a) It does not have a small community by any measure. I don't think, if this tool gathered some following, that nobody would contribute to it just because it is JS. b) We haven't actually looked at the code. It might look great, it might look terrible, but using Javascript does not guarantee either of them. You can write horrible Python or Ruby that nobody wants to work with.  > ("fucking node.js" is meant to display ire toward node.js and it's trendy bullshit, not toward the original comment) :)  People that tell you to replace all your servers with node.js are spewing trendy bullshit. People that say things like 'web-scale' as an argument for node are too. That does not mean *every usage* of node is bullshit. It is a language runtime like any other, and immediately hating any project using it makes no sense. [SEP] > OS X comes with usually not up-to-date versions of Python and Ruby.  Mavericks ships Ruby 2.0 which was the latest version available when it was released.
I'm sorry but I disliked Walter Jr. from the start. He never did anything that deserved my dislike, as a matter of fact he probably suffered the most out of any character in the show in terms of Walt's unintended consequences. Not to mention he suffered from cerebral palsy, and he was depicted as receiving hate from other kids about it. I just didn't like him.... fuck I am an asshole.  [SEP] > as a matter of fact he probably suffered the most out of any character in the show in terms of Walt's unintended consequences  Uh, Jesse? Jane?
Do you want to live in a society where your neighbor can incinerate the entire neighborhood (or city for that matter)? Face it, my little guns are cap guns when it comes down to it, so cast your vote carefully. If you want the government to be less likely to break your door down, vote Democrat ;) [SEP] > If you want the government to be less likely to break your door down, vote Democrat  I know you are way too smart  to actually believe that
I don't think thats the case with the VA. They have a huge budget. THe problem is when there are 8 psychologists that only see 3 patients a week, due to union constraints….thats the problem.  Put Congress and the senate on the VA system and you'll see how fast that gets straightened out  [SEP] >there are 8 psychologists that only see 3 patients a week, due to union constraints  [citation needed]  in case there's any confusion, i'm calling you a liar.
Real story:  We were in port a few days ago, and a cat came aboard via mooring line.  We lost track of her, and found her later that evening.  We managed to get her back to the pier, and waved goodbye as we took off.  This cat seemed unusually upset by this...  Turns out, in the short time she was on board, she gave birth to THREE kittens.  We found the other two after I submitted this post.  The poor things went almost four days with no food or mommy before we found them in the machine shop.  We have been bottle feeding them all day, and have already contacted local veterinary services to come check them out.  After the initial shock of being found, and feeding, the kittens are just as happy and playful as any other cute little bugger you'd find anywhere else.  They were a great boost to crew moral, and I LOVE THEM.  I'm a sucker.  tl;dr Yes, it was really a stowaway.  And now I love him. [SEP] >And now I love him  I'm led to believe you can get into trouble for saying that in the US Navy.
>oh ok. so the guy would have still shot 70 people, plus the 1 that the hero shot. got it.  The risk is that multiple people are carrying concealed weapons, they cannot tell who is helping and who is an accomplice, and the entire situation escalates.  The guy was mentally ill. He rigged his apartment to explode, and he compared himself to the Joker. Increased risk of dying would not have prevented him from trying to kill people. [SEP] > The guy was mentally ill. He rigged his apartment to explode, and he compared himself to the Joker. Increased risk of dying would not have prevented him from trying to kill people.  then why did he case the place before doing it?  you're just making up shit
**Kindness is only appreciated if it is unexpected.**   Men affect something of woman in their first endeavors of love.  But a man's love, the love a woman yearns for, is not like that of a woman's.  A man's love is virile, domineering and aloof.    Stop loving like a woman and you will cease to be treated as such. [SEP] > Kindness is only appreciated if it is unexpected.  This man has it right. If someone is at the position where kindness is a routine from people, they'll likely not appreciate or reciprocate it. Attractive women generally fall into this category, and it gets worse when you make it easy for her to categorize you with all the other men (and women possibly) fawning over her. Its *expected.* 
Jar jar.   Fucking jar jar.  [SEP] >Fucking jar jar.  I don't know man, they'd have to change the rating to R at least.  
