Lurker > adjl

Smarkil posted...

You're operating under the assumption that the allegations are true. If they aren't true, then you expect him to resign to fight something that never happened?

I'm operating under the assumption that false allegations would be cleared up quickly enough to not be particularly disruptive, as they would with allegations of any other crimes. That is a fairly shaky assumption, but the underlying idea is "don't do the crime if you don't have time to go to court over it."

Mostly, though, I'm operating under the principle that being the president should not act as protection from the consequences for prior misdeeds. Expecting the president to resign whenever he's accused of a crime is hardly practical, but there needs to be some middle ground that's better than ignoring anything without conclusive evidence because "being the president is more important." Especially where it's so easy to draw out court proceedings and investigations such that they take longer than the election.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

adjl posted...

On the contrary, I'd say openly admitting it suggests innocence more than guilt. The guilty have something to hide, which is at odds with open admission. It's pure speculation either way, though. There's certainly reason to be suspicious, but doing so far as to say he's an awful person because you think he might have done something awful is overreacting.

that's your opinion. you're free to have your opinion. i'm free to think gamechamp is a disgusting human being. have a great day.

And I'm also free to call that opinion a poorly-substantiated knee-jerk reaction, and to judge you as being rather unintelligent for clinging to it instead of thinking critically about it. Sure, you can think anything you want, but that doesn't absolve you from the need to substantiate your opinions if you want them to have any value.

ZiggiStardust posted...

ok, i see your dumb point, but having these thoughts does not make me want to interact with these people, be their friends, offer them a job (even if they're qualified for the position), or have anything to do with their perverted, disgusting selves, ok?

And that's a rather illogical attitude with no basis in practical reality. Don't hire them as a babysitter, obviously, but there's no sense in getting upset over something that's of no actual consequence.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Veedrock- posted...

This isn't just some celebrity's reputation, this is the president.

Seeking justice for sexual assault victims isn't about the attacker's reputation. It's about righting a wrong, and preventing similar wrongs from ever happening again. Being the president shouldn't exempt anyone from that.

Veedrock- posted...

He's got the most important job in the nation to focus on, he shouldn't be distracted with battling skeletons in the closet.

He's the one that put the skeletons in there. If he can't battle them while also being the president, then he should resign. None of this "he's busy now, can I pencil you in for seeking justice in 2021?" nonsense.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

adjl posted...

Given that he's aware enough of the urges to limit his contact with children, I'd say he's probably a good enough judge of whether or not he needs therapy. If he's wrong and does end up doing something? Then he's an awful person. But save that judgement for such a time.

If someone will openly admit they want to molest children forgive me if I don't believe they've been angelic with their urges.

On the contrary, I'd say openly admitting it suggests innocence more than guilt. The guilty have something to hide, which is at odds with open admission. It's pure speculation either way, though. There's certainly reason to be suspicious, but doing so far as to say he's an awful person because you think he might have done something awful is overreacting.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ZiggiStardust posted...

after all, he's not molesting my her, he just gets a boner from watching her! totally ok!

Yeah, pretty much. It's the difference between somebody thinking your wife is hot and somebody raping your wife. Even if it's directed toward somebody that's off-limits for whatever reason, sexual attraction on its own is completely inconsequential. Provided you identify that it's problematic and don't act on it, simply being attracted to somebody isn't going to hurt anyone.

Jen0125 posted...

it's one thing to admit you that you shouldn't have children that are female and another to actually try to get some help for your problem. he doesn't try to go to therapy for his unhealthy attraction to sub 10 year old girls. he just jerks off to cartoon porn and talks about what a creep he is on the internet.

Given that he's aware enough of the urges to limit his contact with children, I'd say he's probably a good enough judge of whether or not he needs therapy. If he's wrong and does end up doing something? Then he's an awful person. But save that judgement for such a time.

PK_Spam posted...

Figures that Icoyar mistakes being drunk with... being on drugs?

But wtf kind of drugs make people become your slave?

I guess he figures that slipping a roofie into a beer is redundant.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

EclairReturns posted...

Wasn't he also that guy who beat Breath of the Wild without consuming any stamina points? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Wouldn't surprise me. He did a bunch of gimmicky runs of BotW. The only one I watched in full was the one where he tried to bring a chicken into the Ganon fight, which was pretty entertaining.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheWorstPoster posted...

