Lurker > Pogo_Marimo

1. <img src="https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/avatar/VFrench1962.jpg">
2. New User
3. User Since: Apr 2023
4. Karma: 5
5. Active Posts: 54
6. Follow
7. PM
8. Ignore

The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll

He does it where there are rhymes in the rest of the song though.

Star Wars really isn't a morality tale though. The good guys don't do a ton of independent good deeds, they're just constantly trying to defend their lives from the crazy evil empire.

"And never sat once at the head of the table And didn't even talk to the people at the table Who just cleaned up all the food from the table"

people will act like dumbasses for internet clout

Overall solid advice, but all of that "do this to appear more intelligent" stuff is stupid as hell lol.

Yes I would and then I would suggest an open relationship lol

Shut up, you.

But really, why not? Isn't that one the things they boasted about?

You ever have a guy laying on the ground wrapped around your leg while you're trying to run back and play defense?

We don't even need that anymore with the power of the current generation. They're just being lazy when big studios still have load times.

Honestly its pretty safe to assume you should grab Greens foot to prevent him from stomping if hes ever standing over you. Thats just basic logic.

Jae Crowder, the Morris twins, and Grayson Allen

Draymond is dirty but the mf was grabbing his leg. Try jumping with one leg locked and landing with that leg while your other one is off the ground. Your weight pulls you backward back onto the locked leg.

I know draymonds dirty but this was all on the dude grabbing his leg

100% an accident
He was going for the nuts and got his leg caught and missed

Definitely racismhttps://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/8/3/AAfRzvAAEZJf.jpg

Doesn't like being touched by people of different colors.

ok I am going to be honest. I knew some people would shill for her. I knew it because this is how certain ugly events in history have gone down. So I came prepared to make an initial statement and then prove you were wrong, giving you the chance for growth via the Aristotelian Method of reasoning.

now watch the second video where she cleans her arm:

https://twitter.com/dragoon_jay/status/1647474288998461440/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1647474288998461440&currentTweetUser=dragoon_jay

then her friend was dumb enough to say that it, indeed, was because of the mans color:

https://twitter.com/OuiMignon/status/1648050552092385281

and somehow, even despite that, a CEman here managed to react even worse that her, meet Mr he smeared his shit on her arm:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80415618/972909417

It says in the video shes been married since 93

anyway Jax is the pop singer who has this irritating song on the radio

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F9K5IS-inHs

what her @

I did not say that guns would have done anything during covid. I simply said look at how the government acted during covid. That alone should be enough to make sure that civilians have the right to defend themselves against a tryranical government. Keep in mind Pogo that the government knew full well the vaccination did not stop or limit transmission. No study ever done has come to that conclusion. It was listed on Pfizer's website on Day 1 for those who were paying attention and did some due diligence. The largest covid studies done in the world (CDC and BMJ and even the Gates funded Lancet organization) never went as far as to say they did.

1. The myth stems from a statement made by a Pfizer CEO that the vaccine was not tested for transmissibility prior to being certified. Why would that be? Testing transmissibility requires much broader and longer-term studies due to the nature of how viruses spread. It was estimated that it would take 3-6 months longer to verify if transmissibility was reduced by the vaccine, which meant 3-6 months of no vaccine on the market still.
2. But that's a pretty big deal, right? Isn't the point of a vaccine to stop the spread? No. Not all vaccines can stop the spread of illnesses. If we could, then stuff like the Flu would be eradicated by now. But that doesn't mean they can't lower the mortality rate of the illness. It was judged (and rightfully so) that preventing deaths immediately (Which the Pfizer vaccine does very well) was more important than waiting to verify if transmissibility was reduced--Not to improve the vaccine, but just to verify something we would inevitably learn in future anyways.
3. Future studies showed the vaccine reduced transmissibility substantially, along with the more important issue of mortality. This wasn't particularly a surprise, however. The vaccine was shown to do things we would expect to reduce transmissibility, like reduce viral load and increase the rate of non-symptomatic infections. We just didn't have the evidence to say with a scientific degree of certainty.

1. Science illiteracy. You do not have the capacity to research and verify scientific studies, nor do you have a foundational knowledge about epidemiology to verify what is quality data and what isn't. That's normal. I would say 99% of the country's population does not understand enough terminology and the scientific process to even properly interpret a Conclusion or Discussion section of a scientific study. Again, that's normal. There's a reason why most researcher's will have a Master's or Doctorate in their field of study. As it turns out, this stuff is extremely complicated beyond either of our comprehensions. Which leads me to my second point:
2. Ego. Or perhaps arrogance. The arrogance to assume that you even understood what was being discussed by this Pfizer CEO even though you have literally never read a virology textbook in your adult life. Instead of seeking out knowledgable scientists in the field, you instead either reached your own conclusions or, much more likely, read an equally ignorant person's message on Twitter or some stupid discord and took their conclusion as fact. Why would anyone do this? Why would you adopt the opinion of someone who has literally no expertise in a field famous for how difficult it is to understand? That's because:
3. The fear of testing the depths of your own ignorance, and the aversion to difficult thinking. People like you, conspiracy theorists, bigots, fear-mongers, tend to have a very typical pattern of behavior that demonstrates that above all else you are averse to accepting you know very little. How much virology do you understand, on a scale of 1 to 10? Is your answer a 1? Because if it isn't, then you're lying to yourself. So if you are so ignorant and so afraid of looking ignorant, then why do you adopt the opinions of similarly ignorant people instead of seeking the opinions of the verifiably knowledgeable i.e. scientists? It is because they intimidate you intellectually. Humans have a few predictable responses to fear or anxiety--They flee from it, they have a catatonic response, or they fight it. How does one fight an abstract concept like "something is smarter than me and the world is scary and complex?" You rely on attributing their behavior to something evil. Thus, conspiracies are born. Notice how there aren't any conspiracy theories about good things happening that none of us understand? It's because conspiracies are a coping mechanism developed by certain people to avoid confronting the intimidating nature of complexity.

Given what has happened in the world lately and especially since covid the 2nd amendment is crucial. Just look at what governments got away with during covid. Can you imagine what they would do if they knew no one could defend themselves?

What I'm saying is, if the point of the 2nd Ammendment is to ensure that we have the means to prevent our rights and freedom from being infringed, than shouldn't armed violence be the response to any attempt by the government to do so?

That isnt a Pitbull.

I mean, they had entertainment even back in the Roman Empire.

Basically, gladiator arenas and such. But only men were allowed to watch them.

imagine you're always naked.

A small pork sword means you can run, fight, etc with no issues. A big one flops all over and is begging to get scratched with a tree branch or skinned when you fall or even worse, grabbed or cut y your enemy.

Small pork swords were superior back then