Lurker > Nemu

Assuming a realistic situation where she isn't the hulk, probably wouldn't call the police unless she did some real damage. It would definitely be the end of the relationship unless the " verbal nuclear bomb" was something so cruel that I think I deserved it.

Generally, changing race isn't a big deal so long as the race has nothing to do with the character and doesn't mesh with the setting. The only real problem is the hypocrites who would praise something like this but then complain when a character is made white, isn't "X" enough, etc. It's either OK or it isn't OK.

Looks like it was probably not needed in the long run, but the cop shouldn't be punished for it. When you're in a situation where the parameters might change at the drop of a hat, sometimes you make the wrong call. So long as that call doesn't lead to something like unnecessarily broken ribs or otherwise permanent damage, fair next. If she wasn't resisting, there would be no need to use force in the first place. Screaming "she's a 14 year old girl" doesn't negate the fact that she's an alleged criminal.

Such wasted potential. If not for the writer's strike, I think it would have stayed good for a few more seasons. Otherwise, only two characters really held the show together.

And that's why buildings have capacity limits.

Honestly, the classics should have come with fifty to one hundred games. They could easily do that for the same price considering the ability to load a bunch more games through other means. It's just Nintendo being cheap.

I do feel like the whole movement is going a bit to far into the realm "feels over facts," but that might be too backwards.

Happily spend time with my parents a few times a month, but there are some out there quite beyond redemption. Now, you shouldn't forgo a chance at a connection that you want deep down over petty resentment, but there are some parents that crossed a line of eternal hatred.

His viewpoints are probably wrong, but how are they offensive? How in any way was what he said anything but slightly ignorant? Do people think he has some power to reverse the decision? Because if not, any single person literally offended by his comments to the point where even watching him becomes uncomfortable is a moron of the highest order.

Was is made before the year 2000?

RebelElite791 posted...

nemu posted...

Mankind is not gendered. Human is not gendered. Why can't these people pick actual battles worth fighting?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English#Generic_words_for_humans

Wow, at some point in time some people have had opinions on the context of words. That doesn't change the actual definition of the word 99% of people actually use.

Mankind is not gendered. Human is not gendered. Why can't these people pick actual battles worth fighting?

The scary thing is that there are probably some real people out there who would agree with this.

Shedinja, probably get my soul sucked out accidentally.

They will likely always be a thing. The large screen and social aspect is appealing.

I love hypocrites freaking out. That's up there with anti-police crybabies whining to the police because they didn't stop someone from hitting one of them. He didn't continue to attack her and backed away after, so completely fair next.

That's fine. I do think it's a positive thing for the full family unit to have the same last name, regardless if that is either spouse switching or hyphenating their names.

Why the need to sit atop your high horse? The argument can be made about any non-essential item anyone purchases. As long as you're not spending beyond your means, there is really nothing that can be called a stupid purchase.

Not sure why it's at all a gendered thing. Many people go to bars to get shitfaced for a variety of reasons, many of which are because that's how they have fun and many of which because they're miserable people with no other joy in their life.

If it's a start of the game trope, it's usually garbage. I'm fine with a flashforward if they want to give a taste of the power you will eventually get. If it's a mid-game challenge section, it's usually fine.

I have a pretty good mental plan of what I would do. I have no desire for anything really that insane, so it wouldn't really change how I live my life too much other than no longer needing to work. Nice but not overly extravgent house, make sure my immediate family is all secured, etc. I would probably work a good amount of travel into my plans for the first couple years. Honestly, the real reason to play the lottery is to have nice fantasies for a few hours with a minuscule chance you'll be able to fulfill them.

GotG2, Thor 3, and Avengers 3 are better. I think it's a really great movie, but I feel like the length really kills it. It's one of those movies where I had no idea how long it was before watching, so I thought it was "almost over" like three times.

UnfairRepresent posted...

nemu posted...

Someone who spends an hour and a half per day on their hobby is not heavily into that hobby.

shit CE says

"Heavy" has a connotation of a significant amount of time, maybe even to the point of an unhealthy obsession in some cases. Ten hours is completely average and would mean you have a multitude of other hobbies and activities. It means you spend 70-90% of the rest of your free time on other activities.