So in other words, attention whores who want their 15 minutes of fame, with no evidence whatsoever.

Do you really find it hard to believe that Donald "Grab 'em by the pussy" Trump sexually assaulted somebody? He literally and explicitly boasted about doing so in a more general sense.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ZiggiStardust posted...

("pub-gee")

Well no wonder you hate it. That's an absurd pronunciation. There's no hyphen, meaning the G is part of the word and it should be pronounced "pub-guh." Duh.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ZiggiStardust posted...

it's also complete bulls***, just because it doesn't count it as a jump, doesn't mean it isn't a jump, ok?

I bet you think you can't have half an A press, too.

Jen0125 posted...

They should write an article about how gamechamp said he can't have daughters because he's afraid he'll molest them since he's attracted to young female children. Awful person.

A pedophile who proactively takes mitigating steps to protect children from himself isn't an awful person. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's child molestation that's a bad thing; all pedophilia does on its own is cause boners that can't morally be acted upon.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

adjl posted...

You gonna do anything to refute that 0.0001% figure (and by "refute," I mean "conclusively inflate it by a minimum of 5.7 orders of magnitude"), or should we just write you off as an insane, babbling racist?

Definition of Muslim in English:

Muslim
(also Moslem)
Pronunciation /mslm//mzlm//mzlm/
noun

A follower of the religion of Islam.

racism
noun
mass noun

1Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

You really seem to have trouble with vernacular connotations. In the absence of a suitable term for "prejudicial discrimination on the basis of religion," "racist" has been adopted into the vernacular as a blanket term for all ethnic, cultural, and religious discrimination. It's a simple matter of efficiency. if you have a more efficient solution, you're welcome to present it, but otherwise you should probably accept that the language is evolving toward greater efficiency in a manner that the dictionary does not currently reflect.

That, and you know full well that the majority of people who are "racist" against Muslims direct that hatred toward all Arabic people, presuming them to be Muslim regardless of what their religion actually is. Very few of them are considering Muslims of other races, and despite claiming that their discrimination is religious in nature, it's typically race that actually evokes the sentiments.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Yellow posted...

Remember that we didn't always have net neutrality, the worst they did was throttle Netflix.

Net neutrality was introduced in response to them throttling Netflix, among other shady stuff. It wasn't a problem until they started making it a problem, which is why the regulations were introduced to prevent them from making it a problem. Take the regulations away, and it's going to be a problem.

Literally the only people in favour of net neutrality's repeal are ISP's, and they've spend hundreds of millions lobbying for it. That should tell you that it's worth a lot to them and only them.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Ihateyou posted...

adjl posted...

You gonna do anything to refute that 0.0001% figure (and by "refute," I mean "conclusively inflate it by a minimum of 5.7 orders of magnitude"), or should we just write you off as an insane, babbling racist?

They don't all have to be literally blowing themselves up to be disrespectful, violent, rapey shitbags to everyone in there host countries who isn't a muslim. I don't want that stupid shit for my country, you wanna act like that, don't come here, it's pretty much common sense, like I said go hangout in a muslim majority area and try to make some friends, hippie, or better yet, take in a few "refugees"

I included the word "conclusively" for a reason. Keep trying, human.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

I'm arguing over nothing

Yes and no. I think we just have slightly differing standards for the effort people should put into giving. Mostly, I just think that it's not right that the SA gets to continue getting away with well-documented discriminatory practices just because they advertise better than better charities with similar goals. They could stand to be knocked down a few pegs so they aren't so dominant, which isn't going to happen so long as people are willing to look the other way for the sake of feeling briefly good about themselves.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

> Bad analogy is bad.

> Eh, gift-giving and charity are distinct concepts. That analogy doesn't really work.

Ehhh, possibly - I'm trying to come up with a middle ground that expresses my point accurate since I don't words well.

Unless I'm mistaken, your point is that there will always be a better way to spend charity money than what people choose, so getting on people's cases for not perfectly optimizing their donations is unreasonable. Which I do agree with, to a certain extent. People can definitely do better than throwing money at the most obvious and convenient option, especially when that obvious option has a documented history of discriminatory behaviour, so I don't think it's unreasonable to hold people to a higher standard than that, especially if one makes a bit of effort to help them find better alternatives. Demanding perfect min-maxing, however, is not reaosnable, nor is being hostile toward people for making a different value judgement.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

Fair enough, but that's no reason to form a mob.