It's almost like it isn't the party in control that determines an area's relative prosperity.  I mean, why would the South be poorer? Obviously it's because they vote Republican. No way it could be that whole war thing they lost, their economy being absolutely reduced to nothing, their currency being outlawed, and their leaders being barred from holding office again. That can't have anything to do with it. [SEP] Policies matter.  But so do economic trends.  The city of Houston is doing amazing well because it's a port city in a state that hosts a robust energy importing and exporting business.  NYC does well because it situated itself very early on as a financial center.  On the one hand, there are definitely state policies that drive these trends.  On the other hand, blaming Andrew Cuomo for the '08 financial collapse is about as crazy as crediting Rick Perry for the price of gasoline.  > I mean, why would the South be poorer? Obviously it's because they vote Republican.  You can pick out a few states where Republican policies have royally fucked the body public.  Kansas is a classic example.  The state is suffering from chronically high rates of poverty, and it's leadership carries a lot of the blame thanks to budgeting and management.  But Sam Brownback doesn't set the price of wheat or corn.  And Kansas's economic fate is heavily tied up in it's primary exports.  You can hold politicians to account for their actions without believing they are omnipotent.  Obama's economic policy has definitely affected the US's economy.  But then so has Apple's and Boeing's and Monsanto's.
> What has been written? Don't just say there is material or there without telling me what it is.   I'm not really here to debate, and this really doesn't have to do with complementarianism.   >when this had been repeatedly demonstrated to be impossible.  I have friends who struggle with this every day, and they willingly die to those desires for the sake of Christ. It's not different than other fleshly desires. We all have them, and to follow Christ means dying to them.  If you have any other questions relating to complementarianism, I'll be glad to answer them. Otherwise, I'll move on.  [SEP] >I'm not really here to debate  I get that, but you didn't answer the question. If you asked me a question, and I responded "There's an answer out there," do you think this would be sufficient? If Reformed tradition has written on the subject, I want to know what it says or at least where to find what it says. 
It's on the Aussie one as well, it's also a crime to joke about it. [SEP] > it's also a crime to joke about it  what the fuck
I tend to agree with him. Remember when Vick and McNabb were the shit and everyone was saying that the scrambling QB was the "future"? And then..well...2 years later they got hit a few too many times and couldn't really do that as well anymore?  The pocket-presence, "game management" QB is always going to be in demand. They never go out of style. We'll probably see a spike in read option next year, and maybe the year after that, but all it takes is a rough hit and you can't really run anymore.   [SEP] > The pocket-presence, "game management" QB is always going to be in demand. They never go out of style.   You're correct... except there aren't 32 good pocket passers in the NFL, so some teams will inevitably have to do something else to be able to compete.
I've been on reddit long enough to figure out, if there's a will, there's a subreddit. When I misread something like that, the imagery flashing through my mind.  It could be anywhere from a shittyfoodporn-esque subreddit, pictures of the "aftermath" of overly spicy foods and all the way across the spectrum to  a "cooking w/ naked asian females..or hell... this is the internet. *cooking* naked asian females.  But yes. I love /r/FoodPorn .. Mmmm [SEP] >cooking w/ naked asian females  I thought of this one too but I'm a woman so that holds little interest. I'd much rather have that subreddit exist as a food porn/recipe subreddit. I love curry!   But this  > pictures of the "aftermath" of overly spicy foods   Best/worst idea ever! You win!
Except all jobs at 15 means you're set to unlock advanced jobs no matter what, and level 1-15 doesn't take that long. He gets to explore more (especially if he actually does his hunt logs), get all those aetherytes in all the cities and zones.  I'd probably say let him hit 20 first and get his chocobo, help out the travel.  Also, ARC could cross class anything, having all jobs up would give him a lot of options; equipping Protect, casting it, then swapping it for Cure or Bloodbath for soloing was nice. At the very least, get up LNC and PUG for unlocking BRD and having the crossclasses ready.  [SEP] > Except all jobs at 15 means you're set to unlock advanced jobs no matter what, and level 1-15 doesn't take that long.   It would still take several days of doing nothing but killing low level monsters. It'd be much faster to go to 60 and enjoy your experience, and then have 100% xp vs. 50% to level other classes as you decide you want to.