UnfairRepresent posted...

nemu posted...

might be a lot for an adult with a job and kids, but that's nothing for a kid. I'

lol

9 hours a week is a lot dude. keep telling yourself otherwise

if your daughter spent 9 hours a week sniffing old men's shoes you would not go "oh she doesn't do that much at all!'

You have apparently never been a child in your life then. Children have a shit ton of free time. Someone who spends an hour and a half per day on their hobby is not heavily into that hobby. They have a passing interest in it. If a kid spends an hour per day outside, I would not say they are an outdoors enthusiast. If a kid spends three or four hours per day outside, they really love being outdoors. If someone reads an average length book per week, they are not heavily into books. They have a passing interest. If someone reads three to five books per week, they have a heavy interest.

Seems like the age rating filter takes care of any potential issues. I think tweeting explicit things at people is the only bannable offense.

There's a difference between a stupid law and an unjust sentence. There are many horrible laws in the Middle East, but if someone from another country goes there and gets busted for it, it's still a proper application of the law. The sentence is still just under that law, even though the law itself is horrible.

The guy has definitely been indoctrinated by their moronic talking points, but he seems more right-wing "NPC" than fullblown racist from the quotes in that article. People need to learn how to differentiate them. White nationalist viewpoints will always be a bad thing, but there's a whole spectrum of "dumb" to "actually harmful."

While it should be legal everywhere, it is not. If you're carrying a substance that is not legal in other areas, then you need to be aware of that. Completely fair in terms of how the laws are set up.

If people are coordinated in their resistance, the numbers will be too great for them to withstand. It would take a lot of sacrifice, but it's not like one guy is going to be able to kill more than a few people before being overwhelmed by numbers. If people are scared and scattered, then they can probably move through unimpeded.

Nope. 90% of countries are irrelevant to everyday life. I can place the major countries, but after that no clue. It's something that's neat to know, but fairly worthless like learning the fifty US state capitals. If you frequently study maps, it's something you'll naturally pick up. If you don't, then it's not knowledge that really matters to you.

UnfairRepresent posted...

nemu posted...

How is 9 hours per week "heavy"?

1 . 9 hours is a lot dude

2. They said heavy is OVER 9 hours a week. Not 9. Some of these chicks probably do have no lives and clock a lot more

It might be a lot for an adult with a job and kids, but that's nothing for a kid. I'd say any kid with a mild interest in games should generally reach 8-10 in a casual week. Heavy shouldn't be anything under 20-30 hours.

How is 9 hours per week "heavy"?

Theoretically, yes, but pretty impossible to pull off unless you could just "buy the win" by giving them the money directly. Trying to organize hundreds of thousands of people to each by thousands of tickets and keep track of those tickets would be near impossible without spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

I have been to only a single casino. It is not at all appealing, especially considering that one allowed smoking inside. I guess I can see the appeal for some people, but I wouldn't go back to one unless I was paid.

_Rinku_ posted...

nemu posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

Only morons would take issue with a mother actually, you know, parenting and talking to her kids about how "you can't do this thing in real life just because it's in a movie."

Banning the movies is a bit extreme though.

She's not though. She's taking a moronic social stance against it. It's one thing to say "in real life fantastical situations like that don't happen, so that's not an OK thing for someone to do." Nobody would be slamming her for saying that. She's instead spouting bullshit to earn her virtue signalling points for the day.

Congratulations! You've let your fanatical hatred of women/SJWs obstruct your ability to parse basic sentences.

You are spewing pure garbage here.

I'm responding to the idea that "Only morons would take issue with a mother actually, you know, parenting and talking to her kids." It seems like you're criticizing people criticizing her. She's certainly free to hold whatever opinion she likes, but it's pure bullshit on both how she's telling her kids and the message she's putting forth in the article.

_Rinku_ posted...

Only morons would take issue with a mother actually, you know, parenting and talking to her kids about how "you can't do this thing in real life just because it's in a movie."

Banning the movies is a bit extreme though.