Bearing in mind that this is Fox News' definition of "online liberal mob," which is probably like two angry tweets from the same guy on different accounts. The article also kind of reads like an ad for the blog they got the story from.

That said, I do agree. The only way to change ignorance is to educate people. Laziness is a bit harder to work around, and willful apathy is a lost cause (you can start calling them awful people then), but getting angry at people for donating to the most available charity is likely to do more harm than good. Explaining why it's a problem and suggesting similar charities to help them make better-informed donations in the future is the way to go.

Lokarin posted...

Imagine if a mob formed because you gave presents to your own family and not their families who may need presents more... should you just, NOT, give?

Eh, gift-giving and charity are distinct concepts. That analogy doesn't really work.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

However, for regular people who just wanna do something nice for the community - they're gunna give to the charity or organization they are closest too, often literally - it's VERY easy to help the Salvation Army because they are everywhere.

And that's the problem. It's good will that's being tainted by laziness, ignorance, and/or apathy, and letting it be so tainted is certainly worth criticizing.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

Donating to a charity is not an endorsement of the charity. Even if they discriminate, they are helping a non-zero sum of people.

Donating to a charity is definitely an endorsement of that charity. A non-zero quantity of people will be helped by that money regardless of which charity gets it. By choosing one charity to receive that money over another, you're deciding that that charity's work is a more effective use of the money, which is clearly an endorsement.

dedbus posted...

All charities are pretty discriminatory. It's in the nature of giving. You want to set up something to help your own, since you're down in there with them, you see a need, and your own tends to happen to be like you.

Not really. The Salvation Army helps poor people, but is not run by poor people. The choice to discriminate against gay people is entirely voluntary and not at all a consequence of practical limitations or an in-group bias causing them to be ignorant of them.

dedbus posted...

So you're a biker, your son or friends has leukemia, so you end up with bikers against lukemia, helping those in that situation within the community.

Except that a leukemia charity would likely be donating to research, which helps everyone with leukemia. Biking is the unifying factor for that charity's donors and volunteers, not its benefactors. Leukemia is the unifying factor for the benefactors.

Similarly, Christianity is the unifying factor for the Salvation Army's donors and volunteers. The unifying factor for its benefactors is, ostensibly, being poor. Adding additional exclusionary factors that don't need to be there is no good, especially when being homophobic isn't even a requirement for being Christian.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

minervo posted...

I agree that the article is biased, but I didn't see anyone else reporting on this.

That (along with the flagrantly emotionally evocative partisan language) makes me think it's not actually the issue they're painting it to be. My guess would be one or two nutjobs on Facebook or Twitter said something critical of the bakery's efforts, and Fox decided to call that "liberals attacking" them.

minervo posted...

When it comes to the SA, they are highly Christian and are known to kick people out of their shelters for drug use and other offences.

"Offences" which includes being gay, which really isn't okay. Yeah, they're doing good deeds, but so are dozens of other charities that aren't so discriminatory and are therefore more deserving of the funding.

Amuseum posted...

by the same token, progressive movement is just as discriminatory, and using strong-arm tactics to harass and devastate innocent well-intentioned folks. QED we can all please ignore their cause.

Presuming you are actually drawing the analogy you seem to be trying to draw here (it's rather clumsy), yes, actually. If somebody is working toward a cause you want to support, but also doing bad things in the process of that work, you should find somebody else working on the same cause that isn't doing those things. If you just disagree with the cause, then that's largely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

You gonna do anything to refute that 0.0001% figure (and by "refute," I mean "conclusively inflate it by a minimum of 5.7 orders of magnitude"), or should we just write you off as an insane, babbling racist?
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

WastelandCowboy posted...

Oh look, a biased Fox News article. Should be a great source of information. /s

Yep. Definitely a neutral article filled with an unbiased report of the facts and absolutely no partisan pathos.

Lokarin posted...

tl;dr - the SJW groupthink claims Salvation Army is bad and supporting the Salvation Army makes you bad.