> LGBT-groups have similarly spoken about "Christian" same-sex marriages, doesn't make it a norm.  Because it wasn't a norm in Christianity nor was it accepted. It may have not been the norm in India, doesn't mean that it wasn't accepted.  >Haha, nooo. No agragarian society is matriarchal in nature, and even matrilineal and matrifocal societies are male-centric. You are like an SJW, but you try to justify it by lying about historical India and other cultures.  You sure haven't been to North East India have you? I wasn't even making a reference to Vedic culture regarding this. India was patriarchal, no doubt. But we were not as harsh as other groups were!  >Like I said all my ebooks/bookmarks are on my laptop which I don't have with me rn, I promise I'll PM/reply to you w/ it tomorrow. Don't worry!  Good luck! [SEP] >It may have not been the norm in India, doesn't mean that it wasn't accepted.  WTF logic! does proof of bestiality in India proves to you bestiality was accepted? no! That way proof of gays "marrying" or having sex doesn't mean it was accepted. Like even if you look basic-ass wikipedia it will link you to actual texts that homosexuality was condemned by various Indian docus.  >You sure haven't been to North East India have you? I wasn't even making a reference to Vedic culture regarding this. India was patriarchal, no doubt. But we were not as harsh as other groups were!  Pls this is like that Sex at Dawn thing, where the Mosuo tribe are by all standards patriarchal but because they're matrilineal Westerners love to flock to them and Mosuos play it up for the tourism $$$.  >Good luck!  Don't worry I'll PM you the first thing in the morning.  Your entire account deserves to be on /r/badhistory. Go to /r/askhistorians or /r/SouthAsianHistory if you can't wait till I PM you tomorrow.   ETA: PMed you sources.
Hospitals charge a ton because insurance will pay for it. When hospitals charge you $45,000 for a routine procedure, they know the insurance company will bargain with them to about $10,000 and call it even. It's a made up number meant to open up negotiation.  However, the whole procedure actually cost $600. Somewhere down the line, someone made a 1566% profit off of you getting hurt, and it wasn't the doctors and it wasn't the insurance companies. [SEP] >wasn't the insurance companies  implying  
>Uhm, no, this is the only robust way.  It's robust because it allows your editor to think that code in the file is different from what it actually is?  >It should never be out of sync, any change you make must be reflected in the REPL state immediately.  It gets out of sync very easily. Say, I define a function and send it to the REPL. Then I delete or rename it, unless I remember to explicitly remove it from the REPL state it'll stay there. Or maybe I move the function to a different place in the source and now it needs a forward declaration, there's no way for the REPL to tell.  >It might be a bad idea to separate these things.  I disagree.  >And more crippled, limiting the abstractions you can work with.  If that's what you believe then Clojure is not a language for you. It's really that simple.  [SEP] > It's robust because it allows your editor to think that code in the file is different from what it actually is?  Why your code in the file would ever be different from a loaded version? Any change, internal or external, must always be reflected immediately.  > Say, I define a function and send it to the REPL.  I never said that an explicit REPL is a good thing. IDE must talk to the image, not to the REPL. Every function you define must be communicated implicitly to the compiler.  > If that's what you believe then Clojure is not a language for you.  I know. And I'm not using it for this reason exactly. The Clojure community does not understand macros. 
The source is great but KotL in particular is heavily skewed by the tendency of worse players to just blast down the creep wave which steals the farm from the allied carry. A good KotL will stack and farm the jungle to get a fast mek/force staff and work towards his aghanims. KotL himself does need a few items though I feel.  The graph is a normalized winrate compared to cs/min - its clever stuff. Its saying how much should your hero be farming compared to the other heroes. With heroes like Omni, ogre and earthshaker they should be getting their money by assist/kill gold not by farming, and those that choose to farm instead are letting their team down and forcing them to fight 4v5 without the amazing skills that you offer.  I would say all of those are more item dependent than the classic 5's: crystal maiden / shadow demon / jakiro / rubick. [SEP] >KotL in particular is heavily skewed by the tendency of worse players to just blast down the creep wave      That's not really a skew IMO, it's just reinforcing the fact that kotl doesn't need much to help, and that he doesn't help as much with more farm.  In essence, people who farm more with kotl have a tendancy to do worse which is what this is tracking.  Honestly, of all heroes kotl doesn't really *need* any items.  Even upgraded boots are completely optional on him, because kotl basically has built in mana boots. Mek is nice to have, but not really necessary as is force staff.  Aghs is most certainly a luxury item.  It's helpful for sure, but necessary? no.  I can't think of a single item you can't live without on him.    As for the rest of that, you have to take a minute and think about it, but really it makes sense that those heroes are the most item independant.  All of them except kotl have a lot in common.  the largest thing to me is that they're all tanky supports with strong defensive abilities.       Cm,sd and rub are all very squishy comparatively, meaning that getting items(specifically health items) beyond boots is much more necessary for them in order to have a presence during the mid-late game without dying every fight.  Jakiro is much tankier, so you have a point there, but I believe he is just outside of the top 5 as well.      I guess my point is that you may very well be right, it would be interesting to do those calculations again with either ending hero networth and/or gpm instead of cs/min and find out for sure.