She's not though. She's taking a moronic social stance against it. It's one thing to say "in real life fantastical situations like that don't happen, so that's not an OK thing for someone to do." Nobody would be slamming her for saying that. She's instead spouting bullshit to earn her virtue signalling points for the day.

No, but I feel like the US and any major country should take a stand against their bullshit and stop associating with them on any level.

Yeah. I usually buy a few times per year when it starts getting in the news.

Yes. Not that it really matter for anything. Honestly should have shut down the system after they started selling it with the t-shirts.

For my loved ones, yes. If they survived too, probably not.

People really need to get off this idea that cops are bloodthirsty. Just going by traffic stops alone, only like 0.01% of people are killed in police encounters. That percentage probably goes way down when including every type of police encounter. Police corruption exists for sure, but it's not some kind of every day, every situation shit.

I honestly never liked Sonic. It's ironically too slow paced.

I can easily play through SMW any time, any day.

This is really an apples and oranges thing. I'm not sure why anyone is really arguing about it. The status of the baby depends entirely on the context of the method used to remove it from the mother and the intent of those removing it.

Just a solid 20%. I've never had such bad service that I left nothing, but I would if it truly merited it.

My brain processed the topic title as Bill Cosby and that had me really confused.

Because some people may want to leave a relationship. Still a bit scummy, but its not too big a deal as long as they leave the other person before any kind of relationship commences. Actively cheating on someone who believes they are in a committed relationship is the horrible part.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

An, rather than actually sticking to facts you're fear mongering and not interested in the science behind the determinations or requirements for trans athletes to compete.

Gosh, what possible reason could a cis person have to ignore science if it's means they get to call a trans athlete who loses most of the time some sort of cheater /sarcasm

What science? They're going from the starting point of "transpeople are eligible to compete" and then deciding random hormone nonsense as if that negates the natural advantage.

No, they went from
Trans people can't compete
To
Trans people should be able to but how can we even the field
To
What sort of requirements, however strict, will allow for fair competition
To
Okay we took several years and after consulting with experts we decided on these requirements for trans athletes to compete

The end goal is to have them compete regardless. They need to be able to compete for organizations to be progressive. That does not make for good grounds of a case of objective study. What is their scenario for some 6'8 mass of muscle FtM? How is that fair that she competes with women? Does lowering her testosterone somehow negate that massive physical advantage?

You know that 6'8 competitors are at a bug disadvantage in bicycling? Like, half a dozen tour de France winners ever have been over 6' tall. They'd also not want to have an excess of upper body strength because of how that creates more wind resistance after the effective sweet spot. And FtM would be a trans man, meaning he's a man and he's taking testosterone to transition, so he likely wouldn't want to compete with women anyways. So you don't even have the terminology right.

Your "the end goal" premise is flawed.

This is about all sports, not just cycling. Fighting, running, weightlifting, all areas where someone that large would most likely easily dominate.

The main thing in all of this is that there is a natural advantage. We split things between sexes because of that advantage. There are very few activities where women would rank even in the top 100 of athletes if things were not segregated. They can try their best to negate the advantage, and I'm sure the gap between a 5'5 man and 5'5 woman is partially negated by hormones and such. It will never be 100% negated, and none of the discussion really ever seems to focus on how much taller on average men are compared to women. That's a huge factor as well.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

An, rather than actually sticking to facts you're fear mongering and not interested in the science behind the determinations or requirements for trans athletes to compete.

Gosh, what possible reason could a cis person have to ignore science if it's means they get to call a trans athlete who loses most of the time some sort of cheater /sarcasm

What science? They're going from the starting point of "transpeople are eligible to compete" and then deciding random hormone nonsense as if that negates the natural advantage.

No, they went from
Trans people can't compete
To
Trans people should be able to but how can we even the field
To
What sort of requirements, however strict, will allow for fair competition
To
Okay we took several years and after consulting with experts we decided on these requirements for trans athletes to compete

The end goal is to have them compete regardless. They need to be able to compete for organizations to be progressive. That does not make for good grounds of a case of objective study. What is their scenario for some 6'8 mass of muscle MtF? How is that fair that she competes with women? Does lowering her testosterone somehow negate that massive physical advantage?