To be fair, the Salvation Army is well-documented as being discriminatory, and there's no shortages of other charities to support that would be doing the same thing. Funding the SA over other options does suggest a certain degree of either ignorance or apathy toward their discrimination, neither of which is good.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Oh good. Never being audited is kind of ridiculous.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SmokeMassTree posted...

To be fair, the coworker and I were hooking up for months before I started dating her so it's not really cheating.

Uhh...
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Full disclosure, she asked me to marry her.

Even worse, then.

pizz posted...

LOL at anyone who would give a second chance. Men just aren't men anymore.

It's not something you can really make a blanket statement about. In this case, it sounds like he already gave her plenty of opportunity to air her grievances with the relationship, and even possibly solve them with an open one, and she not only didn't take that opportunity, but herself went the extra commitment mile by asking TC to marry her. She's had her chances, no sense wasting any more emotional investment on the worthless turdbag.

In other cases, though? Cheating can be a consequence of solvable relationship problems. It's always going to require time to rebuild the broken trust, and that may not ever be possible, but it's still important to look at what the actual problems are and see if you can solve the problems. Sometimes you can end up with a stronger relationship for it (after all, there are probably a few reasons why you got into the relationship in the first place). Sometimes you can calmly arrive at a mutual decision to break up (your reasons for starting the relationship may just not apply anymore). Either way, you should try looking at the problems, for the sake of at least minimizing the amount of resentment you end up carrying moving forward, if not actually salvaging the relationship.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Cookies. Everyone loves cookies. Or other baked goods. Baking as a present is great because it seems like it's really thoughtful and personal because it's homemade, but it actually requires very little thought beyond knowledge of what they don't like/are allergic to, and it can be pretty cheap. Plus 30-40% of a batch of cookies makes a pretty solid gift, which means you've got 60-70% left for yourself and/or other people's gifts.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

KogaSteelfang posted...

Sorry to hear that, I honestly don't understand how that situation occurs. If you're not willing to commit to your partner, don't accept the proposal. Sure, that would hurt them too, but it'd be better to know that you're not ready than to just lie to them and go behind their back.

Yeah, cheating while engaged has got to be the worst. It's never a good thing, but at least at other points you can attribute it to getting bored with the state of the relationship. Being engaged doesn't last that long, so cheating during that period is basically a matter of saying "I love you and I want to spend my life with you" and then immediately turning around and sleeping with somebody else. If you're going to change your mind so quickly, don't say yes. What an awful person.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Ihateyou posted...

adjl posted...

Ihateyou posted...

adjl posted...

Ihateyou posted...

Yeah, I'm sure that's the actual figure

There are roughly 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. 0.000001% of 1.3 billion is 1300. In truth, these days I believe ISIS is numbering more in the 50-100,000 range, so it's more on the order of 0.0001% (rounding up from the upper bound of that estimate, and also attributing the violent terror attacks to all of ISIS' members and ignoring the administrative staff), but that's still an awful lot of zeros on the wrong side of the decimal place to be treating it as a representative sample.

Ihateyou posted...

that's why theres muslims killing people in real countries on a weekly basis

Most of those people are also Muslims. As much as it's the attacks in the West that tend to make the news, most of ISIS' activity is in the middle east. Bombing the mosque in Egypt the other week alone killed nearly five times more people than have been killed by ISIS in the West all year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_ISIL#2017, total death toll: 64, versus 309 in Egypt), and all of those victims were Muslims.

If muslims wanna kill eachother, fine, your all muslims, blowing yourselves/eachother up is your thing, go for it, but keep that bullshit in your own countries where it's a normal daily occurrence

You seem to have difficulty using statistics to inform your beliefs about the world.

You seem to have difficulty using the reality of the world around you to inform your beliefs about the world

Statistics are reality. The reality of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of Muslims have no desire to commit terrorist acts, and blaming them collectively for the actions of less than 0.0001% of them is profoundly fallacious. Update your world view accordingly, before you hurt someone.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

It's still Firefox, but it was a major enough update that most addons broke, with some significant performance improvements and UI changes that took me all of ten minutes to adjust to.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Ihateyou posted...

adjl posted...

Ihateyou posted...