> They are procedural (no, they're not)  How are they not?  > He has no idea how to unit test procedural code  Of course you can test procedural code, but it can be much harder when you can't, for example, easily mock out internal state.  > If your application consists entirely of static methods it will be hard to unit test (Sure maybe, but that is kind of a ridiculous argument against static methods)  Why is that ridiculous? Testability is a very important metric of code.  > Most static methods would be better off as instance methods of one of their arguments (A matter of taste, definitely not a reason that "static methods are bad". )  It may be a matter of taste that a *particular* static method would be better off non-static. But it's not a matter of taste that the majority of static methods would be better as non-static methods. This is a hypothesis that may or may not be true, but is testable as long as you believe in the methodologies of modern software engineering research.  > Also note that people are managing to unit test things just fine in languages like Haskell where a lot of the codebase is going to be made up of 'static methods'.  They're not really static methods for this purpose though, because testing is all about getting software in a particular state (and then verifying this state is as expected). Functional programming is so testable because it (ideally) has no state! If a function f is totally defined by its arguments a, b and c, then we can simply test f with every permutation of a, b, and c, perhaps pruning this space if it is too large.  Non-OO procedural code is hard to test because its state is not as easily encapsulated as OO and functional (which of course has no state). [SEP] > How are they not?  You could just as easily with as much accuracy say they're functional.  > Why is that ridiculous? Testability is a very important metric of code.  I don't disagree with that. I said it was ridiculous because it's an extreme example that doesn't reflect on the regular usage of static methods.  > It may be a matter of taste that a particular static method would be better off non-static. But it's not a matter of taste that the majority of static methods would be better as non-static methods. This is a hypothesis that may or may not be true, but is testable as long as you believe in the methodologies of modern software engineering research.  Fair enough.  > They're not really static methods for this purpose though, because testing is all about getting software in a particular state (and then verifying this state is as expected). Functional programming is so testable because it (ideally) has no state! If a function f is totally defined by its arguments a, b and c, then we can simply test f with every permutation of a, b, and c, perhaps pruning this space if it is too large.  Exactly, and there's nothing to stop one from writing in this style in OO languages as well!* This is why I think that static methods are not necessarily procedural and not necessarily hard to test.  *I don't mean writing the WHOLE program this way, but parts of it.
Possibly make it so that you can only put one prison pearl per container (chest, furnace, etc)? That way you really need to want someone imprisoned forever for it to be cost effective. Maybe make it so that only alts can be in the same chest also, if that is possible? [SEP] >Possibly make it so that you can only put one prison pearl per container (chest, furnace, etc)?   Great idea  >Maybe make it so that only alts can be in the same chest also, if that is possible?  Meh, not as good as your other idea.
I'm really digging Dr. Adam Back's 2 mb now, 4 mb in 2 years, 8 mb in 4 years, and then re-evaluate proposal. It's a cautious and measured approach to scaling up the block size, and makes sure we don't risk decentralization. 4 years is an eternity in Bitcoin, and who knows, by then we may have working implementations of other more efficient scaling mechanisms, such as Lightning Network. [SEP] > 4 years is an eternity in Bitcoin  Exactly, which is why 8MB in 4 years might be woefully inadequate, and we could be right back where we are in 12 months.
Don't work for them. Start your own business. You are forcing your beliefs upon them and you went to them for help (job). The irony of this is gold. [SEP] > Don't work for them. Start your own business.  Because that's how simple life is.
