Lurker > justaguy3492

The eat healthy, workout, get sleep advice isn't the end all be all, and that advice isn't directed at people already doing those things and who are still depressed. It's aimed at people who are depressed but haven't done anything about it.

From the article:

"However, the unions competition registration policy states that a competitors government-issued photo identification (excluding Youth lifters) must be verified during the weigh-in or equipment check, including date of birth, province, and gender at all competitions.'

This is an assumption, but I'm guessing the new record holder hasn't actually changed his gender identification on his ID so the record can just be thrown out and we can move on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d44ykdKvCw&ab_channel=UltraRecords

andel posted...

tbf oakland is kinda small to be having major sports franchises anyway. san francisco is close enough

This, San Fran is so close that it is silly to have both cities have teams.

Raiders now the A's. Oakland may as well rename to lil vegas

From the guy that brought you "abolish the death penalty",

CyricZ posted...

What if I were to say "let them die"?

Aaaaaaaaaand he's a right wing pedo.

https://www.wibw.com/2023/04/18/topeka-man-brought-down-walmart-after-allegeldy-exposing-himself-teen/

The mom couldn't get the 5 year old to pick it up?

Kloe_Rinz posted...

its certainly better than not restricting guns. whatever else you guys choose to do, the crisis wont be solved without gun control. the statistics prove it no matter how many shitters say its "lazy"

I 100% agree strict gun control would solve most of the problem. I'm saying that in this country there is a sizable portion of the population who will vote against gun control every chance they get (not to mention politicians who are in the gun lobbies pocket); so "just take the guns" isn't a pragmatic approach. Yes I will continue to vote for candidate who have strong positions on gun control, but in the mean time we need to be addressing the problem in other ways such as after school/community programs, increasing economic prospects in at risk neighborhoods, expanding access to trauma counseling, etc. My original post was simply trying to point out the motives behind "gang" shootings and those seeking to do the most amount of harm in a public place are completely different and need to be addressed as such.

CyricZ posted...

The fact that this hasn't even entered your head as a pragmatic solution shows where your mind is on the issue.

justaguy3492 posted...

(if it was up to me the 2nd amendment wouldn't exist

It's wild how obtuse you're being. "Just take the guns" is the most ivory towered/sheltered take there is to dealing with this issue. Posting your platitudes on a message board won't do anything but move your nose further into the air.

CyricZ posted...

Yes.

I think maybe you're the one who doesn't.

So you know what the word means and you think "just take the guns" is the solution that is actually feasible?

CyricZ posted...

No it doesn't. It requires the removal of guns first.

If you want to solve every problem that gang violence is associated with then yes, to bring everything to perfect harmony, there are multiple issues to address.

If you want to stop inner city gun violence, you go for the guns. That is easily the most pragmatic action to take.

Do you not know what the word pragmatic means?

Noumas posted...

The body fattening movement is endemic to America, have you been to Europe? Everything there is tiny and miserable. Rooms are tiny, cars are tiny, parking space is tiny, its so unbearable and not friendly at all. Most places aren't even scooter wheelchair accessible. I can't even imagine what asia is like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ouZ2T3guFw&ab_channel=TheBestFilmOneLiners

CyricZ posted...

Why not. It's still someone believing they have the right to kill others. Using a readily available, easy to use, and extremely effective means.

When we start treating these scenarios from the focus of what we want to do about them, it's actually extremely clear where the real focus needs to be.

Motives are ultimately irrelevant, because there exist as many motives to harm someone as there are stars in the sky.

It's not about padding statistics it's about children dying to guns.

And the fact that people argue in this direction show what they value more.

I feel like you think I'm saying something I'm not. I teach high school in North Philly, teen gun violence is something I very much care about. I'm not making a claim about padding statistics or any of that garbabe, I'm just saying that the reason why an inner city kid picks up a gun is going to be vastly different than someone looking to harm as many people as possible in a short period of time. I also 100% agree with you that guns are the ultimate problem (if it was up to me the 2nd amendment wouldn't exist), but pragmatically dealing with inner city gun violence requires different methods than stopping the stereotypical "mass shooters".

remandramdoll posted...

And the mods explicitly stated in posts that they used my reputation of "upsetting other users on highly divisive issues" against me. Like, I got sent the effing screenshots by a discord friend.

The reputation was regarding my pro trans stances.

I had your old account tagged as "brought up guy's dead gf to win argument" so I'm sure stuff like that factored in too.

AmericaTheBrave posted...

Misleading topic. Topic title makes you think of some innocent 6-year-old's party in a cul-de-sac was terrorized by gun violence.

This was gang shit in the inner city.

Where did you see this was gang related? The article doesn't state that.
CyricZ posted...

Same problem.