Yeah, I'm sure that's the actual figure

There are roughly 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. 0.000001% of 1.3 billion is 1300. In truth, these days I believe ISIS is numbering more in the 50-100,000 range, so it's more on the order of 0.0001% (rounding up from the upper bound of that estimate, and also attributing the violent terror attacks to all of ISIS' members and ignoring the administrative staff), but that's still an awful lot of zeros on the wrong side of the decimal place to be treating it as a representative sample.

Ihateyou posted...

that's why theres muslims killing people in real countries on a weekly basis

Most of those people are also Muslims. As much as it's the attacks in the West that tend to make the news, most of ISIS' activity is in the middle east. Bombing the mosque in Egypt the other week alone killed nearly five times more people than have been killed by ISIS in the West all year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_ISIL#2017, total death toll: 64, versus 309 in Egypt), and all of those victims were Muslims.

If muslims wanna kill eachother, fine, your all muslims, blowing yourselves/eachother up is your thing, go for it, but keep that bullshit in your own countries where it's a normal daily occurrence

You seem to have difficulty using statistics to inform your beliefs about the world.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SunWuKung420 posted...

adjl posted...

What an odd troll topic this is.

Bunch of angry incels.

Eh, I wouldn't necessarily call it an incel circlejerk. It just feels odd. The TC's clearly going for "Russian girls are better than Western girls," but everyone jumping to agree with him is ignoring that actual point and complaining about their failure to take hints, while he seems to be treating that as a success. Very odd indeed.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

streamofthesky posted...

Why does every damn tech company insist on forcing awful changes on their users instead of just providing security updates?

Because competition. If one browser has a better interface than others, they're going to end up with more of the market share. This drives companies to update their interfaces periodically to try and hit a sweet spot that will get people switching to their browser before their competitors make similar changes and hook that audience. Breaking addons is just a consequence of what has to be recoded to make performance improvements, which are necessary to remain competitive (especially where better performance becomes possible as hardware develops).
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Ihateyou posted...

Yeah, I'm sure that's the actual figure

There are roughly 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. 0.000001% of 1.3 billion is 1300. In truth, these days I believe ISIS is numbering more in the 50-100,000 range, so it's more on the order of 0.0001% (rounding up from the upper bound of that estimate, and also attributing the violent terror attacks to all of ISIS' members and ignoring the administrative staff), but that's still an awful lot of zeros on the wrong side of the decimal place to be treating it as a representative sample.

Ihateyou posted...

that's why theres muslims killing people in real countries on a weekly basis

Most of those people are also Muslims. As much as it's the attacks in the West that tend to make the news, most of ISIS' activity is in the middle east. Bombing the mosque in Egypt the other week alone killed nearly five times more people than have been killed by ISIS in the West all year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_ISIL#2017, total death toll: 64, versus 309 in Egypt), and all of those victims were Muslims.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Ihateyou posted...

Yet muslims open bigotry against EVERYTHING is a-ok. Go figure people aren't going to like your religion when your constantly blowing up innocent people or cutting their heads off or driving trucks through crowds of people all the time

Remember kids, judge communities based on the actions of 0.000001% of their members.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

For starters, your two years argument isn't based on biology but instead sociology -- ie, the responsibilities thrust on youths -- which, if anything, undermines your entire argument and makes things MORE arbitrary.

Sociology is not a more arbitrary basis than biology. Living in a society with those norms is pretty unavoidable when we're talking about a society with those norms. Go to a different country, where people tend to start living on their own during high school? Yeah, the expectations of maturity would differ. But we're not looking at a different country.

Zeus posted...

Second, the maturity leap is nowhere near as large as think.

It's the difference between not needing to have your own money to survive and needing to. That's a pretty big deal, in terms of the need to make responsible life decisions. Student loans and continued support from parents tend to mean the transition is relatively gradual, but it's still a very big difference. Somebody who completed that transition over a decade prior actively seeking out a romantic partner who hasn't started it yet is definitely no bueno.

Zeus posted...

And third, and more importantly, you have different kinds of maturity. The idea that because somebody is mature in one area that they're going to automatically be mature in others is flat-out wrong.