"Already being tried for a crime"?  What crime is that?  "Terms of her release"?  No, if she commits new Contempt she can be rejailed.  "The judge wouldn't have said it if it weren't true"  A disarmingly cute inanity, thanks.  "You're a mindless child...."  Physician, heal thyself.... [SEP] > What crime is that?  Maybe you should keep up with the news a bit better before embarrassing yourself.
Oh ok, the logic flow makes more sense now. However, I did not argue that "I want Asian comics to do, ideally, 0% Asian jokes". The problem is that Asian comedians can't really succeed as of now without having most of their repertoire being Asian jokes, because the play on Asian stereotypes are almost expected of them. There really isn't a choice. My ideal would be that both the 80%s and the 0%s are able to find success.  > And I pointed out that the comics that Asians most enjoy seeing are actually people that do a lot of Asian jokes.  How did you conclude this???? Why do you say Asians prefer cheap Asian jokes more than just a clever comedy? Asians (probably we are talking about western Asian immigrants only) liking Russell Peter might be because of the shared immigrant experience. Or maybe it is because all other Asian comedian who refrain from Asian jokes are shut down in their infancy, so the most popular comedian is the one who make the joke in the most relatively respectful way and they can identify the closest to compared to all existing comedians. [SEP] >I did not argue that "I want Asian comics to do, ideally, 0% Asian jokes".  You said:  > Of course, if there is a 0%, then we want that, but this new style of comedy is just not going to come over night. So the best thing for now is for the 20% to survive. If you still shit on the 20% for not being the 0%, what you are going to end up with the 20% dying off career-wise and the 0% still not coming about,
And they're kidding themselves if they think that no one can make their own website similar to reddit. This ain't like cable companies where breaking into the market you need millions upon millions of dollars, you just gotta be a decent web dev with some spare cash.. [SEP] > And they're kidding themselves if they think that no one can make their own website similar to reddit.  And the source code is right at the bottom of every page, waiting for someone to give it a try.
Not me personally, but I have seen someone leave a job in under 1 hour.  Shitty night shift, stocking shelves for a terrible company ^cough Kmart ^cough. The guy decided within the first 30 minutes that he didn't like the job and told the manager he would be leaving. Manager tells him that the store is locked down until at least 5AM. 20 minutes go by and no one can seem to find the dude and then all of a sudden the alarm system for the store starts going off. He hated the job so much, he forcefully broke open the door and just walked out into the night.  [SEP] > Manager tells him that the store is locked down until at least 5AM.  IANAL but pretty sure you can't do that - gotta be false imprisonment? 
Well, it's seems you have a lot more experience than me. My girl is seeking intimacy more than sex, and marriage is a thing that will only happen to get things right with the kids. She does have a loving father, and my parents are cool too, so this fits your theory. I don't know, I'm still not convinced that being bad is such a good thing to have a relationship. Maybe it works better for one night stands or starting relationships, I have very little experience there. Even if all you say is true, I'd still prefer to look for a girl that appreciates me being good instead of trying to keep her with bad attitude. [SEP] > Even if all you say is true, I'd still prefer to look for a girl that appreciates me being good instead of trying to keep her with bad attitude.  Same here... but it will mean many women will lose interest in you.  Not that thats bad, its just... sad.
Haha I love this. The first country to win it twice (after 2008). Beat Japan after penalties, after barely holding on to a draw.      I'd like to imagine government officials don't know how to handle actually winning something after faking winning every imaginable prize.  [SEP] > I'd like to imagine government officials don't know how to handle actually winning something after faking winning every imaginable prize.   you have been banned from /r/Pyonyang 
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2458136,00.asp Here you go, I'll do the work for you so you can realize how bad your reading comprehension is. Just because Titanfall is the best selling game of the month doesn't mean the global amount of software sales for the xbox one is higher.  [SEP] > Here you go, I'll do the work for you so you can realize how bad your reading comprehension is.  What's fun is that the link you posted did nothing to deny the fact that Xbox One had top games sold during april.  You're just coming of as a fanboy by this point.
But isn't the majority of their electricity produced from coal-fired plants?  Out of the frying pan . . . [SEP] > Out of the frying pan . . .  This saying means that the solution is different but just as bad or worse.  So that's wrong.  It's just not a complete solution in this case.