Access to guns is still the issue.

You're the one trying to mislead.

That said, IF this was actually gang related then it's incorrect to treat teenage gang violence and mass shootings such as Uvalde/Buffalo supermarket as one in the same. Yes access to guns is a common factor, but the motives behind the shootings are completely different and require different approaches. Regardless I agree that every situation I mentioned deserves equal sympathy and attention.

averagejoel posted...

so, first: "the neopronoun movement" is not hurting trans acceptance. the people being "turned away" from trans acceptance because some people are kinda weird were not in favour of it in the first place. they're just using it as an excuse. it's quite similar to the "this bernie supporter was kinda rude to me one time, so I'm going to vote for trump now" nonsense from 2016. it's even less based in reality here though, because it's just about people being weird; not even being rude to you.

second: you say that they often get "lumped together", then you conflate neopronoun use (e.g. people who use "xe" or "ze" or "e" or whatever) with people who think they're deer. that's quite disingenuous! and ironic!

Fair first point, I wonder if there's any survey/polling data to suggest one way or another. My statement was purely anecdotal. As for the second point, maybe I'm misunderstanding neopronouns and people who identify as otherkin aren't apart of that movement, but the birthing person thing certainly set off social media a few weeks back. But I do think you'll find more people are open to they/them than xe/xey/thon etc.

averagejoel posted...

wow there's a lot going on in this post

True, best not to engage with it.

Imagine having to be bumped to a later flight because your seat was given to someone's sides.

Probably. I wonder how much the neopronoun movement hurts trans acceptance. They aren't the same thing (in my view) but they often get lumped together. Seems like most people don't have a problem referring to people as he/she/they/them but when you throw in non-binary deerkin and birthing-person people start pushing back and rational trans people are put in the crossfire.

https://twitter.com/JaeBaeOfficial/status/1644374800591360000?t=SUmUygRGsUS2lv3Y6dJjXA&s=19

Super Troopers.

Once someone's 21 and they can do everything a "real" adult can do I'd say it's fine. 18-20 is weird no matter how "mature" they may be.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Probably this. Would be nice to know if the info was damning of the government or of it was just random docs.

Here's a spicy take for ya: people with severe mental health issues and substance abuse issues should be eligible for involuntary treatment.

Red dead 2 for me. I thought Saint Denis was the last stop.

Kaiganeer posted...

need to be able to charge at home or at work, currently can't do either

This, I live in philly and the infrastructure for electric cars just isn't here yet. You can charge at like ikea but with no dedicated parking for most homes it makes electric cars a huge hassle. Luckily I don't need a car and just use public trans.

There are people that can't tell the difference between a 14 year old and a 17 year old?

Yes, but if you are inviting a girl out for anything other than a coffee or a drink then you are an idiot.

A raiders fan who wishes he could fight his coworkers, shocking.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

attempted murder, but the child probably did not know what they were doing.

You don't think 11 year old's know what murder is? What rock were you sheltered under as a kid?

I can't play videogames and smoke weed all day if I have kids.

If you bet on the WWE just consider it a stupid tax.

Dumb topic, nonvoters should absolutely be shamed.

So mad you are balding over it or mad and bald.

https://www.curentul.info/actualitate/biopisa-lui-andrew-tate-arata-ca-nu-are-cancer-si-poate-suporta-arestul-preventiv/

Apparently this is the biopsy info and it states he doesn't have cancer. Take that with a grain of salt because this came for the internet and I can't read Romanian.

Agreed. Coffee and gaming on a Saturday morning is one of life's great pleasures.

...it's a comedy podcast where they just shittalk for a couple of hours. People taking comedians way too seriously lol.

When the 10th grader who is on a 5th grade reading level turns in a 5 paragraph essay you know they didn't do it.

Don't fucking edge me like this.

bigblu89 posted...

I literally posted todays tuition rates for the schools i went to.

The schools I went to would costs around $60k for all 4 years.

$60k in debt would be $500 a month over a 10 year period and that's not factoring in crazy interest rates. Even in your save money scenario, that's still a lot of debt.

Prismsblade posted...

That's up to them to decide. If their futures aren't worth it enough for them to take any risk then thats okay.

There's plenty of other alternatives paths in life.

Lemme guess, you're a libertarian arent you? Lmao.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

It's not about fairness, it's about hurting people.

To them that is fairness lol.

lderivedx posted...

idk seems like reducing disposable income in an economy that relies on people spending money might not work out great

They don't care, all that matters to them is some weird sense of "fairness"

bummer.

Leftists don't use the term; rightwingers use it to mean black or lgbtq+.

Skirts as part of the uniform is weird. Just make pants the uniform and you don't have weird shit like this happening.

Met my wife on tinder so yea.