One could pretty easily argue that financial independence is the most important form of maturity here. When you get one person who's financially established picking up someone who isn't, there's always room to question whether the allure of financial support is playing a role in the latter person agreeing to the relationship. When the latter person is a minor, and the better-off person can offer them freedom from the looming threat of needing to support themselves? There's definitely a power imbalance there, and it's power imbalances that are the basis for the concept statutory rape.

That, and while different forms of maturity certainly exist, they're not entirely independent of each other, barring some considerable mental health concerns. Acting as though they typically are is pretty absurd.

Zeus posted...

Which is why you should stop misusing it because the standard, readily understood definition is something else entirely.

The standard, readily-understood definition is the vernacular one. That's what "vernacular" means. "Ephebophile" is not in the vernacular. It's a term used almost exclusively by people who are trying to downplay how creepy it is to pick up romantic partners in a high school by using pedantry to distract from the core issue, typically either because they are themselves inclined toward such behaviours, or because they can't handle the cognitive dissonance associated with somebody they like being a creepy wanker.

Zeus posted...

Nothing I said then conflicts with what I'm saying now.

Saying? No. How you're acting? Absolutely. That was "What a creep." This is "guys, don't be so hard on him. He's not THAT much of a creep."
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Ihateyou posted...

Think about what your saying. It's f***ing bacon

Yes, it is just bacon. However, the fact that Muslims are averse to pork is pretty common knowledge. There is no way to interpret putting bacon on the steps of a mosque except "I hate Muslims."
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Yellow posted...

Nothing about bacon implies violence.

It does, however, imply a hatred of Muslims. When paired with actual violence (i.e. smashing stuff and waving a machete around), that definitely does imply a threat to the entire community.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

One more reason why WaPo is a joke. Given the webs they weave, no wonder why they're obsessed with spiders.

This is an awkwardly contrived post even by your usual standards.

Mead posted...

The areas with all the really murderous s*** are scarcely populated

Mostly because everyone that tried living there got murdered by nature.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

What an odd troll topic this is.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

argonautweakend posted...

To a person who produced two children how

In the dark, potentially. There are a great many people (particularly in older generations) for whom sex is exclusively for reproductive purposes, and who don't enjoy it at all and will therefore minimize the experience as much as possible. There's a very good chance her kids were produced in the dark, while she laid quietly on her back and waited for her husband to finish.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

At this point, I'm pretty sure Janway's an incel. Seething hatred of women that put out, including presumptuously insulting their partners? It just fits.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

wwinterj25 posted...

Full Throttle posted...

Videos caught a man with a shaved head and camouflage clothing breaking windows, cameras and lights with a machete and stomping on other things near the mosque.

This is the only reason I'd see him locked up. 15 years however? That's far too much. You get less for murder over here.

The exacerbating factor here is that it's going beyond mere vandalism and into hate crime territory, which means it's meant to threaten a large group of people. That's quite a bit more serious than just breaking stuff.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

darkknight109 posted...

On the subject of foreign loan-words, I occasionally see "Wa-la!" instead of "Voila!", which is probably the one that bugs me the most.

I've seen "Wallah," which was also just silly. But then I am a bit biased in regards to French loanwords because growing up in Canada means I had some degree of French education in school, which isn't going to be the case for Americans.

Blaqthourne posted...

^ While that made me chuckle, at least I easily figured out what it was supposed to be. If that person would have tried spelling it correctly, I'd guess that it would have baffled me for more than the one second or so that koo-day-tah took.

It is a term that most people have probably heard spoken these days, since it's more likely to be experienced in audible media than read in a book or newspaper or something. Even then, it's more often just "coup," with the full term being pretty uncommon.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Rasmoh posted...

Far-Queue posted...

Brock Turner being white and affluent didn't hurt him any during his trial, either.

Not to mention the fact that he didn't rape anyone.

That's pretty irrelevant in the face of what actually happened. "Penetrative trauma." Somebody who inflicts "penetrative trauma" upon a girl who's passed out drunk should not get away with a slap on the wrist, regardless of whether or not he got his dick wet.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Even "would of" isn't as infuriating as the time I saw somebody write "koo-day-tah." I get that not everyone has a a background in French, but come on.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Full Throttle posted...

watched 24/7, non stop in the middle of the night..

And here I thought "in the middle of the night" referred to a period of like 6 hours at the most, not the whole 24.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

This seems kind of poetic. I like it.

Zeus posted...

Full Throttle posted...

David - Democrat

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/07/06/47113D1200000578-5059921-image-a-2_1512626690984.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/07/06/47113CFB00000578-5059921-image-a-4_1512627202284.jpg

Looks like a heifer... or a male heifer. Would not vote.

Good to know you base your votes on how a candidate looks.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

More generally, a 30+ y/o hitting on a 19 y/o or a 17 y/o has roughly the same levels of cringe. The only difference is one is legal, the other is not.

The difference is one's in high school, and one's in university or the work force. Those two years comprise a MASSIVE amount of psychological maturation, typically corresponding to a period in which a person starts living on their own and takes on some degree of financial responsibility (I guess that latter bit's a foreign concept to the trust fund kids that comprise the GOP's upper echelons, but meh). As much as the magic line of 18 is "just a number," it's a number that's been chosen because of how radically one's life usually changes around there. That's approximately when teenagers start becoming adults.

Zeus posted...

Active tense implies that he's still engaging in those kinds of behaviors. 40 years ago, he hit on girls who were a bit too young. At the time, it would have made him a bit of a creep. However, that was 40 years ago back when he was single and at a time when he could have legally married many of those girls. The only real issue is the 14 y/o's allegation which, if true, should have put him in jail for a few months. However, again, all of that was 40 years ago. If he was a creep then, he's apparently not one now.

That's a bit of a stretch, given that he hasn't actually owned up to any of the allegations. Hitting on somebody who would have been legal to marry at the time isn't particularly deplorable if you contextualize it, yet he's not doing that. Instead, he's gone on this ridiculous, unhinged tirade, and left his colleagues to use such ridiculous justifications as "Mary was a teenager Joseph married her." That leads me to suspect there are more recent skeletons hiding in that closet that can't be so easily justified. That, or he sucks at damage control, which is kind of an essential skill for a politician and that should be a major red flag that he sucks at his job.

Revelation34 posted...

It isn't evolving. That's going backwards.

Evolution is non-directional. It's simply change over time, whether think the change is beneficial or not. And again, if you've got an alternative, speak up, otherwise you don't get to complain that the niche is being filled by something you don't like.

Revelation34 posted...

Definitions exist for a reason.

And that reason is to standardize the meanings of words so that people know what other people are talking about when the word is used. That means the vernacular definition (as in the one that's most commonly used) is far, far more important than anything you'll find in a dictionary. I guarantee you've used dozens of words in the past week that don't mean the same thing now that they did a hundred years ago.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

bulbinking posted...

The porn industry is NOT a plce for politics.

If somebody doesn't want to have sex with somebody else, it doesnt matter the reason.

Which really applies to any sex. Trying to pressure her into having sex with somebody she doesn't want to have sex with is borderline attempted rape.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I'll just leave this here:


---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Muffinz0rz posted...

This is super helpful, I still didn't even pay attention to sealing specific stuff, I just am learning about what can combo with what. Like I have no problem getting myself to a level 3 cinematic blade combo, I can do fusion combos just fine, etc. I just ignored those columns because I figured hey I'm sealing something, nothing wrong with that.

I feel like sealing stuff is going to be situationally very useful, with some forethought (I've encountered Shackle Blade once so far, and it was extremely annoying and I would have loved to have been set up to seal it), but for the most part, I'm just treating level 3 combos as a buttload of damage and the opportunity for more chain attack damage.

Muffinz0rz posted...

Yeah you have to start the combo with any level special (1-4), but then you have to follow up with a lv 2 special to continue the combo, then finish with a lv 3 special (not sure if you can finish with a lv 4 special).

You can follow up with a level 3 or 4 one as well, I believe. I'm also not sure if you can finish with level 4, since both the combo finisher and level 4 specials are cinematic, but I don't see why you couldn't, other than that. If you can't, it's easy enough to downgrade to level 3 (move far enough away to break the affinity chain, or swap to a different Blade), so it can be worked around.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zikten posted...

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

Ya blaming the gay community.

just cause you are gay doesn;t make you are not to blame for things you do. gay people can do wrong also, just like straight people.

Blaming the entire community for the actions of a small handful, however, is entirely wrong. Hence you aren't blamed when some guy murders his sister for not sleeping with him.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.